Book Review: "Sacred Word, Broken Word" by Kenton Sparks

Sparks, Kenton L. Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2012. $13.51. pp.ix-180. ISBN 978-0-8028-6718-6. ★★★★★

In just over 150 pages Kenton Sparks has addressed the controversial topics of biblical authority and the dark side of Scripture. The result is a book I cannot recommend enough. His treatment of these topics is concise, well-informed, diverse in its considerations, and actually quite profound.

Sparks highlights the Bible's theological diversity, as well as the presence of divine accommodation in Scripture (one of the reasons for theological diversity). He also covers well the difficulties in moving beyond the Bible to theology, bringing one almost to despair, but then to revival with sagacious recommendations for how to construct theology realistically and wisely.

Sparks makes a good case for Christ's 'redemption' of certain Hebrew Bible ideologies, without falling into supersessionism, and without stinking of Enlightenment arrogance. The significant accomplishment of this should not be minimized. He also does a good job of backing his views with church fathers, rendering his discussion not only thought-provoking, but also historically enlightening, as he presented several quotes from several church fathers that most conservative evangelical Christians would be (at least somewhat) shocked to read. While certain comments of his might make him seem like a heterodox liberal, he again and again shows himself to be well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

Sparks establishes the problem of the dark side of Scripture quite well: "is it not a very deep paradox," he asks, "that the Shoah, in which Nazis systematically exterminated the Jews because of their religion and ethnicity, is mirrored so vividly by the Deuteronomic ban in Jewish Scripture, according to which Israel exterminated the Canaanites because of their religion?" (p.45). He goes on to say, "the Canaanite conquest would strike us as flagrant evil were it not a story from the Bible" (p.46). The severe problem we have with biblical stories like the conquest could not be captured better.

With this, Sparks suggests that "the problem of scripture is the problem of evil" (p.46). After summing up the problem of evil and its infection of God's creation, he exchanged the word 'creation' for 'written word' and 'Scripture', saying, "God's written word, which is good, nevertheless includes evil. But these flaws in Scripture should not be blamed on God but rather on humanity and its sinful, fallen state" (p.47). One should not go so far as to think that Sparks considers all of Scripture evil; but he does acknowledge that portions of the Bible reflect sinful humanity more than God's nature, because the Bible is a product of both God and humans; as Stephen Chapman said, biblical inspiration is "a cipher for a mysterious process of divine-human co-writing" (p.58). And wherever there are humans hands at work, there's a good chance the results will include imperfection and evil.

Included in the discussion of the effect of humanity's imperfection on Scripture was a list of Bible contradictions (pp.34-35), which could have benefited from diminution, as a few of them aren't that hard to explain, or aren't actually contradictions. He could have made his point perfectly well without those, or he could have included other, stronger ones. For example, he said, "We have a text that claims God is not willing for anyone to perish, and another that seems to say he predestines some human beings to eternal judgment (2 Pet 3:9; Rom 9:1-24)" (p.35). I rolled my eyes at this one, as it isn't an actual contradiction, like the differing accounts of Judas' death (Matt 27:3-8; Acts 1:18-19; see Sparks' assessment, p.33). The Romans passage does not say that God predestines some human beings to eternal judgment. It might 'seem' to say this to those who have had that interpretation presented to them, but the text itself does not imply it, so it in no way belongs in a list of Bible contradictions.

Also incorporated into Sparks' work was a fantastic discussion of epistemology in chapter 8, in which Sparks observes that "human capacity for knowledge is potentially adequate" (p.71)--humans can never actually know Truth with certainty. It was a chapter after my own heart, as I just recently wrote a blog making this same point (here). While it is a great chapter, the reasons for its presence were not made clear. Even when the discussion is referenced later in the book, the necessity of his elaborate assessment of epistemology struck me as without justification. It seemed like the chapter was part of a separate project that the author added in to this book because he felt it contributed to the discussion. However, Sparks did not explain this contribution adequately, as it did not not flow well with, nor seem relevant to, the rest of the book.

The last few chapters are not as captivating as the first chunk of the book, but they are still good chapters worth reading. They address practical matters of how we should approach interpretation and theology. While he provides fine advice in those three chapters, they end up being (perhaps inevitably) not near as interesting as the rest of the book, and one is left with an anti-climactic finish.

