"...Writing a book about the Bible is like building a sandcastle in front of
the Matterhorn. The best you can hope to do is to catch the eye of
those who are looking down instead of up, or those who are so familiar
with the skyline that they have stopped noticing its peculiar beauty...."
======
Title:
Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today
Author: N. T. Wright
Publisher: HarperOne
Genre: Bible
Year: 2011
Pages: 224
Binding: Hardcover
ISBN13: 9780062011954
Price: $25.99
Reviewed by Blair Dee Hodges for the Association for Mormon Letters
N.T. Wright has been called the C.S. Lewis for our time. Like Lewis,
Wright is Anglican. Like Lewis, Wrights overriding purpose is to
demonstrate Christianitys relevance for our times (Lewis with modernism,
Wright with postmodernism). Lewis wrote "Surprised by Joy," Wright
wrote "Surprised by Hope." Like Lewis, Wrights style is cleverly
engaging. This particular similarity is evident from the first line of
Wrights latest publication:
Writing a book about the Bible is like building a sandcastle in front of
the Matterhorn. The best you can hope to do is to catch the eye of
those who are looking down instead of up, or those who are so familiar
with the skyline that they have stopped noticing its peculiar beauty
(ix).
Odds are, if youve enjoyed Lewiss theological or devotional writings,
youll enjoy Wrights. Some differences between the two deserve
attention. Unlike Lewis, who was content to remain a lay Anglican,
Wright is Bishop of Durham and sits in the UKs House of Lords. Unlike
Lewis, who was an armchair theologian and literary critic whose fiction
largely outranks his non-fiction, Wright is a distinguished Bible
scholar who takes higher criticism much more seriously than Lewis could
have. Lewis still serves as a sort of safe source for many Mormons who
are pleased to find similar theological ground in the works of a non-LDS
author. Wright can easily serve a similar purpose for Mormons in
regards to contemporary biblical scholarship.[1] He has a knack for
making complex academic discussions comprehensible to regular folk like
me. It is with this in mind that I recommend his latest book,
"Scripture and the Athority of God."[2] Its a lot thicker than its 224
pages appear at first g
lance as evinced by this over-long, chapter-by-chapter review, but at
least the prose is almost always accessible and the analogies creative!
Taken as a whole, Wright writes, Christendom cant live without the
Bible, but it doesnt seem to have much idea of how to live with it (ix).
With no pretense at completeness, Wrights Prologue gives an overview
of the place of Old Testament scripture within the Christian church
beginning with the time of Jesus.[3] He contextualizes the writing of
the New Testament and outlines the growth of tradition and authority in
biblical use up to the Reformation when individual scripture reading
accelerated. Reason comes to the fore during Enlightenment debates over
scripture, debates which echo today. These periods receive closer
attention in subsequent chapters. His prologue concludes with a look at
how contemporary culture views scripture in tandem with politics,
philosophy, theology and ethics. He sees Bible believers and
disbelievers making selective, shallow use of the Bible. So-called
conservatives privilege a literal reading of Paul while ignoring his
ecclesial, ecumenical, sacramental, and ecological dimensions. So-called radicals, in a
gallery stacked with iconoclasts enjoy saying things like Paul says
this, and we now know hes wrong (19). These, and other approaches,
receive Wrights scorn throughout the book.
In the first chapter Wright displaces the Bible as the primary authority
by, oddly enough, quoting the Bible as identifying God as its source of
authority.[4] The book doesnt argue *that* the Bible should have
authority; its approaching the question of *how* a book can have
authority and what shape that authority can take (16). God, not the
Bible, is the authority, and scripture has authority only in a delegated
or mediated sense (23). Further, the Bibles over-arching content is
narrative; it tells a story. Rather than being a rule-book from which
we pick and choose things to do, the Bible tells a story within which
the reader is also situated. Scripture is there to be a means of Gods
action in and through uswhich will include, but go far beyond, the mere
conveying of information (28). Mormons will be comfortable with Wrights
description of a much older notion of revelation, according to which
God is continually revealing himself to and within the world he has
made, and
particularly to and within his people Israel (29).[5] This is a key
interpretive principle Wright will return to throughout his book.
