Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture

by Kenton L. Sparks

The Bible is a religious masterpiece. Its authors cast a profound vision for the healing of humanity through the power of divine love, grace and forgiveness. But the Bible also contains "dark texts" that challenge our ethical imagination. How can one book teach us to love our enemies and also teach us to slaughter Canaanites? Why does a book that preaches the equality of all people -- male and female, slave and free, Greek and Jew -- also include laws that permit God's people to trade in slaves and to persecute those of a different faiths or ethnicities?

In Sacred Word, Broken Word Kenton Sparks argues that the "dark side" of Scripture is not an illusion. Rather, these dark texts remind us that all human beings, including the biblical authors, stand in need of God's redemptive solution in Jesus Christ.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christian, Spirituality, Nonfiction, Scripture, Christianity

192 pages, Paperback

First published April 4, 2012

Reviews

[Drew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book that tackles hard topics with both brevity and depth. You know it's a unique book on hermeneutics and biblical authority when both Billy Abraham and Brian McLaren endorse it!

[Mike Blyth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Biblical inerrantists believe that the entire Bible is without any error, whether related to matters of faith, history, ethics, or scientific explanation. On the other side of the spectrum are those who see the Bible as a purely human document, possibly with some interesting ideas. Kenton Sparks, on the other hand, argues that it is indeed the actual word of the actual God, but that it was written, edited, and collected as a canon by fallible human beings whose limitations and failures show up in the text.

Despite what you might think from the title, this is not a book that gloats in exposing all kinds of problems with the Bible. It takes for granted that certain problems exist, the Canaanite genocide being the prime model, and then asks what we do with them. Sparks argues that rather than explaining them away as inerrantist apologists do, or allegorizing them as many early Church fathers did, we should simply recognize that they are reflections of incorrect or even twisted views of the authors.

If one accepts this view, then a major problem is how to sort out what is the true message from God, the "gold," and what is, as Luther said of epistle of James, "straw." Sparks does address this in some detail in the latter part of the book. While his ideas will certainly not solve the whole issue, they do provide some hope that the task is a reasonable one.

If you are a strong inerrantist, then you probably will not appreciate this book unless you read it to find cannon fodder. On the other hand, if your faith is troubled by what seem to be the questionable or outright unethical stories and teachings of the Bible, then Sparks may have a good word for you.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am still digesting this small, 180-page (including bibliography and multiple indices) book which I first announced I had finished reading back in mid-October (two months ago). I have been blogging about it--slowly--ever since. (First post here.)

As I wrote at the time,

I have just finished reading one of the most liberating (for me) books I have ever read. Twelve or thirteen years of miserable “wandering in the darkness” with respect to Scripture (especially), but with respect to an awful large portion of the rest of my faith as well: I sense it may be coming to an end.

Now, two months later, I believe I can still say that. But I have to confess that, for this Westminster Seminary grad, brought up in a "The B-I-B-L-E: Yes, that's the book for me! I stand alone on the Word of God" environment, Sparks' book produces numerous "catch your breath," "I 'can't believe' I just said [or thought] that!," "How dare I?!?," "what I've just said [or thought] is tantamount to blasphemy!" moments.

And I keep objecting to what I have read--even today. Yet, so far, despite all the fears and all of the (what seem to be "inevitable") conclusions "[I] absolutely 'must' come to if [I] believe that," I keep coming back to the conclusion, "No. I don't have to go there," and, "I'm afraid Sparks is correct."

As I say, I am still working this through. But.

While I have read many other books on the subject--and (I can't say whether and to what extent you may want or need to read them first, but you can find them listed in my first digestional blog post linked-to above), Sparks' book, it seems to me, has shattered an intellectual logjam or ice wall that has held a huge reservoir of deep anxiety for me.

And that logjam or ice wall? My growing conviction (that I absolutely did not want to embrace) that the doctrine of Scripture with which I was raised and that I was taught at seminary was untenable. Put most starkly: I was losing hope—even as I attempted manfully to hang onto hope—that the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy and the doctrine of Sola scriptura were really tenable.

