I wanted more from this. Sorry.
It starts well, the closing chapter is good, and there are plenty of great paragraphs between. But, overall, I don’t feel it resolves the problem addressed.
As a pentecostal who also champions the sacramental—especially the sacramental aspects of creation and bodies—I whole-heartedly applaud Johns highlighting that both fundamentalism (on the right) and progressive liberalism (on the left) have tendencies to desacralise Scripture in our desire to ‘master’ an understanding of the text, purposefully or inadvertently. Johns argument that we need to ‘re-enchant the text’ and be open to a Spirit-Word-led approach when reading certainly needs to be made and applied.
Having said this, there were two problems I had.
Firstly, there’s too much generalisation in the examples of how differing schools of thought approach the Bible, primarily in the matter of the Spirit’s role when reading Scripture. I certainly see the candidates these generalisations are aiming to highlight, but reality is more nuanced. Maybe such generalisations are prolific in the academic circles this book is written to, but on the ground, in pews and pulpits as a whole, they aren’t. I can imagine my fundamentalist and progressive liberal friends reading this and replying, ‘that’s not true of me.’ This, of course, does not mean that Johns is wrong—she isn’t. It’s just that we are all, myself included, more muddled than the contrasts espoused.
Secondly, there were many times when this felt repetitive and lost in academic terminology. Yes, it’s from an academic publisher for an academic audience. And although I’m not the latter, I have some nous. Some sections seemed convoluted, I couldn’t see the point they were making to the present chapter nor the overall argument, and some chapters felt like a repeat of the previous chapters, restating the problems in a different way. I got to the end wondering, ‘what’s the answer then?’ If the answer was to be found in these denser passages, I missed it. I’m certainly not anti-intellectual, and I appreciate that Johns isn’t either. And yet, this book’s highly-academic name-dropping lingo leaves one feeling that the text remains locked behind the purely academic approach of human mastery.
Admittedly, this could have been the point Johns is precisely arguing against.
As an alternative, if the answer is purely, ‘listen and be more attentive to what the Spirit is saying through Scripture’—and I’m not suggesting this is the answer Johns offers (again, I couldn’t see what was being offered)—then both a fundamentalist and progressive liberal approach can merely reply, ‘Amen! We’re doing that.’ After all, both schools profess Scripture as something through which the Spirit manifests and speaks.
As someone else has said in their review, ‘[Johns] asserts that in a Spirit-filled community, reading the Bible becomes a dynamic activity, where participants inhabit the story-world of the Bible and experience God as narrated by the biblical text.’ Yes, I would respond, Johns is asserting this. But again, fundamentalists and progressives alike would say they are doing this. So, how does this look in contrast to those schools?
It’s for this reason why I don’t feel ‘Re-enchanting the Text’ resolves the problem it addresses. I’m left wondering what re-enchanting the text looks like.