Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write off the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Showing posts with label Theologian N.T. Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theologian N.T. Wright. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

N.T. Wright, "The Big Picture" (select videos)


What is the Gospel? NT Wright



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICHovRHJAYY



N.T. Wright, The Big Picture



112013 - NT Wright from Matthew Hickman on Vimeo.

On Nov 20, 2013, NT Wright, the author of numerous books, including Surprised by HopeSimply
Christian, and How God Became King, spoke at Mars Hill on the Big Story of the Bible. Missed his
lecture? Watch it online now.



NT Wright on Paul, Hell, Satan, Creation, Adam, Eve & more



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueegnOTz7qY



NT Wright and Larry Crabb Conversation - Christianity and Culture



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TETGLqxdtJY




Continue to Index -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

N.T. Wright, "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" (Vol 4) - Introduction to NPP

Scot McKnight begins a month-long discussion of N.T. Wright's newest Volume 4 on Paul from his summary series of an intended 5-volume set, Christian Origins and the Question of God, begun back in 1992 (Vol. 1 - The Church, Vol's. 2&3 - Jesus and His Resurrection, Vol. 4 - Paul, Vol 5. - untitled). Wright's latest volume deals with how Paul's theology should be viewed within in his own first-century Jewish context and away from the church's more popular Westernized, Medieval, Augustinian context of "salvation by justification.". This latter understanding is readily seen through popular Reformed and Calvinistic systematic doctrines such as eternal security, predestination, election, heaven, hell, salvation, and faith (as mixed or separated from with its opposite polarity within Evangelicalism's Wesleyan, Baptist, and Charismatic churches known as Arminianism re prevenient grace, human choice and freedom, works of faith, holiness, obedience, the divine-human cooperative, and so on). This newer perspective which encompasses all the theological views above is known as the "New Perspective of Paul" (and more accurately might be called the "Newer Perspectives of Paul") which we'll shortly explain.
 
Accordingly, NT Wright has struck a nerve within contemporary Christianity by redirecting the Church's efforts backwards towards its antecedent roots in Jewish Theology and what that meant to the Christianized Jews of Jesus' and Paul's day. And especially after the Apostle Paul's profound Damascus Road experience of Christ where the NT's over-zealous Jewish Rabbi is confronted with the Christ he persecuted, to be profoundly overthrown in his life and thoughts, once blinding him to the deep sublimity of Christ's personage, passion, death, and resurrection. Immediately we see Paul begin a lifetime's discussion to re-interpret (or re-measure) his past Jewish theological training and heritage in the aftermath of the Christ-event that he experienced: both historically, in the context of Israel's Redemptive history; and, personally, within his own religious life context as a priest and Jew.
 
Soon thereafter Paul begins down a very long, and arduous, theological road describing how he has become a Messianic Christian selected to proclaim Jesus to the Gentiles as distinguished from being a Jewish Christian to his Jewish brethren worshipping and ministering in the churches of Jerusalem. To be a Jewish Christian was indicative of the Jerusalem Christian's preference to retain as much of their Jewish heritage as possible (sic., Peter's remedial conciliation to do as they wish while no longer preaching the necessity for circumcision, while avoiding idol meat and sexual immorality, against his own profound discovery of the Gospel's proclaim to all non-Jews and heathen Gentiles: Acts 11 and Acts 15). As a Messianic Christian, Paul - who once was a former Jewish Rabbi but now a Jesus convert, and servant to The Name, respects his Jewish heritage while radically uplifting its OT flavor into, and around, the newer paradigms presented through Jesus of Nazareth as man's Messiah-Savior-Redeemer. This theological understanding of Jesus would quickly revolutionize the reading of the OT through Jesus, and soon necessitated the construction of a New Testament as a series of apostolic books bearing both continuity, and discontinuity, to that of the Jewish/Hebrew Canon (itself solidified several hundred years earlier under the Council of Jamnia during the second Temple period) and to the Christian religion centered upon Jesus, God's Son and Savior.
 
N.T. Wright's 4 volume series (5, overall) is meant to be a legacy-capstone project to his professional theological studies in summary discussion to the following ideas. That Christianity's conflicted legacies were struggling with identification and spiritual meaning even as Jewish doctrine was doing the same. Because of Israel's history of warfare and exile, much of its heritage had been lost and incomplete (we call this period of Talmudic transition late Judaism). With Israel's return to the land from Babylonian exile under Nehemiah (technically, Judah's return, as the southern kingdom of Israel's split kingdom) a massive effort was undertaken by Ezra and the scribes to recapture Israel's ancient heritage and beliefs. From their efforts came the Old Testament, which was a collection of their oral history, prophetic writings, and so forth, during this second temple period of restoration. And from that began a  several hundred year effort to re-teach God's Word to the Jewish people creating many splintering groups of Jewish beliefs (such as John the Baptist's much later Essene group in Jesus' day) which debated the particulars of God's Word.
 
