“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.”
For most Christians and Theologians, you can catagorize them into two camps: Literalists and Liberalists. And once they have been catagorized it is easy to dismiss the opposing view.
What would a convergent idea look like though?
One that would proclaim The Central Message of Scripture, and one that would acknowledge the socio-political situation (not to mention the text-criticism) in which the texts were written.
I remember being chastized by my secular university religion professor for inserting into my first Biblical studies argument that Scripture is inerrant because it (an inerrant and infallible document) self-proclaims that in 2 Timothy 3:16. Of course he brought to my attention that the author of that verse would not have been aware of most, if any of the NT texts, so which texts was “he” refering to. My argument had been cut off at the knees.
It is when one locates the inerrancy within the literal text itself that one runs into the problem of original manuscripts, text-criticism (e.g. Mark’s ending and the Adulterous Woman story), and canonization.
However, what if we relocate the “Word of God” not in scripture but in the logos. Therefore, the text becomes a living, eternal word, rather than a static historical document or a static inerrant idol.
This would give authority to scripture because its meaning and message are alligned and reveal to us who, what, why and how the Word became flesh. This would also allow for text-criticism, etc. because the value of the message is not found in the literal termonology used by authors, editors and redactors, but instead in the irrenant message revealed within the text, namely the Logos (the Word)