N.T. Wright on Understanding Biblical Authority

N.T. Wright is a New Testament scholar that we have made mention of in Precipice on numerous occasions. This is probably no surprise as N.T. (Tom) Wright, the Bishop of Durham, is one of the most popular and most referenced New Testament scholars amongst the entire Emerging Christianity movement.

From my perspective, Wright's popularity is tied to two things. Number one- he is an excellent scholar. For many, he is the foremost scholar in the field today. Meaning he understands the academic discipline and excels at it.

Secondly, Wright is passionate about his faith. He loves Jesus and truly believes that the message proclaimed in the gospels is the one that can bring peace and harmony, not just to individual souls, but also to the entire created order.

Unlike skeptics who frequently claim the opposite, from Wright's perspective, his Christian worldview makes him better able to enter the academic discipline of New Testament studies- and vice versa.

As I heard Anne Rice (a huge fan of Tom Wright's) make mention of recently, it is the skeptical scholars (read: unbelievers) who seem to make hasty conclusions based on peculiar assumptions grounded in scant scholarly evidence.

I recently became aware of an article/lecture that N.T. Wright wrote in 1989 that tackles the issue of Biblical authority. The article is an excellent read because it shows that, in truth, many Evangelical perspectives on biblical authority expect not too much, but too little of the Scriptures. However, in this case, expecting more does not mean forcing the Bible into an even-tighter cookie-cutter framework, as has often been the Evangelical tendency to do.

Rather, as Wright argues, we should ask ourselves how we are to understand "authority" considering that God inspired the Bible using, above all other genres, the tool of narrative. In what sense can a story (regardless of whether or not it is true) be understood as authoritative?

Wright makes the point that we have things upside down. We claim the Bible is authoritative, based on our (unbiblical) assumptions about what authority is, and then try and force the Bible to be the kind of book it clearly is not. Namely, it is not a systematic theology textbook, nor (for the most part) a book of proverbs.

If God did indeed inspire the writing of the Scriptures (and most of us assume He did- to one degree or another, though "inspiration" is a tricky topic in itself) then why did he place such a high degree of emphasis on narrative, I.E.- storytelling? What does this say about how God communicates? What does this say of the co-operative nature of his relationship with human beings? After all, these are stories about both God and His people.

For people struggling with how to understand the complicated issue of biblical authority, N.T. Wright's piece, How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? is a great place to start. If nothing else, it will get you asking the kinds of questions that will stretch (if not re-define) many traditional Evangelical viewpoints.

At the end of the day one is struck by Wright's perspective not just because it is sound scholarship, but also because it is sound discipleship. After all, as Wright reminds us, all authority lies ultimately with God, not with the Scriptures. And that being said, we would do well to consider how the Artist Himself plies his craft (primarily through storytelling) before we go about constructing a theory as to how to understand the Artist's work. To do otherwise, as we have so often done, is very much like putting the cart before the horse.





Endangered Voices in America

For quite some time now I've been a real fan of Jimmy Carter. I guess you could say he's by far and away my favorite ex-president; or ex-politician of any vein for that matter. Overall, I think he is a tremendous witness for Christ. And Carter's reputation only soared ever since he left the White House. I applaud his work in international peace-keeping and diplomacy, as well as his efforts with the fair-trade movement and Habitat for Humanity, among other causes he and his wife have committed themselves to over the years.

Over the last week I've finally had the chance to get around to reading Carter's most recent book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis. The book is exactly what I would expect from Carter. It is well written and to the point- and makes use of a great deal of personal historical reflection from Carter's decades of political and "religious" experience.

This particular book is written very much for the times we presently live in. Carter hits on a host of issues related in large regard to the direction the Republican Party has taken America over the last decade or so. Not only does Carter express his concern over "hot button" issues such as terrorism, the separation of Church and State, per-emptive war, homosexual unions, the environment, and so on, but he also paints a picture of the historical factors that lead up to the current state of affairs in Washington.

Carter recalls noticing, even as early as the latter 1970's, that a movement of very conservative Christians was beginning to apply pressure in political circles. In one very interesting moment, which Carter has made reference to in other books of his as well, Carter recalls a day when the president of the Southern Baptist Convention came to visit him while he was president. At the end of a seemingly amicable meeting this man turned to Carter (who was a Baptist at the time remember) and said, "Mr. President, we are praying that you will abandon Secular Humanism as your religion". Needless to say, a very "born-again" Carter was shocked by such a sentiment.