Chapter Two serves to describe scripture as a record of Gods response to
evil and suffering in the world through a selected people, Israel. The
records tell the story of God and his people, places obligations upon
them, and gives voice to prophets who try to call a straying Israel to
repentance. God was equipping his people to serve his purposes, the
establishment of a Kingdom (35). Scripture told Israel that God was
with them and that he wanted things to get better. It formed the
controlling *story* for Israel, and it formed the call to a present
*obedience* (38-39, emphasis in original).
Chapter Three brings Jesus into the picture. By analyzing the sayings
and actions of Jesus in comparison with the Old Testament, Wright argues
that at the heart of [Jesus’s] work lay the sense of bringing the story
of scripture to its climax, and thereby offering to God the *obedience*
through which the Kingdom would be accomplished (41, emphasis in
orig.). Thus, sifting through the Old Testament for prophecies about
individual acts of Jesus largely misses the point. As the word made
flesh, Jesus viewed himself as enacting and fulfilling scripture,
although this raised some interesting contradictions. Wright identifies
the conundrum pressing heavily upon early Christian believers: finding
ways to account for continuity and discontinuity with the Old Testament.
This is the bridge to Chapter Four, which analyzes the early apostolic
churchs approach to scripture. When Christians today refer to the word,
they usually mean the Bible itself. The word, Wright argues, clearly
preceded the creation of our current canon, though. Early Christians
understood the word to be the story of Jesus, the enacting of the
promises of Hebrew scripture with ongoing obligations and expectations
for the new covenant movement (48). Here Wright has set the stage for
his fully Christian theology of scriptural authority:
Planted firmly in the soil of the missionary community, confronting the
powers of the world with the news of the Kingdom of God, refreshed and
invigorated by the Spirit, growing particularly through the preaching
and teaching of the apostles, and bearing fruit in the transformation of
human lives as the start of Gods project to put the whole creation to
rights (50).
Wright argues that inattention to this narrative-driven nature of
scripture results in the sterile debate between people who say, The
Bible says and those who answer, Yes, and the Bible also says you should
stone adulterers, and you shouldnt wear clothes made of two types of
cloth. We earnestly need to get past this unnecessary roadblock and on
to more serious engagement (122).
Chapter Five is eminently interesting, as Wright looks at The First
Sixteen Centuries. Mormons might be disposed to disregard this chapter
on the grounds of the Great Apostasy, but Wright doesnt follow the LDS
narrative. Mormons can learn much from careful and charitable
examinations of this period especially because the goings-on still
affect how people, including Mormons, read the Bible today.
He describes Four Senses of interpretation (69): 1. The literal, or how
the writers understood what they were recording (a complex method
because not all scripture was intended to be taken scientifically,
historically, etc. and the Bible contains parables, metaphors, etc.) 2.
The allegorical, whereby Christians discovered (or rather, imputed)
Christian elements in non-Christian verses. (Abrahams sacrifice of
Isaac representing Gods sacrifice of Jesus, for instance.) 3. The
analogical sense, which Wright describes as a way of discovering in the
text a picture of the future life (69). A Psalm speaking of going up to
Jerusalem became a way to imagine going up to the heavenly city. 4.
The moral sense, a way of discovering lessons on how to behave hidden
within texts which were not straightforwardly teaching such a thing
(69).
Wrights at his best here. He recognizes the utility of these
approaches: wherever one opened the Bible one might discover not only
what happened in the past, but an open door upon the riches of Christian
truth, the glory that lay ahead, and the solid ground of Christian
morality (70). At the same time, he calls attention to the heavy cost:
now almost anything could be proved from scripture (70-71). The tale
could easily wag the dog:
It is no longer authoritative in any strict sense; that is, it may be
cited as though in proof of some point or other, but it is not leading
the way, energizing the church with the fresh breath of God himself.
The question must be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve an
existing theology or vice versa (71, see also 67).
In the next chapter on the Enlightenment, Wright brings the narrative to
the present in order to make a stirring case against
anti-intellectualism, but also against the deification of
intellectualism. Today, he argues, we ought to be aware what
Enlightenment assertions must be politely denied, which of its
challenges may be taken up and by what means, and which of its
accomplishments must be welcomed and enhanced (84).
