 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2005 10:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | OK.
I just recently finished NT Wright's "The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of scripture"
I'm still coalescing my thoughts. And I'm trying to counteract the "J" somewhat and really ponder this stuff lots more...even though I think I'm catching the general gist pretty well.
Here are some thoughts I'm having as I'm thinking about this. These are more my thoughts on things I found in the book than a formal critique of the book. Just to let you know...
Ok...
The whole notions of "inspiration" and "authority" are both two sides of the same coin to Wright...insofar as the main intentionality. What is this main intentionality? To faciliate the change of belief and action, moving towards embodiment of the worldview in which the resurrection of Jesus has the most coherence (that is, coherence particularly for the people nearest the event who would have had to interpret that event.) For Wright, God's "words" are FOR something...and always have been. As a MEANS and END of participating in what God has been doing in the world. It's never been primarily informational, but directional. And it is taken that what God has been doing in the world is found partially consummated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
So, what this means is that the "worldview" that makes Jesus' resurrection a "vindication" in the first place (rather than just a weird event that happened for no reason!) HAS to be taken as a whole in order for the events proper interpretation. It's implicitly working from Jesus outward as it were. This much becomes very obvious throughout the book. Think about it. It won't do to assume a deistic or pantheistic framework if we are truly going to say that the Resurrection of Jesus was a "vindication" of any kind! One has to take a worldview where there is SOMETHING that needs to be vindicated, a FRAMEWORK to understand the vindication, and a PERSON doing the vindicating. And that worldview, in this case, would be a God who wants to exercise "authority/power" in a way that heals and renews the ENTIRE marred (but originally good) creation, in significant part through using human beings.
As I see it, when Wright suggests the use of "story" in talking about how the Bible fits, it seems to me that he could have used the word METANARRATIVE. I'm guessing that he wouldn't do this because of the loaded baggage this term would have from some popular ideas of postmodern deconstructivism. But some aspects of the term would fit VERY well. A metanarrative involves a story that forms an interpretive grid that can provide meaning and direction for other "stories" within...while exertig a shaping, sustaining, and constraining power over those other stories. IMHO, this is how he seems to see God's authority working through the "story" of scripture. And the church is to live as the faithful, yet always improvising last act of that story.
(There is SO MUCH MORE that can be said about this...and how it ties to other things in the book and other ideas Wright has in other things...but maybe we'll do that later!)
All this is fine, well, and good. Really. But he truly DOES leave open the question that I know most evangelicals would want to know...and the one the one reviewer already asked....(emphasis mine)
One is left to wonder how much we can enjoy the “story” of scripture if we cannot trust the words that make up that story. Wright does not address this issue and I think this is a mistake. If you are going to emphasize the story but not tell me if the words of the story can be trusted, then I think you have shown me a forest from 10,000 feet in the air and refuse to let me see it from the ground also so that I can have a greater sense of what I am looking at.
Easily, this is a significant problem. Just because I tell a story and it has great power to change ideas and shape behavior doesn't mean that any of it is TRUE (in various senses)...or that it's genuine power came from where I intended it to come. Moreover, even if the story I tell has OVERALL great "authority" over others, that doesn't mean that particular parts of the story are true or that said particular parts are supposed to be as hermeneutically "binding" as other parts. Now, let's take this to the story of the Bible. Let's say we take what I believe to be Wright's (and Doc's) implicit approach: we center on Jesus and the worldview that "makes sense" of his resurrection. This would provide us with some things. We'd be lead towards belief in an active, personal God who vindicates human beings (thus taking us out of the realm of deism or pantheism). We'd be lead towards belief in an afterlife (thus taking us out of the realm of metaphysical naturalism) And other stuff like this. We'd be lead to believe that religious experiences and texts can be used to facilitate actual divine purposes. (ie Jesus died and rose again according to the scriptures ala Paul)
BUT...
When it came to other things, things would get problematic. Did the activities of Jonah really happen? Was the Exodus (if it happened at all) VASTLY different than what was portrayed? Did God really flood the world, or even just the known world at that time? Was there a literal Adam and Eve? Even if Jesus and Paul believed such, could they have been wrong? Just because one accepts the metanarrative power of the story as a whole does NOT validate many of the particular elements of the story as being true. In fact, given the power of stories, fictional cases can be just as "authoritative" as real stories. I would use the case of Esther as an example. Most biblical scholars will tell you that there is a very good chance that Esther did not occur historically. From the New Oxford Annotated Bible...
