I love biblical theology. But I do think it has limitations, and it should not be made an end in itself. There is someone more fundamental than a story.
Mark Seifrid gets it:
It is worth reminding ourselves that just as Scripture has not been given to us as a dogmatic outline, neither has it been given to us as a single, unified story. It is a collection of narratives that not only complement one another but also overlap and stand in tension with one another. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis, two accounts of the Davidic monarchy, and four Gospels. The Psalms tell and retell the story of Israel in ways that are sometimes remarkably different from one another. More significant than the variations in perspective, and often lying behind these variations, are the differing ways in which God encounters his people.
[...]
The narrative is held together, not by a "strong historical continuity" as [Tom] Wright claims, but by the love and power of the Creator alone. That brings us finally, and decisively, to the human encounter with the God who, out of unconditioned love, forgives sin, promises salvation and blessing, and in Jesus Christ has brought his promises to fulfillment. In the gospel, God reveals himself to us beyond all other encounters with him as our loving, forgiving, and saving Creator.
(pp.24-25, "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright", Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol 72:1, January 2008)
I like it.
ReplyDeleteA good thing to bear in mind to ensure not making a motorway through whole books of the Bible, or even the whole Old Testament.
wow.
ReplyDeletereminds me of a conversation we had dave a while back on the relevance of historical settings - it really must take a back seat, though it must take its seat.
so what's the most important thing for understanding this conversation: is it where we were or what we said?
obviously tom wright sees theology & historical study as inseparable - (hmm, i wonder if that makes his views Hegelian?)...
Hello people. I really shouldn't be taking this time on blogs but it is always nice to have comments.
ReplyDeleteI like the motorway analogy Peter. I'll have to remember that.
Chris, as so often I'm a tad confused by your comment! I think I remember the conversation but I may be just projecting onto my memory it is that dim.
I don't know enough about Hegel to comment on whether Wright has Hegelian views. Sorry. I would however agree with him that theology and historical study are inseparable. I would be more concerned that Wright's historical and exegetical study tends to be shaped by his 'big idea'/narrative to an unreasonable extent. That makes him quite exhilarating to read because we all like someone with big ideas. Nevertheless I think he drives a motorway through the varied countryside of the bible (thanks Peter ;)) and forces things to fit his story even when I don't think they do (BTW Jimmy Dunn thought so too in his conversations with him on Jesus/Paul).
As for "so what's the most important thing for understanding this conversation: is it where we were or what we said?"
A good question. I tend to think that they both have to be understood together. I always think of Jesus and his differing attitudes to the Pharisees and the 'Sinners' on this. He had different things to say to each. If we say what he said to 'Sinners' to 'Pharisees' or what he said to 'Pharisees' to 'Sinners' then we actually are telling lies. Truth is not just a system we can dump on people whole. Truth is personal and sensitive to different people (blimy that sounds awful, but I can't think of better at the mo). Some need to be wounded and some need to be healed. Some need to be emboldened and some need to be taught wisdom. Over our whole lives we usually need both, but need to hear different things at different times.
This is what Seifrid is saying when he says "It is a collection of narratives that not only complement one another but also overlap and stand in tension with one another."
I don't know if I've expressed myself properly, but that will have to do.
wonderfully! Couldn't put the personal touch of truth better - saducees/pharisees is a great example.
ReplyDeleteI had a quick look and I discovered i was referring to an email discussion we had in december 06, subject "hmm...you're not going to like this"!! but i can't remember it too well either! It's too easy to "comment" without connecting references. my bad.
ps Hegel basically locks 'god' into (or out of, depending on your point of view) history and throws away the key. A bit like the idea of zeitgeist (sounds like could be his word) - there is a spirit not just of the age, but the whole of history is the movement of some universal Spirit towards its own self-realisation, ie come to know what it really is.