According to my spiritual and intellectual heritage, if you give up these doctrines, you have given up your Christian faith. There is nothing left. You might as well cash in and check out. Christian faith is hopeless.

Sparks does more than merely "suggest" that one can honor the Bible as being truly God’s Word and authoritative in life, faith and practice (“Sacred”) even while it is full of contradictions, errors, foolishness and worse (“Broken”). He also provides some well-thought-through reasons why (and, perhaps, even, how; though I would be hard-pressed to demonstrate how) one might honor the Bible as God's authoritative word even while acknowledging its brokenness.

(Coming from an inerrancy/Sola scriptura perspective? As I said, Sparks' ideas--the mere ideas--will take your breath away! "How can he say that?!?!?")

[Take whatever time you need to regain your composure.]

The hard part--and I continue to struggle with this: How does one maintain the kind of finely-honed intellectual integrity Sparks advocates (which requires admitting to thinking and even believing things you never wanted to have to admit to thinking or believing about the Bible or certain details in the Bible) even while pressing on in life-risking commitment to the preaching of the gospel? How does one maintain whole-hearted, deep and rich fellowship with one's evangelical and fundamentalist brothers and sisters even while admitting to yourself (and maybe to them!) that you disagree about some of these most fundamental doctrines?

The truth? (I finally admitted this to myself:) I had these problems long before I read Sparks' book.

I was unwilling and unable to admit my thinking even to myself before reading the book. But I think I am--just now, as I write this review--realizing I was asking the questions all along.

And my answer before reading Sparks: "One doesn't admit any doubts or questions. Certainly not publicly. And there is no way to maintain whole-hearted, deep or rich fellowship if you don't hold the line, here, with respect to the doctrine of inerrancy as you have always been taught. You can't do that. It's impossible."

I think my answer now, after reading Sparks? "You have to ask the questions. You can ask them. And you can maintain fellowship (as long as your evangelical/fundamentalist brothers and sisters are willing to maintain fellowship with you). These things are possible."

And, moreover, I am committed to doing these things.

I just wish I could find more friends in the evangelical/fundamentalist camp who were/are willing to join me in my journey.

. . . And maybe that's what encourages me most about Sparks' book: I feel as if he is the first person who has joined me on the journey . . . though it appears he is actually ahead of me on the path.

I look forward to interacting with him further . . . either in further books he writes or in personal conversation.

Again, for further thinking on this topic, please visit my Forbidden Questions: Bible & Faith blog.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many fear that if a Christian acknowledges that scripture contains errors, contradictions and occasionally even commands and commends evil, that there would be absolutely no way to discern between the good and the bad, and that there would be nothing to keep us from arbitrarily going through the bible selecting what we like and throwing out what we dislike. It is thought that if Scripture is not 100% perfect, that we have no basis for trusting any of it—it is truly all or nothing. Moreover, it is stated that because God is perfect, his revelation would necessarily be perfect, so to recognize even a single error in the bible would be proof it wasn't inspired and that we were thus without God's revelation, and left without hope.
Sparks argues however that we can affirm scripture is good, while also recognizing it is fallen, and this is similar to how we affirm that the creation is good while recognizing it is fallen. The psalmist writes how the heavens declare the glory of God and the earth declares his handiwork. Now think of the folly of saying that if creation is not 100% perfect, then a perfect God could not have created it and that we mortals are now hopeless to discern good from bad, and have no basis for declaring any of it as good. Indeed we Christians acknowledge that though the creation is fallen, this doesn't negate the belief that a perfect God created it. Also, we all know we can discern beauty, and find goodness in creation, even though it is fallen. We typically think the good to have originated in God, and say the creation that is fallen ultimately due to human sin. So with scripture, we'll find good and we can ascribe that to God shining through, we also find brokenness which we can ascribe to the fallen author's understanding of the world and of God coming forth. I like that Sparks shows that the scripture not being perfect isn't any more evidence against God somehow having part in inspiring it, than creation not being perfect is proof that God didn't create it.
Indeed, it seems God's normal way is to work through broken, errant and fallen human beings. He has chosen to work through the “foolish things”, and “vessel of clay”. The living water flows through rusty pipes and despite the conduit, life comes forth nonetheless, all to the glory of God. It is mysterious, considering just how fallen and broken scripture seems that he has chosen to speak to so many people through it and has expressed therein the redemptive story.

