Webmaster’s note: Tom Wright, the Bishop of
Durham, has agreed to answer a few questions occasionally from the Wrightsaid
email list. I am pleased to make
this Q & A available on the N.T. Wright Page. These are his responses
for February, 2006.
—
1) When you discuss God's three-foldeness (see "Who Was Jesus?") do you mean that
*this* three-fold God is YHWH, or one of the persons (Father) of this Trinity
is YHWH? I read a sermon of yours that mentioned YHWH on the cross. But, in Climax of the Covenant, in discussing
Colossians 1:15ff, you mention that Christ is to be distinguished from the
Father, and yet identified as totally and fully divine, like the Father (which
of course is the basic idea of the Trinity).
And when Paul mentions "Father," he typically means
"God" and vice versa. Is the
Father YHWH, or the entire deity we know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
collectively known as YHWH?
Great question but it doesn't admit of an easy answer. We can see the beginnings of NT wrestling
with this question in 1 Cor 8.6, where Paul takes the
Shema and glosses it as though ELOHIM (i.e. THEOS)comes out as 'God the Father' and YHWH (i.e. KYRIOS) comes
out as Jesus Christ. I've explored this
a bit both in Climax of Covenant and in chapter 5 of the new book on Paul
(Fresh Perspectives). I think we are
here tiptoeing round a huge question much like canoeists paddling round about Niagra Falls and might be in danger of being swept over in
one or another theologically disastrous direction, but let me recklessly press
on just one more stage: I think that the early Christians might say, The God we
Jews knew by the generic word ELOHIM and by the personal name YHWH has made himself
known in person in and as Jesus of Nazareth.
That in-person-ness, coupled with the fact that YHWH is a personal name,
coupled with the fact that Jesus is Lord (KYRIOS, which is the regular Greek
rendering of YHWH, or rather of ADONAI which substitutes for it) makes a
YHWH-JESUS fit seem natural. Yet the
Spirit is also called 'Lord' (KYRIOS -- see, not least, the famous passage at
the end of 2 Cor 3).
It feels to me more as though ELOHIM and YHWH together are put into one
and then as it were rolled out again and this time it all comes out
threefold. But that's an impression
which it would be interesting -- for someone else! -- to
check through the second and third centuries...
—
2) While reading your "big books", and, following up on a few footnotes, I was led
to read several works of the "context group" scholars (Malina, Neyrey, Rohrbaugh, etc.).
They certainly changed my whole perspective on reading the NT. How valuable do you find their contributions
to current scholarship and how necessary do you think it might be to bring some
of their insights to the church?
I see the work of the 'context group' as basically a sharp-edged form of
history. That is, I don't think they are
doing anything other than what historians always ought to do: studying the
specific and particular context, the social assumptions, the implicit
narratives, etc., of the people we're interested in. Insofar as people in that group go beyond
that, projecting larger theories about how societies work, they are only as
valuable as the evidence they assemble for such constructs. What they succeed in doing, and what we need
to pay close attention to, is joggling us out of our comfortable assumptions
that, as I think Neyrey puts it, the ancient
Mediterranean world was much like ours except without electronic toys. They are putting under the microscope things
that a lot of historians -- and a great many non-historically minded
Christians! -- have glanced at with the naked eye. As such they deserve our close
attention. My sense, though, is that
sometimes at least members of that group come with an explicit anti-theological
agenda, almost a sociological reductionism.
That's a big generalization and it wouldn't apply to all of them, or to
any of them all the time, I think. But
it's something to watch out for.
—
3) Is the existence of denominations an overall positive or negative for the
Church? What are the benefits? What are the harmful effects?
How do we proceed from where we are at today?
Overall it must be judged a flagrant disobedience to the NT's regular position
that part of the point of the church is that it brings together people of the
most widely differing kinds. So many
denominations, not least in
The benefits are of course that we
avoid a sense of one size fitting all.
