N.T. Wright is Right, Mostly

This is is one of those uncomfortable situations where I'm commenting on someone who has probably forgotten more about Biblical scholarship than I've ever known. Which is to say, I shouldn't be commenting at all about the thought of New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright. But what the heck, as in the words of one of my old professors, I'm not some big time scripture scholar worried about my reputation. I can pretty much say what I think!

Bishop Wright is a favorite of Fr. Robert Barron, and gets quoted by Catholic apologists, as wells being well respected in his own tradition. I have not read his books, but have caught a number of his lectures and interviews on You Tube, and I can see why he's so well respected. He walks that fine line of quite vigorously defending core Christian beliefs, like the bodily Resurrection, while explaining with equal vigor the subtleness and complexity of the sacred texts that defies a fundamentalist reading.

I don't have a problem with the content of his talks. There is little I've heard so far that a faithful Catholic couldn't sign off on. There was one comment about purgatory that was complimentary of more recent Catholic scholarship on the topic, while at he same time giving a gentle back of the hand to more "traditional" doctrinal formulations; small stuff in the the end.

What's nagged at me a bit is what I'm not hearing Bishop Wright say in his talks more than what he is. He correctly observes that Jews and gentiles of the first century and late antiquity looked at history, mythology and the natural sciences in a different way then we of the post-Enlightenment world. Our culture has bought into the notion that the scientific method is the only way that we can judge what is true or false (how this jibes with the current gender wars we're having, where objective physical evidence is rejected in favor of subjective dispositions I'll never know, but that's a subject for another day). Even fundamentalists see things this way without even knowing it. They tend to get caught up in the minutiae of whether the earth was created in six literal days or historicity of the Jonah story that they miss the deeper theological truth that renders such arguments somewhat useless.  But in appealing to a more nuanced approach to reading the Scriptures he appeals to the ancients and the Apostolic Church but ignores the post Apostolic Fathers of the Church, whom all understood the various senses of scripture. He gets to the right conclusions but seems to take the really long way around to avoid tipping his hat to the Catholic tradition.

I want to make clear that I don't believe Bishop Wright is anti-Catholic or anything like that. He's man of his ecclesial tradition, speaking to people, for the most part, of Christian groups that are farther removed from Rome then the Church of England, which maintains a liturgical life and claims Apostolic Succession along with the Catholics and Orthodox. Even though they are commonly referred to as being Protestant one can debate the validity of that identification: a discussion best left for another time. He's going to frame things in a way his audience understands, and in the case of Evangelicals he's already proposing a reading of the Bible which is fairly radical to many in the rank and file. The last thing he needs is come off looking like a papist.

That Bishop Wright is critical of transubstantiation as a way of explaining how Christ is present in the Eucharist, or has issues with traditional explanations of purgatory, I have no problem with. When we read thinkers of different faith traditions we shouldn't be afraid or shocked that we're going to disagree on some things, even fundamental things. But as a wise man once said, (and I paraphrase) you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own history. Bishop Wright doesn't try to rewrite history so much as gloss over it, giving the impression that somehow we're rediscovering a way of reading revelation that's been hidden since the distant past. No, the Western Church has long understood the subtlety of the ancient texts, and there is a long 2000 year history of reading the Bible on the level of metaphor and, dare I say, allegory, while recognizing the historicity of the history and the poetic nuance of the poetry, and not seeing a conflict between the two things. It strikes me that at times he's getting off at the right exit but taking a much longer route to get there so as to avoid driving in or around Rome.

That all being said, I am dust, and all I've written is as so much straw in comparison to the work of N.T. Wright. So, I whole heartedly recommend him. He's right on target when it comes to the core issues, offering invaluable insights that will help the pastor and apologist as well as the scholar, be more effective in their ministry. He's not Roman Catholic, nor should we expect him to be, so we take what is good, let the disagreements be fodder for discussion, and give thanks to God for such strong, wise voice.