Despite the setting and the author's familiarity with Persian customs, vocabulary, and names, Esther is not a work of history, but a historical novella, that is, a fictional story within a historical framework. It's purpose is to entertain, but also to demonstrate the inevitability of retributive justice, and paradoxically, the need for the oppressed to act shrewdly and boldly for that justice to prevail. The seemingly historical presentation also serves to legitimate the festival of Purim, which was probably a Babylonian or Persian holiday adopted by Diaspora Jews, and which was not authorized by the law of Moses.
Yes. We have a CLEAR CUT example of how powerful stories are, biblically and extrabiblically. And I'm willing to bet that Wright had Esther and other biblical works in mind when he thought of the Bible's authority in story. See, the power of the story comes through in the perceived HUMAN TRUTH that resonates in the heart as the story is read. Almost like one would find in Aesop's Fables or whatever.
But how does this shield us from a deep sense of agnosticism on some serious, pragmatic issues...especially with respect to issues in the church? we have to understand that MANY PEOPLE don't have the historical resources that Wright and Doc do with respect to belief in the resurrection, which (and I cannot overstate this enough) ABSOLUTELY GROUNDS their faith in the story as a whole. What this means is that many people who believe in the Christian story believe it because they believe that at least a sizeable majority of what the Bible claims is true. It's almost a package deal. So what happens when we have decent reason to believe that not only some of the Bible is "historical novella", but that Jesus himself, and his teachings, may have truly been, in some sense, a product of his cultural environment?? Next look at very practical issue not directly related to the veracity of the resurrection. Should gays be ordained or not? Should women be allowed to preach or not? Is teaching evolution a good thing or not? How could we adjudicate such things. Does marriage MEAN procreation? Is contraception a bad thing? Is there TRULY an "unforgivable sin" (ala Jesus)? If we cannot isolate which things uttered by the biblical writers are absolutely true, how can we speak to these issues from a strictly scriptural perspective?
Huge issues. And one's largely unaddressed by the book. What is affirmed is masterful...what is not addressed is praxeologically devastating, in my mind. He moves beyond the liberal/conservative antithesis about scripture, but doesn't really flesh out some of the implications for what using bible as "story" may really entail.
[Digression: In Wright's commentary on Romans, he says that Paul, without doubt, believed in a historical Adam and Eve situation...and uses that knowledge to speak his theological views on Christ. Christ as New Adam. He ends up dealing very awkwardly with the idea of prehominid suffering and hominid development. He even goes so far as to say that death and transitory nature DID EXIST before Adam...but in a good form. That is was the entrance of human sin that turned death for humans from merely peaceful sleep to something more insidious. It really seemed contrived, as it he were put in between a rock and hard place. Also see his articles on the problem of evil (Evil the the Justice of God, parts 1-5) on www.ntwrightpage.com. He ends up taking the Christus Victor motif as being the central theme...but only vaguely talks about the implications of what that means cosmologically. If he were to be more consistent, he'd end up going with something near the SATPOE view. But then we'd be faced with the absurdities that THAT view provides, ie. that the 2nd law of thermodyamics is essential demonic and millions of years of evolutionary development have been perverted SYSTEMICALLY in a demonic way to bring about carnivorousness, viruses, and such! Oy vay.]
Wow. This was SUPPOSED to be short. But I kept writing. Oh well.Post Edited (MephEternal) : 12/16/2005 10:04:32 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2005 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey, I'd appreciate YOUR thoughts on the book too. It's good to get different perspectives here!
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/16/2005 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: Let's say we take what I believe to be Wright's (and Doc's) implicit approach: we center on Jesus and the worldview that "makes sense" of his resurrection. This would provide us with some things. We'd be lead towards belief in an active, personal God who vindicates human beings (thus taking us out of the realm of deism or pantheism). We'd be lead towards belief in an afterlife (thus taking us out of the realm of metaphysical naturalism) And other stuff like this. We'd be lead to believe that religious experiences and texts can be used to facilitate actual divine purposes. (ie Jesus died and rose again according to the scriptures ala Paul)
Jeff: This is where I disagree with the idea of what the ressurection would mean to a non-Jew. It think it is NATURAL for humans to believe that 1) God is a personal being who vindicates human beings and 2) there is an afterlife of some kind. So I'm thinking that the ressurection would be an event that cried out for interpretation, GIVEN THOSE NATURAL BELIEFS.
