Unsettled Christianity

Click to Order

In what is Tom Wright’s epistolary love letter to the Scriptures, the scholar and Bishop entreats us to handle Scripture more authoritatively, and challenges us in his usual commanding way to remove Scripture from our subjective, modern (i.e., Western) uses and put it back to the position in which it belongs. The thesis of the book deals with the authority of Scripture, a phrase bandied about in a loose fashion today, from the left and the right. His goal is to set Scripture and the perceived authority into the right place, that of the authority of God. Wright masterfully walks the middle road, and rather than being overly polemic casually takes each side to task, revealing where the too-literalists have left the Reformation-era understanding of being ‘literal’ and the too-liberal have left Scripture to be taken as a buffet. It is a new edition of a previous work, The Last Word, with two case studies added on to further explain, in methodological detail how to use Scripture today to handle dogmatic issues.

In eight chapters, 196 pages, Wright is able to succinctly develop a sufficient method of treating Scripture properly, which allows in Tradition but focuses on what Scripture actually says. The idea of authority is an interesting one, as it has developed on the political-laced philosophy of the West. To take, then, modern concepts of authority and power, and apply it to Scripture and what role it should play creates a divide between us and Scripture. This is Wright’s focus, then, to help repair that breach by carefully examining the history of the position of Scripture. He does so first by repairing causing distrust in the rampant modern notion of distrusting authority. One can almost hear him bellowing from the pulpit as he upholds the ancient canon, urging to stop seeing Church History, and the canon(s) of the Church, through the eyes of the cynic. Following that, he takes us through 1600 years of the use of Scripture, from the pre-Apostolic age to the Reformation. In this, he briefly examines (Wright’s brevity holds more information than other’s volumes) the role of Scripture in ancient Israel and more especially, by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament. This is of the utmost important to what Wright is trying to do over all, and of course, as one might expect, it revolves around Wright’s theology and biblical studies (i.e., narratives and themes). But as he moves into the use of Scripture in the Apostolic Church and then into the long stretch, until the Enlightenment, one gets the sense that Wright is still and will always be a preacher of the Word of God. His care and his love here for that ancient artifact erupts off the page, and with his story-telling style, one can almost see the Apostles themselves, without the New Testament in hand, preaching authoritatively. And then, finally, in Church History, he moves the restoration of the literal sense by the Reformers, something which many of their children have forgotten or corrupted. In this section, chapter 5, Wright begins to explore what Calvin and others did by seeking to understand Scripture first, by exegeting before theologizing, to the ancient sense, and only then allowing Tradition to assert itself, tamely. There is much more to be explored here, especially given the recent concentration on ‘plain reading’ and Genesis 1, which he barely touches on in one of his case studies.

The final three chapters are going to meet with severe resistance, but they are needed. When he gets to the Enlightenment, is doesn’t spare the rod, but pulls us back from the abyss of what that particular age may lead to. He notes, rightly, that we are all touched by the Enlightenment, and operate daily under those principles. He goes on, then, to note the actually more Enlightenment-minded Fundamentalists, which I am sure will be to their detriment, but the fact is, is that those who regularly hold to a woodenly literal, or plain reading, etc… sense of Scripture operate more fully under Enlightenment principles then they perceive.  This section serves as a way to remind us that there has been a mental break with Christian Tradition and that we can continue to abuse Scripture, or use it. He ends the original work with a chapter directing us back to the ancient precepts. This section on getting back on track will be helpful for this present generation and offers a way to stave off the eventual harsh course correction Christianity as seen several times, when it has drifted one way or another. Wright also shows, in chapter seven, how both sides of the spectrum has abused Scripture, giving a very detailed list, as if the Bishop has been watching us, perhaps checking it twice.

Added to the previous work are two case studies, one on the Sabbath and another on Monogamy. He has specifically chosen these because they aren’t controversial, although he notes that there are fringe elements debating the two topics. The latter is the most informative, but I have to wonder if he has not chosen it in some way to demonstrate a more superior answer, and perhaps get and edge in their rivalry. Regardless, Wright shows how to act out what he has written about in the previous nine chapters, and that is how to use the grand narrative of Scripture to take an issue which is ‘in the bible’ and come to a Scriptural answer. It is not about proof-texting (something he is against), but about finding out where, using Scripture, Reason, and Tradition to reach into the biblical text, the answer belongs in the continuing narrative of Scripture. Both conclusions are settling and satisfying.

