Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Enns, Sparks, Arnold, and Chapman on the OT: Part 2 (RJS)

Enns, Sparks, Arnold, and Chapman on the OT: Part 2 (RJS)

Last updated on: November 27, 2010 at 7:14 pm by RJS

Enns, Sparks, Arnold, and Chapman on the OT: Part 2 (RJS) 2010-11-27T19:14:57-06:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Sparks ds.JPG

A couple of months ago Peter Enns posted on his blog part one of a review and discussion of Kenton Sparks’ recent book God’s Word in Human Words (GWHW). Although in writing part one Enns expressed hoped that part two would soon follow, that hope proved vain. Two months of anticipation followed. Yesterday however the long awaited post appeared – so today I would like to renew discussion of Sparks book.

God’s Word in Human Words is a rather blunt no holds barred discussion of the problems of evangelical biblical scholarship and the need to embrace what is good and true in critical biblical scholarship without fear (no this is not everything – but it is a large fraction). I read this book within a few days last summer. It is well written and held my interest the whole way.

Kenton Sparks starts with a discussion of epistemology and hermeneutics and then puts before the reader a good selection of the issues and questions raised by both historical and biblical criticism. I found these chapters fascinating, but it is not my area of expertise, so I am interested to see how scholars, evangelical or otherwise, might respond to his points.

The remainder of the book describes the problem with traditional evangelical responses to Biblical criticism and lays forth a proposal for a constructive use of scholarship in the context of faith. Sparks uses the issue of women in ministry to help flesh out some of the details of his approach (Ch. 10 pp. 339-356). One of the keys to the approach advocated by Sparks is “accommodation.” Read the book – it is a good read, and I expect that we will come back to many of the issues that he raises in future posts. You can also find audio of a series of lectures given by Sparks at Taylor University in Canada in 2007 here (scroll down the page to find all four lectures).

The key question of Sparks book is a good one for us to ponder.

What use should evangelical scholars make of critical biblical scholarship – and how should it filter down to the church?

So what is the scholarly response to Sparks’ book (or at least a small piece of it)?

In his second post on GWHW Enns
describes some of the responses to the
book at a panel discussion at the Society of Biblical Literature
meeting last November. The panel consisted of Old Testament scholars
Peter Enns, Bill Arnold, and Stephen Chapman – with Gary Anderson
moderating. (nb. I wish there was an audio of the session). The
session
was well attended – Enns says remarkably well attended (300 people perhaps?) – which says
much for the interest and timeliness of the topic. Enns paraphrases
Chapman as saying that “this book had an “it’s about time” quality to
it.”

Speaking of the overall positive tenor of the session, Enns continues on: “I agree with this assessment. In my view, evangelical theology has not engaged and adapted to modern biblical scholarship.”
It is time for modern scholarship to be taken seriously in the
evagelical church. According to Enns it is not that evangelical
scholars fail to appreciate or understand the scholarship. Rather it is
“either not taken to its theological conclusions in evangelical
theology or is functionally ignored (i.e., the implications of
evangelical biblical scholarship are not incorporated into how
evangelicals are taught to think of Scripture)“

Now some more general comments from Enns and from Arnold. (You can read all of their comments here.)

Peter Enns expresses general agreement with Sparks, although he doesn’t claim to agree with all of Sparks’s conclusions. However his discussion does not focus on the scholarship – rather it is focused on the culture of evangelicalism.

Enns claims that the strong reaction to GWHW (and to his own Inspiration and Incarnation) arises from a perceived attack on the “social identity” of evangelicalism. And Sparks not only criticizes the conclusions of much evangelical biblical scholarship, he also criticizes the method, rather bluntly, and the culture that supports that method. “So, when Sparks says that evangelical positions have been misguided and need to be corrected, he is making far more than an academic claim to truth–he is criticizing an identity, and so reactions are (understandably) visceral.” This is an interesting observation in light of Scot’s post on Language Levels in Theological Debate yesterday evening.

How much of what we claim as foundational in our theology is in fact merely a boundary defining our social identity? A question well worth pondering.

We don’t need a commitment to methods of scholarship that are indefensible in the marketplace of ideas. We certainly don’t need a commitment to cultural boundaries that create crises of faith in students when they are exposed to the scholarship of the greater world. Ironically it is the nature of evangelical scholarship itself that challenges many and ultimately convinces many of the validity of much critical scholarship. Kent Sparks relates such a personal story in the preface of his book.

Enns concludes by suggesting that “What is needed is a true hermeneutical self-consciousness, one that aims a synthesis of theological commitment and higher-criticism. Such a synthesis is to be found neither in fundamentalism nor liberalism. It should, Sparks argues, be found in evangelicalism.”

Bill Arnold’s reflection on GWHW concentrates on another range of ideas including Sparks’ commitment to and reaffirmation of inerrancy. He claims that the need to hold to some form of inerrancy while also embracing critical scholarship drives too much of the book. This is a commitment Arnold attributes to the more reformed wing of evangelicalism – a tendency much less important in his own Weslyan-Arminian culture. He says that “A few scholars on our side of the interstice continue to hold to some form of inerrancy, but like Professor Sparks, they tend to ‘define is out of existence,’ so that it becomes an unfortunate (and often untenable) position to hold.” He goes on to suggest that Professor Spark’s “task is made more complicated by his tenacious commitment to inerrancy, regardless of how carefully he defines and nuances the concept.“

I found Bill Arnold’s reflection here interesting. I have his Genesis commentary before me and I have found it very readable and quite informative. But I must admit, I don’t know quite what Arnold means by inerrancy or letting go of the idea of inerrancy. It would be interesting to hear a more complete description of his approach to scripture. When I read Arnold’s commentary I am confronted by what seems to be an approach not significantly different from most commentaries dependent on the literal or plain sense of the text. I was hoping for more insight into how we can reconcile what we know about the world, both science and ANE studies, with the nature of the text and its theological importance. But it seems to me that he has the same reluctance to deal with the historicity of the narrative in Gen 1-3 that characterizes much of evangelicalism – he just doesn’t use the same word to describe his approach.

So at this point I leave us with three key questions to consider based on the work of all three of these excellent OT scholars.

How much of what we claim as foundational in our theology is in fact merely a boundary defining our social identity?

Is inerrancy a useful term or is it merely a boundary defining social and theological identity?

How does this impact our approach to critical biblical scholarship and to the text, for example, of Gen 1-3? How should critical scholarship influence our reading of the text?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

Bible

Problems for Faith

Science and Faith

Previous Post

April 23, 2009

Our Collective Faith 12

Next Post

April 23, 2009 A Brother's Wisdom 40

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Noah's ark was made of cedar wood.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE