Mr. Enns would never admit that what he and others are essentially conceding are what individuals like myself have been saying for quite some time. That is, of course, that the only way anyone can pulling any meaning out of the Bible or most other pieces of scripture is to cherry pick and interpret. "It's not 'the Bible' but Holy Scripture (or, Who Gets Invited to the Barbecue?)" is just a variation of that same theme.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, yet another theist fails to see the glaring fallacies that his/her argument is built on.
"In chapter nine, Sparks talks about what it means to read “sacred Scripture.”
Not the Bible. Anyone can read the Bible–academics, atheists, Red Sox fans. But to read the Bible as Holy Scripture,
'is to embrace it as authoritative discourse from God, as a book in which God directs us toward abundant life in Jesus Christ (p. 89).'"*
This is his first major mistake. The passage contains a circular argument and also uses the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Basically, if you don't get the right interpretation/interaction you are simply not reading it right or treating it properly. Once you establish that bogus criteria you can simply dismiss any criticism or observation you dislike.
Enns then goes on to make another ridiculous mistake in his thinking.
"I’ll bet some of you didn’t see that coming from Sparks. You might think there is no way whatsoever that he can mean this after all he’s been saying about the Bible being broken and having errors in it. Well, if you can’t see how those two hold together, don’t just assume they can’t be and Sparks is off his rocker. Read the book and give it a try."
Apparently, Enns has never noticed how frequently and easily human beings can rationalize uncomfortable ideas and outright contradictions. There are plenty of theologians who have noticed all sorts of errors, contradictions, and just plain heinous passages throughout scripture. They still manage to gloss over and/or find excuses for them. I actually am considering finding a copy of Spark's book. That part, at least, he gets right. It is always a good idea to read the works of those writing on a topic that interests you even if you are pretty sure ahead of time that you are not likely to agree with them. We can always learn more. We can always, and should, reassess what we believe and why.
In the end Enns' main premise is utter nonsense. Unless someone is attacking the Bible by fabricating passages there is no legitimate reason to dismiss out of hand their criticism. If you pay attention to what you read then your interpretation is just as valid as anyone else.
*This is a reference to Kent Spark's book, Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture
No comments:
Post a Comment