Wright’s work is brief, and in a few areas, I wish that there had been more to it, but this was not a catechism on using Scripture, but an entry-level call to stop abusing our narrative. It is a needed study, and would serve well for small groups and for those interested in getting a more biblical grasp on the authority of Scripture.

(You can find the review posted on Amazon as well).

Reflections throughout the Book:

• In the Mail: A Wrightian Day @harperone (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Prologue: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 1: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 2: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 3: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 4: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 5: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 6: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 7: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)
• Chapter 8: Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)

Click to Order

Continuing the internal dialogue with Wright’s excellent book!

How to Get Back on Track

So far, I’ve enjoyed Wright’s handling of this topic. It is not as narrowly defined as I had hoped, but over all, it is a great entry into this idea of scriptural authority, something that is all too often tossed around and rejected, or tossed around and abused. He takes a traditional stance which automatically stands against both the Right and the Left. Before I read this chapter, I suspect that he’ll tackle a few of the issues of an imposed self-correction, or perhaps, better, a market correction. The fact is, is that given time, there will be a self-correction, but how many will lose faith before that? How many will be destroyed by bad readings of Scripture? Bad readings will lead to bad applications.

He wants an “integrated view” of the “dense and complex” idea which is the authority of Scripture. I think he is already asking too much of us. The idea that the Church is to be humble, listening, and wrestling is beyond the scope of too many Christians. (I mean, we are still struggling with allowing those who worship different than us to be called Christian.) That’s why we have major splits in the Church today, because we often view Scripture as ours, and only by our way (i.e., dogma, doctrines, practice) is it maintained. Thus, everyone else denies Scripture, and are heretics bound for hell.

But, maybe there is something to Wright’s unpacking of the thought which he says of the phrase, “offers a picture of God’s sovereign and saving plan for the entire cosmos, dramatically inaugurated by Jesus himself, and now to be implemented through the Spirit-led life of the church precisely as the scripture-reading community.” (115-116). Okay, so why don’t we focus on reuniting the many churches into a Scripture-reading community? Do you know why? Because each community will have a different subjective quality, because Wright already admits that trying to be objective is a fallacy. I’m in a mood this morning I guess, because I find Wright being hopeful and not facing the fact that in our rather wonderful humanity, we deem subjectivity as a wonderful goal, although Wright roundly condemns the hermeneutics produced by it. On the other hand, if we were to accept the catholic Church as a place where Scripture could be read differently without doing violence to the Text or, more especially, to each other, Wright might be correct. And we have to learn how to read and to read what for. Huh? I am almost convinced that in reading it to discover deep theological insights or correct dogmas, we are reading it wrongly. Instead, we should note the thematic elements and, as Wright says, ‘refresh’ our memory to the Narrative of God and Humanity.

Wright says Scripture’s authority is only present when it is used correctly, and that would be to fulfill the Church’s mission. Good. I can agree with that. He notes that the authority isn’t in ‘telling people what the Bible says” but in understanding the Scriptures. It is in formation of mind and community. Ahhh… formation. This makes me think again about reading Scripture in community and in theologizing in the same realm. He discusses this idea of formation for several pages. Okay, I’m hopeful again. Here, Rodney, is the answer to dominionism clearly expressed.

And now, “The Place of Tradition: Living in Dialogue with Previous Readings”

Scary stuff. I’ll admit that there are a few doctrines I am uncomfortable with, but I try to muddle through them when they are spoken of in our liturgy or in reading the early Christian writers. So, Tradition…

He cautions us about being humble and critical to and the Saints, of not making them an “alternative source”. Good, good.

In a previously read work, which was written after this one, Wright took on Chalcedon, but in this one, he calls the Creed of 381 a “not entirely adequate model.” Agreed.

