As a recent arrival to this conversation, I am excited by the different threads and emphases that the contributors highlight in each response. I am also interested in what sources count as being significant to discussions. My own bias is founded in three overlapping areas: first, theological method (how do we theologise?); second, the significance of extra-biblical sources to this process (Scriptural Corpus/ Fathers & Creeds/ Post-Reformation literature, to name three); and third, what a Christology in this era might look like and, additionally, what kind of influence might it have on theologising. I’ll not bore you all with all three at once, but here’s my offering on the first.
Theological method is relevant across all the contributions, presented most formally in citations of Geza Vermes and Tom Wright. The issue that seems to go unnoticed in the work of these two scholars is that they use essentially the same methodology for different ends (a kind of critical realism). I use the following statement as a caricature of their position: ‘if we are to give absolute authority to the life of Jesus, we need to have reliable knowledge of that life’. Admittedly Vermes and Wright will come to different conclusions, but nonetheless they have both spent much of the last 30 years developing this statement using archaeology and other socio-scientific methods. They both believe that the historical Jesus quest (a very modern enterprise, like messianic taxidermy) is indispensable. The only difference between the two of them is in the conclusions they are prepared to draw from historical criticism. Indeed the radical NT scholar John Dominic Crossan (not a supporter of Bishop Wright) has asserted that he and Wright are basically pursuing the same agenda (see his ‘What Victory? What God? A Review Debate with N.T. Wright on Jesus and the Victory of God’, Scottish Journal of Theology (50/3), 1997, p. 351). The question for us at this juncture is which conclusion do we wish to pick? Tom Wright is committed to doing serious history and insists that theological presuppositions must not influence historical research (Jesus & Victory of God, p. 123, 117). Despite all this, Wright is also committed to working as a Christian scholar (as am I) who thinks that authentic Christianity has nothing to fear from history (JVG, p. 123, cf. p. xiv). So which is it? Wright seems to hold two mutually exclusive views: a no holds barred history on one hand and a no holds barred faith on the other.
But having been critical of this methodology, I must add some further points. First and foremost: I believe in Jesus Christ as laid out in the creeds of the early church and in scripture. It is a question of method that distresses me. It is the bald application of socio-historical criticism that leaves Vermes and Wright as bedfellows (the kind of work critiqued by Foucault, de Certeau and the contemporary British Theologians working under the name ‘Radical Orthodoxy’). It is an attempt to be objective and to uncover the ‘pure history’ of Palestine nearly 20 centuries ago, pretending that we don’t carry presuppositions or that these subjectivities are bad (they aren’t!). As Christians we definitively do have presuppositions – we are being transformed into images of our glorious saviour. This isn’t to be discarded – it is to worn as a wound and an indication of the one who we serve. Vermes’ include his Judaism, Wright’s include his Christianity: both are religious apologists. However, what I am asserting is that Christian theology must be theological: it must follow a pattern of theo-logos (God-talk). God’s prime act of logos (speech) to humanity was in Christ. It is Christ that as Christians we carry in our hearts, not a series of verses from the gospels (though there is no harm in learning these too!). It is Christ that we encounter at communion, baptism and in the hearts and lives of our fellow Christ-followers. Theology must uphold the uniqueness of the work of God in Christ; this is a work of reconciliation, not historical explanation. That this theological method will be biblical goes without saying, but it will do so because, like scripture itself, it is a response to what God has done. If we can get past methods that are outmoded and un-theological, then we may begin to discuss the relevance of Christian theology and emerging church in this late capitalist, anti-foundational era – the most exciting period for creative, orthodox (lower case!) theologising for many years.
N.T. Wright & Theological method
Ric, you’ve raised some excellent questions. I appreciate your perspective. I have tried to respond to the main points but I may have misunderstood you in places.
I agree that at any particular point in time we may feel the need to make a choice from amongst the different ‘historical’ reconstructions on offer – and I would add that we are likely to do so for reasons that fall short of reasonable critical judgment. But that choice is never really final, the debate continues, other voices will be heard, a consensus will emerge and recede, and so on. I would suggest that this is in fact a good time to refrain from making too many confident choices: I think we probably need to live with the uncertainties for a while.
