NT Wright! Homebrewed Christianity 79

Yeah, I also didn't appreciate Wright's comments regarding Ehrman. I think it's fairly petty to pscyhologize a fellow academic in such a way to dismiss all of his work. I mean I know it's just politics as usual, but it seemed really childish. I'd rather hear him critique Ehrman's apocalyptic Jesus then have him pretend that Ehrman's position is simply reactionary to his childhood faith.

@Mike L. I agree that Bart E. doesn't come across as angry to me. In his theodicy book at least he seems to have had general convictions shattered by the problem of evil and he discusses being supportive of his family who are Anglican. Now is Bart slightly disingenuous about applying a hermeneutic he doesn't hold to disprove a conviction of someone else? Yeah. I think that is what Tony got out of him in the podcast.

Much deacon love to the comments by Jeff Straka and deacon burrley! While we're on this line of thinking, can you guys Interview Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis next? At Least the creation museum is willing to take their literalism all the way through to its logical conclusion ;) That accent makes Tom Wright sound like he's saying something intelligent, doesn't it? To me, his message is the same modernist apologetic reaction that we see at the creation museum. The bottom line is that he's another modernist Evangelical trying to apply the label "history" to our sacred myths, as if history carries more weight than a story. Why can't we let myths be myths? We might find that their meaning blossoms into full view. Why cling to the modern snobbery against myths, poems, parables, and art? Do we need to keep the modern bible wars going? Doesn't he realize that binding the value of scripture to its historicity is actually dragging the whole story down the drain? Let it go, Tom! There is a better Christianity available on the other side of the modern fundamentalism/Atheism divide. Let's get past it already. Tom seems like a nice guy, but I'm sure Ken Ham is nice too. Neither of them are doing our faith tradition any favors. Was anyone else bothered by the Christian elitist stance Wright seems to suggest in the interview? I didn't particularly care for Wrights shots at Bart Ehrman either. I'm not a big Ehrman fan, but he doesn't come to his conclusions via "anger at his childhood faith". He also isn't "out of his area of expertise" when he talks about Christianity. Ehrman was an educated and experienced clergy member before becoming a religion professor. He does know what he's talking about when he talks about the Christian faith and tradition.

Hey boys, Just heard the podcast. I appreciate the props but I was not the one to instigate the criteria for "Greatest Emergent Podcast." You met someone other deacons measure, and I for now will reserve my judgment. Great show non-the-less. peace

I just wanted to say that I second, basically, all of Jeff Straka's comments on the Wright interview. I definitely resonate much more with liberal progressives, and deeply appreciate the contributions that other enduring world religions can offer toward bringing Christians to a deeper knowledge and fellowship with God. I respect that Wright has his points of view and they are very well thought-out. But this doesn't mean that his basic methodological/ presuppositional commitments are spot-on, at least he would have a very difficult time convincing me of this (and I have little doubt that the same could easily be said of mine). I guess the postmodern in me can't deny the reality of the finite human being have to relativize the various sources we turn to in seeking out ultimate truths. I don't know that it is safe to suggest that moving beyond such a notion is even actually possible in light of the time in which we are submersed. I myself am a fairly astute auto didactic theologian/philosopher, and I am always amazed by those (Wright in this case) who can have such a certitude concering such unfathomable mysteries. It makes me feel like I'm less in some way, and I am very aware that the kind of certitude I am addressing is very perplexing to many I know in the broader postmodernized culture. And I'm not saying that Wright is "wrong." I'm just not convinced that humans have the kind of access to such ultimate mysteries as they often times indicate. Hey, maybe some do, who I am to say? But life and closeness to "God" gets pretty difficult when you run into so many people that "know" the way things "actually are," and yet they can't even agree on much amongst themselves.

I second that Jeff. Make it happen Tripp!

I would absolutely LOVE to hear John Cobb and Philip Clayton "riffing" together on process-relational theology on your podcast!

well jeff we can't interview John Cobb every week......or could we!

ps - the world becomes "fallen" when we spill oil into the gulf because of our greed and short-sightedness. the world becomes "rescued" when we move to a renewable, earth-friendly source of energy. here/now and not then/later.

I guess I am one of those pesky "progressive liberals", but I no longer buy into the end-of-the-world theology of "Perfection in Eden, the Fall/condemnation (original sin, separation, contaminated world/creation), rescue/salvation, consummation/perfection again in New Eden (new Heaven and Earth). Brian McLaren's latest book does a descent job of exploring problems with that model, as does Matthew Fox in "Original Blessing". This theology simply no longer makes sense to me in light of science - nowhere do we see evolving movement of perfect-defect-perfect. In fact, it does much damage when we are told to see the world as "fallen/broken/damaged" - far from God's "plan" - instead of it seeing it pregnant with evolving potential NOW where God is pushing/persuading us to see the possibilities NOW. This is one of the main reasons I have gravitated towards process-relational theology (thanks to the many great podcast here!) - it co-mingles with science (and with Buddhism and other mystical traditions) in exciting ways! And in moving there, I do NOT "get rid of" the "vision" of the Gospels - in fact they make much more sense to me when I read them with this new lens!