From these efforts arose a Jewish priesthood of scribes to transcribe the OT Scriptures from the classic Hebrew language into the modified Aramaic of their day (thus preserving its records), and the Pharisees, who handled the observances of those records through priestly duties and teachings. By the first century, Rabbinism was beginning to form to disseminate first-century beliefs, practices and precepts of the old Talmudic tradition. It was clearly unformed and not yet solidified because of Jesus' many conflicts with Rabbinic teachings and traditions. And to this turmoil came the Christian church's own conflicts and disagreements with Rabbinic doctrine as each body of believers formed and reformed, consolidated, splintered, and re-consolidated again, until a general body politic arose from each mediating group in the centuries preceding.
 
Each tradition - one old (Judaism), one new (Christianity) - were in the incipient (early or unformed) stages of development. Even as the church's doctrine was forming through the ages of the Church Fathers (Christianity's first six centuries), so too was Rabbinism under its own efforts. And quite often, as is normal with any movement, they each played off the other, reacting to one thing or another. And as each religious group moved towards consolidation, so did the church rapidly move towards codifying its own New Testament Scriptures centered around Jesus' teachings and life story, along with His disciple's apostolic observations and writings. This was generally completed around 150 AD but it wasn't until c.692 that the NT was fully instated at the Council of Trullan:
 
"For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 300's.[2] The Biblical canon was the result of debate and research, reaching its final term for Catholics at the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, when the Old Testament Canon was finalized in the Catholic Church as well.[3]" - Wikipedia
 
Proceeding apace were reciprocal theological efforts to comport NT Christian beliefs with the OT Jewish Scriptures showing the continuities and discontinuities between historical era and redemptive activity. Thus the Church Father's worked towards developing an Apostolic theology from within their own cultural settings of Greek Hellenism and from the Syrian-Coptic-African Christian attitudes of the early church (remember, Alexandria still held the great libraries of the learned at that time). What resulted were years and years and years of developing dogmas, doctrines, church traditions and beliefs, as regionally demarcated geographically even as they were temporally demarcated culturally. Formative church doctrines such as the Trinity of God or, the nature of Jesus' divine and human nature (known as hypostasis), slathered back and forth creating doctrinal ideas reflective of a church's own culturally-based ideologies as seen in the separation between Roman/Western Orthodoxy as versus the Greek/Eastern Orthodox branches of the church. And later in the Medieval ages between Reformed bodies politic as versus a Catholic understanding. Or even in today's modernistic Bible-believing churches as versus the older mainline denominational churches. Added to these doctrinal differences has come philosophic and cultural ingression into the theologies of the church. From the Greek Hellenism within first century Judaism; to Medieval doctrine's founded in late Hellenism; to today's philosophies of enlightenment - both modern and postmodern, with all the residual affects that each bring to the other.
 
Thus Sanders, Dunn, and Wright's propositions to attempt a return, if possible, from the church's Westernized, systematic theologies steeped in a plethora of late Medieval philosophies, Reformed-Enlightenment, and Evangelic-Modernism to a first century Jewish understanding of Jesus and Paul's teachings. Of course time and culture cannot be avoided, and thus the transfer vehicle in this case is postmodernism to help us redact earlier philosophic eras with its engrained prejudices and beliefs. So when describing this rich tradition of doctrinal turmoil and philosophical rebuttal we find ourselves within the larger philosophical ideas of how one can know God, oneself, one's senses, this world, and all that is within it - as set apart from one's heritage and traditions, and socio-cultural upbringing. As such, Christianity has always been embroiled within the ideas of  a larger philosophical setting. In fact, the disciplines of theology and philosophy find themselves as inseparable twins to the idea of "how one knows what one thinks s/he knows." Which has been the great, good benefit of postmodernism to today's church theologies. The early churches were no less embroiled within these discussions when dealing with the Greek philosophies of Aristotelianism and Platonism; its many perambulations as found in Augustine, Aquinas (Scholasticism and Thomism); and the later arising Reformational ideas found within Catholic v. Eastern, Lutheran v. Reformed doctrines. No foreigner to these debates is today's contemporary church working through its own ideas of a literalistic bible enmeshed within a culture of in anti-intellectualism and anti-science to that of postmodernism's meta-scientific, existential-phenomenological debates. Certainly, theology and philosophy go hand-in-hand even as faith works both within-and-without of religious beliefs.
 