Sparks' assessment of the problem of the dark side of Scripture is by no means comprehensive, and he might be guilty of over-simplifying the solution. Much is still to be said about the nature of revelation, particularly with regard to the Hebrew Bible, as well as how we can deal with the utterly human and even evil parts of Scripture in a way that does not make the construction of biblical theology impossible, relative, or just too complicated. Much is also left to be said about what parts of Scripture should be considered the flawed results of sinful humanity. However, I do think Sparks has the right ideas that can guide further study. Out of all the books I've read so far that have wrestled with the dark side of Scripture, Sacred Word, Broken Word has the most to offer. I definitely recommend it.

Purchase Sacred Word, Broken Word on Amazon (here)

Let me tell you about this Facebook group that takes care of people

For several months now, I've been a part of a Facebook group called Provide that gives people an opportunity to provide for the needs of others, as well as have their own needs provided for. Whenever people need something, be it car repair, rent that they are unable to pay, food, etc., they can post it on the Provide page, and the manager of the group, Michael McBride, will create a fund-raising page for it that makes it easy for people to contribute.

I love this group. Deuteronomy 15 and Acts 4 provide examples of a community of people that manage their money off of God's abundant generosity, and this group models that. This group fosters a community in which there are no needy people, and in which people can be ministered to through meeting their needs, and where people can minister to others by meeting their needs. Such a community is inspiring and is one of which we need many more in our country.

That leads me to the purpose of this post: we need more people to be involved. The more people we have, the easier it will be to meet needs. So, please, click here, join, and invite others to join. I am excited about what God has been doing in this community and what he is going to do in the future.

"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?" 1 John 3:16-17

"Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same." Luke 3:11

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." Acts 4:32-35

"There need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you. If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need." Deuteronomy 15:4-8

"Freely you have received; freely give." Matthew 10:8

"The righteous gives and does not hold back." Proverbs 21:26

 "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:42

"Lend without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35

Evidence Demands a Verdict: On Generalizations and Presuppositions

Many Christians frequently dismiss evidence by pointing to a flaw or flaws in the ideological framework of the ones presenting the evidence. This is often accomplished by reductionism and over-generalization. For example, a friend of mine rejects evolution because the scientists who advocate it have materialist presuppositions. Believing already that reality is made up of the natural, material world that we perceive and nothing more, they exalt science and reject all theology. Thus, they get evolution. This would be a good reason to reject evolution, if it were true. But it's not true. While I agree we should reject materialism (see my blogs on materialism, here), this reasoning fails to recognize that there are plenty of scientists who embrace evolution but do not embrace scientific naturalism, and plenty who are theists, and plenty who are Christians.

Similarly, many Christians like to dismiss evidence in Scriptural study because of the supposed presuppositions of the discoverers. An archeologist will tell them that there is no archeological support for the fall of Jericho story, and that the evidence actually points against such a story, rendering it virtually impossible to possess genuine historicity. A Christian might say that such evidence can be rejected because those who analyze and study it are liberal academics who reject the authority of Scripture, and so seek to find ways of debunking it. This is such a terribly false generalization that many Christian biblical scholars would find offensive.

Side note: This does not represent all of conservative Christianity's responses to such evidence; there are conservative biblical scholars who engage in a positivist mindset about the historicity of many of the Bible's stories--whether or not their arguments hold any water is a completely different discussion.

My last example comes from Greg Boyd's testimony. When he was a teenager, he found out about several of the Bible's contradictions, and they gravely disturbed him. He highlighted all of them that he could find and brought them to his Pentecostal pastor. "What do I do with these?!" he asked, "How can the Bible have contradictions?!" His pastor paused and frankly asked him, "Greg, did you have sex out of wedlock?"

This pastor refused to engage a discussion about Bible contradictions, and chose to label Greg as a rebellious sinner, and therefore, able to be ignored. Forget the evidence, forget the fact that I'm staring contradictions in the face; if I can find out that they're coming from a sinful, rebellious teenager, I don't have to deal with them. Such a blatant rejection of evidence reveals a lack of any desire to find out what truth actually is, and instead reveals a mind that only wants to blindly accept an ignorant bliss.

Now, I'm a child of postmodernism, so I do realize our subjectivity and our presuppositions, and that all reality is interpreted reality, all facts are interpreted. However, this does not mean I just embrace whatever presuppositions I have as true, and judge reality based only on weighing presupposition against presupposition. If I am interested in what is true, I will try to rise above my presuppositions, even though I will never do so fully. If I am interested in what is true, I will listen to evidence and let that evidence inform my thinking.