From that point on Carter began noticing the political and religious tide in America beginning to turn. And that momentum eventually led us to where we are today; where the Republican Party is, to many people, not much more than the political extension of the Religious Right. Carter, like many of us, is frustrated by how this movement has turned "Christian values" into a discussion of two or three "trigger" issues- at the exclusion of many other issues that seemingly should be just as, if not more, important.

In my mind Carter's is a much needed voice in the current political wilderness of Washington- and America in general. If nothing else, it is vital that a person of his caliber and reputation point out to the average American (many of whom love Jesus) that the expression of discipleship is not as one-dimensional as some would like us all to believe. Alternatives are a welcome thing in this day and age.

I'm certainly not saying that the Democrats have it right and the Republicans have it wrong. Please don't think that. What I am saying is that we need to broaden our horizons and actually encourage more frank discussion of what Christian faith, expressed in a 21st century western democracy, really looks like. New paths are seldom forged when voices are silenced by an oppressive status-quo. And at this point in American history, it seems to me that new paths are definitely what we need to explore.


On the Brink of WWIII?

For the first time since the Cold War ended in the late 1980's/early 1990's, we're beginning to hear the term World War 3 being used by media and political analysts alike. In some ways this seems an apt description of the potential result of the escalating hysteria of the past several years.

With the radical, Islamic terrorist movement now almost randomly placed around the globe, you've got only loosely connected terrorist "cells", belonging to no central nation state specifically, united only under the umbrella of a twisted ideology, now declaring all out war on "the infidels" of "the West"; a term largely referring to anyone and any group not subscribing to this radical ideology.

Mixed up in all of this is the Israeli dilemma; a country nestled among a community of Islamic nations who would very much like to, as the leader of Iran has recently publicly stated, "wipe them off the face of the earth." Perhaps Israel would long ago have suffered this fate if it were not for the almost unfailing aid of the world's only superpower. But these alliances (on both sides of the proverbial fence) often only serve to escalate the situation further.

Add to this cauldron of calamity the fact that the Incan gold of our era; the thick, black fossil fuel we commonly refer to as oil, just so happens to be largely buried deep within the war-torn soil of this Middle East region, and you've got what one might refer to as a ticking time bomb on your hands.

For many an Evangelical, all of this drama only serves to show that the long foretold prophecies of the Bible are coming into being. As the general interpretation goes, this final act began with the reconstitution of Israel as a nation state in 1947, and will rise to a global conflict where the anti-Christ figure is front and center. And then the end shall come.

However, I personally think we need to be very careful about how we proceed with such interpretations.

For one, prophecy has always worked itself out in ways that often confounded the conventional wisdom of the day. Jesus as the coming Messiah is a prime example. He was NOT the military, political figure everyone was expecting. So we should be very cautious about our own ability to really "see" what God is doing.

Secondly, and I think, just as importantly, the "trick" with prophecy is not turn it into a "self-fulfilling" endeavor. In other words, we need to be careful, not only to avoid sitting idly by and watching what we assume is the rolling out of an inevitable result, but we also need to be careful not to unwittingly help bring about that result as a result of our pre-existing bias. Your lens can be your motivation and vice versa.

Remember what Marshall McLewan said: "the medium is the message."

What does that mean for our common interpretation of "the End Times"? And what might an alternative to "sitting around and waiting out the inevitable" look like? Throughout this process our actions should trump our words. We would do well to remember that Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers", not blessed are the "prophecy-predictors".

What does a Christian counter-culture look like on what some are now referring to as the brink of WWIII? Can we find ways to turn the proverbial cheek in a global environment as enflamed as the once we currently exist within?

If we could, it seems to me that might be the kind of "radical" ideology actually worth dying for. Don't you think?





Searching for the Hollywood Jesus

Apparently the buzz about the new Superman movie is that there are some pretty prominant Christian themes mixed into the plot. Whereas the earlier set of Superman movies, starring Christopher Reeves, focused on the character's human, relatable qualities, this time around Superman is painted as an otherworldy god- of sorts. Sent by his father to save the earth... etc, etc... This is sounding vaguely familiar.

Anyway, many are wondering about Hollywood's new fascination with making Christian-themed movies. What I find perplexing is how people see this as being motivated by anything les, or more than, money. Mel Gibson could not find a distributor for his the Passion of the Christ movie when he first went looking. He had to risk much of his own money on the venture because Hollywood wouldn't touch it. At least, not until it became the biggest blockbuster in years. Since then the Christian themed movie is the new golden goose in Hollywood. And as a result, we've seen a shift in a few of the movies they are setting out to make.

