What I’m Reading: The Human Faces of God- What Scripture Reveals when it gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It)

“Why me, Lord ? Where have I gone wrong? I’ve always been nice to people. I don’t drink or dance or swear. I’ve even kept Kosher just to be on the safe side. I’ve done everything the bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.”

Ned Flanders in Hurricane Neddy

I bought this book with a gift card I received at Christmas last year and it has been sitting in the middle of a growing stack of books that I want to read.  I’m slowly making my way through the stack.  The Human Faces of God  represents the last of those that were part of my Christmas gift but there are many others that have been added since then.

It was my friend Steve Douglas who brought this book to my attention.  He wrote a review of each individual chapter in his blog. (You can read his reviews here.)  After reading the first couple of his reviews I decided that I wanted to read this book for myself and I quit reading his summaries. I wanted to come to it myself – without his opinions, (even though I respect and learn from his opinions.)  I’m glad I waited, though wish that I’d come to this book sooner in my stack.

I’m not finished with the book yet. I’ve read the preface and the first two chapters.  I’m taking my time with it - to enjoy it, to argue with it, to think about it, to fully appreciate what Stark has to say. 

Thom Stark takes a critical look at the doctrine of Inerrancy (the idea that the scriptures of the old and new testaments are without error in everything they affirm – historically, scientifically, geographically, culturally, and theologically), and he isn’t impressed.  He contends instead that the Bible is not univocal; it is not ONE book with one unified voice.  It is a book of books with numerous authors each giving voice to different concerns and different ideas.  And sometimes these authors are in argument with other authors within the book.

“In the beginning was the Argument, and the Argument was with God and the Argument was: God. God was the subject of the Argument, and the Argument was a good one.”

“…the Bible is ‘a collection of writings that is marked by a lively internal debate, and by a remarkable spirit of self-criticism.’ To put it bluntly: the Bible is an argument – with itself.” ( from page 1)

Here are two brief examples of this argument within the Bible:

Ezra harshly and violently opposed Jewish intermarriage with other peoples of other nations – even going so far as to demand the dissolution of those marriages and families.  (Ezra 10: 2 – 11).  According to Ezra, this intermarriage and pollution of the pure race was a hateful thing to God.  But, Moses took an Ethiopian wife, Rahab – the Canaanite prostitute was allowed to integrate with Israel, King David’s great-grandmother was a member of the hated Moabite people. In Deuteronomy 20:14 Yahweh himself permitted the Israelite people to intermarry with woman from other regions and religions.  And in Numbers 31, Yahweh even demanded that 32,000 Midianite virgins be permitted to integrate with the tribes of Israel. 

Some parts of the bible speak glowingly and with praise for the monarchical system – the King of Israel is God’s man. Other voices within the scriptures disagreed and said that the establishment of a king in Israel was an affront to God. 

Understand though (and this is important), the critical examination of these arguments is not an attack on the Scriptures and Stark is not motivated by a hostility toward the gospel.  As I see it, this kind of careful and critical examination of what’s really in this book that we hold so dear, is the best kind of appreciation.  I want to understand (really understand) what it says (what it really says) – without ignoring or dismissing or whitewashing the difficult and ugly parts.

Also – a rejection for claims of Inerrancy isn’t necessarily a rejection of the claim that the bible is Inspired or that it is Authoritative.  It just means that we’ll have to think carefully about what it means that this is an inspired and authoritative book (an inspired and authoritative collection of books.)

The first doctrine of The Salvation Army affirms our belief that "the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by the inspiration of God,” but says nothing about inerrancy. 

Here’s a quote from the study guide to Salvation Story (the Salvationist’s handbook of doctrine) that helps – a little bit:

“As diverse in style, cultural content and authorship as are the scriptures Christian hermeneutics approaches its task with the conviction that the Bible has an underlying unity of purpose and message.  What this means with respect to any given text is that, first, it needs to be interpreted within the context of the whole witness of Scripture, and, second, it cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts the basic message of the Bible.  It is certainly true that some texts are difficult to harmonize with each other, but even the resulting dissonance usually represents contrasting aspects of the same truth or opposites that must be honored.” (page 9)

As I said, it helps a little bit.  I’m not sure that it’s possible or even desirable that every passage within the bible should be harmonized with every other passage.  Some of those voices do contract other voices.  But maybe we can learn from that argument anyway.

If we can extend the musical idea of harmonization of scripture - Perhaps it would be better to conceive of the bible, not as Barbershop Quartet with tight harmonies and pleasant melodies, but more like a composition by Igor Stravinsky with lurching off-kilter rhythms and startlingly dissonant melodies.

I’m not sure that I’ll agree with every point that Stark makes in the book, but I know I’ll appreciate reading this book.