Now, what happens to the authority of the bible if we acknowledge the fact that it contains elements all too human; mistakes, contradictions, and sin? If the bible is not inerrant, with perfect morally upright laws, how can it function an authority for faith and practice in the church? Kenton Spark points out that Scripture itself recognizes numerous “authorities”, like government, church leaders, parents, etc... that are all legitimate, yet we all recognizes none of these authorities are perfect, and yet we don't utterly discount all these authorities because they can and do err. Indeed “God has ordained that fallible human beings will serve as authorities for the thriving of human life. The same can be said of Scripture's authority. It need not be a perfect book to serve as God's useful, healthy and authoritative guide to truth and spiritual insight. Scripture fills it role by saying enough that our human condition is in need of redemption and that God has moved in Christ to redeem us” And further, concerning this role that scriptures is authoritative in, Sparks wrote “I would say that the Bible's special status as God's inspired word stems, not so much from the unusual spiritual experiences of its authors (whatever those were), but rather from the divinely-ordained relationship to the incarnate word...Scripture is not an end in itself, it points to God's work in Christ, “testifying” or “Bearing witness”, to the good news of the Messiah. For this reason, Scripture may properly be called “Holy Scripture”, insofar as it is a book that has been “sanctified” and “set apart” by God for its unique role in the economy of salvation”

I appreciate his reflections on viewing scripture as divine accommodation and his proposal of thinking it more like providential adoption. Instead of trying to express his point, I'll quote him at length here: “Although accommodation language has a long-standing pedigree in Christian theological tradition, the notion has at least one serious disadvantage. “Accommodation” tends to anthropomorphically connote God's active role in communicating errant human viewpoints for the purpose of revelation, but I suspect that a more nuanced account should honor the human will by making this more passive. That is, in inscripturation God allow his human authors the freedom to be precisely who they were when they wrote Scripture. If this is right, then we err if we characterize every “Biblical problem” as God's wise rhetorical strategy to reach some greater spiritual end. It is better to say that, in the process of reaching a greater end, the humans involved in writing Scripture inevitably showed their true colors, including their errors and sins. Such a “passive” account of the matter is particularly important in the case of biblical genocide (and similar textual terrors), else we are compelled to say that God participated in human evils to achieve a grander spiritual purpose. A better description in these cases would be that God has canonically adopted human authors as his speakers and that, in doing so, he has permitted these authors—fallen as they were –to write the sort of things that ancient fallen people would write about their enemies. It is one of the great mysteries of faith that God's redemptive activity is carried out successfully and beautifully through the agency of fallen men and woman”

I have been thinking about this idea of providential adoption, especially in light of what I've heard about redemptive analogies, as expressed by Don Richardson, in his book “Peace Child”. The Jewish gospel was all too foreign to the tribe Richardson was trying to reach, eventually, he observed a deeply cultural practice, that worked as a redemptive analogy by which he was able to express the redemptive story and the village came to Christ. Richardson reflected how possibly God has been at work in all cultures, creating these “redemptive analogies.” and it is the missionaries job to find them and thus make the good news real to these foreign peoples. It is interesting to think that maybe these redemptive cultural themes could be said to ultimately leading up to and pointing to Christ, and this despite the pagan elements, mythology and false divine views contained in them. So yeah, suppose the Jewish story is just such, God became incarnated and was understood within their cultural and religious story, cultural hopes, sacrificial cult, which all worked as a redemptive analogy. God could have revealed himself in their context at that time of history, even if biblical scholars are correct, that the origins of the Hebrews religion were worship of the chief Canaanite god El, and eventually YHWH, a member of El's divine council was conflated with El, and then much of the Hebrew scripture came into being as rationalizations for why they went into captivity and attempts to cut themselves off from their Canaanite origins. Even if these speculations are correct, in the mist of all of it, maybe one could still say it was ultimately "pointing to Christ", and God chose to reveal himself to the Jews, and thus their the Jews sacred text, with its mythologies, post hoc rationalizations, and pagan elements, was adopted and in leading us to Christ, can be said to be “Holy Scripture”.

