Michael Bird argues in his essay on inerrancy that as it is defined in the CSBI inerrancy is an American reaction to modernism.
Its primary function is to define American evangelicalism as a bounded set, to use inerrancy as a way of forcing conformity to certain biblical interpretations, and to weed out dissenters in denominational politics. If, in any debate on doctrine, one plays the inerrancy card against one’s opponents, then one can effectively remove these opponents on the grounds that they are denying the prestigious moniker of inerrancy. Thus inerrancy is primarily a weapon of religious politics to define who is in and who is out. That is why some inerrantists preach the inerrancy of the text but practice the inerrancy of their interpretation.
To maintain its application on the global church, however, is to go too far since it reflects an American mindset toward the Bible. The global church by and large does not need to have inerrancy in their doctrinal statements. The truthfulness of the Bible should be grounded in the positive statement of God’s faithfulness.
The testimony of God’s Word about itself is that God’s Word an authentic and authoritative account of God ‘s actions in creation, redemption, and consummation. God speaks in revelation, and it is true because God identifies with and even invests his own character in his Word.
He further maintains
The Battle for the Bible was always rigged in favor of modernity, and a better strategy would have been to deconstruct modernity as its philosophical DNA. So we shouldn’t anchor the truth of Scripture in our apologetic capabilities to beat the skeptics at their own game; I think there are better ways.
I agree with Bird’s assessment here that we cannot surrender too much to the philosophical language of modernity in our own defense of the Bible. Modernity is not ground for biblical reliability. Bird seems to affirm much of what inerrancy as defined in the CSBI maintains. He certainly draws attention to the main thing: the Bible makes good on its claims because God is the source of that revelation. He criticizes the CSBI for being too American. I am not sure he spells out exactly how it is American. If it is because of its orientation toward modernity, Kevin Vanhoozer’s critique is appropriate:
If you can find McDonald’s or Starbucks in Taiwan and Timbuktu, can Richard Dawkins or Bart Erhman be far behind?
Thus Mohler says:
But, to put it bluntly, modernity happened. And the church had to respond to modernity as it happened, answering the unique questions that modern knowledge and world views posed.
Many clarifications of Christian doctrine occurred in response to some controversy in the church (Arianism, Marcionism). I love Bird’s emphasis on God’s character as foundational for understanding biblical reliability although I don’t know what is internationalist about it. I also think his warnings about modernity controlling the debate are appropriate.
nathanielcooley 
Leave a Reply