all,

it seems that N.T. Wright is being brought up a lot on both of these 2 threads about narrative theology/post-liberalism. the perplexing thing in my mind is he is being brought up both to show examples of this type of thinking and as an example of what this type of thinking critiques. what is N.T. Wright's relationship to this subject, i.e. has he written extensively on it or what? and is he against it, for it, or somewhere in between. if for, why? if against, why? if in between, precisely where in between and why?


bryan said...


Ron
Wright is an Anglican Bishop and identifies with the reformed branch of the church, though many in the Reformed camp want to disown him because of his view on imputed righteousness (not the classical reformed or arminian view). I have never read anything by him that promotes determinism or a view of reality that is not congruent with how the OV views reality. He just doesn't talk or write about things the OV view as errors of Calvinism. I'm open to correction on this, I've read most of his major works and haven't notice anything, I, as an OVer would object to. He has written a couple of snips commenting about those who are worshipping the principle of uncertainty but that is a danger we all have to be aware of as we become familiar with quantum theory (it can be so enticing along with LFW as a key to human potential).

Neither he nor the post-liberals I have read (Hays, Martyn, Hauerwas) undermine the authority of the bible but how they interprete scripture may be viewed by others not willing to try on the historical, Judaic lens, in the exercise of bible interpretation, as an alien movement. His interpretation of "the righteousness of God" is ground breaking in my view. The best presentaton of this is his commentary on Romans in "The New Interpreters Bible" (the most readable, enlightened commentary for pastors and students on Romans I have read).

Wright uses narrative interpretative techniques in bible interpretation as does Hays who's "Echos of scripture in the Letters of Paul" is widely read by scholars. Greg references Hays in S & P O E. Wright has embraced the "faith of Christ" (subjective genitive) instead of "faith in Christ" (objective genitive) as Shane posted under "Harink's argues (1) example", which if studied in depth, can thrust one into an adjusted view of the gospel. The argument is that it is the understanding the Judaic mind had of faith and of course what Paul meant when he wrote. He does mention the errors of proof text preaching many times and does not think hitting people with doctrines gets the story of God across. This is where narrative theology comes in. You might call it, telling the story, the whole story of God, which many times calls people to a response of "I see what it is all about now" and get up and confess allegiance to God in Christ. Hope that helps a little with whether or not you would want to pursue further reading of these contemporary theologians or answers some of your questions.

Peace
Ron

Post Edited (rsirkel) : 6/10/2005 10:05:48 PM (GMT-5)

OK, so I'm having a bit of a read of The Post Evangelical by Dave Tomlinson. Are Post-liberalism and Post-evangelicalism basically the same thing? said...


Ron
No it isn't. I read a review of the above mentioned book and it seems to me The Post Evangelical is about changes is how Christianity is lived in our present culture, more like the emerging church movement. Whereas those who are called post-liberals are concerned first, not with being dissatisfied with present day Evangelicals, but with the texts of accepted canon and other ancient writings and what they mean. What they meant to the recepients, how they were illuminated and rewritten in the new testament, and how they can be understood under the illumination of the Holy Spirit in succeding generations. All the same story of God and His covenant faithfulness culminating in the Messiah and obedience in hope of the final regeneration.

As Shane mentioned earlier, people tend to operate seeing through the lens they have been given in life from authority figures and I am seeing from my perspective (a post-modern observation ) but in my view when the story is explained so that it makes sense and the plan and purpose of God is seen from the story (the bible, both so called testaments) it tends to persuade. Then you do have an objective gospel to preach with the help of the Holy Ghost in every generation.

Peace
Ron

PS Of course some of the post-liberals have written focusing on social concerns, poverty, class, ect. so what you have read would sway ones classification, I would think. The fruit of seeing the purpose of God in His story would be, not waiting to be rescued by going to heaven, but that the new creation has begun with the resurrection of Jesus and an obedience in co-laboring with God now, in calling people into a covenant relationship, whether by good works or preaching. So I can see a theologian as being seen as a social activists for well being of the poor, sick, and bondaged humanity when theology is put into practice.

Post Edited (rsirkel) : 6/11/2005 9:25:48 AM (GMT-5)