Speaking of politely denying, the gloves come off in Chapter Seven where
Wright identifies a short list of Misreadings of Scripture (107). He
acknowledges the over-simplification here, but at the risk of caricature
he dismisses things like the rapture, prosperity gospel, the death
penalty, and attacks the tacit acceptance of the economic status quo
(108). He also challenges claims to objectivity, cultural relativity,
grab-bag exegesis, skin-deep-only appeals to contextual readings and a
host of other hot-button issues (109-111).
While acknowledging the murkiness of the past, Wright holds that we do,
in some sense, have serious and academic methods by which we can say
definitely that some readings of ancient texts are historically
preferable to others (113). In chapter eight, How to Get Back on Track,
Wright proposes a five-part recommendation for approaching scripture
today. As a reminder, up to this point Wright has made a case that the
authority of scripture, when unpacked, offers a picture of Gods
sovereign and saving plan for the entire cosmos, dramatically
inaugurated by Jesus himself, now to be implemented through the
Spirit-led life of the church *precisely as the scripture-reading
community* (115-116, emphasis in orig.) Thus, reading scripture today
requires respect for tradition. They may be wrong sometimes, he adds,
but every key figure in the history of the church has left his, her, or
its mark on subsequent readings of scripture (118). It requires respect
for reason. This includes be
ing self-aware of ones interpretive context in the wider scheme of
things. It also requires giving attention to, and celebrating, the many
and massive discoveries in biology, archaeology, physics, astronomy,
and so on, which shed great light on Gods world and the human condition
(120). His five-step model highlights the necessity for both public and
private study, academic and devotional approaches.[6]
An interesting underlying tension throughout Wrights book (and his work
more broadly) is that a solid pathway needs to be carved between
academic research and devotional application of scripture. In the final
two chapters Wright presents models of how his desired approach can
refresh scriptural interpretation in regards to the Sabbath and
monogamy. One might quibble with his explanation that these two topics
were chosen on the grounds that they have not been particularly hot
topics in recent discussion, hoping that method will be highlighted more
than his particular conclusion (xii). Especially in regards to
monogamy![7] I have a few other quibbles and a few big disagreements
with some of Wrights claims and conclusions. But I appreciate his fresh
formulation of the questions surrounding the different ways we use the
Bible. I found his attention to historic and contemporary approaches to
scripture helpful in identifying shortcomings in my own scriptural
interpretations.
Wrights book is a much-needed admonition to exercise a more well-reasoned-while-still-devotional reading of scripture.
____________________________________________
Footnotes:
1. In fact, his work has already been recognized by several LDS authors
who commend his approach on the New Paul Perspective in the ongoing
debate over grace and works. See the Book Notes from the "FARMS Review"
here:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1&id=828.
2. The book is a revised and expanded American edition of his previous
UK book "Scripture and the Authority of GodGetting Beyond the Bible
Wars," copyrighted in the US under the title of "The Last Word: Beyond
the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture"
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005). Wright has added two case studies to
the end of the volume, enacting the sort of scriptural approach the book
advocates on two specific topics.
3. If you follow biblical scholarship at all, the term Old Testament
will set off alarm bells. In academic pursuits, words often serve as
clues about controlling assumptions. Wright is well aware that the
*way* we say things can easily get in the way of *what* were saying.
His preface calls attention to his use of the term, as opposed to
Hebrew Scriptures, preferring not to pretend to a neutral set of labels
here because his analysis is Christian-centric (xiii). Other similar
decisions will certainly bring criticism. For example, Wright doesnt
delve too deeply here into authorship issues but hes clearly aware of
them, as when he distinguishes between Paul and the author of the Letter
to the Hebrews without calling attention to the distinction (21-22).
4. Wright seems aware of this circularity though this book doesnt
address it, presumably because he writes to a Christian audience already
assuming some sort of biblical truth. He clearly recognizes the power
of appealing to what the Bible says (see for instance 26, 28, 31, 41,
92, etc.).
