Today I have been pointed to a couple of video clips of Bishop N. T. Wright which illustrate the problem he poses to modern evangelicals and why opinions about him are so polarized. In the first clip, he explains why, in his view, it is not only possible but desirable to read Genesis 1-3 in a non-literal sense.
If I’m hearing him correctly, this is very frustrating for me. Bishop Wright has forgotten more about the Bible and theology than I will ever know, and that makes me wonder why he would take this position? How can you not see the unhappy ramifications this position holds for what Jesus and Paul say about creation and Adam and Eve?
Why, I wonder, is it not ok to see Genesis 1-3 as an historical account (true, factual, exact, i.e. it happened just like it reads) AND as something that points to other, bigger and equally glorious realities? Why must I choose between history and “myth” (and here I use “myth” not in the sense of a “fairy tale” or fiction but in the sense of a story with a larger, wider, deeper meaning than the mere literal sense)? It seems to me that the Bible is both, and happily so. The only possible attraction I can think of for the position Bishop Wright takes is that it places a safe distance between you and the flat-headed fundamentalists who believe in a literal, 6-day creation AND think that the goal of life is to die and go to heaven AND that all science is of the devil. Now, I understand why one would oppose that. But why do I have to discard a literal, historical reading of Genesis 1-3 to get there? Well, of course, the truth is that I don’t. And I don’t see why Bishop Wright seems to think that he does.
Now, contrast that with this clip which is also of Bishop Wright. Here he comments on what he would say to the upcoming generation of ministers . . . . and this is right on the beam:
Well, right on and “Amen” brother! Preach it all day long and twice on Sunday!
Now you see why he is a difficult man to categorize, yes?
So what’s the solution? Should I quit listening to him and denounce him as a compromising, confused, dangerous “wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing”? Or should I listen to him like the faithful Bereans listened to Paul? Yeah, I know. Silly question.
Look. Bishop Tom is a man. Limited. Faulty. Error-prone. Just like you and me. So, listen with discernment. Praise God for those things that are helpful and profitable and leave the rest aside. Thankfully, this isn’t like the broccoli your Mom put your plate . . . you don’t have to eat it all.
well said steve, good balance. esp. liked the fundy’s “goal of life is to die and go to heaven”! -:)
So we have to read the text via outside influences rather than taking it for what it says? Too bad.
I think the real issue is that Wright is in thrall to the Academy. He wouldn’t be taken seriously if he was a six-day literalist. He needs to get over that fear – the Academy probably doesn’t take him seriously anyway.
Also, his coupling of creationists with a wrong view of the final state is unfair. Many of us can affirm what he says about life after life after death.
Joel, exactly — and that’s what makes this so disappointing. If I’m not misremembering, I think he said once that he did receive the creation account as historical fact — and note that here he says at one point something like “I think it matters that something like a primal pair getting it wrong actually happened.” Well, you think? I think I remember Paul making a pretty big deal of that too. But how can we retain that vital fact while rejecting the historicity of Genesis 1-3?
Steve-you are correct about reading or listening with discernment. It reminds of taking NTBT with Dr. DeYoung at RTS. He assigned readings from guys like Oscar Cullmann and the class was in an uproar. DeYoung simply said by the time we were seniors in seminary we should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff of guys like Cullmann.
Steve: Amen and Amen.
Bishop Wright is far too intelligent to lay the foundation for such a (potentially poignant) false dichotomy. I can’t know the man’s heart (obviously), but it sure looks like political posturing to some extent.
I would say that it is precisely *because* of the historicity of Genesis 1-3 that we can rest so comfortably in the themes therein contained (Psalm 11:3).
That stated, Bishop Wright, of course, is still a very wise man with a lot to offer the Church. We shouldn’t “throw out the baby with the bathwater” (as, perhaps, he has done in this video concerning Genesis 1-3).
I’m reminded, also of one Jim Jordan’s “themes” — that being God arranges all the furniture in the room to serve as symbols pointing to unseen realities.
As you say, Steve, why can’t it be both literal and symbolic? The historicity is vital and the symbolism helps explain it.
I just didn’t get the same thing out of the video clip, Steve. One could argue that he is just trying to avoid the typical literal/figurative polarization with Genesis. We Americans are really good at creating false dichotomies and then forcing people to pick teams, and when we do that we risk overlooking perspectives and solutions that could tie it all together. Man, I sound like a liberal.
Of course, he could also just be doing a rhetorical crane kick to get out of actually answering a tough question.
Stewart, sure — but that’s the problem. This doesn’t have to be so unclear. Affirm both the literal historicity AND the typological significance of the creation account — it’s not that difficult. UNLESS, you’re trying to please people who don’t believe in the historicity of the account. right?
I just wish he would have come out and said, “Look, Genesis 1-3 is real history and yet, there’s much, much more there as well — as in the rest of Scriptures. But if one says we don’t have a true historical account in these chapters, then we’re in deep sh . . . . trouble.”
2nded.
The “something LIKE a primal pair” was a little troublesome. Even more so if he *was* trying to do a rhetorical crane kick to get out of answering a tough question.