But how would a gentile of that day interpret the ressurection in terms of God's kingdom and a promised Messiah unless he was conversant with the OT and thought it at least remotely credible? They interpreted the miraculous signs of the apostles as evidence of their deity. Why? Because that was the cultural frame of reference that they had. So why would they have interpreted the ressurection to be anything like the Jewish interpretation? It seems to me they would have interpreted it completely different than the Jews, precisely BECAUSE of their different existing world-view which already allowed for a kind of supernatural.
So I'm thinking that the only way we can see the ressurection aright is to understand it's TIES, both historical and prophetic, to the OT. But that's why I think the plausibility of the attested MEANING of Christ's ressurection is proportional to the plausibility of the OT in the first place.
To the extent that we tend to see the ressurection as important, independent of it's TIES to the OT, it is because we live in a culture that REJECTS the ressurection on NATURALISTIC OR DEISTIC GROUNDS. To the extent that we come to see the ressurection as probable, it AUTOMATICALLY seems to mean what we've always heard it means. Because our CULTURE has only given us that ONE INTERPRETATION. So our culture tends to think that either Christianity is true, or naturalism/deism is true. Hence, RESSURECTION implies CHRISTIANITY to us. But our world-view options are WAY more limited than those of the Roman empire, with it's myriad of religious ideas.
I guess I'm wondering to just what extent our culture biases us towards a certain MEANING of the ressurection.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/16/2005 8:58:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/17/2005 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: This is where I disagree with the idea of what the ressurection would mean to a non-Jew. It think it is NATURAL for humans to believe that 1) God is a personal being who vindicates human beings and 2) there is an afterlife of some kind. So I'm thinking that the ressurection would be an event that cried out for interpretation, GIVEN THOSE NATURAL BELIEFS.
But how would a gentile of that day interpret the ressurection in terms of God's kingdom and a promised Messiah unless he was conversant with the OT and thought it at least remotely credible? They interpreted the miraculous signs of the apostles as evidence of their deity. Why? Because that was the cultural frame of reference that they had. So why would they have interpreted the ressurection to be anything like the Jewish interpretation? It seems to me they would have interpreted it completely different than the Jews, precisely BECAUSE of their different existing world-view which already allowed for a kind of supernatural.
So I'm thinking that the only way we can see the ressurection aright is to understand it's TIES, both historical and prophetic, to the OT. But that's why I think the plausibility of the attested MEANING of Christ's ressurection is proportional to the plausibility of the OT in the first place.
Tom: Yes, yes. yes. yes! It doesn't demand that the OT is 100% absolutely accurate in every claim (historical, scientific, etc.) it makes. But it certainly attests to its unique divine characteristic. But again, it's the HISTORY itself, the actual events (calling of Abraham, election of Isaac, history of Israel, Exodus, conquent, prophetic tradition) in which this uniquely divine activity is found. It's only "in the book" because the events that reveal God, that shape Israel, that prophesy the future, are recorded in the book.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/17/2005 9:29:55 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2005 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: This is where I disagree with the idea of what the ressurection would mean to a non-Jew. It think it is NATURAL for humans to believe that 1) God is a personal being who vindicates human beings and 2) there is an afterlife of some kind. So I'm thinking that the ressurection would be an event that cried out for interpretation, GIVEN THOSE NATURAL BELIEFS.
But how would a gentile of that day interpret the ressurection in terms of God's kingdom and a promised Messiah unless he was conversant with the OT and thought it at least remotely credible? They interpreted the miraculous signs of the apostles as evidence of their deity. Why? Because that was the cultural frame of reference that they had. So why would they have interpreted the ressurection to be anything like the Jewish interpretation? It seems to me they would have interpreted it completely different than the Jews, precisely BECAUSE of their different existing world-view which already allowed for a kind of supernatural.