He allows that historical exegesis has a proper place – to straighten out the rough spots of Tradition. For Wright, there is a sense of allowing the Scriptures to remain fresh, because in each generation, through proper tools and more, the proper uses of those tools, the Scriptures are brought to a better light, and Tradition examined. Traditon, to sum, looks backward (positively) while Scripture pushes us forward.

Now, Reason. This is going to be a difficult one, because it calls us to give “attention to” scientific discoveries which “shed light” on Scripture. I have no issue with it because all truth is God’s truth.

Oh boy… a multilayered view. Sounds Alexandrian to me. Yuck. But, it’s not. It calls for understanding distinctions within the text and the uses there of. Okay, I get that. It also calls for the end of “the Bible says” mantra. In other words, that causes no engagement, only silliness, and the Scriptures only have authority when they are engaged. He repeats a notion he brought up in a previous work, a five-act hermeneutic. Sounds great, actually, an no, you’ll have to read it for yourself.

“We cannot reduce scripture to a set of “timeless truths” on the one hand , or to mere fuel for devotion on the other, without being deeply disloyal, at a structural level, to scripture itself. (123)

hahahahahhahahahha – Love it. So very true.

This five-act thing… really grips me. I think… I think it might work if we all tried it. I really like this explanation of it. What a wonderful vision. If for nothing else, this portion of the work is well worth buying the whole.

Strategies for Honoring the Authority of Scripture

Argues for a totally contexted view. Agreed. Completely, and context doesn’t end at the lexicon. But, he also wants to understand our own context. Interesting…

“Read the bible like drinking beer, not like sipping wine.” – anon (130)

He wants it read liturgically. I know that this is going to upset some people, but I’m not sure if our focus on private reading hasn’t done some considerable damage to Protestantism. I think that the corporate reading is first and primary and central and essential and present. Plus, as he points out, the lectionary is connecting the various sections of the bible to be read alongside one another, telling a complete story. I also agree that all three portions of the lectionary should be read in service. Cut Children’s Church!

This book, more and more, is Wright’s love letter to Scripture.

Okay, so he likes private reading, but only second to corporate reading. Okay. Fine. Good.

He also wants Scripture to be refreshed by the “appropriate scholarship.” He wants the text to be driven back to the “literal sense” (not in taking everything literal, but in understanding what the word meant.) Yes, I agree. I agree as well that real biblical scholarship must be free to explore and not hampered by the threatened fires of ideological inquisitions, such as what we have recently seen at Calvin College.

He wants an educated ministry. Accredited is the word he uses. Educated in the sense that they know what they are talking about. You can have degrees on the wall and be as dumb as they come. Why? Because we have forgotten what a leader/minister is – an partaker in God’s mission, and not a bureaucratic counselor and that a part of education and accreditation means to continue to educate yourself. Scriptures need to be taught, not guessed at nor used to destroy God’s work. A leader needs authority, more than legal.

A breathtaking chapter, now to be followed by two case studies, which are additions to the previous published work. I’m not sure I’m going to review the case studies, simply because they are what they are. Except a review shortly.

Click to Order

Continuing the internal dialogue with Wright’s excellent book!

Misreadings of Scripture

How pleasantly ironic…

Anyway, this should be an interesting chapter, although short, as he presents two categories, Right and Left and their misreadings:

And from the list for the Right – I think he means the Right, politically. Wow. Or conservative evangelicalism, especially in the United States in regards to Israel. Wow.

And the Left takes it on the philosophical, relatively speaking, rationalistic chin.

So far, in reading those lists, I can safely say that I cannot be described as neither one of them.

Woot! I’m going to Wrightian heaven!

He’s correct, that each side reacts to the other in various ways and it creates major problems.

These are the misreadings, because neither side actually explores the meaning of the text, at least in a historical way.

Okay, so one chapter left in the original work and then two case studies.

Click to Order

Continuing the internal dialogue with Wright’s excellent book!

The Challenge of the Enlightenment.

Wright begins by quoting Scott Bailey who recently said,

First, everyone you know including yourself values Enlightenment categories and ways of thinking. Every single person in the western world has been inculcated, socialized, and deeply, deeply ingrained into Enlightenment categories of thinking.