Consequently, Tom Wright will occasionally work through some of these ideas (as he did in Vol. 1) but mostly, one may expect biblical discourses on New Testament doctrine while struggling through the development of a more up-to-date hermeneutical reading of the Word of God known as critical realism that is basically a blended reading of the Bible with a science-orientated view to it. Which by this means that a critical-realistic reading of the Bible is a less naïve reading of God's Word than the standard interpretation used by many pew members today as instructed by their pastors from the pulpit; or exampled by Sunday School teachers in class; or the many inspirational Christian books and devotional tracts that one reads today.
 
And thus, falling across the rich traditions of E.P. Sanders and J.D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright works through the ideas of the New Perspective of Paul  and away from the heavily influenced Lutheran and Reformed views of Paul (known as the older perspectives of the church. That of Calvin, Luther, Law and Grace, Faith and Law, covenantal nomism, etc). And towards a more Jewish-Pauline perspective of Jesus:
 
"It is often noted that the singular title "the new perspective" gives an unjustified impression of unity. It is a field of study in which many scholars are actively pursuing research and continuously revising their own theories in light of new evidence, and who do not necessarily agree with each other on any given issue. It has been suggested by many that the plural title "the newer perspectives" may therefore be more accurate. In 2003, N. T. Wright, distancing himself from both Sanders and Dunn, commented that "there are probably almost as many ‘new perspective’ positions as there are writers espousing it – and I disagree with most of them".[5] There are certain trends and commonalities within the movement, but what is held in common is the belief that the "old perspective" (the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of Paul the Apostle and Judaism) is fundamentally incorrect.
 
"Since the Protestant Reformation (c. 1517), studies of Paul's writings have been heavily influenced by Lutheran and Reformed views that are said to ascribe the negative attributes that they associated with sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism to first-century Judaism. These Lutheran and Reformed views on Paul's Writings are called the "old perspective" by adherents of the "New Perspective on Paul". Thus, the "new perspective" is an attempt to lift Paul's letters out of the Lutheran/Reformed framework and interpret them based on what is said to be an understanding of first-century Judaism, taken on its own terms. (Within this article, "the old perspective" refers specifically to Reformed and Lutheran traditions, especially the views descended from John Calvin and Martin Luther, see also Law and Gospel.)
 
"Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. In the old perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians' good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to the new perspective, Paul was questioning only [practices and] observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general." - Wikipedia
 
R.E. Slater
October 1, 2013
edited October 8, 2013
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * *


We Will Call it “PFG”
 
I begin with this: In my lifetime only a few books have been like this one (set). I consider EP Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Martin Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism to be two rivals, with Jimmy Dunn’s Paul the Apostle a close third. This book rivals and may excel the others, so I want you to understand that we will be examining a book that will undoubtedly shape conversations for at least a decade and will influence discussions for decades.
 
Which of NT Wright’s book is most influential? your favorite?
 
Where will we be going? Beyond what most have called Paul’s theology or New Testament (NT) theology or NT history, and behind much of what is called both. Here’s how Tom puts it:
Here we may note one particular result of this proposal. Most works on ‘Pauline theology’ have made soteriology, including justification, central. So, in a sense, does this one. But in the Jewish context ‘soteriology’ is firmly located within the understanding of the people of God. God calls Abraham’s family, and rescues them from Egypt. That is how the story works, and that is the story Paul sees being reworked around Jesus and the spirit. This explains why chapter 10, on ‘election’, is what it is, and why it is the longest in the book. I hasten to add, as readers of that chapter will discover, that this does not (as some have suggested) collapse soteriology into ecclesiology. Rather, it pays attention to the Jewish belief which Paul himself firmly endorses, that God’s solution to the plight of the world begins with the call of Abraham. Nor does this mean that ‘the people of God’ are defined, smugly as it were, simply as the beneficiaries of salvation. The point of the Jewish vocation as Paul understood it was that they were to be the bearers of salvation to the rest of the world. That, in turn, lies at the heart of his own vocation, issuing in his own characteristic praxis.
Tom sent some of this manuscript about four years ago when he was on sabbatical at Princeton and at the time there was not yet an introduction. So the manuscript began right where it begins now (without that Intro), in a most surprising place, with [the Pualine letter to] Philemon. That little letter [has been] often ignored. But Wright opens up with a letter from Pliny the Younger writing to a friend about a runaway freedman and then Wright compares that letter with Paul’s letter to a friend, Philemon, about his “wandering” (not quite runaway) slave who had become a Christian while [ironically] Paul, of all places, was in [the] prison in Ephesus [for being a slave to Christ] … all to show that instead of [(the Roman view of)] hierarchy, and power, and benevolence, we [have in its place the view of] brotherhood, and family, and love, and forgiveness. In other words, a “world apart” (6).
 