Mr. Wilkins,
I don’t leave replies to blogs usually, but I felt your humble spirit when talking about Dr. Wright has compelled me to respond to your criticism of what this genius is saying. All this is meant to be communicated in a spirit of humility and grace by the way.
I’m a New St. Andrew’s grad, I know your theological positions, and I understand your take on what’s at stake when “compromising” physicality/historicity (gnosticism, et al). I’m a conservative and largely on your side regarding much of this. But I think you are missing the point to a pretty grave degree.
The distinction that Wright is making is much more subtle than you are interpreting it to be. There is a refinement and heavily qualified character here that you seem to be missing. When trying to explain this I am reminded of a debate close to your heart, a debate requiring subtlety and a good measure of “just hear me out on this before you think you’ve got me pegged”: the debate of the position/justification for the Southern cause in the War of Yankee Aggression.
The position you would hold regarding the Southern cause can be very easily misunderstood to our modern ears. A very humble Christian yankee of today could understandably reply to your side of this debate: “I just can’t see how the Confederates weren’t racists and wrong.” It’s not that your position is necessarily obscure or a “grey area,” it’s that it really takes an open mind and a sharp mental eye to see the razor sharp distinctions. So, as much patience as it would take for you to draw out the correct conclusions regarding states’ rights and slavery relating to the cause of the CSA, that same measure will be required to see what Wright is saying. To put it very simply, this is an extremely easily misunderstood point of view even though it is on very solid (and conservative) ground. Hopefully this analogy makes sense.
It is important to first point out the issues at stake in the background of what Wright is saying. The biggest issue is that of authority. What gives Gen. 1-3 its authority? Is it its “historicity?” If so, what does that mean? Further, what does something being historical even mean? One would assume that for something to be historical, it must be sensibly perceived, viz. apprehended by the senses (it was seen, felt, heard, etc.). But why would the physical senses in any way determine (or substantiate) an event’s reality? We have Descartes to thank for bursting that balloon. Our senses are indeed weak things, given to credulity in falsehood, and always inaccurate to a degree. To push really hard on this fact, under the sun, we men cannot perceive reality in any measurable way. Physicists cannot – with all their combined intelligence and legitimate science – say what even the most fundamental substances are in the physical realm. We don’t know how many dimensions there are, we don’t really know what gravity is or largely how it works, and perhaps most significantly: we don’t really know what matter is. If the most fundamental aspect of sense perception is beyond our understanding (viz. matter), then even if we trust our senses (casting aside the legitimate concerns of Cartesian doubt), we don’t even know what we are perceiving. So, we’ve insurmountable odds to overcome just to get to the point of reasonably trusting that what we are perceiving could be understood as “real.” But that’s just taking good account of worthy philosophy and physics, we can hack at faith in the senses even more with reasonable attacks on empiricism by Hume’s fallacy of induction. We could also employ Umberto Eco’s masterful literary/epistemic critique of science in general (“The world of literature is a universe in which it is possible to establish whether a reader has a sense of reality or is the victim of his own hallucinations [as opposed to science]”). Simply put: we can’t trust our senses to perceive reality, so why would history indicate something reasonable about reality?
This is terribly difficult to sublimate into our consciences, as even you demonstrated in your choice of words:
“Why, I wonder, is it not ok to see Genesis 1-3 as an historical account (true, factual, exact, i.e. it happened just like it reads)”
Do you see that we have a language barrier here? Why would you use terms like “true” “factual” “exact” or even “happened” to mean “real”? Your use of language shows that you believe that something perceived by the senses is “true” or that it “happened,” but that argument cannot be sustained because of the objections referenced in my preceding paragraphs. If you dream something, is it “true” in the same sense you are using “true” above? Our dreams have sense perception, we feel things, see things, touch things in dreams – and with such profound “reality” that we are completely convinced of their reality as we dream. Further, we can write histories of dreams, chronicle them, and even analyze them scientifically (like Freud did, even if you don’t agree with his outcomes, he did do this).
So, all that is in the background of this discussion. And this issue is of no small matter here. I think a sound reading of Northrope Frye is invaluable in this discussion (particularly “The Educated Imagination”).
To push the discussion from the philosophy of science to theology, we get an even stronger buttress to Wright’s take on historicity and myth. I’ll just mention a couple of things that I hope will be understood without much explanation:
The Sacraments. Even though they are very physical things, the ability to perceive their reality is impossible. You can’t run the consecrated wine through some machine and find out that Jesus was AB+. The reality is a declared reality, not a perceived one. In fact, any sense perception we would have of the elements would be misleading if depended upon for an understanding of the “reality” of Christ’s presence. It doesn’t look like flesh and blood, nor does it taste like it. In the physical realm, it is legitimately not the body of Christ. Thanks be to God, that our faith is predicated on the Word of God and His pronouncements. He says it’s Christ’s body, and that creates the reality; a reality that cannot be substantiated through historical/scientific analysis ( just like story of Gen. 1-3). What’s more real than the Real Presence?