I don’t see why these two positions need to be mutually exclusive. The faith that we hold today arose at a certain point in the history of Israel in response to certain events. Of course, the first ‘believers’ also interpreted what they experienced on the basis of their own particular presuppositions, predispositions, etc. But surely, to suggest that their understanding of what had happened and their experience of ‘faith’ were mutually exclusive would amount to saying that their faith was fraudulent or fictitious. Was Luke’s ‘history’ of Jesus somehow incompatible with his faith? If not, why in principle should we not seek today to overcome the distrust created by rationalism and bring history and theology much closer together? We don’t need to pretend that we can write ‘pure history’, but if it is possible to tell the story about Jesus in different ways (Crossan, Vermes, Wright), isn’t it also possible to find reasons for preferring one reconstruction over the others?
The question, then, is how do we manage the tension that currently exists between history and theology. If we cannot arrive at a ‘pure history’, we also need to recognize the fact that we do not have a ‘pure theology’ – not least because to varying degrees our theology is the product of earlier readings or misreadings of the history. Wright’s work can be seen as an attempt by someone who happens to have both strong theological and strong critical commitments to factor out of the equation the mistakes of the past.
Perhaps it’s also worth saying that I am inclined to think that in many ways the underlying problem is not historical but literary. What I suspect is really at stake in this debate is not whether we can establish certain knowledge about the Jesus of history but whether we are able to read the texts well. A more plausible reading is likely to carry greater conviction, but in the end we treat the story about Jesus as just that – a story. My argument would be: Why misread the story?
Again, the dichotomy seems unnecessary or at least misleading. The Christ of faith is not separable from the Jesus of history: they must somehow be seen as part of the same story. Is there not otherwise a danger of falsely objectifying the Christ of faith in much the same way that the careless historian may imagine that he has access to the objective Jesus of history? I think that there are good theological reasons (emerging, for example, in the Son of man motif) for saying that we cannot properly understand this Christ apart from the story about the people of God – and that, conversely, if we misunderstand the story about the people of God, we will not understand Christ properly.
Doesn’t this simply beg the question? What do we mean by ‘biblical’? It makes theological method no less ‘a response to what God has done’ that we endeavour to make good historical sense of the Bible. How can that be ‘un-theological’? Indeed, I would want to claim that the Spirit of God is involved in this enterprise no less than in, say, mission or worship.
NT Wright and theological method
I’m with you on this Andrew.
The “Christ of history” must in essence be the Christ of faith. Anything less in a denial of faith or a restructuring or in fact, a deconstrcution of it. Thus NT Wright’s bold assertion that we have nothing to fear from history is right on time.
I also thoroughly concord with your comment: I think that there are good theological reasons … for saying that we cannot properly understand this Christ apart from the story about the people of God – and that, conversely, if we misunderstand the story about the people of God, we will not understand Christ properly.
Interestingly, for a variety of reasons, I never really accomodated myself to any one stream of denominational thougtht and I’m now reaping the benefits of that background experience. I’ve found my own theology has developeed quite unintentionally to incorporate a unified, story approach incorporating the covenants of God, his eternal purpose, the Messianic role and the ‘high call’ of a people of God which has been “blessed to be a blessing.”
The Pentecostal Evangelicalism i was originally involved with engendered such a distrust of scholarship that I would even deny my University backgroud, dumbing it down to being at “college.” It took me over a decade to reconcile myself to the gift of teacher emerging within me and now, to the desire and calling to be a theologian. It’s been a long journey and the emerging church / ost / NT Wright articles have thus far, been a most engaging read.
My own understanding of Jesus, or Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, has been greatly helped by the writings’ of DS Stern, who wrote the Jewish New Testament and accompanying commentary. I will hope to include some of those helpful insights in another post. In particular, his overarching understanding of “the story of the people of God” is, for me, enormously refreshing.
shalom! John
N.T. Wright is an artist!
(Matt’s comments have been moved to a new thread.)
Theological Method
In principle I have no problems with attempts to view the Christ of faith through the lens of socio-history. However, in practice it may not be helpful for the emerging Church to devote too much time to this. The problem is that, from my perspective, the socio-historical evidence that we have, in the scientific sense of accurate/verifiable information, is so feeble that it provides no real foundation on which to build a reliable picture of the Jesus of history, independant of that provided by a straight-forward reading of the NT scriptures as historical narrative. This is why different theologians, using similar investigative techniques, come to widely different conclusions about the same material.