Or maybe Scott was just mimicking Wright who notes that we are all in someway connected to the Enlightenment, using the lessons it taught. I note, before reading this chapter, the doctrine of ‘plain reading’ is akin to Enlightenment thinking, because there simply is no room for mystery. But I jab. Let’s see if I am proved right.

In dealing with the effects of the Enlightenment, Wright is not dismissing it  out of hand, but notes some of the abuses and some of the goals of enlightened thinkers who sought to undermine the Bible, an argument we have heard before, especially from Hume, Kant, and Spinoza. Of course, he is correct in that this trend of trying to be ‘neutral’ about biblical claims continues to today, by often very biased people, one way or the other I might add. He does note, however, that like the Reformation, the Enlightenment brought about a more historical focus on Scripture, instead of just accepting it as being read by developed lexical aids, generally developed through centuries of theological reflection. He calls to the stand John Calvin to attest to the fact that the historical sense needs to be restored, especially when those who are disaffected by historical sense wants to abandon it and simply rely upon Church Tradition. So, here, Wright, has a middle ground. I think that he knows that either way, if taken to the extreme, does grave danger to the Scriptures and to the soul. In this, he takes on ‘rationalism’ and what it does in muting the voice of the New Testament. And yes, he doesn’t care much for deconstruction either.

He also comments on the notion which came from the enlightenment that History is Dead, placing this thought process of the ‘in this day and age’ in to a new eschatology, which as Wright states, became a rival for Scripture. After all, we are modern. Everything is new. The Old has passed a way. Superstition had ceased in some way. I think I know a few bloggers who would be interested in this section, but it might endanger them as well, as seeing that the reaction against the enlightened thinkers was the literalistic fundamentalism we see around us today. Both viewpoints, in my opinion, dismiss mystery and favor and all-or-nothing model of interpretation as well as the sin of denying scholarship.

He starts talking about modern biblical scholarship and really takes us to task. I mean, no one is objective? This is an often repeated line, but I’m not sure, in my opinion, that it is impossible to be objective, or rather, at least that’s how I see it. But this allows him to tackle the issue of authority within the confines of the intellectual elite. And he gets it right – people who dismiss scholarship in favor of ‘believing the bible’ do so foolishly. He is correct to point out the many number of resources which lay ministers and non-critically trained pastors use such as lexicons and the such. Or, even, just the translation. All of these things were provided by scholars. For Wright, then, in this context, the authority of Scripture provides for continued Scholarship to make sure nothing is missed. This I can resonate with because I believe that Scripture is inspired, but our interpretations often aren’t.

And finally, on page 92-93 he gets to the connection between the Enlightenment and Fundamentalism which feeds into a section entitled “Literal” and “Non-Literal.” This section is actually a good scolding to both sides.

He spends a lot of time scolding the church in North America, especially for their use of Scripture. Good stuff, but it comes across a little arrogant, until you realize that he is right. He also doesn’t care much for ‘rationalistic Protestants’ who have helped modern biblical studies remain subjective. He also notes that often times “contradictions” imposed upon the text is actually the result of alien worldviews, such as the modernist. Now, this doesn’t mean that Scripture doesn’t have contradictions, but the modernist no doubt sees Scripture as contradicting science and the modern world. He moves later, 97, to pit Postmodernism against modernism. I’m digging it. He also takes on the variety of hermeneutics out there, which he doesn’t seem to take kindly too. He is correct that these various viewpoints help us to move modernism into a more positive role, instead of relying upon Scripture itself. Thus, postmodernity, while it values the power in the text, allows us to recreate the meaning of the text to fit our own ideologue needs. He concludes this section by saying,

Much criticism, both modern and postmodern, has thus left the church, after years of highly funded research in seminaries and colleges, less able to use the Bible in anything like the way which Jesus and the earliest Christians envisaged. (99)

And cites this as the reason for the downfall of the mainline churches. If you have been following along in this chapter, he doesn’t much care for those in the non-mainline either.

This is where he introduces the term “critical realist,” a term which has caught on.

He also takes on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Not John himself, but later interpretations of Wesley’s writings. More specifically, he takes on the motto of “scripture, reason, tradition and experience.” His analogy here is interesting and must be thought over some more.

So, in this chapter, he takes on the atheists, the Baptists and the Methodists.