Instead of a [being considered a] fugitive, Onesimus is [to be regarded as] a brother and Paul’s own [adopted] son. In those terms we see the heart of the Pauline experiment of grace flowing in all directions. Paul’s word is “fellowship”: he is creating a new family, or God is creating a new family, that includes people from all tribes and nationalities and statuses. Gone, then, is the power hierarchy so typical of Rome.
 
Wright has a wrinkle on [the word] “for-ever,” where he sees a possible looking back to the [books of the] Pentateuch in which a slave could choose to be a slave forever by refusing manumission [(release from slavery)]. Wright then suggests Onesimus will say "Please let me back and I will serve you forever." And then v. 21 might suggest manumission as the far reach of what Philemon can do.

A classic paragraph from Tom Wright:
These discussions about the actual situation and the request Paul made have tended, as I said, to make exegetes overlook the point which is just as important in its way as the question of what Paul was asking for, namely the argument he uses to back up this central appeal. In order to make his triple (and increasingly cautious) request, Paul adopts a strategy so striking in its social and cultural implications, so powerful in its rhetorical appeal, and so obviously theologically grounded, that despite the chorus of dismissive voices ancient, and modern, the letter can hold up its head, like Reepi- cheep the Mouse beside the talking bears and elephants, alongside its senior but not theologically superior cousins, Romans, Galatians and the rest (16). 
What we have then is a radical revisioning of monotheism and [divine] power on the basis of the cross [(where rule and power is given up)], and resurrection’s power to create one new body in Christ [between all men and tribes and nations]. It’s all about learning to think through this thing called “worldview”, as Tom says it:
In particular, this way of approaching the matter explains why the tendency since at least medieval times in the western church to organize Paul’s concepts around his vision of ‘salvation’ in particular has distorted the larger picture, has marginalized elements which were central and vital to him, and – because this ‘salvation’ has often been understood in a dualistic, even Platonic, fashion – has encouraged a mode of study in which Paul and his soteriology is seen in splendid isolation from his historical context. Paul experienced ‘salvation’ on the road to Damascus, people suppose; his whole system of thought grew from that [(isolating)] viewpoint; so we do not need to consider how he relates to the worlds of Israel, Greece or Rome! How very convenient. And how very untrue. If we take that route, a supposed ‘Pauline soteriology’ will swell to a distended size and, like an oversized airline traveller, end up sitting not only in its own seat but in those on either side as well. In particular, it will become dangerously self-referential: the way to be saved is by believing, but the main theological point Paul taught was soteriology, so the way to be saved is by believing in Pauline soteriology (‘justification by faith’). For Paul, that would be a reductio ad absurdum. The way to be saved is not by believing that one is saved. In Paul’s view, the way to be saved is by believing in Jesus as the crucified and risen lord.*
[*however, most evangelics that I know are always careful to connect the two thoughts of faith in Christ and not to separate them so foolishly as faith in one's faith. - re slater]
The hypothesis I offer in this book is that we can find just such a vantage-point when we begin by assuming that Paul remained a deeply Jewish theologian who had rethought and reworked every aspect of his native Jewish theology in the light of the Messiah and the spirit, resulting in his own vocational self-understanding as the apostle to the pagans.
Tom will be using the story of Philemon throughout PFG so it might be good to read it again, at least the core parts in Philemon 8-22
Philemon 8   For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty,  9 yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love—and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus.  10 I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment.  11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and to me12 I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you.  13 I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel;  14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced.  15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 
Philemon 17   So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me18 If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.  19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. I say nothing about your owing me even your own self.  20 Yes, brother, let me have this benefit from you in the Lord! Refresh my heart in Christ.  21 Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say
Philemon 22   One thing more—prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be restored to you.
Here is the outline to PFG, and those numbers are page numbers (so, Yes, this is a big double volume).
 
 
BOOK I
 
Contents: Parts I and II xi Preface xv
 
Part I - PAUL AND HIS WORLD
  1. Return of the Runaway? 3
  2. Like Birds Hovering Overhead: the Faithfulness of the God of Israel 75
  3. Athene and Her Owl: the Wisdom of the Greeks 197
  4. A Cock for Asclepius: ‘Religion’ and ‘Culture’ in Paul’s World 246
  5. The Eagle Has Landed: Rome and the Challenge of Empire 279

Part II - THE MINDSET OF THE APOSTLE
  1. A Bird in the Hand? The Symbolic Praxis of Paul’s World 351
  2. The Plot, the Plan and the Storied Worldview 456
  3. Five Signposts to the Apostolic Mindset 538
Bibliography for Parts I and II 572

BOOK II

Contents: Parts III and IV ix

Part III - PAUL’S THEOLOGY

Introduction to Part III 609
  1. The One God of Israel, Freshly Revealed 619
  2. The People of God, Freshly Reworked 774
  3. God’s Future for the World, Freshly Imagined 1043
Part IV - PAUL IN HISTORY