Even despite this recent trend, many people still accuse Hollywood of the shameless promotion of leftist ideals. To some extent I can see the point. But a movie like Superman, or the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe goes to show that, above all else, Hollywood is paying homage to the mighty greenback, not to liberal ideals.

The reason why Hollywood makes so many "left-leaning" films is that people, even fairly conservative people, often end up attending these movies, merely because they are titillated by the way these films "push the envelope".

People ask why Hollywood doesn't make more movies chalk full of conservative values. Well, this new Superman movie, as well as The Passion of the Christ, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and such just go to show that, if you will pay them for it, they will make the movies you want them to.

I think what more Evangelicals need to do is look themselves in the mirror and come clean about the kinds of movies they are actually (with their dollars) "lobbying" Hollywood to make. If Evangelicals have enough clout to elect a president, then certainly they have enough clout to get movies made. I'm not trying to liberate Hollywood of all culpability; far from it. But I am saying that the culture is us, and we are the culture. Where are these box office sales coming from?





Ground Rules in Dialogue (Or the Lack Thereof):

It was only eight weeks ago or so that I first published my interview with Brian McLaren. Since then I've had plenty of feedback- the vast majority of it positive. People seem to be genuinely inspired not only by McLaren's ideas, but also with his humble approach in sharing those ideas. I heard it put well somewhere out on the blogoshere. This particular blogger said of McLaren that he is not only the smartest lay theologian he knows, but also "the nicest guy" as well. That is great praise indeed.


That "niceness" certainly runs against the grain when it comes to theological dialogue. For far too long now, certain schools of thought have assumed that the more venomous one could be in one's theological defense, the more points one scored with one's tradition- and perhaps even with God. As Brian McLaren says in the interview:

"Many of the harshest critics come from fundamentalist religious traditions where hot and inaccurate rhetoric is acceptable whenever doctrinal matters are in play. That's just the way certain kinds of fundamentalists do business, and they have done so for centuries - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, whatever. They've been trained in it, almost as a form of discipleship. They may even enjoy it, like an art form or sport. And they feel they are serving God when they do it, so it gets passed on from generation to generation."

Then, ever generous, Brian finishes of the point with grace, saying, "You can't blame people for this, since it's almost instinctual."

Getting back to the feedback I've read about the interview, when I venture outside of the Precipice feedback, and out into the land of the SERPs (code for the search engine page results) I find a very different sort of reaction. Several of the first few responses I read about the interview are posted on what you might call anti-Emergent sites. These sites portray Brian with labels as bizarre as "a New-Ager coming out of the closet". One particular site was really over the top. Next to a link to the interview was an image of Darth Vader. You can gather from that alone that the connotations were not pleasant.

What I find most perplexing is that these critics of all things "Emergent" seem to fall into the very same trap that they set for McLaren. One of their major frustrations with McLaren is his tendency to avoid speaking directly to certain questions (usually questions he finds unhelpful or unfairly "loaded"). These critics argue that McLaren needs to be more specific and less ambiguous about certain topics.

But in their critique of him, they resort to vague accusations and unflattering associations. They spend precious little time and ink (virtual or otherwise) actually identifying what it is they are railing against. I read comments such as "Brian McLaren describes a path that is not in alignment with historic Christianity." Okay, if so- could you please identify the elements to which you only loosely refer? What aspects of McLaren's theology do you differ with? And please specify how this differs from what you deem "historic Christianity". Historic Christianity is certainly more difficult to pin down than many of these critics seem to imply. But either way, it certainly dates back prior to the Protestant Reformation.

At one point, not so long ago actually, this kind of criticism would have really gotten to me. It's just so un-Christlike, so un-gracious, so inaccurate, so one-dimensional, so much like "theo-spin". But times have changed. And so too have my reactions. I have come to realize that concepts such as accuracy, fairness, and graciousness, are just not the kind of attributes that some religious commentators find worthy. And when that's the case- it's difficult to find a common ideal to call them to. There are few bridges to cross that ocean of misunderstanding.

In times such as this, I think all we can do is move forward, choosing not to respond tit for tat with this kind of commentary; trusting that in time, the fruit will speak for itself. After all, one can debate the richness and juciness of a "pure Florida orange" until the cows come home. But nothing makes the point like that song sung on the tastebuds.




Current from: May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005