As my wife so candidly and pragmatically put the issue with a literal resurrection of a physical body... I am not sure what to do with a Jesus whose body is literally floating around in some space somewhere.

Pretty much that's it.

So is the problem that you can't imagine a literal resurrection, therefore it must be false?

Show a little humility before a God who created a whole frickin' cosmos man! ;-)

The idea that NT Wright can't recognize a 'metaphor' when he sees one is ridiculous. Haven't you read any of his work?

I agree with you that aspects of the 'interview' were unfortunate.

Peace,
-Daniel-

No Daniel. That is not the point. I can certainly IMAGINE a literal resurrection. I can also imagine a computer virus being uploaded to an alien mother-ship, but I don't go around claiming that my ability to imagine something makes it true.

I've read several of his books, but it usually dissolves to little more than the assertion that since we can prove a 1st or 2nd century person believed some bizarre metaphysical notion (like Paul's view of resurrection or later Christian belief in literal apocalypse) then we are supposed to accept that belief as a literal historical fact.

If we take that approach then we have to accept every hair-brained idea ever written into any sacred text. Wright's insistence on that notion causes many to miss the point of the story.

Should we also assume astrology is possible? Since God created those amazing stars then surely he has every capability to make them reveal secrets about our love life or financial success.

So why the wide ranging appeal of NT Wright in emergent circles? Does he repackage their evangelical beliefs in something new but not really different?

Sorry, I haven't read in NT Wright except for that book he did with Marcus Borg.

Rick,

I'm not sure. The best guess I have is that maybe it's because he is very intelligent. Many post-Evangelical types in emergent circles have at least come to the conclusion that typical evangelical theology tends toward an anti-intellectual approach. Emergents really struggle with anything that smells like anti-intellectualism. I agree. When you try to defend your beliefs and the only people standing behind you are Pat Robertson and John Hagee types, you must at some point begin to look around and wonder why you've chosen that side.

Maybe they embraced Wright because he makes them feel less ashamed of their faith. Wright puts the face of scholarship on the older package of beliefs. I know I'd feel better with him on my side than Hagee. Wright is an amazing scholar.

But of course, NT Wright's Christianity is very unlike the 'old' Evangelical package of beliefs. His soteriology is entirely different.

His scholarship is sound. His work on resurrection is also quite sound. You may disagree with the metaphysical notion (though may I remind you that you've claimed that 'God' is something like 'the ground of all being'--a little spooky by my lights), but don't question his exegetical skills. Just because you don't like the version of Christianity he embraces doesn't mean it doesn't emerge from the biblical text itself...

Peace.

Daniel,

I do mean to give credit to Wright. His views on salvation are different than most conservative evangelicals. However, I think Colbert really did a good job of showing how that slight difference in views on salvation still leaves him with the same major problem. Why should anyone do anything to make the world a better place if God is a magic superbeing that can and will fix it all in the end no matter what we do.

Yes his scholarship on resurrection is sound (up to a point). He does a great job interpreting what the biblical authors meant (exegesis). But, he does absolutely nothing in the way of discussing what resurrection might be, how it could work, and makes no effort to answer anything beyond the texts? It is only the first step to decide what people mean. You have to take the next step of deciding how what they thought fits in with the way things are.

All Wright really says about resurrection is that the stories could not have been told and then followed so seriously if they were not historically true. The same can be said for Muhammad's miraculous writing of the Koran. If the text was not "really" given in a trance from God then surely people would not still die for those stories centuries later if they are mere myths. Wright's logic falls apart at this point.

-Peace

Mike,
We can chat more about N.T. Wright the next time we get together and I'll pass on some audio, etc. I love Colbert, but his interviews are really too short and chopped off for anyone to articulate anything substantial...added to the fact that Colbert is "in character" the whole time (all of which makes it hilarious). Did you see his interview with Bart Ehrman? Erhman strikes me as a brilliant guy who is disgruntled because he feels he was "lied to" by his evangelical education. Still, I don't feel he was really able to articulate any sort of a thumbnail sketch of his theology in the interview (you can search for it on the site...it includes one of Colbert's funniest quotes ever). I find Wright interesting because he provides a "third way" of doing theology that doesn't fit in either the conservative or liberal camps, yet remains in dialogue with both of them.
AE
P.S. I'm going to try to contact Dixon about the cohort stuff today. I'll give you a call with what I find out.

Now he wants us to buy into literal resurrection of all the decayed human bodies that ever lived. Keep in mind that most of the molecules that made up the bodies of those people have long been fossilized or consumed by other life forms. How exactly could that work? It seems Wright, like his American fundamentalist counterparts, fell victim to the same inability to recognize a metaphor or literary allegory. Get a grip. The book of Revelation is about the Christian hopes and dreams of the end of Roman Imperialism (i.e. the end of the world as they knew it), not the literal end of the Earth or even a literal remaking of the physical Earth. It is a call for all of us humans to end the way we've lived and start living a new way.

I am not sure what to do with a Jesus whose body is literally floating around in some space somewhere.

You guys should really try a bit harder to understand N. T. Wright before you make such judgements on him. It is obvious from these comments that you don't understand him.

Johnathan,

Please enlighten us with a specific point of discussion. I'd love to find a way to reconcile N.T. Wright with reality. If there is another way to interpret his metaphysics then please share it. I'm all ears bro!

I so totally agree with you! Sometimes it feels like N. T. Wright is just a British accented fundie with degrees behind his name. I know I will be excoriated for that remark, but I can't help it! When I get to the end of his reasoning, it isn't any more "reasonable" to me than my old beliefs. And I can't tell if his inquiry allows for any other conclusion. Still feels like sophisticated apologetics to me.

Let me add that I've read several of Wright's books and have participated in online discussions about them. I do know his work.

I think he is about the best thing evangelicals have on their side when they are faced with Borg (who I don't love, btw), Crossan (who I do love), Ehrman and Spong (etc. - historical-critical method scholars).

His main problem for me is that I think he believes that his historical-critical analysis and excellent exegesis (love all the Jewish contextual stuff) leads us to the metaphysical and theological conclusions that match the historic church's conclusions.

Blech! I hate that.

As a theology student and now with a degree... that feels like cheating to me. Keep those separate. Let people read your reasoning, but don't then draw them down the path to "this must be the conclusion therefore you must believe." That's apologetics and has no place in scholarly writing.

Daniel,

Think of it this way, and excuse the pragmatism here.

If Jesus is fully man and fully God and there was a literal bodily resurrection, then he must still be fully man and fully God. Unless heaven is somewhere on another planet that supports life as on earth, which many sectarian concepts would purport to be true such as LDS, Jesus cannot be fully man anymore, at least in a physical sense. "God can do it because He is God" is nonsensical and unhelpful as is an easy appeal to mystery. To say that the flesh must still exist in order for forgiveness of sins to be effectual is overly pedantic and unecessarily absurd, especially if God can do anything. Why not stick with what makes sense rather than appeal to absurd conclusions that render the resurrection account a rather shallow fiction ensnared in unnecessary and arbitrary requirements for logic that render the resurrection a complete absurdity.