The church wanted to silence Galileo because he discovered heliocentrism. The Bible seems to suggest that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around it; so they rejected Galileo's claim that the earth revolves around the sun--something we all know to be true today.

Don't make sweeping generalizations about presuppositions to silence evidence. Let the evidence inform your worldview.

Book Review: Divine Presence Amid Violence by Walter Brueggemann

Brueggemann, Walter. Divine Presence Amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009. $8.37. pp.ix-82. ISBN 978-1-60608-089-4. ★★★★☆

In Divine Presence Amid Violence, Walter Brueggemann tackles the question, "How could the God of the Bible mandate violence?" by talking about the nature of biblical revelation and using Joshua 11 as a case study.

Informed by Norman Gottwald's Marxist-like understanding of Israelite sociology, Brueggemann says that the city-states in Joshua 11 were "monopolies of socioeconomic, political power that [were] managed in hierarchal and oppressive ways" (15) and were propped up chiefly by their military power, their horses and chariots (Josh. 11:4), which "symbolize and embody oppression . . . [and] serve only to maintain the status quo in which some dominate others." So, he says, "Yahweh authorizes their destruction" since he is "the sworn enemy of such modes of power" (33).

Reading the book, this "contextualization" seems a little too easy. However, I think Brueggemann makes a pretty good case for this understanding of such cases of divinely sanctioned violence. That being said, I doubt it can be maintained throughout the Old Testament, for every instance of so-called 'holy war'. It also begs the question, Is violence justified if it disarms the powers of oppression? Or, better, Would Jesus condone violence if it disarmed the powers of oppression? For many, this is a simple question; but I think if we're honest enough, it isn't so easy. Brueggemann seems to think violence would be justified in such cases, as Yahweh's mandate was an "authorization for a liberating movement--which [was] sure to be violent, but only violent against weapons" (23, emphasis mine).

The question of divine violence is not the only one addressed in this little book; he also deals with the question of revelation, a topic about which he has a lot of insight. He says, "the canonical literature does not offer a settled, coherent account of reality; rather it provides the materials for ongoing disputatious interpretation" (10). The Israelites were also engaged in such disputatious interpretation, which Brueggemann says they did through memory (particularly that of the Exodus), a yearning for justice, and established leadership (27).

With this, he suggests that revelation in passages like Joshua 11 "is not self-disclosure of God," but a communal interpretation of events based on memory, yearning and leadership (35-39). Memory, because they learned from the Exodus that Yahweh is the enemy of oppressive powers; yearning, because Yahweh is the God of the liberation and justice that they so earnestly desire; and leadership, because of the chosen mediators of the presence of Yahweh, particularly Moses (see Josh. 11:12, 15, 20 and 23).

The question then becomes, Do we accept their interpretation of God's character? This is a question Brueggemann leaves open. He is not uncritical of Israel's theology, but he does provide a contextualized framework through which Joshua 11 can be studied that can make their theology seem less primitive. That this framework can be applied to all the holy war texts, as well as the other texts in which Yahweh sanctions violence, is what I doubt.

Overall, this is well worth the read. I recommend reading it before buying it to see if you want to keep it around; it's very short and can easily be read in one sitting. In fact, if one were to put it on normal-size paper, without the extra spacing between lines, it would be a long article rather than a book. I wish Brueggemann would have dedicated a more extensive work to this topic. He has the resources, and clearly doesn't mind writing (seriously, how does he write so many books?). It would have been beneficial if he had tackled several texts, instead of just the one. Nevertheless, it's a good read, and if Joshua 11 bothers you (and it should), Brueggemann can definitely help.

Purchase Divine Presence amid Violence on Amazon (here)

Ken Ham Makes Me Want to Be an Atheist

Ken Ham with Answers in Genesis recently started a billboard campaign countering atheists. This billboard campaign has to cost at least 100s of thousands of dollars to fund. This is nothing new for Ken Ham, who has spent $27 million dollars on his Creation museum, in which he is trying to build a replica of Noah's Ark.

I recently read a tweet from an atheist in response to these billboards: "To all those who believe in the Bible: Thank god it's fiction." How did Ham think atheists were going to respond? Did he really think they would look at a billboard that said, "Thank God you're wrong," and think, "Oh my gosh! I need to become a Christian! I just realized I am so wrong! Thank you, Ken Ham!"?

