Kenton L. Sparks
Kenton L. Sparks is professor of biblical studies and interim provost at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania, and author of the new book Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture. In this post, he discusses dilemmas faced the church in light of Western society’s shift toward secularization, and he councils Christians to avoid two common cultural pitfalls — intransigence and intolerance — as they work to share the gospel in an increasingly secularized world.
Update: This article has been updated (twice) not only to include a photo of Dr. Sparks but also to reflect accurately the final subtitle of the book: “Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture.” We apologize for the confusion.
* * *
By unconscious drift and self-conscious dash, Western society is on a trek that takes it ever farther from religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christians often lament this “secularization” process — as well we should — but if we care at all about the human consequences of this social process, surely we should consider the underlying causes of secularization. If the gospel is God’s true and beautiful “good news,” why are people rejecting it in droves?
My experience is that Christians usually point the finger at everyone else. Secularization is thus envisaged as a natural result of human nature which, being dark and sinful, is determined to choose paths that lead away from God. Understood in this way, secularization is in some measure inevitable. That is, in spite of our good-faith efforts to halt its onslaught, the temporal victories of “Babylon” will only multiply until Christ returns and puts everything into its proper order.
Anyone who takes the Bible seriously will agree with this explanation to some degree. Both the Bible and everyday experience teach us that human beings are broken people who sin against God and neighbor. But however true this diagnosis is, I believe that it is an incomplete diagnosis as it stands. For if we base our diagnosis on a full-orbed engagement with the Bible and human experience, surely the finger points not only at others but also at us. I believe that secularization is also caused by intransigent and intolerant expressions of our faith.
When faith is intransigent, it is unable to adjust adequately to new insights and information that render elements of the faith obsolete. The evidence for evolution, for example, has rendered impossible any literal reading of Genesis 1-2. Because evolution is now believed by just about everyone who is not a Christian and by many who are, Christians who preserve a connection between the faith and literal readings of Genesis will only give aid to the forces of secularism. Similar problems are created when Christians hold fast to some of the Bible’s antiquated moral elements, such as its laws about slavery and commands to slaughter enemies wholesale. These reflect ethical viewpoints that no reasonable person can tolerate in the 21st century.
Sacred Word, Broken Word
When we say that the faith is intolerant, we usually mean that its adherents don’t know how to get along with those committed to other religions or to no religion at all; in the worst case it means that believers cannot even get along with other confessing Christians. But what, precisely, is “intolerance”?
Intolerance does not stem from faith commitments that are wholly wrong but rather from unbalanced commitments that are devoted to certain elements of the faith (such as doctrinal truth) but neglect or ignore other elements of the faith (such as loving others and protecting their God-given freedoms). In other words, I would say that “intolerance” is actually a catchword for behaviors that are shaped by partial rather than full-orbed expressions of love and respect for God and neighbor.
Intransigence and intolerance are closely related vices. Behind both stands an unbalanced tendency to protect the faith without asking any questions about it. These vices thus prevent us from noticing and confronting the errors and dangers in our warped faith commitments. The Pharisees and teachers of the law, who hated Jesus so much and ultimately were behind his execution, were people of this sort. Though they were believers in God and devoted students of Sacred Scripture, they insisted on using old wineskins that could not contain Jesus’ message of radical love. Jesus readily saw that the Old Testament command to “love God and neighbor” was incompatible with the “eye-for-an-eye” theology of Moses (as we see in Mt 5:38-39), but his Jewish opponents were so committed to and comfortable with the Mosaic law that any message to the contrary could only be viewed as blasphemy. Jesus challenged their traditional views of God, Scripture and theology . . . so they killed him.
My new book, Sacred Word, Broken Word, is an attempt to help Christians recapture the spirit of Jesus in our reading of Scripture. Insofar as we can, let us try to follow in the footsteps of Jesus rather than of the Pharisees.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 26, 2012 at 11:23 PM
theories in process
[...] Kenton Sparks: Because evolution is now believed by just about everyone who is not a Christian and by many who are, Christians who preserve a connection between the faith and literal readings of Genesis will only give aid to the forces of secularism. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. ← Previous post [...]
March 22, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Bill R. Douglas
Secularization, pretty much a given in the 1960′s and 1970′s, seems to have stalled out.
But what if Jesus’ message is anti-religious? (It’s certainly not non-religious.) What if we are called to challenge the accommodations to empire that religions inevitably make? At least the Romans saw the early Christians as an atheistic challenge to the status quo.
April 15, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Kent Sparks
Bill
I doubt that secularization has stalled. If one looks at Europe one finds societies that are much less religious than the US; And the US is heading that way. Thus, secularization continues unabated, imo.
March 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Roy Howard
This is treading very close if not over the line into standard anti-Judaism and supersessionism, in which the Pharisees become the “bad straw men” to Jesus. The historical situation was much more nuanced than this would suggest.
April 15, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Kent Sparks
Not exactly, Roy. I would contrast the Jewish interpretation of the Bible offered by Jesus with the Jewish interpretation offered by the Pharisees. Hence, no supersessionism … only a preference for one Jewish interpretation over another.
March 8, 2012 at 9:41 AM
Kent Sparks and Our Sacred, Broken Bible | Peter Enns
[...] so will likely attract a much wider audience.You can read the remainder of Sparks’s post at EerdWord. He will be posting here in the coming weeks to give us a preview of the book’s contents. [...]
March 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Drew Downs
What a hook! I will definitely get a copy. I am particularly drawn by the last line: “Insofar as we can, let us try to follow in the footsteps of Jesus rather than of the Pharisees.” Yes! I have for years marveled at our ability to vacillate between taking the disciples’ position (following Jesus) in the gospel and taking the Pharisees and have been preaching our own Pharisaic tendencies. Great reflection!
March 7, 2012 at 9:02 AM
Jonathan Stone
I look forward to checking it out. Thank you.