The Bishop and Me Part Two--Getting Stories "Wright"
Former President Obama stated that two neighbors may only be separated by a picket fence but if one watches Fox News and one watches MSNBC, they might as well be living on different planets. Unfortunately, the former President nailed it.
We have all been in the position of speaking with someone and having two completely different takes on an event or story or whatnot. This is part of the problem that N.T. Wright tackles in the first full chapter of his book “The New Testament and the People of God.”
The former Anglican Bishop argues that the western world is popularized by those who believe they can read a text and just know what it means (fundamentalists); those who believe it means whatever they want it to mean (radical postmodernists); those who believe they can understand what the author means by means of a applying historical critical tools (typically enlightenment liberals), etc.
Wright, however, argues for what he calls “critical realism.” This calls for a reader to acknowledge that he or she has preconceived notions about what a text says based on his or her own way of looking at the world at large. The reader must humbly acknowledge that their reading may be wrong and, therefore, must enter into dialogue with others. When it comes to interpreting Scripture, this means conversing with Biblical scholars, ancient historians, etc.
Wright contends that such a process can lead us closer to what the author truly intended to say even while acknowledging the source of the text may have been saying more than he or she intended (for example alluding to another ancient text that has become so imbued in the author’s worldview that they don’t even know they are referencing it! In modern biblical studies this is often referred to as “echoes of Scripture.”).
But Wright asserts that a necessary method to getting close to this truth includes understanding the meta-narrative or “Big Story” that the text under consideration finds itself in. For example, in the New Testament, Wright has long advocated one cannot understand any of the writings found between Matthew and Revelation without comprehending the where the authors saw Jesus and the church fitting into the grand scope of creation (Genesis 1) to new creation (Revelation 21). See my earlier post on how Wright outlines his proposed meta-narrative.
The Bishop’s proposal has not been without its critics with Reformed Evangelicals being the most vocal. Scholars like D.A. Carson have argued that Wright may preach dialogue to reach understanding but that he has ignored important conversation partners including Calvinists such as himself. Carson (and many others) that Wright often sticks to his proposed meta-narrative so rigidly that he tries to squeeze every text into it even if it clearly doesn’t fit such as viewing the Parable of the Prodigal Son about the Jewish exile (it is an odd reading!).
The Bishop has also been criticized by evangelicals of all stripes for not bringing the Holy Spirit into the discussion of “reading rightly.” Yet, N.T. Wright’s arguments should not be brushed aside either. He is right to nod in agreement with postmodernists that we all do in fact bring baggage to the table of any reading and that, as such, we need to humbly acknowledge this fact and engage in gracious dialogue with others. However, I want to encourage both the Bishop, and all those who engage with his writings that we should not quickly dismiss dialogue partners…even evangelical Calvinists!