Month: May 2009

The reason why stories come into conflict with each other is that worldviews, and the stories which characterize them, are in principle NORMATIVE: that is, they claim to make sense of the whole of reality.

Even the relativist, who believes that everybody’s point of view on everything is equally valid even though apparently incompatible, is obedient to an underlying story about reality which comes into explicit conflict with most other stories, which speak of reality as in the last analysis a seamless web, open in principle to experience, observation and discussion.

It is ironic that many people in the modern world have regarded Christianity as a private worldview, a set of private stories. Some Christians have actually played right into this trap. But in principle the whole point of Christianity is that it offers a story which is the story of the whole world. It is PUBLIC truth. Otherwise it collapses into some version of Gnosticism.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.42

That’s what is interesting about a story. It doesn’t aim to explain any one thing in particular and so it indirectly claims to explain everything (at least a little bit)!

If you say, “The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead”, that’s a true statement, but just about one thing.

When you say, “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.” (Acts 4:13) – you’re saying a lot more.

It’s placed in history and has all kinds of implications about what the holy spirit is, what he does, what happened to some of the people, how the people who heard them were struck. It doesn’t carry quite the raw truth of the first statement (the proposition), but it reaches deeper into our lives.

As far as private versus public faith, Leithart often emphasizes the same:

In the New Testament, we do not find an essentially private gospel being applied to the public sphere, as if the public implications of the gospel were a second story built on the private ground floor. The gospel IS the announcement of the Father’s formation, through His Son and the Spirit, of a new city – the city of God.

-Peter Leithart, Against Christianity, Ch.1, Sec.3

Speaking of people in and around Israel at the time of Christ:

They told stories wich embodied, exemplified and so reinforced their worldview, and in so doing threw down a particularly subversive challenge to alternative worldviews.

Those who wished to encourage their fellow-Jews to think differentl told the same stories, but with a twist in the tail. [See the form of many of Jesus’ parables!]

The Essenes told a story about the secret beginning of the new covenant; Josephus, a story about Israel’s god going over to the Romans; Jesus, a story about vineyard-tenants whose infidelity would cause the death of the owner’s son and their own expulsion; the early Christians, stories about the kingdom of god and its inauguration through Jesus.

But one thing they never did. They never expressed a wolrdview in which the god in question was uninterested in, or uninvolved with, the created world in general, or the historical fortunes of his people in particular.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.41

Reading Owen Barfield explain poetry was a pretty heavy task. I’ll have to return to it sometime and put more sweat into it. Sometimes what you really need to explain something is a metaphor. Even if the thing your explaining IS metaphor!

Stories, in having this [subversive belief changing] effect, function as complex metaphors.

Metaphor consists in bringing two sets of ideas close together, close enough for a spark to jump, but not too close, so that the spark, in jumping, illuminates for a moment the whole area around, changing perceptions as it does so.

Even so, the subversive story comes close enough to the story already believed by the hearer for a spark to jump between them; and nothing will ever be quite the same again.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.40 (Footnotes say the metaphor illustration comes from Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor)

Photo credit

I’m really loving N.T Wrights introduction section to his “big” books. He gives concise explanations of all the tools needed to read what’s coming up next. In many of these areas I’m severely lacking in familiarity. It’s worth noting simply for how straightforward the explanations and examples are.

Here, he explains how narrative epistemology does such a better job of explaining why people believe what they do than all kinds propositional frameworks:

When we examine how stories work in relation to other stories, we find that human beings tell stories because this is how we perceive, and indeed relate to, the world. What we see close up, in a multitude of little incidents whether isolated or (more likely) interrelated, we make sense of by drawing on story-forms already more or less known to us and placing the information wthin them. A astory, with its pattern of problem and conflict, of aborted attempts at resolution, and final result, whether sad or glad, is, if we may infer from the common practice of the world, universally perceived as the best way of talking about the way the world ACTUALLY is. Good stories assume that the world is a place of conflict ad resolution, whether comic or tragic. They select and arrange material accordingly. And, as we suggested before, stories can embody or reinforce, or perhaps modify, the worldviews to which they relate.

Stories are, actually, peculiarly good at modifying or subverting other stories and their worldviews. Where head-on attack would certainly fail, the parable hides the wisdom of the serpent behind the innocence of the dove, gaining entrance and favour whic can then be used to change assumptions which the hearer would otherwise keep hidden away for safety.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.40

He goes on to use the story of Nathan confronting King David about his adultery as an example:

Nathan tells David a story about a rich man, a poor man, and a little lamb; David is enraged; and Nathan springs the trap. Tell someone to do something, and you change their life – for a day; tell someone a story and you change their life.