Kingship of Christ. The reason the Jews didn’t believe (taking the hardening of their hearts by God for granted, etc.) is that they couldn’t historically perceive the Kingship of Christ. And they were right. He wasn’t a demonstrable king. His kingship was something more real than could be chronicled by second-temple historians. It was the science and history of the Jews that caused them to reject Christ’s kingship. As Paul said, the Jews want a sign and the Greeks want reasonable disputation (I’m paraphrasing obviously), and this is something that genuinely wasn’t being provided (God has chosen the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence) Faith was the instrument for apprehending the kingship of Christ, and that brings me to the next item on the list…
FAITH. It is the substance of things not perceived. The Bible, over and over, attacks empirical historicity. According to the Bible we don’t know reality at all apart from faith, because reality IS a person (all things held together in Christ, etc. etc.) and that person is only perceived through the eyes of faith. That language should help us alleviate the “bundling” that Wright speaks of. Eyes of faith are not historical eyes, not physical eyes, not even rational eyes. Eyes of faith tell us not to trust our senses, they tell us that not only is physical reality unreliable, but it is downright deceptive. Faith tells us of an eschatological reality that escapes perception. Faith tells us that the distinction “already, not yet” doesn’t quite describe reality – it’s more like “already, not yet already, even if I can’t see it”.
All this miraculously dovetails into our appropriate understanding of the Myth of Scripture – the understanding that reality is created by the Word of God, not physical mechanization. It also does remarkable things for our hermeneutic as we can see the sections of Scripture termed “historical” as being filled with intention by the Author. An intention that “history” never connotes.
The point is, the historicity doesn’t matter to the reality. Don’t misunderstand that statement though. I’m not saying “history doesn’t matter” or “it doesn’t matter if something happened in bodily form.” Don’t call the CSA racists. It goes the other way, the reality which cannot be substantiated by our senses tells the complete story of Gen. 1-3. The story is so complete that whether or not I could have shaken Adam’s hand is completely insignificant. The perception of the eyes is useless when attempting to see reality, and Gen. 1-3 is absolute reality. Why submit the reality that God spoke into existence to the paltry weakness of of scientific or historical investigation? It is science and history that are found wanting – even by their own criteria – for determining reality. God’s spoken reality requires one thing to apprehend it: Faith. If that is true, then I can say in that qualified sense that the history of Gen. 1-3 doesn’t matter.
If it is understood in this way, I don’t see why you would be concerned about Jesus’ or Paul’s use of it in the New Testament. In fact, Wright’s take is a master stroke in defending orthodoxy. And it is something we all tacitly agree with when presented with evidence that calls into question the historicity of Genesis. When an evolutionary theory or earth-dating theory is presented we immediately disavow its truth. Why? If we are to be completely honest, it’s not because of the theory’s bad science, but because we know that no matter how many evidences can be provided, it contradicts the reality that God spoke in His Scriptures. We rush to Wright’s side when the evidence of man’s senses contradicts God’s reality. We place the Bible above the authority of the science book (and that doesn’t mean we are anti-science), just the same as we put it above the history book. The Bible and the history book are on unequal ground, there is an economical servitude of the history book. And like the analogy of the CSA and racism, simply because there isn’t real egalitarianism there, that doesn’t mean we hate history.
What a powerful tool this is, let’s not as Christians subject it to friendly fire. Let’s not shoot our own Stonewall!
Even Eco who is by no means a confessing Christian, is forced to respect the orthodox perception of the person of Christ precisely because of what Wright is saying. Notice, he doesn’t want to confess Christ, but he cannot carry an objection to our perception of Christ:
“On one hand the world seems to be a ‘closed’ book, allowing of only one reading. If, for example there is a law governing planetary gravitation, then it is either the right one or the wrong one. Compared with that, the universe of a book seems to us to be an open universe. But let us try to approach a narrative work with common sense and compare the assumptions we can make about it with those we can make about the world. As far as the world is concerned, we find that the laws of universal gravitation are those established by Newton, or that it is true that Napoleon died on Saint Helena on 5 May 1821. And yet, if we keep an open mind, we will always be prepared to revise our convictions the day science formulates the great laws of the cosmos differently, or a historian discovers unpublished documents proving that Napoleon dies on a Bonapartist ship as he attempted to escape. On the other hand, as far as the world of books is concerned, propositions like “Sherlock Holmes was a bachelor,” “Little Red Riding-Hood is eaten by the wolf and then freed by the woodcutter,” or “Anna Karenina commits suicide” will remain true for eternity, and no one will ever be able to refute them. There are people who deny that Jesus was the son of God, others who doubt his historical existence, other who clam he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and still other who believe that the Messiah is yet to come, and however we might think about such questions, we treat these opinions with respect. But there is little respect for those who claim that Hamlet married Ophelia, or that Superman is not Clark Kent.”
If we turn to history and our senses to substantiate the reality of our Christian claims, we lose this battle – a battle the educated heathen has already been compelled to quit. Let’s not fear what Wright is saying, he’s on our side here.
Respectfully submitted in the spirit of Christian charity.