[Neil R. Coulter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sacred Word, Broken Word is very similar to Peter Enns's The Bible Tells Me So, except that Kenton Sparks is able to write like an adult and Peter Enns writes like an adolescent. I was very interested in Enns's topic, but completely put off by his sarcastic, juvenile writing voice. So I was glad to find a different author taking on the same topic. As Sparks writes, his purpose in Sacred Word, Broken Word is to "try to explain how we can read Scripture as an authoritative text even when its contents are untidy, diverse, and influenced by the fallen human condition" (49). That introduction alone is enough to cause a lot of conservative American Evangelicals to slam the book shut instantly. Sparks proposes that we should view the Bible not as a thoroughly perfect, direct line from God to us, but that the Bible itself, created by fallen humans, is fallen and in need of redemption just as humans are. This doesn't discredit the Bible as the Word of God, but it requires more careful reading and understanding of the Bible--especially what Sparks regards as the difficult bits. This way of understanding Scripture makes a lot of things more challenging, but it removes the difficulty of forcing ourselves to believe that a good, loving God would ever order the genocide we read about in the Old Testament. Sparks's idea is that understanding of God is revealed as humans are able to handle it. The communication will almost always be imperfect, simply because our comprehension of Truth can only ever be by analogy; we are not God. Proof of this concept comes from the ways that Jesus fulfilled the Law: which sometimes meant doing the opposite of what the Law commands, and other times meant being the absolutely perfect exemplar of what the Law commands (as in, "Moses said this; but I tell you this.").

This is a thoroughly imperfect and cursory summary of Sparks's book. And certainly this is a lot for an Evangelical to take in. It will be one of those books that I will return to and continue pondering. It's the kind of explanation of the Scripture that I've been waiting for for so long; though it is challenging, it seems good and helpful. Sparks displays a pastoral concern for his reader that is similar to the tone I read in N. T. Wright's general-audience books. My biggest frustration with this book is that there are so few people in my life with whom I could really discuss it; in fact, there are quite a few people in my life who would think me heretical for even reading it and reviewing it positively. May God guide us all to his Truth, and give us humility and love all along the way.

[Raborn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has to be one of the best books I have read on the scriptures so far. There are so many ideas that I resonated with in this book. I am still trying to figure out what my view of the scriptures is, but this book has went a long way in helping me to formulate that.

[Greg Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

The basic premise of this book is that, because the Bible was written by human beings and chosen as Scripture by human beings, there is a sense in which it is "broken" just like humans are. And yet the Bible is also sacred because God speaks through it. In this way, it is like Jesus, who was fully human but also fully divine. The author's view is that:

Scripture is God's word because God providentially adopted ancient human beings, like Paul, as his spokespersons. In doing so, God "set apart' or "sanctified" their words for use in his redemptive activity.

In other words, the Bible is very human set of books but God has redeemed them by speaking through them.

Many Christians will find this idea to be unorthodox or even threatening. And it does make interpretation more challenging. The author recommends that we let Scripture speak for itself and be willing to ask it hard questions in order to gain an understanding of what God is trying to say to us through it. When we are confronted with inconsistencies or things that trouble us in the Bible, we should remember that:

Human beings err, and this accounts in part for the errant and diverse perspectives that sometimes appear in Scripture. So there is no need to "harmonize" the Bible with modern science or make Paul and Luke agree in all respects.

