"God's Word in Human Words" by Kenton Sparks (A Review)

God’s Word in Human Words: A Critical Review

Throughout the reading of the first several chapters of Sparks’ book, I experienced some confusion with regard to his purpose and his target audience. Is his goal to convince other evangelical scholars to reconsider their understanding of biblical inerrancy? Even though, there is an overall didactic approach, the book is, at times, defensive in tone as if he is responding to criticism experienced and/or anticipated. For me, Sparks’ clearest statement of purpose is found on the third to last page of his book: “For many of these leaders, critical biblical scholarship will be accepted only when a new paradigm explains how the criticism can fit into a life of faith. This book was written to advance that cause, and I hope and pray that in some way it will succeed in doing so” (372; emphasis mine). With this in mind, the purpose of this brief paper is to summarize his arguments and offer an evaluation of his effectiveness.

An Overview

            In his Preface and Introduction, Sparks acknowledges that “we are witnessing the emergence of a new generation of evangelical scholars who are willing to admit that the standard critical arguments are often much better that the ill-advised apologetic that evangelicals have aimed at them” (12).  However, he expresses the need to help the church do a better job of assimilating “the fruits of academic endeavours to its faith in Christ” (18). If evangelicalism’s view of Scripture is to be deemed relevant it must acknowledge inaccuracies, tensions and diversity in the text. The goal of the chapters which follow are to “fashion a Christian response to modern biblical criticism that is intellectually satisfying as well as theologically and spiritually healthy” (24).

            In Chapter 1 Sparks explains how knowledge is acquired and how texts are interpreted in the Premodern (1^st – 14^th centuries CE), Modern (14^th – mid 19^th centuries) and Postmodern periods. Sparks distinguishes these three periods, epistemologically and hermeneutically, in terms of the value that is placed on tradition. In the Premodern period, tradition reigned supreme; in the Modern period, traditional knowledge was highly suspect as great trust was given to the human ability to reason; and in the Postmodern period, the importance of tradition is reaffirmed.

Postmodernism has two schools. The antirealists conclude that reality is an invention of human culture, thus prompting deconstruction in order to expose the “incoherence and hidden contradictions within the oppressive tradition” (40–41). The practical realists represent “a kind of mediating position between the epistemic optimism of Cartesian realism and the pessimism of antirealism” in that tradition does not blind us to the truth and that humans have “a modest and adequate capacity to understand” (42). Even though “perfect knowledge is an illusion,” and human beings get some things wrong, indeed, they get many things right (43). It is important to note that Sparks self-identifies as a practical realist. He asks the question, “Why should we expect…an inerrant Bible?” He responds, “God has selected to speak to human beings through adequate rather than inerrant words…because human beings are adequate rather than inerrant readers” (55).

In order to appreciate the benefits of historical criticism, in Chapter 2, Sparks educates his readers regarding historical criticism and Assyriology. Much of the chapter focuses on the Gilgamesh Epic due the similarity to portions of the Hebrew Bible in terms of its spiritual theme, its multiple authors, and its long and complicated literary process with includes redactions and the addition of a prologue and epilogue. He concludes that critical scholars do not approach the biblical text with any more skepticism than they do other texts and thus biblical historical criticism is not deserving of the negativity often espoused by evangelical scholars.

In Chapters 3 Sparks offers a survey of “the flash points,” which are key issues within biblical texts where critical readings are at odds with traditional readings. Some of issues he discusses include the authorship of the Pentateuch, Israelite historiography in Samuel–Kings as compared with Chronicles, the multiple authorship of Isaiah, Ezekiel’s failed prophecies, the contradictions within the Gospel accounts, and the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Sparks concludes that even if biblical critics are correct only on “a modest portion” of their claims “God’s written word certainly reflects far more humanity than traditional evangelicals might expect” (132).

Chapter 4 delineates eight conservative evangelical responses to biblical criticism. Sparks shows that evangelical scholars such a Kenneth Kitchen, T. Desmond Alexander, Robert Schultz and others not only fail to effectively challenge the claims of biblical criticism, they “fail quite badly” (169). These responses fail, he states, because they are based on the modernist theory that humans “have the capacity to see the world as God sees it.” In reality the biblical evidence “stacks up squarely against this Cartesian principle” (171). Sparks reviews, in Chapter 5, various constructive efforts which attempt to integrate criticism and faith. He discusses various schools of thoughts from which he concludes that each one contributes something of value. Collectively they emphasize the need to consider: (1) the human genres of Scripture (Chapter 6); (2) the divine genre of Scripture (Chapter 7); (3) the role of extrabiblical sources (Chapters 8 and 9), and; (4) the role of divine initiatives in the interpretations of Scripture.