Introduction to Part IV 1269
  1. The Lion and the Eagle: Paul in Caesar’s Empire 1271
  2. A Different Sacrifice: Paul and ‘Religion’ 1320
  3. The Foolishness of God: Paul among the Philosophers 1354
  4. To Know the Place for the First Time: Paul and His Jewish Context 1408
  5. Signs of the New Creation: Paul’s Aims and Achievements 1473


* * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
NT Wright Series - Christian Origins and
the Question of God, 5 Volumes (4 completed)
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
 

 
Part of a five-volume project on the theological questions surrounding the origins of Christianity, this book offers a reappraisal of literary, historical and theological readings of the New Testament, arguing for a form of "critical realism" that facilitates different readings of the text.

  • Paperback: 535 pages
  • Publisher: Fortress Press; 1st North American edition (September 1992)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0800626818
  • ISBN-13: 978-0800626815 




  • Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2) by N. T. Wright (Aug 1, 1997)

    In this highly anticipated volume, N. T. Wright focuses directly on the historical Jesus: Who was he? What did he say? And what did he mean by it?
     
    Wright begins by showing how the questions posed by Albert Schweitzer a century ago remain central today. Then he sketches a profile of Jesus in terms of his prophetic praxis, his subversive stories, the symbols by which he reordered his world, and the answers he gave to the key questions that any world view must address. The examination of Jesus' aims and beliefs, argued on the basis of Jesus' actions and their accompanying riddles, is sure to stimulate heated response. Wright offers a provocative portrait of Jesus as Israel's Messiah who would share and bear the fate of the nation and would embody the long-promised return of Israel's God to Zion. 
     
  • Paperback: 741 pages
  • Publisher: Fortress Press (August 1, 1997)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0800626826
  • ISBN-13: 978-0800626822 

  •  
     
     
    Why did Christianity begin, and why did it take the shape it did? To answer this question – which any historian must face – renowned New Testament scholar N.T. Wright focuses on the key points: what precisely happened at Easter? What did the early Christians mean when they said that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead? What can be said today about his belief?
     
    This book, third is Wright’s series Christian Origins and the Question of God, sketches a map of ancient beliefs about life after death, in both the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds. It then highlights the fact that the early Christians’ belief about the afterlife belonged firmly on the Jewish spectrum, while introducing several new mutations and sharper definitions. This, together with other features of early Christianity, forces the historian to read the Easter narratives in the gospels, not simply as late rationalizations of early Christian spirituality, but as accounts of two actual events: the empty tomb of Jesus and his "appearances."
     
    How do we explain these phenomena? The early Christians’ answer was that Jesus had indeed been bodily raised from the dead; that was why they hailed him as the messianic "son of God." No modern historian has come up with a more convincing explanation. Facing this question, we are confronted to this day with the most central issues of the Christian worldview and theology.
    • Paperback: 740 pages
    • Publisher: Fortress Press (March 1, 2003)
    • Language: English
    • ISBN-10: 0800626796
    • ISBN-13: 978-0800626792
     
     
    This highly anticipated two-book fourth volume in N. T. Wright's magisterial series, Christian Origins and the Question of God, is destined to become the standard reference point on the subject for all serious students of the Bible and theology. The mature summation of a lifetime's study, this landmark book pays a rich tribute to the breadth and depth of the apostle's vision, and offers an unparalleled wealth of detailed insights into his life, times, and enduring impact.
     
    Wright carefully explores the whole context of Paul's thought and activity— Jewish, Greek and Roman, cultural, philosophical, religious, and imperial— and shows how the apostle's worldview and theology enabled him to engage with the many-sided complexities of first-century life that his churches were facing. Wright also provides close and illuminating readings of the letters and other primary sources, along with critical insights into the major twists and turns of exegetical and theological debate in the vast secondary literature. The result is a rounded and profoundly compelling account of the man who became the world's first, and greatest, Christian theologian.

  • Paperback: 1700 pages
  • Publisher: Fortress Press (November 1, 2013)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0800626834
  • ISBN-13: 978-0800626839


  •  
    Biography
     
    N.T. Wright is Bishop of Durham and was formerly Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey and dean of Lichfield Cathedral. He taught New Testament studies for twenty years at Cambridge, McGill and Oxford Universities. Wright's full-scale works The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of God are part of a projected six-volume series entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God. Among his many other published works are The Original Jesus, What Saint Paul Really Said and The Climax of the Covenant. He is also coauthor with Marcus Borg of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions and the volume on Colossians and Philemon in The Tyndale New Testament Commentary series.
     