It reminds me of a quote about beauty also being subversive:

The church is realizing that there is an awareness of God sleeping in the basement of the postmodern imagination and they have to awaken it. The arts can do this. All beauty is subversive; it flies under the radar of people’s critical filters and points them to God. As a friend of mine says, “When the front door of the intellect is shut, the back door of the imagination is open.”

-Ian Morgan Cron, Chasing Francis

I think beauty and things like art and music are even MORE subversive than story though.

Catechism may give you all the right answers to recite, but at the end of the day the story you see played out by people you know and things you’ve heard about do much more to shape your real beliefs.

Here, still in the introduction, Wright warns against the notion that the Bible is only useful when you’ve boiled it down to “timeless truths” and theology that can be applied to any context and situation.

Such a “timeless theology” is then the real object of the historical quest. If and when we discover what the beliefs of the New Testament writers were, we can, like theological archaeologists, unearth the essential substructure of Christianity in order to carry it off and display it elsewhere, making it available for all generations in some kind of museum. ‘Theology’ then becomes the ‘real’ thing that the New Testament is ‘about’, the real fruit that emerges when the outer skin of historical circumstance is peeled away. This is often states in terms of some aspects being ‘timelessly true’ and others being ‘culturally conditioned’.

The problem with this programme is that the skin does not peel away so cleanly. It is very difficult to produce a ‘theology’ from the New Testament that is couched in ‘timeless’ categories, and if we succeed in doing so we may justifiably suspect that quite a lot of the fruit has been thrown away, still sticking to the discarded skin.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.20

All of the New Testament is ‘culturally conditioned’: if that were to disqualify an idea or a theme from attaining ‘relevance’ to other periods or cultures, the New Testament as a whole is disqualified.

This approach may work decently with a book like Romans, but really fall apart with something like I Corinthians, where the specific audience was foremost in the writer’s mind. Again, genre matters.

The idea that history isn’t tainted by the one writing it is completely silly. Even if he is honestly going out of his way to avoid pouring in his own ideology, it cannot be escaped. The language he knows and uses, his own depth or breadth of education, all of these things affect what chooses to get put down or not. Or even unconsciously chooses what he notices or not when reading an old document, or even digging up bones.

Shift sideways to theology for a sec: Incidentally, while pausing for a moment in the middle of writing this, I saw a good post at the Mockingbird blog (run by some hip Lutherans), about the absurdity of taking the moral high ground by claiming to have no religious beliefs at all. Ya see it all the time though folks.

The idea of objective JOURNALISM is even more silly, though unedited video perhaps has some potential. Wilson’s post on how the future of journalism lies in being openly partisan is really worth taking a look at.

Here, N.T. Wright addresses the subject. Perhaps it’s unfortunate that he has to:

I shall argue [later] that all history involves selection, arrangement, and so on, and that the idea of a ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ history is a figment of post-Enlightenment imagination. If we must make any distinction here, it is better to think of ‘public’ and ‘private’ tasks, rather than ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’.

Yet the positivist element still remains, advocating a value-free and dogma-free historiography as though such a thing were really attainable. This approach is, in a measure, self-refuting: Raisanen’s [a major promonent of this view] own account of the history of the discipline is itself a good example of selection and arrangement on the basis of prior conceptions.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.16

UPDATE: Perhaps it too easy to trash talk. A bit of balance is needed.

The enlightenment was so blatantly anti-Christian, still hundreds of years later we still jump to the defense when someone tries to bring some generally secular discipline into the theology discussion. This includes history, contemporary psychology, and most of the sciences. And we have plenty of good reason to be skeptical of the value that a non-God fearing individual may contribute to our understanding of say, the Trinity, original sin, or even ecclesiology.

I find it ironic though that while fundamentalism battens down the fortress against any Bible studies that smell like literary criticism, through the side-door we’re importing as many indie rock bands and crowd control gimmicks we can get our hands on.

Much of N.T. Wright’s work has been in the historical background to the New Testament. That is, if we can understand what things were really like back then – politics, demographics, language, geography, education, and even things like cooking, we’ll have a clearer picture of what the gospel writers and Paul were REALLY saying. We won’t twist the words of Jesus and the apostles by projecting our reformation-era conflicts or 20th century American ideals onto them. Apparently he’s met with some skepticism in some circles or he wouldn’t have written the following:

There are still plenty of people who insist that the only proper task for the New Testament scholar is ‘neutral’ historical description. ‘History’ is regarded as the public task, out in the open. Anyone can engage in it, and indeed anyone might wish to, since…early Christianity was part of a vital period in world history, and to understand it might well contribute to greater mutual understanding within our own worldwide community.