So I'm thinking that the only way we can see the ressurection aright is to understand it's TIES, both historical and prophetic, to the OT. But that's why I think the plausibility of the attested MEANING of Christ's ressurection is proportional to the plausibility of the OT in the first place.
Tom: Yes, yes. yes. yes! It doesn't demand that the OT is 100% absolutely accurate in every claim (historical, scientific, etc.) it makes. But it certainly attests to its unique divine characteristic. But again, it's the HISTORY itself, the actual events (calling of Abraham, election of Isaac, history of Israel, Exodus, conquest, prophetic tradition) in which this uniquely divine activity is found. It's only "in the book" because the events that reveal God, that shape Israel, that prophesy the future, are recorded in the book.
What can be said is that the STORYLINE is uniquely arranged by God. It could very well be the case that Moses did NOT write the first 5 books of the Bible and that neither the Exodus nor the Conquest happened just as the text states...but the fact of the matter is that these events would be a part of Jesus' self-understanding and that of his immediate audience. And THAT is the main thing that matters, Christianly speaking.
Would you agree with this?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/17/2005 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Mehpi: What can be said is that the STORYLINE is uniquely arranged by God. It could very well be the case that Moses did NOT write the first 5 books of the Bible...
Tom: Does the Bible anywhere claim Moses actually wrote these books? They're losely spoke of a Mosaic in origin in the NT (in phrases like "They have Moses and the Prophets...") but that's a claim of origin and influence, not authorship.
Mephi: ...and that neither the Exodus nor the Conquest happened just as the text states.
Tom: Give me ANY hard, historical, FACTS that are incompatible with Esther's being historical, or the Exodus happening as described.
You do this, Mephi. Really. Hear me out. You argue from silence, a lot. You earlier quoted somebody on Esther. But there was not a shred of evidence anyhwere that supported the claim that Esther could not be historical. All it amounted to was some liberal theologian pontificating in a low voice "Obviously Esther is not historical." Oh really? WHY? I emplore you, make your case for the non-historicity of Esther...or drop it. The same for the Exodus. If you have some hard evidence, let's have it. If not, then stick with what you say your default assumption is: the Bible is truthful.
You have silence, yes. You have "God" not mentioned in Esther. And we have not a single archaeological remnant (no candy wrappers, lute strings, or pieces of golden calfs) in the Negev. To offer this argument from silence as hard evidence for why we should dismiss the biblical account as unhistorical is irrresponsible...I think.
Mephi: ...but the fact of the matter is that these events would be a part of Jesus' self-understanding and that of his immediate audience. And THAT is the main thing that matters, Christianly speaking.
Tom: And so we are brought back to Jeff's question. The resurrection as vindicatin cannot be separated from Jesus' self-understanding in terms of OT history.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/17/2005 11:07:13 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2005 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Give me ANY hard, historical, FACTS that are incompatible with Esther's being historical, or the Exodus happening as described.
You do this, Mephi. Really. Hear me out. You argue from silence, a lot. You earlier quoted somebody on Esther. But there was not a shred of evidence anyhwere that supported the claim that Esther could not be historical. All it amounted to was some liberal theologian pontificating in a low voice "Obviously Esther is not historical." Oh really? WHY? I emplore you, make your case for the non-historicity of Esther...or drop it. The same for the Exodus. If you have some hard evidence, let's have it. If not, then stick with what you say your default assumption is: the Bible is truthful.
You have silence, yes. You have "God" not mentioned in Esther. And we have not a single archaeological remnant (no candy wrappers, lute strings, or pieces of golden calfs) in the Negev. To offer this argument from silence as hard evidence for why we should dismiss the biblical account as unhistorical is irrresponsible...I think.
Hmmm...
First, I'd like it if you would separate the logical fallacy of "argument from silence" from the more historiographical idea of saying that lack of archaeological (or other) evidence for a clearly made claim can be warrant for disbelieving said claim. I do believe that this is an important separation. And the whole "absence of evidence necessarily equals evidence of absence" line of thought is NOT my bag.
Second, I'd like for you to notice what I've said. I didn't say that the Exodus or the Conquest DIDN'T OCCUR. I said that it's very possible that they didn't occur just as the biblical testimony says. There is a difference. Regarding Esther, if you choose, you can look at the different lines of evidence yourself and make your own conclusions. I've made mine.