But the harmful effects are wasteful duplication of effort, to look no
further; the refusal to behave as the one people called from every nation,
tribe and tongue; the projection of cultural preferences on to a theological
screen to give 'doctrinal' legitimation to
differences that don't originate there (I am NOT saying there are no doctrinal
differences that matter -- there are and they do!), and so forth. I am not a relativist (I shouldn't have to
say that, but I find I do!) but I really do believe that we must work together
across denominational lines at everything we possibly can, whether it's feeding
the poor or campaigning for global justice, and that wherever possible we
should be praying together and reading the Bible together even if it's
informally in twos and threes. Where
possible we should share buildings, pulpits, sacraments. . . I am horribly aware of how difficult this is
and how little progress my own church is making in this direction, and indeed
of how easily ecumenical work gets bogged down in endless committees always
sending minutes to one another, watching out for people being offended or
excluded, rather than preaching and living the gospel. But occasionally there are moments of
breakthrough.
I guess it comes down to this: I can't
read Ephesians and collude with the way things are. And I guess the principalities and powers are
very, very happy with the way things are: according to Eph 3.10, the unity of
the church across barriers that have hitherto divided humankind is the sure
sign to the powers that their time is up, that they are not masters of the
world and that Jesus is...
—
4) Your work is appreciated by Christians across
the denominational spectrum, but how did you come to be in the Anglican
Church? How do you see the goal of your ministry within the Church of
England? What particular joys or frustrations do you encounter in your
ministry within the Church of England.
Born and bred, I'm afraid, like a lot of Anglicans in this country at
least. To answer this question fully
would take an autobiography for which I don't have time just now. But one thing is worth saying strongly. The Church of England (things are very different,
I know, in many of the Anglican churches around the world) has never seen its
mission and ministry in simply (a) converting outsiders and (b) ministering to
those who regularly worship in this church.
We have always seen our mission as being to the whole nation. This is sometimes mocked by free church folk who accuse us of watering down the
particular and personal challenge of the gospel, and sometimes resented by
secularists who want religion off the public square altogether. But we persist: for instance, about one fifth
of all primary schools in England are officially 'Church of England' schools,
though without a necessary 'faith qualification' to attend; in most cases
clergy chair the board of governors; and this is seen as a commitment to the
good of the country as a whole, irrespective of the gospel impact on particular
children, though of course we hope and pray that will be significant. Other examples: over the last 20 years the
report called 'Faith in the City', and the follow-up resource called the Church
Urban Fund, has contributed massively to urban regeneration in the UK,
energized by people who, out of loyalty to Jesus, cannot stand idly by and
watch social injustice flourish. When
people see that the gospel really does mean housing the homeless, providing
play groups for kids who otherwise spend all day on the streets, etc etc., we are seeing a massive impact. Many of our leading local politicians etc
recognize the role the church plays in the wider health of society and are
deeply grateful for it and want to work with us.
Some people still regard this as
pandering to the old 'Christendom' model and wish they could get on with 'real'
evangelism etc instead. I persist, and
this is a typical Church of England attitude, in thinking it has to be a
both/and not an either/or. Of course, if
the church gets so immersed in social projects that it forgets to preach the
good news of Jesus Christ to every individual it meets, then something has to
be put right. But that's like saying
that if I see a friend hopping down the street because he's forgotten that he's
got a right leg as well as a left one, I could remind him that walking is
easier, more effective, and even more elegant.
The specific ministry I am trying to
exercise as Bishop of Durham is the subject of a paper
on the ntwrightpage website -- and also of a sermon
I preached at the installation of my new chaplain a couple of weeks ago,
attached to this email.
Thank you to everyone for the questions, and God bless you in your lives and
ministries. Please, please pray for me
as I try to minister to this wonderful (but poverty-stricken!) diocese, as I
try to help the Anglican Communion steer away from disaster, and as I try to
maintain my own close walk with the Lord in prayer and study day by day. Thanks again
Tom Wright