Theology, meanwhile, is often seen as a private Christian game, played on a safe pitch away from serious opposition. Many Christians have in fact encouraged this conception of the task and have acted accordingly. Many will only regard historical study as ‘legitimate’ if its contemporary relevance is immediately obvious and accessible (‘but what does that mean for us today?’ said in the tone of voice which implies that failure to give a quick and easy answer will indicate that a mistake has been made somewhere).

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.13

OK. So you have a long essay with 200 footnotes about the influence the Essene sect possibly had on some of the disciples. What, you’re telling me you can’t reduce it to a few good bullet points? Not interested.

I think this resistance shows up in a lot of other places too. Top notch Christian psychologists like Larry Crabb have a tough sell in a lot of circles because their discipline has been so often dominated by hedonists and perverts.

I, for the life of me can’t figure out why more Christian’s haven’t read philosopher/anthropologist Rene Girard. He sheds TONS of light on the Bible and some of the deep mysterious things in man’s nature – with, I think, plenty of practical application if you work on it a bit. I think it must have something to do with this sort of resistance…

Part of the difficulty has been, I think, that the heirs of the Enlightenment have been too shrill in their denunciation of traditional Christianity, and that Christianity has often been too unshakeably arrogant in resisting new questions, let alone new answers, in its stubborn defence of … what? Christians have often imagined that they were defending Christianity when resisting the Enlightement’s attacks; but it is equally plausible to suggest that what would-be orthodox Christianity was defending was often the pre-Enlightenment worldview, which was itself no more specifically ‘Christian’ than any other.

And later:

Christianity has been afraid of reducing a supernatural faith to rationalist categories. But the sharp distinction between the ‘supernatural’ and the ‘rational’ is ITSELF A PRODUCT OF ENLIGHTENMENT THINKING, and to emphasize the ‘supernatural’ atthe expense of the ‘rational’ or ‘natural’ is itself to capitulate to the Enlightenment worldview at a deeper level than if we were merely to endorse, rather than marginalize, a post-Enlightenment rationalist programme.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.10

I think “The Scylding” at the BHT put it best a while back:

When it comes to debates and discussions on truth, tradition, sacramentology, ecclesiology and a mulitude of other and theological ‘ologies, the worship of Reason is the elephant in the room.

Our capitulation, all over the place, to enlightenment thinking is the elephant in the room. When grappling with enemies of Jesus, we’ve often chosen to play ball on THEIR field.

The prepositional apologists (who I still really get), at least understood this and tried to come at their arguments from a different angle.

Trying to prove Creationism using only the secular scientist’s tools will only get you so far. You’ve imposed an artificial limit on yourself and it doesn’t help. So you’re trying to appear more legitimate to them. That’s cool, but you still need the Holy Spirit.

Trying to change the culture of the nation through the framework of money politics and legislation is also bowing to the world in a sense, even if you are temporarily successful in your endeavors.

What’s the solution? No idea… Look at St. Francis perhaps? I imagine if you were to work outside these limits, you might look like an odd duck to some.

Speaking of the New Testament, Wrights asks:

What then ought to be done with this strange and powerful little book?

It is, of course, open to anyone to do what he or she likes with this or any book. A volume of Shakespeare may be used to prop up a table leg, or it may be used as the basis for a philosophical theory. It is ot difficult, though, to see that using it as the foundation for dramatic productions of the plays themselves carries more authenticity thatn either of these.

There is a general appropriateness about using Shakespeare as a basis for staging plays which justifies itself without much more argument.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.6

So you can study the bible. You can get a Ph.D. in studying the Bible. You can use a particulary heavy one (like the huge decorative tome my parents recieved as a wedding gift) to hold down crafts while the glue is drying. But the most appropriate thing to do is believe what Jesus says in it and live accordingly.

The division between the academic and the poplar has roots deeper than eighteenth-century controversies between history and theology. The squabble between those who conceive of Christianity as basically a matter of outward and physical signs and those who conceive it to be a matter of inner light is almost perennial; so is the deep mistrust that separates those who advocate simple piety from those who insist that faith must always be ‘seeking understanding’.

-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.5

Perennial is right! It seems pretty easy to chop up nearly all church controversies over the years into one of these camps. Sometimes these categories don’t work, but for most things they do.

As with nearly all these sorts of dichotomies, the “answer” is some sort of balance between the two: Emphasize piety and holy living, but without letting it deteriorate into legalism and behavorism (an easy trap to fall into). Emphasize education and religious study, without forsaking the getting-you-butt-out-there-and-living-it aspect (also an easy trap).

The examples that come to mind include Emergent church members who are out on the streets helping the homeless every day, but have grown to deny the creeds and allowed various sins to be acceptable within their church community.

Contrast with this with the man who can’t ever help his neighbor because he’s holed up in his office studying Jonathan Edwards 20 hours a week.

I am more tempted to fall into the latter of these.