In contrast the Gospels provide a clear picture of the essentials of the Christ of faith, apparantly set in an historical context. In the absence of sound contrary evidence, we can assume that the Jesus of socio-history and orthodox faith are one.
This, of course, restricts attempts to manipulate scripture to accommodate the values of this passing age. This, I believe will strengthen the future of the people of God.
A question of coherence
Doesn’t this create an unnecessary dichotomy between ‘socio-historical evidence’ and the ‘straight-forward reading of the NT scriptures as historical narrative’? I think my response would be that any reading of the NT scriptures as historical narrative must take into account the wider historical context as best we understand it. You can’t have scripture as one species of historical narrative and ancient history as another entirely different species. What we’re looking for here is not so much scientifically verifiable information but a reading of the NT that is i) not distorted by misleading post-biblical theological assumptions and ii) more or less coherent with its historical context, which includes the OT, Jewish apocalyptic literature, Josephus, etc. It is the incoherence of the traditional reading that has become problematic not its verifiability.
The situation has arisen largely because we have come to understand the world of Jesus (second temple Judaism under Roman occupation) much better, and as a result we have been forced to rethink the relation between this world and the Jesus of orthodox faith. Postmodernism has taught us at the same time to be suspicious of the processes by which we construct and maintain our metanarratives, and this has allowed us to re-evaluate the metanarrative of salvation without feeling that the only alternative to orthodoxy is a denial of the historicity of the Gospels. I don’t know if that makes any sense, but I think there is something more fundamental going on here than simply an accommodation of orthodoxy to the values of this passing age.
A question of coherence
If the Gospel message is indeed the new Covenant brought by Immanuel (God with us) as evidenced by the prophetic, the miraculous ministry, the resurrection and the presence of the Holy Spirit in empowering the Church to be effectively Jesus’s body, then it will rightly produce a dichotomy with the ways of the world. This will seriously limit our use of a socio-historical lens in interpreting scripture even if we had the information. We may know more about 1st cent. Judea than we did, but our knowledge is fragmentary and unreliable; certainly not the information a lawyer or (I say again) a scientist would accept as evidence that could be used to modify anything. It may be the best we have, but its not up to the job of applying a critique to the NT scriptures. Attempts to do this are little more than guesses and are vulnerable to successful challenge. Any emerging Church using such tools to construct its foundations is building on shifting sand.
But not only is this approach inappropriate, it’s unnecessary. The emerging Church needs first to be Christ centred and then committed to bridging the divide between the Church and secular society in the power of the Spirit: bringing the Kingdom wherever we are. As someone has said, we need to get the world out of the Church and the Church into the world. Certainly our POST-biblical structures and traditions need to change for us to do this. However, the use of 1st cent. socio-history to aid our understanding of the Gospel message is not required. As have said, a straight-forward reading of the NT will identify the way we need to go; it’s not rocket science.
NT in a nutshell
Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Aside from the old testament being about the “generations” (plural) of Adam: Gen 5, and the new testament being about the “generation” (singular) of Jesus Christ: Mt 1, by whom grace and truth came, in contrast to the law and lie of Moses (Jn 1:17)… it is notable there are two testators to two testaments, law being the testator of NT (so grace may be of force), since grace was testator of OT (so law could be of force): Heb 9.
So, what is lacking, and moreso in churches than elsewhere, is letting law be what it’s intended to be in the NT: “dead” testator.
For since law imputes sin (Rom 4:15; 5:13) and sin imputes death, until we let law be dead testator, we’ll all have life + death, which is a dead end; not what JC brought us, which is life, period, and the eternal sort, not the temporal sort of life + death of grace + law.
For Christ sake people, it’s AD (not BC), and beyond 2,000 AD now, the prophetic “third day” when he will raise “us” (not them) up: Hos 6:2; and the day JC will be perfected, by us letting law be dead testator of NT.
Hello, is anyone there, or am I speaking into a vacuum?
TgooLJCwya. Amen. www.godshew.org Daniel Miles