In Chapter 6, Sparks examines several of the ‘flash points’ already brought up in Chapter 3. He focuses on genre within the ancient historical context of the biblical texts as a means of taking the human elements of Scripture seriously. A proper grasp of genre defines the principles by which various texts can be exegeted. As he notes, “When we sensibly employ analytical generic categories to read Scripture…many of the theological difficulties implied by historical criticism are adequately resolved” (227). Chapter 7 works as the divine complement to Chapter 6, in that God’s genre is to “accommodate” to the human “finitude and fallenness.” As Sparks notes, “Scripture’s other problematic feature is its diversity” (230). To deal with this historically recognized problem, Sparks confidently states that “accommodation is theologically and philosophically necessary…[and] is among the most important interpretive principles that can help us negotiate this diversity while holding…to the authentic and special revelation given to us in God’s Word” (258–259).

Chapters 8 and 9 are thematically related as Sparks argues that Scripture must be interpreted in light of “the context of the whole.” Specifically, he insists “the best interpretations of Scripture are those that read Scripture in relationship to…” the created order, the incarnate Word (i.e., Christ), the canon of Scripture and Christian tradition (327). In these chapters Sparks is challenging the Reformation’s preoccupation with sola scriptura which was, in its original context, a rejection of Catholic tradition.  However, in modern times and beyond, sola scriptura has resulted in minimizing the importance of understanding Scripture in the context of all theological traditions, including Orthodoxy and the Reformation (284–285).

In Chapter 10, Sparks applies his hermeneutical methods to some of the examples previously cited but focuses most of his attention on the issue of gender, authority and theology (i.e., the role of women in ministry). He concludes that his “open-ended approach” has resulted in “a theological product [that] is fairly close to the standard conclusions of the traditional church” (354–355). His point is that taking the results of biblical criticism seriously “need not lead to the kinds of problematic theological conclusions that so many conservative evangelicals expect” because biblical criticism does not become a theological license “for making the Bible say whatever we wish it to say” (356). In the chapter titled “Conclusions” he attempts to answer the question of how modern biblical criticism should be embraced in the life of the church. It is Sparks’ opinion that critically educated pastors and teachers will do a better job of serving and equipping the church as long as they do not talk much about certain problematic details of modern scholarship (362). While “the problems of modern biblical criticism should be generally excluded from the discourse of the local church” it can and should be dealt with in the context of the Christian academy.

A Critique

            Overall, the most helpful parts of the book are found in Chapters 2–5 which explain that while the methodologies of biblical criticism can be largely unbiased as they treat the biblical texts no differently than other ancient texts, the conclusions drawn do challenge the evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy. These challenges are either ignored or spuriously responded to by evangelical scholars to the detriment of effective preaching of the gospel and respectful engagement with modern biblical scholarship. These are the chapters that are probably most debated by conservative evangelicals. 

My main critique is what I see as significant organizational issues in Sparks’ monograph. I see much of value in the content that would benefit from a clearer, more easily referenced structure and, at times, a more concise approach to argumentation. My motivation to critique the organization of this book comes from my belief that contents such as these must be made accessible not only to graduate students and professional academics but to ministry staff as well as interested church members and undergraduate students.

The chapters are quite long and each one contains very detailed information, along with scores of references to other scholars and their arguments, as well as both biblical and extra-biblical examples, designed to illustrate and/or support his own argumentation. In several chapters, the complicated and, at times, convoluted nature of his discussion could have benefited from a much clearer structure of headings and subheadings. This approach to headings is found with increasing frequency in many recent scholarly articles and monographs, and when used effectively, help guides readers through long and/or complex arguments. 

I do not see this as a minor issue, as I found it quite easy to lose the flow of Sparks’ discussion especially in the chapters 7–9. The bolded headings he uses are helpful to some degree, but sequentially numbered headings and subheadings would guide the reader through the logical layout of his argument. Sparks’ effort to indicate his subpoints as “first,” “second,” “third,” etc., results in confusion when there are several levels of “firsts,” “seconds”, “thirds,” etc., under one bolded heading. I would also suggest that employing multiple levels of headings (designated as 3.1, 3.1.1, etc.) might have eliminated that author’s felt need for frequent repetition. At times, it felt as if I was reading a verbatim transcript of a verbal presentation, where selective use of repetition can be useful didactically but can be redundant in a written text.

I have drawn attention to what I see as significant structural issues because there is so much of value in the content of this book that would benefit from a clearer, more easily referenced structure and, at times, a more concise approach to argumentation. Unlike Sparks, I am convinced that for the church and its message to be deemed relevant by those living in the Information Age, it is imperative that the evangelists, pastors and teachers not only need to be educated about the implications of biblical criticism, but they, in turn, need to educate the church. Sparks’ book, with some organizational revisions, could prove to be an extremely useful tool in that endeavour.  