     
     
     
    Continue to Index -
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Friday, June 14, 2013

    An Interview with N.T. Wright: The New Ecology, the God of the OT v. NT, Open Theism, Sexuality, Biblical Interpretation, and More

    Ask N.T. Wright... (response)
     
    by Rachael Held Evans
    June 11, 2013
     
    This afternoon I am thrilled to host one of today’s best known and respected New Testament scholars, N.T. Wright, as a guest in our ongoing reader-conducted interview series.  Last week you submitted over 300 questions for Wright, but we could only pick 6 as our esteemed guest is busy wrapping up work on the much-anticipated Paul and the Faithfulness of God and its two companion volumes, Pauline Perspectives and Paul and His Recent Interpreters. (You can pre-order all on Amazon.)
     
    Wright is the author of over 100 books, including the popular Surprised by Hope and Simply Christian. His full-scale works—The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God,  The Resurrection of the Son of God, and the forthcoming Paul and the Faithfulness of God—are part of a projected six-volume series entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God. He is also the author of multiple articles, essays, and sermons, many of which you can access here. (Wright usually publishes as N.T. Wright when writing academic work, or Tom Wright when writing for a more popular readership.) Wright was the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England from 2003 until his retirement in 2010. He is currently Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
     
    Like a lot of you, I’ve been hugely impacted by Wright’s work and am so grateful for the ways in which he has helped me love Scripture, and the Christ to whom it points, better. One thing I have always appreciated about him is his commitment to teaching God's people, not just the intellectual elite, but all who want to know and follow Jesus.
     
    Thank you for your many excellent questions.


    * * * * * * * * * * * * *


    From S. Kyle: Dr. Wright: You have argued, particularly in Surprised by Hope, that the bodily resurrection and the physical nature of the coming consummation of the Kingdom opens up to us a legitimate basis for physical action in the world: the things we do in the body and on this planet for good, really do matter. How exactly do these things 'last' into the eschaton? How seamless is the relationship between the now and the not-yet? What seems especially tricky to me here is doing things that have implications outside of the Church. Do the parts of the physical world we preserve through our ecological work literally remain into the eschaton? What about securing justice for non-believers who will ultimately, we would posit, be judged eternally? Most fundamentally: how exactly do your eschatological views, particularly in teasing out these details, provide a well-supported basis for a Christian social ethic?
     
    The continuity between our present now/not yet time and the ultimate eschaton is deeply mysterious, since the only model we have for it is the resurrection of Jesus himself – with the wounds of the nails and the spear evidence of that continuity.
     
    There is much about which we must say we do not know and we quite possibly cannot know at the moment. What we can know and do know is that we are called to do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with God, and I don’t see that as e.g. doing something wrong if those for whom we do justice and mercy turn out to spurn God’s love for themselves. The point of justice and mercy anyway is not ‘they deserve it’ but ‘this is the way God’s world should be’, and we are called to do those things that truly anticipate the way God’s world WILL be.
     
    The fact that God has promised to put the world right in the end, the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead having defeated the power of evil on the cross, and the fact that he has called us to participate in that death and resurrection and, by the spirit, to be agents of his blessing in the world (see the Beatitudes!) indicates clearly enough that our ‘social ethic’ (what a lot of muddles are contained in the background to that truncated phrase!) is rooted in God’s act in Jesus, aiming for his final completion of his restorative justice, implemented in part by us here and now. Part of gospel obedience is precisely that we do NOT know in the present the answer to questions like this. See Matthew 25: “‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you…?”

     
    * * * * * * * * * * * * *
     

    From Jessica: A struggle of mine recently has been reconciling (or rather trying to reconcile), the seemingly violent and vindictive God of the Old Testament with the non-violent, "love your enemies," Jesus. How would you put those two radically different views of God, together?
     
    An old question but best answered by a fresh reading of Isaiah 40-55 on the one hand – the greatest outpouring of divine love and mercy you can imagine – and of, say, John’s gospel on the other, in which when the spirit comes he will convict the world of sin in righteousness and judgment.
     
    Beware of false either/or divisions. Of course there is a problem in, for example, the book of Judges. My view is that when God called Abraham he knew he was going to work through flawed human beings to bring about redemption . . . and that the fault lines run forward then all the way to the cross, the most wicked thing humans ever did and the most loving thing God ever did. Once we figure out how all that works (probably never!) we will understand the rest. Part of the problem the way the question is posed is by assuming that we can abstract an ethical ideal from one part of scripture and use it to judge the actions of God in another part of scripture, as though scripture were given us so we could form such dehistoricized abstract ethical judgments! Life just isn’t like that.
     