Great podcast fellas. My thought with Bishop Wright has been his assumption that if Paul or Jesus thought something we have to too. II think he does a good job helping us hear Paul but that doesn't mean we have to just say yes to all Paul said. Disagreeing with Paul is much better than pretending Paul really agrees with us.

@Jeff I thought something similar about his Buddhism comment so I played it for a Buddhist friend of mine and she said it was pretty much accurate. She was less convinced by his Christian answers but didn't think he was unfair to the tradition. Do you think affirming an eschatological hope with some confidence entails embracing divine omnipotence? Wright's point on a consistent basis is that progressive types get rid of the eschaton and in doing so get rid of substantive connection to the religious vision of the New Testament.

One other thought: I think theology is essential in pushing people towards caring for our world. While N.T. Wright’s theology is certainly better than the fundamentalist’s view of waiting it out until heaven-when-we-die, it still seems to put more of the “workload” on God. He says: “Doing justice, in whatever form, is always about anticipating in the present God’s eventual design to put the whole world to rights, to gather up all things in heaven and on earth into Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.10). Though God will eventually do this completely and fully, he does not want the creation to lapse into complete chaos in the present age, and so calls into being structures of human government and authority to bring about a measure of order, some kind of anticipation of his eventual putting-to-rights of all things.” So in NT's theology, we can take our “little steps” towards bringing Heaven to Earth (like switching to fluorescent bulbs), but since “God will fix it” in the end, we don’t have to do the painful and costly steps to truly save our planet. (I picture a child slowly picking up a few toys here and there knowing that Mommy or Daddy will actually end up finishing the job.) I think we need to move beyond this “omnipotent” idea of God towards that of a God in Relational Process that desperately NEEDS us to take our role here quite seriously (like a responsible adult rather than a child). It’s been 40 years since the first Earth Day and I don’t see us making a whole lot of progress towards a sustainable future, and I think our out-dated theology of this omnipotent God (who will fix things in the end) plays a large part in this.

This interview confirmed why I am no longer "on board" with NT Wright. I would have liked to hear his take Brian McLaren's new book and on process theology - I would guess it would not be too favorable in either case. What clinched it was his thoughts on Buddhism not having the same care/devotion for the material world that Christians have. Really? Seems to me most Buddhists understand FAR better than we Christians about our inter-connectedness and inter-dependence with ALL creation. And the Buddhist teaching of non-attachment and non-possession is totally different than that of Christianity? REALLY? I'm pretty sure I recall a BUNCH of teachings by Jesus along those lines, though we Westerners have certainly disregarded them. This is what happens when one stays within the confines of ones own institution and tradition and is really not open to learn from the other. He really is starting to sound like a quasi-fundamentalist Anglican...

Great interview of a great scholar and clergyman. Thanks for making this conversation available. And kudos for getting the interview in the first place! Tom

What a great podcast and what an outstanding man. I love people who can speak as he did from the top of his head. He was able to respond to all these questions very spontaneously and from his heart. Hearing his thoughts on some of the so called leaders in our Christian faith such as theologians, writers both past and present was very informing. When he talked about "going forward" I loved it that he said that theology must play a major role in our moving forward. I totally agree with this. Each man and woman should know what they believe and be able to respond to questions when asked and too many of us cannot do that at the present time. This must be changed, in my opinion. We have gotten away from learning about who/what God is. We rely on our pastors, teachers and our experiences to dictate to us who/what God is and this should not be. We need our theologians to step up and lead us in this event of "moving forward." If they do not step forward then we should ask them to. Our churches should include not just learning the biblical stories but what these stories and teachings mean for us in this day and time. Building the right type of character was spoken of to some length and his definition of what Christian character should look like was wonderful. He said that going forward we must be robust when leading, must be creative, must think out of the box, must be doing justice and beauty. NT Wright seems to have his head on straight in my book. I have not read any of his books but I will now after having heard him. I agreed with what he said about Spong and Crossan. Although Crossan has made some statements that I would agree with I do not for the most part agree with him entirely. The same goes for Spong, just cannot agree with much of what he says. Thanks to Tripp and Chad for this wonderful podcast. So glad that you were able to get him. So proud of what both of you are doing. God bless you and your work.

Thanks for the fantastic interview gentlemen!