Tag Archives: N. T. Wright

Theology

An Amazing Story About NT Scholar C. F. D. Moule

August 7, 2012 – 12:29 PM

From Scot McKnight’s blog:

Once I heard a young enthusiast explain Grammcord to Charlie Moule by describing a grammatical problem that could be chased down through a computer search, and then the enthusiast said there five instances of the grammar in the NT — to which Professor Moule responded: “Six if you count Codex Bezae.” The enthusiast knew what a computer could pop out; Moule knew the textual tradition alongside it that wasn’t in the computer. Then I heard Moule say something that I shall never forget: “Why, the Greek Testament isn’t so long one can’t put it to memory!” (Why use a computer if you have it all put to heart? was the implication.)

This reminds me of N. T. Wright’s advice to those aspiring to be New Testament scholars:

I actually still find that the big reference books, especially The Oxford History of the Christian Church and The Oxford Classical Dictionary, are invaluable on an almost daily basis. The basic introduction by Achtemeier, Green and Thompson is excellent for those starting out. The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible is very good. But actually I would urge anyone who wants to get into the NT seriously to learn as much of it by heart as they can. If in Greek so much the better. Talk whole chapters and books on to cassette tape and play them in the car, when doing housework, etc etc. There is no substitute for a ready, easy familiarity with the text itself. Apart from anything else, learning whole passages rescues you from the out-of-context readings that so bedevil an early attempt to understand scripture.

Tags , , | Permalink | Comment (0)
For Ministers

N. T. Wright on the Central Role of the Bible in Ministry

December 14, 2011 – 8:00 AM

I’ve spent the last two nights reading N. T. Wright’s Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. I hope to blog though this book soon, since I found Wright’s grappling with the nature of the Bible’s authority helpful.

But I wanted to share with you one (long) passage where Wright describes the minister’s responsibility in handling and preaching the Scriptures. I found it convicting and moving:

“At the same time, God is at work by the same means to order the life of the church, and of individual Christians, to model and embody his project of new creation in their unity and holiness. To be a leader in the church is, almost by definition, to be one through whose work this mission comes about, enabled and directed by this scripture-based energy; and one through whom, again with scriptural energy to the fore, that unity and holiness is generated and sustained.

“If, therefore, those called to office and leadership roles in the church remain content merely to organize and manage the internal affairs of the church, they are leaving a vacuum exactly where there ought to be vibrant, pulsating life. Of course Christian leaders need to be trained and equipped for management, for running of the organization. The church will not thrive by performing in a bumbling, amateur fashion and hoping that piety and goodwill will make up for incompetence. But how much more should a Christian minister be a serious professional when it comes to grappling with scripture and discovering how it enables him or her, in preaching, teaching, prayer, and pastoral work, to engage with the huge issues that confront us as a society and as individuals. If we are professional about other things, we ought to be ashamed not to be properly equipped both to study the Bible ourselves or to bring its ever-fresh word to others.

“The teaching and preaching of scripture remains, then, at the heart of the church’s life, alongside and regularly interwoven with the sacramental life focused on the Eucharist….The balance between what can be said in a sermon and what must be said in non-liturgical teaching, adult education, and so on, will vary from church to church and place to place. It is fair to say that most churches, even those with well-developed educational programs, have a long way to go in their teaching of scripture. It is also important to remind preachers that, just as some of the Reformers spoke of the sacraments as God’s ‘visible words,’ so sermons are supposed to be ‘audible sacraments.’ They are not simply for the conveying of information, though that is important in a world increasingly ignorant of some of the most basic biblical and theological information. They are not simply for exhortation, still less for entertainment. They are supposed to be one of the moments in regular Christian living when heaven and earth meet. Speaker and hearers alike are called to be people in whom, by the work of the Spirit, God’s word is once again audible to the heart as well as to the ears. Preaching is one key way in which God’s personal authority, vested in scripture and operative through the work of the Spirit, is played out in the life of the church.” (Emphasis mine.)

(N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, p. 138-39)

Tags , , , , | Permalink | Comment (0)
Christianity

Trevin Wax on N.T. Wright on Rob Bell on Hell

May 25, 2011 – 12:42 AM

N.T. WrightI know that is quite the title, but it is more descriptive than any other title. If you are even the least bit aware of what’s been going on in the evangelical subculture the last few months, you are aware of the backlash over Rob Bell’s view of hell expressed in his latest book, Love Wins.

Recently, N.T. Wright weighed in on the controversy in a video interview.

Trevin Wax, on his great blog Kingdom People, transcribes the interview and offers some insightful comments on it.

Here is the part of Wright’s interview where he talks about Rob Bell:

I don’t think myself that Rob Bell has quite taken the same line that I did in Surprised by Hope. I haven’t actually had the conversation with Rob since his book was published. So, one of these days, we will and we’ll have that one out. I do think it’s good to stir things up because so many people, as I say, particularly in American culture, really want to know the last fine-tuned details of hell. And it seems to be part of their faith, often a central part of their faith that a certain number of people are simply going to go to hell and we know who these people are. I think Rob is saying, “Hey wait a minute! Start reading the Bible differently. God is not a horrible ogre who is just determined to fry as many people as He can forever. God is actually incredibly generous and gracious and wonderful and loving and caring. And if you paint a picture of God which is other than that, then you’re producing a monster and that has long-lasting effects in Christian lives and in the church.” (From Kingdom People)

Trevin Wax has three replies to Wright’s comments, but you’ll have to go to his blog to read all of it. I’d like to raise a question about what he says in his second reply to Wright’s comments. Trevin says:

Still, I’m not sure Wright’s picture of hell does justice to the Bible’s description of “last things”. Following the thought of C.S. Lewis, Wright casts hell as the consequential outworking of sinful life patterns. Sin becomes its own damnation, leading to dehumanization to the point that an individual is beyond pity. Wright is putting forth a middle way between eternal conscious torment and annihilationism, but I think his proposal neglects the passages that indicate God will actively be involved in a sinner’s eternal destiny.

Trevin is taking issue with Wright for saying that hell is God honoring the decision of those who reject Him. N.T. Wright follows C.S. Lewis as describing hell as the sinner getting what they wanted, to be separated from God. One way that you might capture this idea is to say that God simply gets out of the way and let sin destroy the person. That’s what hell is. It is God staying out of the way for eternity while a sinner spirals in his or her self-destructive behavior.

If this is the essence of the view of hell that Wright and Lewis hold, then Trevin is correct to criticize it as excluding the active judgment of God. And maybe this is what Wright and Lewis mean. But this does not seem to be the only possible understanding of what they wrote.

Hell is God giving people what they ultimately want. But what is it that they ultimately want? To be away from God, the King. In other words, they want to be rebels; they want to reject the Kingdom of God. God gives them what they want for eternity, that is, he treats them as a just King would treat unjust rebels: punishment. And he does this for eternity.

I am more certain that this coheres with what Lewis held than it does with what Wright has written. (I have read more of Lewis than I have of Wright.)  After all, as Adrian Warnock reminds us, C. S. Lewis does not reject the notion of punishment for sins.

So, my question is this: why don’t we interpret Wright (and Lewis) as saying that hell is God giving you what you want — which is to be a rebel — and so he punishes you as a rebel?

Tags , , , | Permalink | Comments (2)