     
     
    * * * * * * * * * * * * *
     
     
    From Kurt: Hi Dr. Wright, First, allow me to admit that your writing and speaking has been the most influential thing in my theological, missional, and spiritual journey in the last 10 years. Before I was introduced to your work, I was convinced that Christianity was all about pie in the sky and leaving this world - not redeeming it. Discovering Romans 8 and a God who groans with creation for its ultimate redemption - [re]new[ed] creation - changes everything! For showing me this - along with various other things about the historical Jesus, the apostle Paul, and theology in general - I am truly grateful.
     
    I do have a question for you: I am wondering if you would be willing to "show your cards" when it comes to open theism? Most of my friends who are open theists, Greg Boyd and others, are very influenced by your work. Certainly, nothing you have said seems to contradict such a God of possibilities. In fact, your reading of Abraham and Israel as God's "plan B" actually helps give us a framework for thinking about such things. Even so, what would your thoughts be on open theism? I realize that you may not agree with this position of mine, but I would be intrigued to hear some your observations. Thanks for your continued ministry to the church!
     
    Open theism is not something I have done a lot with and to be honest (and it’s late at night and I’m busy). I strongly suspect this is one of those classic American either/or questions that is forcing theology into a box. I never use the language of ‘Plan B’, certainly not about Abraham and Israel; in fact I often quote the Rabbi who envisaged God having Abraham in mind from the start. I don’t want to sign a blank check (or cheque as we spell it), especially when it’s written in dollars not pounds. Go figure!

     
    * * * * * * * * * * * * *


    From Steve: What is sexuality like in the kingdom of God? Is everyone in Heaven going to be heterosexual? And if NOT, what are the implications of that for how we live here and now?
     
    Freud said sex was laughing in the face of death. Jesus said that in the new world, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; having passed beyond death into resurrection, with no prospect of death, there will be no need for reproduction and hence we may assume no desire for it, just as now as a 64-year old I no longer have a desire to play rugby though there was a time when I lived for it. (Not a good analogy but never mind.) Also, be careful of equating ‘kingdom of God’ with ‘in Heaven.’ Read 1 Corinthians 13 and figure out what Paul is saying about that which lasts into the resurrection life and that which doesn’t.
     
    The key thing of course is that throughout the New Testament it is assumed that what God has done in Jesus is new CREATION in which the original plan of Genesis 1 and 2 is gloriously fulfilled. (See Mark 10 and elsewhere.) And beware of language that assumes categories like ‘heterosexual’ and similar terms are now solid and fixed entities which are somehow established. They are modernist constructs which already many postmoderns are rapidly deconstructing. Don’t build houses on sand. ["I assume Wright is referring to modernistic sand." - r.e. slater]


    * * * * * * * * * * * * *


    From Heidi: Because Rachel is such a voice for women in the blogosphere, I would love for you to address gender inequality in the church and bring a better reading to the passages that have been used as weapons on women for generations.
     
    I’ve done this in various writings some of which are available on the web. The best place to start is with this article, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis.”
     
