If the Bible is Broken, How Do You Fix It?

August 8, 2012 By 4 Comments

Today we continue our playful romp through Kent Sparks’s recent book Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture. (The first post is here and the previous post is here.)

In chapter 10, “Listening to the Diversity and Unity of Scripture,” Sparks begins to tie together the previous chapters and move toward a more positive construction. In other words, he’s been talking about what the Bible is, and now he is going to start talking more about what we are supposed to do with it.

Or, to put it another way, Sparks is going to start cleaning up the mess he’s made (which he always intended to do.)

On the first page of this chapter (p. 103), Sparks asks,

[I]f Scripture speaks the truth through perceptive yet warped human horizons…then how can we use it to weave a useful and coherent understanding of God and of his relationship with us? How can the BIble, as a diverse and broken book, serve as a primary source of our theological insight?

Funny you should ask, Kent, ’cause I’m pretty sure some readers are asking the same thing. [By the way, for those of you who wind up reading this book for yourselves, you will probably find that Sparks eventually gets to the question you are asking. He's great at anticipating the next point.]

In this chapter Sparks begins to answer his question by outlining no fewer than nine (that’s 9) bullet points. We could camp out on each point for a day or so, but we won’t. I just want to get the points out there with minimal explanation.

1. Biblical interpretation is a “two-step” process that honors the distinction between Scripture as human and divine discourse. Historical criticism and theological (confessional) readings of Scripture need to talk to each other.

2. Seeking theological coherence in Scripture (a function of its divine discourse) does not cover up, obscure, or explain away the theological differences in Scripture. Respect the difference between Scripture’s “God-talk” (first-order words from God to humanity) and “god-talk-talk” (mistaken, second order human accounts of what God supposedly said).

3. The brokenness and diversity of Scripture do not negate its essential unity. This is not a God-imposed unity despite the diversity, but an acknowldgement that the human authors and editors of the Bible were “modestly systematic in their efforts to present a coherent theological picture.”

4. The shape and substance of the biblical story explicitly point us to Jesus Christ, who is our theological priority in biblical interpretation. Biblical interpretation ultimately coheres in the person and work of Christ, including when Jesus himself sets aside Old Testament legislation.

5. In giving priority to Christ in biblical interpretation, we are reminded of the brokenness of Scripture and the need to distinguish between “God-talk” and “god-talk-talk” (see #2 above). Christ is the key to help readers distinguish between what in Scripture points us in appropriate and redemptive directions and what bears witness to a broken human situation.

6. #5 does not mean that those portions of Scripture that bear a broken element can be set aside. Rather all biblical texts, witness truly and explicitly to what is theologically true. Even Canaanite genocide passages conveys a deep belief of the ancient Israelites that God is holy and just, even if it was communicated in a broken way.

7. Given #s 5 and 6, one can think of Scripture as a collection of texts that direct and push us in an appropriate direction when taken as a canonical whole. Not every text should be taken as the final word.Where some texts move us too far in one direction, another turns us back.

8. “Progressive revelation” is a good and proper category for understanding the Bible as a whole.  God’s continuing conversation with humanity gradually unfolds within the emerging contours of history, although this does not lead to supersessionism (dismissal of earlier stages), or the notion that what is chronologically later necessarily improves upon what is earlier.

9. A healthy use of Scripture should recognize that good theology cannot depend on Scripture alone. Two examples: Copernicus and the nature of the cosmos, and the immorality of slavery. Moving Beyond the Bible is necessary for good theology, and is modelled for us in Scripture itself.

In his next chapter, Sparks picks up on this last idea and fleshes it out a bit more. We will get to that soon.

 

Filed Under: biblical authority, biblical criticism, Kent Sparks, Sacred Word Broken Word, theological interpretation 4 Comments
  • http://lisesletters.wordpress.com Lise

    I’ve been in the diaspora but am making my way back to the blogosphere to comment on this post. I really liked the closure Sparks brought to this book. However, it is hard for me to reflect on chapter 10 without looking at it in relation to chapter 12, for in order to assess unity and diversity in scripture, we need a framework and practice for doing so, which Sparks addresses in chapter 12. These latter chapters also relate to chapter 8 on Christian epistemology, for how do we know what we know, and how do we know what we think we know isn’t complete bs?

    Sparks’ responses remind me of issues related to prayer. For instance, when we pray, we have to discern whether we are “hearing” from God or simply listening to our own thoughts, agenda, will, etc. To pray well, we have to become an open vessel, in which we invite the Holy Spirt in and ask our own nonsense out. However, this takes some due diligence. While it is good to become a vessel of the Lord’s message, what helps us in the discernment process is the work we invest in ourselves as servants of the Lord. We have an active part in the process too, even though the divination is from the Lord. This is not too different from the process the writers of the bible had while trying to accurately capture the divine word of God.

    Whether we are trying to interpret the bible or listen in prayer, we have a responsibility to intellectual, spiritual and emotional integrity in the endeavor. Thus, Sparks’ advice on how to increase our interpretive abilities (detailed in chapter 12) really excited me. In particular, I loved his comments on personal wholeness and embodiment. Because people are reading the book, I won’t summarize his ideas on these. However, I loved the following quotes:

    On wholeness he writes, “For I cannot easily hear scripture say ‘God loves you’ if my experience in life has caused me to unconsciously doubt or hate God. Similarly, I cannot really look after my neighbor’s welfare if I live in constant but unexamined anxiety about my own situation and future. Spiritual formation is the aspect of theology under consideration here” (p.135).

    On performance he states, “An adequate understanding of the truth is always an embodied truth. It always results in a correspondingly wiser and healthier way of life that respects God and neighbor” (p.139).

    The moral of the story: we have to work on ourselves. Being Christian is a practice more than a theory.

    Finally, if I recall correctly, Sparks in his introduction, credits his wife’s knowledge and skill as a psychotherapist as informing some of his ideas. I thought that was 1) touching and 2) insightful. It is astute because any good therapist knows that insight is not enough to create change. True transformation involves much more than intellect (and knowledge of x,y and z theory). It demands surrendering to the unknown, taking personal action and responsibility, risking in relationships, and living in an embodied fashion. Radical change therefore operates on intellectual, emotional, kinesthetic, spiritual and relational planes.

    I think embracing the sacred and the broken, along with a fierce commitment to growth and love (on all levels), will help us find the light in the dark. Perhaps this is what the terms “the way” and “taking up our cross” means.

    • peteenns

      Great points. And the prayer analogy is right on.

    • Bev Mitchell

      Lise,

      That was very helpful and beautifully said. You looked at what Sparks says the same way he asks us to look at any text, including Scripture. Consider everything we can get our hands on, then stand back and get the big picture. It really is a loving way to read and understand. Sure we can find warts, that’s usually all to easy – especially in Scripture ironically enough. But there is a real and essential message there, if approached with hope and love. 

      Yes, there will be a Judgement Day, and the first just accusation we all will face will be “But you did not love enough.”

  • http://lisesletters.wordpress.com Lise

    Bev and Peter – thanks! All of us reading this book has been fun – kind of like an online class. However, I must say it is weird not to be able to see people’s faces as we all “speak”. So much of listening and sharing occurs in the space between the words… but nonetheless, the internet is an amazing little device. Shalom.