This book spends some time giving examples of difficult passages and discussing how to interpret them. In addition, it discusses the different ways that God speaks outside of Scripture and how to use all the different ways that God speaks to interpret what God is saying through the Bible. The author writes:

In the end, the success of biblical interpretation depends a great deal on whether we want to listen to God or merely tell him what he ought to say. For it is only by listening to God - to what He says in all of Scripture, and through all avenues by which he might speak, such as the voices of the Spirit and of creation - that we can finally arrive at the best understanding of how the Spirit is directing us to love God and our neighbor.

While many Christians might be disturbed by this book, it is clear from his writing that the author believes the Bible is authoritative as God's word. I think this book is thought-provoking and well-argued, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. However, it is also a pretty dry read, so that is why I've given this book a "meh" rating. If you find some of the quotes above interesting or intriguing, you should give this book a read.

[Elizabeth ‘Andy’ Terrall · Rating 1 out of 5]

I skimmed this book for research.

Shocking, to say the least. He claims orthodoxy while consistently peddling damning heterodoxy. I do not consider myself conservative in theology, yet even I could recognize how he misrepresented everyone he disagrees with.

His views quite obviously stem from a belief that modern views are superior to anything that has gone before. Inconsistently, he claims the fallen world is only made sense of through our (fallen) intellectual capabilities; it is up to us to figure out right vs wrong, and the Bible is one piece to our puzzle. No upholding of orthodox belief on who God is and how he reveals himself to us.

Dangerous, to say the least.

[Wesley Morgan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book took a whole lot of pages and philosophical definitions to say "Maybe the Bible isn't perfect because the people who wrote it were imperfect, but it can still be inspired." I guess that's a hard thing for some Christians to accept. The only part I really enjoyed was a small chapter in the middle about how, in the New Testament, Jesus was able to redeem imperfect Old Testament scriptures, bringing them to a higher level without discarding them entirely.

[Gary Conachan III · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book so much. It’s a great introductory read to biblical interpretation, especially helpful if you come from an evangelical, Christian background. I studied Bible in college and this would’ve been a great read to set me up for the rest of my studies. Highly recommend.

[Anthony Locke · Rating 3 out of 5]

This should be an interesting book to process and discuss with others.

[Liz · Rating 4 out of 5]

How do you reconcile inconsistencies within the biblical text? How does that impact your understanding of biblical authority and the role the bible plays in your faith and faith community life?

Sparks' thesis is that the Bible was written by humans and is redeemed by God speaking through it.

[Tommy O'Keefe · Rating 4 out of 5]

First a few things I really liked:
The discussion of warrant and validity are particularly helpful, as was the discussion of epistemology and the proposal of a "Practical Realism". These things are really practical tools that can be employed by readers of every sort, and can help keep a discussion from becoming a shouting match.

I appreciated the fact that Sparks hit the challenge of scripture (he refers to it as the "dark side") head on in a brave and unflinching way. He doesn't steer clear of these or dance around them, but instead hits them squarely. The Canaanite genocide in particular seems to be one that needs this treatment again and again. Simply dismissing it does not help seekers or skeptics actually hear the voice of the Word of God (Jesus) speak through these words of God penned by fallen men and women like us.

This brings me to some of the difficulties I had with this book:
Sparks relies heavily on the idea that like fallen humanity, the Bible is simultaneously sacred and broken. While there are ways this may be true, it's troublesome in how working it out allows us, broken people, to declare what is or is not broken. This paradox presents an uncomfortable binary where I, from my own broken vantage point, am given the power to declare what is or is not true in scripture.

Additionally, I think Sparks uses this assumed starting point to caricature some texts so they serve as convenient straw men in proving his point.

Once the dust settles and the discussions moves to the practicals, I found the actual ideas presented to largely be in sync with much of the other proposals I have resonated with regarding the interpretation of scripture.

Pragmatically speaking, the actual approach to the interpretation and embodied action of scripture that Sparks outlines here closely resembles my own understanding of how an individual and a community ought to handle the scriptures.

At the end of the day, this is a good read though I doubt many will be able to arrive at all the same conclusions Sparks does.