    An excerpt, regarding Mary of Bethany:
    "I think in particular of the woman who anointed Jesus (without here going in to the question of who it was and whether it happened more than once); as some have pointed out, this was a priestly action which Jesus accepted as such. And I think, too, of the remarkable story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10."
    "Most of us grew up with the line that Martha was the active type and Mary the passive or contemplative type, and that Jesus is simply affirming the importance of both and even the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is undoubtedly part of the importance of the story, but far more obvious to any first-century reader, and to many readers in Turkey, the Middle East and many other parts of the world to this day would be the fact that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet within the male part of the house rather than being kept in the back rooms with the other women. This, I am pretty sure, is what really bothered Martha; no doubt she was cross at being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind that was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social conventions. It is as though, in today’s world, you were to invite me to stay in your house and, when it came to bedtime, I were to put up a camp bed in your bedroom. We have our own clear but unstated rules about whose space is which; so did they. And Mary has just flouted them. And Jesus declares that she is right to do so. 
    She is ‘sitting at his feet’; a phrase which doesn’t mean what it would mean today, the adoring student gazing up in admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. As is clear from the use of the phrase elsewhere in the NT (for instance, Paul with Gamaliel), to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning; and in that very practical world you wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your own mind and heart, but in order to be a teacher, a rabbi, yourself. Like much in the gospels, this story is left cryptic as far as we at least are concerned, but I doubt if any first-century reader would have missed the point. That, no doubt, is part at least of the reason why we find so many women in positions of leadership, initiative and responsibility in the early church; I used to think Romans 16 was the most boring chapter in the letter, and now, as I study the names and think about them, I am struck by how powerfully they indicate the way in which the teaching both of Jesus and of Paul was being worked out in practice…."
    An excerpt, regarding 1 Timothy 2
    “When people say that the Bible enshrines patriarchal ideas and attitudes, this passage, particularly verse 12, is often held up as the prime example. Women mustn’t be teachers, the verse seems to say; they mustn’t hold any authority over men; they must keep silent. That, at least, is how many translations put it. This, as I say, is the main passage that people quote when they want to suggest that the New Testament forbids the ordination of women. I was once reading these verses in a church service and a woman near the front exploded in anger, to the consternation of the rest of the congregation (even though some agreed with her). The whole passage seems to be saying that women are second-class citizens at every level. They aren’t even allowed to dress prettily. They are the daughters of Eve, and she was the original troublemaker. The best thing for them to do is to get on and have children, and to behave themselves and keep quiet."
    "Well, that’s how most people read the passage in our culture until quite recently. I fully acknowledge that the very different reading I’m going to suggest may sound to begin with as though I’m simply trying to make things easier, to tailor this bit of Paul to fit our culture. But there is good, solid scholarship behind what I’m going to say, and I genuinely believe it may be the right interpretation."
    "When you look at strip cartoons, ‘B’ grade movies, and ‘Z’ grade novels and [classical] poems, you pick up a standard view of how ‘everyone imagines’ men and women behave. Men are macho, loud-mouthed, arrogant thugs, always fighting and wanting their own way. Women are simpering, empty-headed creatures, with nothing to think about except clothes and jewelry. There are ‘Christian’ versions of this, too: the men must make the decisions, run the show, always be in the lead, telling everyone what to do; women must stay at home and bring up the children. If you start looking for a biblical back-up for this view, well, what about Genesis 3? Adam would never have sinned if Eve hadn’t given in first. Eve has her punishment, and it’s pain in childbearing (Genesis 3.16)."
    "Well, you don’t have to embrace every aspect of the women’s liberation movement to find that interpretation hard to swallow. Not only does it stick in our throat as a way of treating half the human race; it doesn’t fit with what we see in the rest of the New Testament, in the passages we’ve already glanced at."
    "The key to the present passage, then, is to recognise that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so (verse 11). They are to be ‘in full submission’; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men’, or ‘to their husbands’, but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ – the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’ Why might Paul need to say this?"
    "There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the main religion – the biggest Temple, the most famous shrine – was a female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place."
    "Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organising male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, with one feature of that being that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. The word I’ve translated ‘try to dictate to them’ is unusual, but seems to have the overtones of ‘being bossy’ or ‘seizing control’. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis-cult, but so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership God is giving them."
    "What’s the point of the other bits of the passage, then? The first verse (8) is clear: the men must give themselves to devout prayer, and must not follow the normal stereotypes of ‘male’ behaviour: no anger or arguing. Then verses 9 and 10 follow, making the same point about the women. They must be set free from their stereotype, that of fussing all the time about hair-dos, jewellry, and fancy clothes – but they must be set free, not in order that they can be dowdy, unobtrusive little mice, but so that they can make a creative contribution to the wider society. The phrase ‘good works’ in verse 10 sounds pretty bland to us, but it’s one of the regular ways people used to refer to the social obligation to spend time and money on people less fortunate than oneself, to be a benefactor of the town through helping public works, the arts, and so on."
    Read the rest here, and see also this video related to Romans 16
     
    N.T. Wright on Women in Ministry 5
     
     

     
    * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     
    From Mark: In these theological/political times, where it seems so important to be in the right "camp" lest we be cast out from fellowship with others because we do not hold the "correct" views, how do you suggest moving forward toward greater unity, rather than greater division?
     
    Beware of ‘camps’.
     
    In the U.S. especially these are usually and worryingly tied in to the various political either/or positions WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT RECOGNISE. Anyone with their wits about them who reads scripture and prays and is genuinely humble will see that many of the issues which push people into ‘camps’ - especially but not only in the U.S. - are distortions in both directions caused by trying to get a quick fix on a doctrinal or ethical issue, squashing it into the small categories of one particular culture. Read Philippians 2.1-11 again and again. And Ephesians 4.1-16 as well.


    * * * * * * * * * * * * *


    From Laura: Can you and Francis Collins write more awesome songs together? Pretty please!
     
    You never know!  The two we’ve written so far happened more or less by accident.
     

     


    * * * * * * * * * * * * *


    Thanks for the questions and sorry these answers are brief! Good wishes to one and all. And say a prayer for all the final editing and production of the big book on Paul!


    ###
     
    Thanks again for your questions! You can check out every installment of our interview series—which includes “Ask an atheist,” “Ask a nun,” “Ask a pacifist,” “Ask a Calvinist,” “Ask a Muslim,” “Ask a gay Christian,” “Ask a Pentecostal” “Ask an environmentalist,” “Ask a funeral director,” "Ask a Liberation Theologian,"  "Ask Shane Claiborne," "Ask Jennifer Knapp," and  many more— here.