No. What was always going to occur was a bunch of atheists rolling their eyes at a silly attempt to stick it to them. What it was always inevitably going to lead to was atheists hating Christians more and walking farther away from Christianity. It also inspires Christians to consider walking away from Christianity because of the ignorance of "Christians" like Ken Ham.

But what really bothers me about this pathetic attempt at evangelism, is the money involved. How many people could be helped with the money going into these billboards? "This does help," Ham would say, to which I would do what most people probably do seeing these billboards--roll my eyes.

Imagine if he dedicated 100s of thousands of dollars to helping those in poverty, feeding them, clothing them, paying rents, putting people through college. But no. He decided that arrogantly stating, "Thank God you're wrong" to a bunch of atheists would help more people--a simply idiotic notion.

People like Ken Ham bring me so much pain, because I know people that struggled with Christianity and ultimately couldn't accept it because of things like this. Indeed, if Jesus was like the Ken Hams of this world, I would walk away from Christianity as well.

But Jesus didn't do stupid stuff like this. Jesus healed the sick, provided for the poor, showed mercy and love. He embodied a mission, and people just started following him. Jesus was humble and cared about the needs of others. We need a humble, missional approach to evangelism that works itself out in providing for people's needs. That's what we need to be spending our money doing, not supporting the insane productions of navel-gazing people like Ken Ham.

Tribute to My Mother: What she taught me and how it made me who I am today

I've always been very close with my mom--very close with my entire family, actually. Because of our closeness, the struggles we had individually were almost never hidden. If my sister was depressed, we all knew; if I was depressed, they all knew. We have always been very open and intimate with each other. So, again and again I have seen my mom cry a flood of tears. Often included in these tears were harsh words directed at God. While my mom has always been a faithful Christian, time and time again I watched her lash out at God in ways only the prophet Jeremiah would understand.

I can't even count all the times I witnessed my mother wrestle with God, screaming at him, demanding answers. She wasn't just going to take it. While her speech was often unfairly directed at God, attributing things to his work that I don't think should have been attributed to him, we can see people doing this throughout Scripture and God seems able to handle it.

It wasn't until I took a prophets class in college that I realized my mother is like Jeremiah. Jeremiah stood before God in utter autonomy and demanded that he take the prophet's turmoil seriously and do something about it. My mother was the same way. She often felt completely abandoned and forgotten by God. In her utmost vulnerability, she would reach the end of herself and would no longer have any of it. You will not forget me, God! She, like Jeremiah, could not get rid of the burning fire of God within her. To quit was not an option; there was only to wrestle.

Walter Brueggemann calls complaint addressed to God a person's moment of omnipotence; denying ourselves this omnipotence, he says, produces "'false selves' who cannot be honest before God and so must 'fake it' with God." My mother took no part in this. If one is experiencing enough pain, one can no longer fake it. Perhaps it was because she experienced immense pain over and over again that she refused faking it altogether. The affect that seeing my mother's moments of omnipotence has had on me is immense and cannot be described accurately.

Because of what I saw in my mother, I was sensitive to it when I read Scripture. I saw people like Moses, David, Job, Jeremiah, and even Jesus modeling this same autonomous, omnipotent speech towards God. I was also sensitive to seeing it in God himself, who often lamented to his people, crying out, 'Why?!' I owe these observations, at least in part, to my mother, who modeled a lament-filled intimacy with God, propped up by a faith that wrestled with God.

Only recently have I realized how influential my mother has been in my intellectual and spiritual life. My entire life is a story of a boy wrestling with God. I too have no room for faking it. I will stand before God and demand before I simply take it. I do not merely accept what I am told, or the traditional orthodox answer for the questions I have. My questions will be taken seriously, and I will not be given some kind of flippant, pat answer to the burdensome questions that come up.

What I saw in my mother was a refusal to simply accept the status quo. When something is wrong, it sure as hell is wrong and she voiced that wrongness and wasn't going to be stopped. This is the very work of a prophet--giving a voice to the pain. I saw my mother throughout my life giving voice to her pain and the pain of those around her, and that has inspired me greatly. Intellectually, I refuse to accept the status quo. If there are questions, or if there is something wrong, I will voice it and I won't be stopped. Spiritually, if there is pain within me or around me, that pain will be given a voice. My mother taught me how to embrace pain, the very thing Jesus did in the incarnation. One might be able to say that at the heart of all of my views, theological, political, whatever, is the influence of my mother's fierce and intimate relationship with God. I owe so much to her.

Thank you mom.