5. I hesitate to over-emphasize only those ideas which resonate with
Mormons. Without a doubt, some of Wrights positions dont fit well at
all within LDS thought, not least of all his position on the written
canon being closed and defense of various Christian creeds (119, 126).
Nor his five-part story of Gods history, with creation, fall, Israel,
Jesus, and the church (though he allows for modifications, p. 122).
Still, his critique of some Protestant ideas will sit well with many
Mormons, and perhaps even laudably challenge a few current problematic
LDS assumptions. (Im thinking particularly of a certain form of
biblical literalism or fundamentalism, see pp. 72, 74, 79, 92, and
anti-intellectualism, pp. 85-86, 91-92, 134-135).
6. Wrights Five Strategies for Honoring the Authority of Scripture:
1) A Totally Contextual Reading of Scripture: In each word, sentence,
verse, chapter, and book, the cultural setting must be carefully
examined. All scripture is culturally conditioned (128). Because time
keeps moving, this project is never complete; because scripture is
recorded by people, it is never wholly pure. Wright calls this an
*incarnational* reading of scripture, paying attention to the full
humanity both of the text and of its readers (130, emphasis in orig.).
This term reminded me of a similar-with-important-differences LDS
approach. See James E. Faulconer, Scripture as Incarnation, in
"Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures," ed. Paul Y.
Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young
University, 2001), 1762. Most importantly to Wright, the context should
include his outlined overarching storyline of Gods creation and desire
for the world to be made right again, his calling of a people and his
expectation of their mission to the wo
rld.
2) A Liturgically Grounded Reading of Scripture: Wright views corporate
worship as the primary place to hear scripture. When listening in
communion with other Christians across space and time we follow the
example of Israel, Jesus, Paul and others who recognized scripture as
requiring a central place in worship (130-131). Utmost concern should
be paid to selection, not favoring easy or common verses over the whole
of the Old and New Testament story as outlined by Wright earlier in the
book.
3) A Privately Studied Reading of Scripture: Western individualism tends
to highlight individual reading as the primary mode, Wright says, but
this should not replace communal reading. At the same time, it is an
opportunity for personal reflection, a way to change a mind and soften a
heart by wrestling with scripture. I was particularly impressed with
Wrights description of the complex pathway whereby each Christian is
simultaneously called to worship and prayer, supplied with fresh
understanding, puzzled by new questions (and so stimulated to yet more
study and questioning), and equipped to take their own place in the
ongoing story of Gods people (134). A paradox in scripture study is the
opportunity it affords to find, not only answers, but more questions as
well.
4) A Reading of Scripture Refreshed by Appropriate Scholarship: Such
scholarship is a great gift of God to the church, and I would argue that
gift is for Mormons too, and not exclusively written *by* Mormons.
Wright says such study requires careful loyalty and joyful openness, a
hard path to negotiate, no doubt.
5) A Reading of Scripture Taught By the Churchs Accredited Leaders: It
should be plain by now that Wright seems to include most Christian
denominations generally in his label of church. Here he calls for
various leaders, often hampered by or overly focused on administrative
tasks, to become more serious about presenting scripture as audible
sacraments (139). He wants to avoid a division between clergy on one
hand and scholars on the other. (This issue presents a unique challenge
within Mormonism which deserves its own post!)
7. Incidentally, this is the only place Mormonism receives explicit
mention, and its a confusing mention at that. He says that monogamy is
generally assumed in the western world to be the primary and appropriate
type of marriage today and adds: Of course, in America itself, as is
well known, the Mormons have made their case, and live their own
lifestyle. But that is regarded by most Americans as raising a
question, not offering an answer (176). Im not sure what he means,
other than that he believes Mormons still practice polygamy? At any
rate, some Mormons might welcome his critique of polygamys place in the
Bible, which he sees as Gods winking at ignorance (a la Acts 17:30). A
Mormon view might say it is Gods circumstantial exception (Jacob
2:24-30).
http://forums.mormonletters.org/yaf_postsm2294_Wright-Scripture-and-the-Authority-of-God-How-to-Read-the-Bible-Today-reviewed-by-Blair-Dee-Hodges.aspx#2294