Since we're cool and erything, I'll let this tone of yours go. We're both frustrated theologians just trying to make it through another trying time with our minds and hearts.
Later,
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/18/2005 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Corey, I'd appreciate YOUR thoughts on the book too. It's good to get different perspectives here! I'd like to know my thoughts on this as well! I haven't had time to finish the book yet (How'd you DO that so fast!?)
Quickly, a couple thoughts: I'm pretty sure Wright does indeed use the language of "METANARRATIVE", at least in some of the lectures I've listened to. One example I recall is the metanarrative of the Cold War. It was the back drop of much of the 20th century, and thus provided meaning to our experience at a number of levels.
My INTPness works this way: I lead with an intuition, check it with reason, still doubt my conclusions, and generally am not very verbose about it. So you'll see that pattern as I attempt to proceed.
My intuition tells me that there's something right about Wright. Specifically, his emphasis on understanding the general shape of things as prerequisite to dealing with any specific issue seems simple and profound, and often neglected. I LOVE his christocentric approach; something in my soul sings as he exhorts us start with Christ. Any doctrinal position ought to be evaluated in terms of the broader story of what God's up to in the world. The Forest gives meaning to the Trees.
Still, my internal skeptic nags at me. How can we know the lay of forest when we're stuck down here at ground level? All we can see is trees. Isn't Wright's approach too ambiguous to be meaningful at a practical level? There's something that feels a bit circular here.
I'm going to have to just soak on this a while longer to better understand and articulate my thoughts.
That's all for now.
Corey | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2005 10:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Take your time, Corey! Be blessed, man!
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 12/26/2005 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi said...
One is left to wonder how much we can enjoy the “story” of scripture if we cannot trust the words that make up that story. Wright does not address this issue and I think this is a mistake. If you are going to emphasize the story but not tell me if the words of the story can be trusted, then I think you have shown me a forest from 10,000 feet in the air and refuse to let me see it from the ground also so that I can have a greater sense of what I am looking at.
When it came to other things, things would get problematic. Did the activities of Jonah really happen? Was the Exodus (if it happened at all) VASTLY different than what was portrayed? Did God really flood the world, or even just the known world at that time? Was there a literal Adam and Eve? Even if Jesus and Paul believed such, could they have been wrong? Just because one accepts the metanarrative power of the story as a whole does NOT validate many of the particular elements of the story as being true. In fact, given the power of stories, fictional cases can be just as "authoritative" as real stories. I would use the case of Esther as an example. Most biblical scholars will tell you that there is a very good chance that Esther did not occur historically. From the New Oxford Annotated Bible...
Not entirely with you there Mephi - what if one was to affirm the large Metanarrative and say that the details whilst not necessarily totally historically accurate nevertheless give a true picture of what life was like at each stage of that narrative? I think there are ways of keeping the big picture whilst not really worrying too much about the details
Mephi said...[Digression: In Wright's commentary on Romans, he says that Paul, without doubt, believed in a historical Adam and Eve situation...and uses that knowledge to speak his theological views on Christ. Christ as New Adam. He ends up dealing very awkwardly with the idea of prehominid suffering and hominid development. He even goes so far as to say that death and transitory nature DID EXIST before Adam...but in a good form. That is was the entrance of human sin that turned death for humans from merely peaceful sleep to something more insidious. It really seemed contrived, as it he were put in between a rock and hard place. Also see his articles on the problem of evil (Evil the the Justice of God, parts 1-5) on www.ntwrightpage.com. He ends up taking the Christus Victor motif as being the central theme...but only vaguely talks about the implications of what that means cosmologically. If he were to be more consistent, he'd end up going with something near the SATPOE view. But then we'd be faced with the absurdities that THAT view provides, ie. that the 2nd law of thermodyamics is essential demonic and millions of years of evolutionary development have been perverted SYSTEMICALLY in a demonic way to bring about carnivorousness, viruses, and such! Oy vay.]
Interesting - I looked at one of his commentaries and what it said about Adam and Eve - there he said that Paul certainly believed this was stuff that happened but didn't seek to enquire precicely what events it referred to and neither should we. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|