I found "The Bible Made Impossible" by Christian Smith to be a better examination of this same issue, and I would say that it, coupled with the work of NT Wright (Scripture and the authority of God) and Scot McKnight (The Blue Parakeet) in this area provide a solid foundation for working out how we should read the Bible today, individually and communally, so we can be properly formed by it into the image of Christ (rather than forming it into something that says what we already think and believe).

So, four stars, but there are better reads if you have the time they require (Sparks book is short and very accessible).

[Demetrius Rogers · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author's main thesis is this: the Bible is a broken human book that is, itself, in need of redemption. Kenton Sparks attempts to present a Bible that is divested of inherent divine qualities. However, it was hard to take this one seriously. It seemed as though the author just took everything in his kitchen drawer and dumped it into this book. There was no sustained line of support for his argument. So the book simply never gained traction.

Sparks tried to address it at one point, but should have just admitted that he has no doctrine of inspiration (or even of illumination) in regards to the Bible.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really liked this book. A fresh look (at least for me) at Biblical interpretation. Realization that the Scriptures were written by broken people, who had agendas, who lived in a totally different culture and time. Realization that all Scripture is interpreted, since I am not reading it in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. Realization that Scripture is meant to be interpreted in community, using the knowledge of those who came before us, and pressing to become a people who are more loving, kind, generous ... than those who walked before. And lastly, realizing that questioning Scripture does not make me love God less ... it helps me to love Him even more.

[Deborah Simonds · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compact book that touches on a number of problematic issues any close reader of scripture will notice. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, which I would not have imagined given the subject. What I enjoyed most was the author’s compassion, and humility; despite what I would think could be described as having ‘skin in the game,’ he approaches each of his own interpretations with confidence, but never condescension. I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a more honest, and charitable way of reading the troubling parts of scripture we’re too often tempted to hide from or weakly explain away.

[Bruce Hamill · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book is beautifully clear and has great insights throughout. I don't agree with everything in it, but always find myself struggling to disagree and find the basic thesis very helpful. The argument for taking the fallenness of scripture seriously without rejecting its theological authority is not entirely new, but it is certainly a creative gathering of an enormous range of arguments and resources. I particularly liked his unfashionable defense of the role of authorial intent, and also his account of practical realism in epistemology. highly recommended!

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love books that make me think and that is exactly what Kenton Sparks did in this book. His perspective is definitely not the one in which I was raised in an evangelical church but he presents a strong case for the Bible being a very human book with human flaws embedded in it. He does so with obvious love and respect for the Bible and the God who inspired the writing of it.

[Evan Kostelka · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as enlightening as I was hoping. Seems like his main goal was to introduce people to a way of viewing scripture a certain way instead of actually walking through specific passages to show the cultural influences. He did that a little bit but I was hoping for more. A great book for that is Who Wrote The Bible?

[Christina Moss · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm still digesting everything in this book. I definitely respect Sparks' willingness to honestly engage with the difficulties the biblical text present without resorting to facile answers or burying his head in the sand.

[Steve Robbins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sparks presents an non-exhaustive apologetic for Practical Realism as the most appropriate interpretive philosophy for biblical exegesis. Well written and accessible to anyone interested in the subject.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting examination of the bible. Looks at the bibles dark passages and how we interpret them. His view is the authors were broken people like us so missed God's view when writing, the only problem is that he does lapse into academic language at times.

[Chris Micklewright · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is certainly controversial, but I think I'm convinced. Notably, Dr. Sparks' book leaves me able to better love scripture with all of its complexities.

[Jared · Rating 4 out of 5]

"God sanctifies and uses broken human beings to extend his grace to broken human beings."

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 3 out of 5]

Съдържа доста интересни наблюдения и полезен материал. Все пак накрая ме остави с повече въпроси и неяснота отколкото с отговори.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic read, touching on many relevant topics.

[Lydia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really helped me deal with some of the questions I had about discrepancies in the Bible.

[Todd Miles · Rating 1 out of 5]

I will post my review after my Bibliology seminar discusses it in class.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

70% interesting.... 30% pretty dry. thought provoking fo sho.

[Ryan]

Recommended by Ben Spackman