i notice many Anglicans looking beyond Anglicanism for inspiration. i get that. Partly the era - a healthy cross fertilization of movements is at work.
(i did have a comment in here about my early experience of Anglicanism; schooling etc; but think it may possibly confuse the issue, so its gone. At least for now. )
Anyway, i wonder what would happen if Anglicans wrestled more with NT Wright - an Anglican theologian and bishop. Might be less need to always look elsewhere; good as the cross fertilization can be (and of course crossing these boundaries has been my story).
i've read a few of his books in last couple of years -enjoying these riches - Justification, Surprised by Hope, The Cross and the Fire, some of his articles, and some mp3s on parables, kingdom of God etc - and feel like i'm only skimming the surface.
so much richness and depth and critique and promise and hope in here
Surprised by Hope: have we misunderstood what heaven is all about? If we use the biblical, rather than the popular, images, then perhaps we have. 'Going to heaven when you die' is not the main use or focus of the term in the scripture - its not untrue, but hardly the point of most of the usage: inaugurating a new creation here and now, and exploring the fullness of what that means, what God is up to, is a better focus. Much follows on that: and it widens the dimensions of redemptive living.
Similarly in Justification he makes a compelling case for a scriptural critique and refinement of reformation doctrine; that we have extracted doctrines that are not wrong, but not as biblically based as they could be. The counter arguments - that its awfully unsettling to tinker with centuries old tradition, and it makes reading the text less transparent if we have to know something about 1st century Palestine or the whole bible, or 'look, this bit does say what we think it says' - seem less substantial than Wright's defence that he is following the original reformers' own agenda: deepening faith and practice against the bible itself; letting it be the guide, according to the best understanding that faithful scholarship can furnish.
The 16th C reformation formulations recovered much that we rightly treasure, but seems to me Wright rightly divides the places where they (and tradition) tightened the perspective into too narrow an arc; over stress certain terms and themes at the expense of underplaying others. If it turns out this can be conclusively demonstrated - and i for one think the arguments seem sound, we should let a fuller and better understanding of the text reform our categories. Not least, a fuller and more central doctrine and role of the Holy Spirit, and a stronger frame for the large scale redemptive story, across all creation.
The result is similar : we end up with all of the key doctrines intact, just reshaped in more biblical form - and surprisingly liberating to give other epistles their voice, not just Romans as the de facto base line to interpret the rest of the NT.
Of course that's potentially quite a large re-orientation: and he hardly needs a blogger pushing his work - he has some stern words for the vitriolic and unaccountable critiques that can issue from the blogosphere - but i write for my own reflection, and perhaps - hopefully - some local engagement and discussion.
The counter reaction to his work on Justification seems largely to derive from adherence to tradition: one hears comments like "don't touch this, or how i've got used to it, or how my parents and their parents saw it" (or, more generously, 'this might have some truth, but really, pastorally, don't unsettle the flock with the need for re-learning things they thought were bolted down').
Which is ironic indeed - as if protestants are now too invested in tradition (a charge they would previously have raised to catholics) to let relatively recent doctrine (16th C is still very late) be opened to fresh discussion by first-class biblical (and evangelical) scholars; to look again at the authentic 1st century usages and understanding? (I say evangelical, though part of the difficulty is his work might unsettle some of the things evangelicals thought they had all sorted out).
Perhaps we want to know all the answers already, in some prized areas, rather than risk the uncertainty of going deeper; but we might be holding something that is a little out of focus; and find there are dimensions we had truncated, which come back into focus, be restored to more biblical dimension, if are willing to let go of some of that 'certainty' and come back to the text, with all of its resonances.
Justification is not a light read, but carries the day for me in discussing this - and is itself only a summary of his more substantial work and research into Paul's use of various terms.
He's resigned as Bishop of Durham to take up full time academic study and work on Paul again, in his 60s. Admirable!
and here's a wonderful discussion of what biblical authority might really mean ...
so much to quote: the whole thing sings
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
i picked up my blogging pen to comment on that article and what i'm finding: but it will have to be the next post.
So if all his discussion and theology is Anglican, well and good -and it seems maybe we could draw more deeply upon it. If not, guess i'll need to be shown where its not biblical:)
(i know people will perhaps point me at Piper for that though; and while he has much great to say, at this point i think Wright has the better of the (courteous) disputation where they differ- the counter arguments* alluded to above are not as strong, in my view. How can a non scholar judge such things? In the last resort, by what seems most resonant with reality. It seems to me to be likely that evangelicalism has backed itself into a few corners, and the bible is bigger, and more integrally connected, in the way that his careful scholarship is unpacking. Not that i can do any more than enjoy reading and working through his texts).
I guess evangelicalism is in the DNA of many churches - and the challenge of some of his work would resound widely - and surely at home in his Anglican tradition first?
* just ran across this, after posting : its a mini summary by Wright of the differences with Piper as expressed in Justification; though the book itself obviously is a better exposition.
** and also, lest all this maybe sound like an academic orientation is needed to get to terms with his approaches, he has a whole range of materials: i've only touched some of the less heavy and more accessible - but just found the 'nt wright for everyone series' his study guides on various biblical books; more accessible still - ordered some to have a look :) . So i see that one can enter at various levels : complaining that he's too difficult might we mean jumped a step i guess - but he certainly does provide accessible ways
N. T. Wright is one of the great modern NT scholars and I heartily affirm all that you say. Too many evangelicals have confined themselves to the 'evangelical box' and are afraid to think or study outside of their rigid framework. Wright reminds us (again) that it is only the Scripture which can guide us and not our preconceived notions,irerspective of how 'biblical'we feel they are. Modern evangelicals have often stopped their thinking in the 16th century reformation or the 19th Century Evangelical Revival. Instead we need to rediscover the radical nature of the 1st Century Church when it was governed by the radical views of Jesus without our cultural overlays.
ReplyDelete