There is a natural human drive to define things and describe everything in complete working systems. All systematic theologies are the result of this drive. We can’t help ourselves… we want things to make sense.

The way most of the Church reads scripture is a case-in-point. The traditional evangelical rendition of the doctrine of the inspiration has as its key convenient ‘truth’ the idea of innerancy. For example, consider this statement by J. Adams (War Psalms of the Prince of Peace 1991:2)

“Some people have found it so difficult to understand these prayers [the imprecatory (curse my enemy) Psalms] that they have concluded that these segments were mistakenly included in the Word of God. But our doctrine of inspiration must lead us to expand our knowledge of God and his ways as we seek solutions to these deep questions”.

He then goes on to do just that by insisting that the imprecations are actually the prayers of Christ against his enemies and the psalmists were speaking (albeit unwittingly) prophetically.

The author wishes us to adjust the natural reading of the imprecatory psalms to fit with his inerrant view of scripture… which he supposedly derives from scripture. Hmm…. ? You see the problem with this sort of circular reasoning, and I bet if we could question him face to face, Mr. Adams would have to admit that he sees it too. The fear of letting go of the convenience of inerrancy is, however, too much for most of us to bear. It provides eas(ier) answers to many contemporary doozies: homosexuality, war ethics, the death penalty, the nature of salvation, the purpose of the Church… nice, easy systematic answers.

But convenience and truth are not always the same thing.

God is not simple.
Life is not simple.
Why should the Bible be anything other than a mystery wrapped in a paradox and seasoned with contradictions and misrepresentations (for extra flavour)?

Allender and Longman (The Cry of the Soul 1994:32,34) provide a different solution to the problem of the imprecations:

“All dread is related to the question, ‘Is life predictable?’ All anger is related to the question, ‘Is life fair?’ Change the word ‘life’ to ‘God’, and the questions become personal. ‘Is God predictable?’ ‘Is God just?’ The psalmist’s jealousy surfaced in the horizontal context of human circumstances, but it was rooted in his underlying question, ‘Is God fair?’ The psalms help us understand that every emotion is a theological statement… [When we doubt] we shudder with dread that we will suffer terrible consequences for our inner rebellion. Precisely at this point, the psalms surprise us. They not only help us articulate and understand what we feel, but they dare us to struggle. Even more, they give us words to vocalize our desperate struggles with God”

You decide which approach is more honest about the human condition, more in keeping with what we know about the character of God as expressed in Christ, and more useful to the reader? Forget which makes for a neater system of interpretation.

Because the inconvenient truth is that perhaps it’s time for us to abandon the convenience of inerrant scripture.