New Book
I've started a new book. It's titled "Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense" by N.T. Wright. I'm reading it with a friend from work. I wanted to read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis again but this one was recommended to me by Neal, someone who's opinion I highly value. I can not remember exactly what he said about the book, but I remember my impression being that this book would be easier to read for a non-Christian. Since my friend at work is not a Christian I suggested this one instead. I just finished the first chapter and I'm not exactly sure what I think. It didn't grab me the way that Lewis' writing does.
The first chapter was on justice. The fact that overwhelmingly we as humans feel that life is unfair and unjust, that we want justice but are unable to attain it; "we see a world in pain, a world out of joint, a world where things occur which we seem powerless to make right." Then he went on to talk about why we feel that life is unfair, what contributes to that. He went on to briefly explain some theories on what contributes to that feeling and focuses on the Christian theory. He says, "Comedy and tragedy both speak of things being out of order - in the one case, simply by being incongruous and therefore funny; in the other case, by things not going the way they should, and people being crushed as a result." He calls the feeling of being called to justice "the echo of a voice". And goes on to say that as a Christian God's passion for justice must become ours as well, that we should not use our belief in Christ to escape that demand because by doing so we abandon a central element of our faith. Jesus said, as you do unto the least of these so you have done unto me. (Pardon the poor paraphrase.) I don't know about you, but before this evening I had not thought of that verse as being a call to justice, a call to stand up for what is right. Wright mentioned a couple of Christians martyred for their faith and for following their faith to try and end injustice, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Oscar Romero, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
It makes me wonder, am I listening to that "echo of a voice" that I hear? How much injustice have I seen and not taken a stand against it?
The first chapter was on justice. The fact that overwhelmingly we as humans feel that life is unfair and unjust, that we want justice but are unable to attain it; "we see a world in pain, a world out of joint, a world where things occur which we seem powerless to make right." Then he went on to talk about why we feel that life is unfair, what contributes to that. He went on to briefly explain some theories on what contributes to that feeling and focuses on the Christian theory. He says, "Comedy and tragedy both speak of things being out of order - in the one case, simply by being incongruous and therefore funny; in the other case, by things not going the way they should, and people being crushed as a result." He calls the feeling of being called to justice "the echo of a voice". And goes on to say that as a Christian God's passion for justice must become ours as well, that we should not use our belief in Christ to escape that demand because by doing so we abandon a central element of our faith. Jesus said, as you do unto the least of these so you have done unto me. (Pardon the poor paraphrase.) I don't know about you, but before this evening I had not thought of that verse as being a call to justice, a call to stand up for what is right. Wright mentioned a couple of Christians martyred for their faith and for following their faith to try and end injustice, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Oscar Romero, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
It makes me wonder, am I listening to that "echo of a voice" that I hear? How much injustice have I seen and not taken a stand against it?
Labels: book review
posted by Diana at 9:58 PM
3 Comments:
N.T. Wright is a liberal theologian. I have not read the book but I have it and my profs from cal bap were not to stoked to see it on my shelf. I trust Neal's opinion but I guess read it carefully. Here is the info on the Art show I posted after your post... For those who cant see the info in the pic...
June, 29 2007 6pm
Concert / Art show.
Ann Lynn, Fransisco the Man, The Midwinters, Joel Hasemeyer and Vespers
19900 Grove Community Dr. (building C, follow the signs), Riverside, California 92508
Cost : $5
BTW I am no pro. I am just submitting art for fun. Others in the show are pro (like Daley Hake, Jessica Grady, my Mom, Lindy, and others.)
Hey Diana,
I would be careful of accusing N.T. Wright of being a "liberal" theologian. First of all, "liberal" is a relative term - in comparison to what is one "liberal" or "conservative" is a very important factor. For example, from my perspective, viewing Baptism as not something that saves and thinking you can choose to become a Christian are relatively liberal positions. Conversely, when I was at Cambridge, they thought themselves relatively conservative because they believed that Jesus resurrected from the dead in some very real manner.
I should note that not long ago, if you were a conservative individual who wanted to do a doctorate in theology of any kind at Cambridge without receiving heartache for taking the Bible as it presented itself, you would have always wanted N.T. Wright as your advisor, because he is just about as conservative as they get at that school. Again, these terms are loaded and must be unpacked before they are used against other people. Of course, every term is "loaded" to some extent, and people who want to be included under a particular heading will do all they can to broaden the lines to be included and not excluded from the desired title.
Now, there is no doubt that Bishop Wright is a person with a "higher critical" background - one that sees the Bible as having errors in historical matters and yet will see it as full of "spiritual" truth. Oddly enough, a lot of people view the Bible this way and somehow end up holding to the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith - namely the death and resurrection of Christ for sins.
I guess I should remind (or inform) you and your readers that N.T. Wright is a Bishop in the same church body and on the same island - in fact, he was a professor at the same college - as C.S. Lewis was. As an Anglican, they are the ultimate in an all enclusive body from just about any angle - their are lots of very conservative and orthodox people within it, and at the same time they can do wacko things like ordain an atheist, and not flinch or see anything wrong. As one of my sainted professors said once, Anglicans are "high ("high-church," meaning very liturgical) and crazy, low ("low-church," meaning without much liturgy at all) and lazy, and broad (meaning "all inclusive") and hazy." You can't read a lot of C.S. Lewis' work without understanding how this played itself out significantly in his theology, as this evidences itself numerous times in his writings. His Anglicanism may be exactly why he was so well received by so many different groups - he always sounded very similar to whatever their pastor was teaching, and he did so as a very intelligent lay person whose theological capabilities were (as he himself says) very amateurish.
Getting back to Anglicanism, we should also note that, as a matter of current events, Anglicanism is being tested from within, as 2/3 of their communion (church bodies that tie themselves together under the name "Anglican") would not commune with the Episcopalian U.S.A. head (a church body that is actively ordaining homosexuals and sponsoring it), and so this would indicate that a lot of Anglicans - including N.T. Wright potentially - aren't as liberal as some might assume.
A point that should be mentioned about N.T. Wright that people often misunderstand is that - as a big advocate of the "New Perspective on Paul" (a movement that misstates Martin Luther's understanding of Paul and trades it in for one very similar to the authentic Lutheran position), he seems to actually think that Christianity is about Jesus Christ as the full, complete, and totally sufficient substitute for sinners - but I'll wait and see if that is what you come up with.
Now, the big point I wanted to make and the reason for writing all this is that - for a guy who has that much in common with Lewis - he actually is using the same basic starting point as Lewis does in the series of talks at the beginning of Mere Christianity in arguing for the truth of the message of Christ Crucified for Sinners. It appears to me that he may be doing a Lewis in a slightly different style, and using some slightly different roads. However, I'll wait to hear if that is what you come up with.
Stay in touch,
Drew
++1 Cor. 15:1-7++
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home