"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.