Identifying and Dispensing with “Cowboy Christianity"

March 5, 2019

Brian G. Felushko

After reflecting on a reading assigned in an "Introduction to Theology Course" (for which I am a Teaching Assistant), I'm finally ready to come clean about something I've become more and more certain of over the last 15 years, and this is it: Believing in or seeking the restoration of "pure New Testament Christianity" is an exercise in futility involving a measure of self-deception. Why? It is because our practice of Christianity, as individual Christians and as local churches, is never free from cultural impact or influence. That was true in the first generation of Jesus followers just as surely it is true of our current generation. 

To quote Richard Twiss in his book, Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys: A Native American Expression of the Jesus Way, "As cultural beings, we have nothing but syncretism in the church, and rightly so, since the gospel always gets inside culture...We mix music, ceremony, language, art, symbols, vocabulary, fashion, ideologies, nationalism and cultural metaphors constantly." 

Syncretism is "the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion." What Twiss is claiming is that culture always influences what we believe and practice. We do not live out our faith in a glass bubble. We do not have a spiritual force field surrounding us that is protecting us from the influences of the world. Our practice of Christianity is individually, and collectively, the product of our culture in intersection with our faith.

Thus, there are things we believe and practice as Christians today that are not so much representative of so-called “New Testament Christianity” as they are examples of “twenty-first century Westernized Christianity.” I am convinced that if we could transport a first century Jesus follower through time and space into the midst of one of our twenty-first century “worship services,” equipped with a universal translator—yes, I’m a Star Trek fan—that Christian would not recognize or relate to most of what is said or done in our assemblies. That’s because the earliest Christians lived out their faith in a first-century Jewish and/or Greco-Roman culture and we live out our faith in a twenty-first century North American culture; a culture that has also had time to be steeped in twenty centuries of various cultural influences and impact. The faith we see lived out in the New Testament by the earliest Jesus followers was conceived and birthed in, and thus influenced and impacted by, their first-century Jewish and/or Greco-Roman culture. So, what I’m saying is this: it is wrong-headed of us to think we should or could ever restore “New Testament” Christianity.

I agree with Twiss when he writes, “I am proposing, based on biblical research by reputable scholars, that a transitional process of syncretism is a normal part of our spiritual growth—yes, normal.”[2]  Thus, what I must strive to do is to hold the central teachings of the gospel of Christ in tension with the cultural influences, such that I lose nothing of my faith in Jesus in the process. Twiss acknowledges that there is "a legitimate concern [that] exists about a kind of mixing” that he calls “counteractive syncretism." He defines this as, “the idea of a kind of mixing of core religious beliefs that ultimately diminish, fully resist, or finally stop—counteract—one’s personal faith journey as a follower of Jesus and his ways.”[3] 

He then asks a vitally important question: “Does blending or mixing cultural ways/beliefs complement or mutually and positively inform varying faith perspectives, or does it result in the rejection of the centrality of the biblical, historical Jesus Christ as Creator—the incarnation of Creator among us?”[4] Figuring this out—i.e., how to mix our culture with our faith—is not an instantaneous or certain process. I love the saying he quotes, “It’s one thing if a bird lands on your head. It’s another thing if you let it build a nest.”[5] Does believing in Jesus as God’s son—who died on a Roman cross, was buried in a borrowed grave, but raised to life again— “require that one reject all other cultural ways of being, thinking, expressing and living out our faith in Jesus”?  If you think that it does, I’d say, “Good luck with that!” Not all syncretism is good, but not all syncretism is bad. And it takes time, energy, honesty and often outside perspectives to see what and how we are syncretizing, both as individuals of faith and as faith communities, in order to understand which aspects of our cultural beliefs and practices need to be resisted or can be embraced.

Truly, this requires consistent and persistent evaluation. It is often messy. Baptism did not cleanse us of all our cultural beliefs and practices. We died to our old selves in baptism, but that does not mean we are free of, or even recognize, the cultural lens through which we understand our faith. As Twiss states,

True conversion—becoming transformed and, over a lifetime conformed, to the person of Jesus—is a gradual and erratic process of sociocultural change or acculturation. It is not regulated or predictable, nor is it an evenly paced process of change and transformation, but quite the opposite. It is uneven, variable, messy, irregular and fluctuating. It is an organic process of spiritual transformation as we engage the sacred ways of our Creator, bound by the limitations of our existence as finite human beings (emphasis is mine).[6]

As Christians who live in our “Canadian culture,” most of us are very aware, and mostly critical, of what we see as Americanized conservative evangelicalism or fundamentalism. It is on vivid display right now. Many of the "Canadian Christians" I know would agree with Twiss when he states,

I want to suggest that openly displaying the American flag alongside the "Christian flag" on each side of the stage or pulpit is an example of counteractive syncretism. It is blending the ideology of nationhood and the Christian religion. It presupposes an idealized national exceptionalism of God's chosenness, blessing and approval of America. The result is a unique Americanized version of Christianity that directs attention away from identity in Christ and his kingdom. It redirects allegiance to a kind of "Christian patriotism" that demands a deep-seated loyalty, reverence, trust and faith in political, military and economic might. It inspires national pride and the assumptions of Creator's divine favor. Why don't Canadian churches place Canadian flags in their churches?[7]

However, as “Canadian” Christians, I believe most of us are ignorant of, blind to, or refuse to see the features of our “Christian faith [which has been] formed within and by American culture.” What are some of the most obvious features of the Americanization of Christianity that have impacted us, even in Canada? Andrew Walls writes,

Among the features that mark it out from other such Christian expressions are vigorous expansionism; readiness of invention; a willingness to make the fullest use of contemporary technology; finance, organization, and business methods; a mental separation of the spiritual and the political realms combined with the conviction of the superlative excellence, if not a universal relevance, of the historic constitution and values of the nation; and an approach to theology, evangelism, and church life in terms of addressing problems and finding solutions (emphasis is mine).[8]

Are all these cultural influences opposed to the gospel of Christ? Not all, but some, for sure, are. Christianity as most of us practice it is highly institutionalized. It is no longer organic. It is mass produced on denominational assembly lines. The end result of these productions, as they come off the assembly line, are immediately and consistently scrutinized in binary terms as either true/false, right/wrong, good/bad, orthodox/heretical. In contrast, my reading of Jesus’ life and teaching, and that of the authors of the New Testament texts, demonstrates that living out our faith is “an organic process of spiritual transformation” that occurs over one’s lifetime and “is gradual and erratic…not regulated or predictable, nor…evenly paced…It is uneven, variable, messy, irregular and fluctuating” (emphasis is mine).[9] But instead, what we normally experience in conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity are expectations of instant and irrevocable “repentance” that when found wanting in the individual or in a faith community is labelled as the adulteration of biblical truth, another gospel or unbiblical teaching and/or practice.

So, what can we do? I think that it’s not just Indigenous Christianity that needs to rescue their theology and practice from cowboy Christianity. I agree completely with Twiss when he writes,

Rather than creating categories of true and false, I think we would be better served if we considered syncretism to be the exploration of the synthesis of faith, belief and practice in a dynamic process of blending, adding, subtracting, changing, testing and working things out. This process does not take anything away from the authority of Scripture or orthodoxy. The critical dynamic for this process of producing loving and mature followers of Jesus, however, is that it is not an individualistic venture. It is thoroughly rooted in a community of fellow seekers. This is where safety and balance are found.[10]

We must come together as faith communities (i.e., local churches) with a generous amount of grace for ourselves and each other, prayers for wisdom, and much patience and persistence, so that we can strive to live out our faith in as authentic a way as possible in the midst of our specific time and culture. Together, we can strive to determine what beliefs and practices are “counteractive syncretism” — i.e., those that we should not allow to build a nest on our heads. As human beings most of us want a clearly binary theology where all beliefs and/or practices can be categorized as either true or false, right or wrong, righteousness or sin, orthodox or heretical. Not everything we believe or practice can be so labelled. That wasn’t the reality in the earliest Jewish and/or Greco-Roman Christianity and it isn’t the reality today. Living out our faith in Jesus in our twenty-first century mishmash of global culture is as challenging as it has ever been. But I believe we can do so to the glory of God, if as Paul admonished the divided and divisive Corinthian Christians,

But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.[11]

We need to stop consciously "straining out gnats" while at the same time we are unconsciously "swallowing camels" (Matt 23:23–24). In other words, we need to stop stressing about the less important issues and we need to give our fullest attention to the more important matters of "justice, mercy and faithfulness" and especially to the greatest matter of "love" for one another and all of humankind.   

If there is anything, we need to seek to "restore," it must be our obedience to the New Testament commands to love others unconditionally (John 13:34–35) and to act toward one another with as much humility as we can possibly muster in each and every interaction (Phil 2:1–5). Then, regardless of whatever cultural beliefs or practices we are integrating into our faith (purposefully or not), we will be that "light to the world, a city set on a hill that cannot be hidden...and [that] gives light to everyone in the house." Thus people will "see our good deeds and praise our Father in heaven" (Matt 5:13–16).
  

---

[1] Richard Twiss, Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys: A Native American Expression of the Jesus Way. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015) 34.

[2] Twiss 31.

[3] Twiss 35.

[4] Twiss 35.

[5] Twiss 35.

[6] Twiss 34.

[7] Twiss 37.

[8] Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, September 2004), 223, 234-235.

[9] Twiss 34.

[10] Twiss 33.

[11] 1 Corinthians 12:31–13:8a