In fairness, apart from the unnecessary dismissal of everyone to the left, right and behind him, this is not that bad! I appreciate the attempt to nuance our view of Scripture from a recognition of its historical origin and theological relation to Christ. I'm still unconvinced that the dramatical model is either particularly new or helps us with any of the 'difficult' issues.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=334
I suppose it would be interesting to hear some interaction from those who would disagree with Wright on his position on homosexual practice ... and whether his ideas on Biblical authority move the discussion on at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Not that bad," you say. I happened to think it was really exciting, in spite of the fact I don't tend to agree with all Wright has to say.
What did you think of his Gnosticism discussion?
I agree. It's cute.
But think about it ... everyone to the left of me is a gnostic, everyone to the right of me is a gnostic.
Does either group to the left or right of him believe they are gnostics? He's playing with caricatures. Yes, some to his right will have a negative view of the world and their body and be charging through on their way to heaven. But is this really fair? How many are like that? And yes, to the left of him there will be some looking to affirmation rather than challenge, but would they describe themselves in that way? Is this taking th best argument of your opponents? No, they'd talk about narratives too - biblical ones such as liberation.
Perhaps that's where his approach is potentially useful - challenging the use of Biblical concepts by others by providing an alternative reading. If you can demonstrate to others that they are reading with Bible as a story, then there is possibility of comparing the story with others and perhaps better ones. This is more compellingly theological than simply arguing about single or even multiple passages in relative isolation.
The emphasis on transformation is good too, although I do think it needs to remain qualified by the unrealised nature of our resurrection.
Also, where is Vanhoozer in all of this? He didn't even get a nod in there.
Maybe the left and the right would not agree with the caricature, but as far as a (perhaps overstated) way of calling attention to trends, I wonder if it's all bad. He's just said, 'This is what you look like to me'. And on some level, it might be up to them to say how they aren't actually that. I suppose this comment might tie along with your idea that his particular idea of 'story' requires there to a be a better manner of synthesis before his is shown to be wrong.
Yet, you're right, you have to wonder if he has really said anything that will make those who disagree with him change their minds. And here we go in circles...
Post a Comment