In chapter 10, \u201cListening to the\u00a0Diversity\u00a0and Unity of\u00a0Scripture,\u201d Sparks begins to tie together the previous chapters and move toward a more positive construction. In other words, he\u2019s been talking about what the Bible is, and now he is going to start talking more about what we are supposed to do with it.<\/p>\n Or, to put it another way, Sparks is going to start cleaning up the mess he\u2019s made (which he always intended to do.)<\/p>\n On the first page of this chapter (p. 103), Sparks asks,<\/p>\n [I]f Scripture speaks the truth through perceptive yet warped human horizons\u2026then how can we use it to weave a useful and coherent\u00a0understanding\u00a0of God and of his\u00a0relationship\u00a0with us? How can the BIble, as a diverse and broken book, serve as a\u00a0primary\u00a0source of our theological insight?<\/em><\/p>\n Funny you should ask, Kent, \u2019cause I\u2019m pretty sure some readers are asking the same thing.\u00a0[By the way, for those of you who wind up reading this book for yourselves, you will\u00a0probably\u00a0find that Sparks eventually gets to\u00a0the\u00a0question you are asking. He\u2019s great at anticipating the next point.]<\/em><\/p>\n In this chapter Sparks begins to answer his question by outlining no fewer than nine (that\u2019s 9) bullet points. We could camp out on each point for a day or so, but we won\u2019t. I just want to get the points out there with minimal explanation.<\/p>\n 1. Biblical\u00a0interpretation is a \u201ctwo-step\u201d process that honors the\u00a0distinction\u00a0between Scripture as human and divine discourse.\u00a0<\/strong>Historical\u00a0criticism\u00a0and theological (confessional) readings of Scripture need to talk to each other.<\/p>\n 2. Seeking theological coherence in Scripture (a function of its divine discourse) 3. The brokenness and diversity of Scripture do not negate its essential unity. <\/strong>This is not a God-imposed unity\u00a0despite<\/em> the diversity, but an acknowldgement that the human authors and editors of the Bible were \u201cmodestly systematic in their efforts to present a coherent theological picture.\u201d<\/p>\n 4. The shape and substance of the biblical story explicitly point us to Jesus Christ, who is our\u00a0theological\u00a0priority\u00a0in biblical\u00a0interpretation. <\/strong>Biblical interpretation\u00a0ultimately\u00a0coheres in the person and work of Christ, including when Jesus himself sets aside Old Testament legislation.<\/p>\n 5. In giving priority to Christ in biblical interpretation, we are reminded of the brokenness of Scripture and the need to distinguish between \u201cGod-talk\u201d and \u201cgod-talk-talk\u201d (see #2 above).\u00a0<\/strong>Christ is the key to help readers\u00a0distinguish\u00a0between what in\u00a0Scripture\u00a0points us in appropriate and redemptive directions and what bears witness to a broken\u00a0human\u00a0situation.<\/p>\n 6. #5 does not mean that those\u00a0portions\u00a0of Scripture that bear a broken element can be set aside. Rather all biblical texts, witness\u00a0truly\u00a0and\u00a0explicitly\u00a0to what is theologically true.\u00a0<\/strong>Even Canaanite genocide passages conveys a deep belief of the ancient Israelites that God is holy and just, even if it was communicated in a broken way.<\/p>\n 7. Given #s 5 and 6, one can think of Scripture as a collection of texts that direct and push us in an appropriate direction when taken as a canonical whole<\/em>.\u00a0<\/strong>Not every text should be taken as the final word.Where some texts move us too far in one direction, another turns us back.<\/p>\n 8. \u201cProgressive revelation\u201d is a good and proper category for\u00a0understanding\u00a0the Bible as a whole. \u00a0<\/strong>God\u2019s continuing\u00a0conversation\u00a0with humanity gradually unfolds within the emerging contours of history, although this does not lead to supersessionism (dismissal of earlier stages), or the notion that what is\u00a0chronologically\u00a0later necessarily improves upon what is earlier.<\/p>\n In his next chapter, Sparks picks up on this last idea and fleshes it out a bit more. We will get to that soon.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thebiblefornormalpeople.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/broken-bible.jpeg?ssl=1\" "\\"broken")
<\/a>Today we continue our playful romp\u00a0through\u00a0Kent Sparks\u2019s recent book Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em>(The first<\/a> post is here and the previous<\/a> post is here.)<\/p>\n<\/a>does not cover up, obscure, or explain away the theological\u00a0differences\u00a0in Scripture.\u00a0<\/strong>Respect the difference between Scripture\u2019s \u201cGod-talk\u201d (first-order words from God to humanity) and \u201cgod-talk-talk\u201d (mistaken, second order human accounts of what God supposedly said).<\/p>\n<\/a>9. A healthy use of Scripture should recognize that good theology cannot depend on Scripture alone.<\/strong>\u00a0Two examples: Copernicus and the\u00a0nature\u00a0of the cosmos, and the immorality of slavery. Moving Beyond the Bible<\/a>