In order to understand what N. T. Wright says in his article How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?, everything he says, unless explicitly disjointed by Wright himself, must be read in light of the aims that he sets forth in the beginning. First, Wright proposes that he will set forth a correct understanding of what it means for the Bible to be authoritative by means of a differential analysis of the common evangelical view and his own. Second, he burdens himself with the explanation of how that authority is relevant and effective for the church and therefore the world.
The first major problem Wright addresses is the narrative format in which the majority of the Bible was written and challenges what he sees as the common protestant practice of reading a biblical narrative and transposing that into a creed, rule, or whatever else might fall into the category that he calls “timeless truth.”[1] He says that using the Bible for the purpose of attaining these higher unchangeable truths is to deal with truth, which does not, as he puts it, have “anything to do with space-time reality.”[2] His critique of a theology that classifies itself as “timeless” is justified, but its relevance to his critique of evangelicalism may be less so, as Bruce Demarest writes for the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, “Some mistakenly view systematic theology as a deposit of divine truths that is timeless.”[3] (Emphasis added)
Wright’s misunderstanding of how the Bible relates to contemporary Christian theology is clearly seen in his critique thereof. He unwarrantedly caricatures truths that are pervasive throughout all of time as truths that are completely unrelated thereto. He offers a paradigm that relies on a false dichotomy between narrative portions of scripture and the immutability of God’s nature in his attributes. It is just as plausible, and even more so if we as Christians are going to be consistent within our worldview, that a God who wants to reveal his unchanging attributes to the world tells his people about himself through interaction and self-revelation as the narrative formula Wright proposes. To restrict a theologian from understanding God in his own culturally conditioned categories is just as presuppositionally conditioned as Wright accuses evangelicals of being.[4] Furthermore, Wright further does recognize is that theological formulae of narrative and proposition have always been simultaneously contemporaneous from the beginning of Christian history, as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr display, respectively.[5]
Wright then seeks to redefine what “authority” means in the term “biblical authority” to fit his understanding of the relationship between the scriptural narrative and theology. He says that the Bible gets its authority from God, and presents his point by means of a metaphor of a five act Shakespearean play missing its last act. This presents a scenario for actors to familiarize themselves with the roles in the first four acts and, as best as they can, improvise in the last act. This metaphor is hardly worth analysis since it, seemingly in Wright’s mind, is, again, based on a false understanding of theology, for he says, “That is how God brought his theology to bear on Israel: not by revealing timeless truths, but by delegating his authority to obedient men through whose words he brought judgment and salvation to Israel and the world.” (Emphasis added)
Wright attempts to offer some exegetical insight to support his thesis, but it can hardly be taken seriously, because in the beginning of his article, he says, “One might even say, in one (admittedly limited) sense, that there is not a biblical doctrine of the authority of the Bible,”[6] and later says, “There, then, is perhaps a more complex model of biblical authority…I believe it is a view which is substantially compatible with the Bible’s own view.”[7] Although he puts disclaimers on both of these statements, his presupposition concerning what the Bible has to say about its own authority remains ambiguous, and his methodology therefore indeterminable.
Wright’s main thesis in the second half of his article is that we as the people of God should immerse ourselves in the story of God instead of using it as the world would use it to oppress, control, or categorize. He articulates this with the metaphor of the note played on the piano, which has a fundamental note and harmonic overtones, neither of which should be privileged over the other. The implication is that some people only want to hear the fundamental note like historical critical scholars, and some pietists only want to understand how it is applicable for today. He again offers his narrative drama as a means of fully engaging the two ends of the spectrum, but does not support his hermeneutical paradigm with anything other than rich metaphors and cheap rhetoric. So I must critique him again by saying that his paradigm is for no reason more plausible than, when understood correctly, evangelical systematic theology is for understanding who God is and who we are as his people through his word. His evidence simply is not there.
Two things should be said in conclusion. Throughout this article, Wright is not virtuous in his presentation of evangelicalism. He talks about rabid fundamentalists waving Bibles around and evangelicals accusing God of giving them the wrong kind of book. He cites no authors, theologians, scholars, or pastors to construct his false animation of what evangelicalism does or looks like. Secondly, Wright does bring to light an important question in the world of biblical scholarship, being: How can a collection of narratives with 2-3000 year old historical referents be used to support any kind of theological indicative or imperative statement today? I believe he partially answers that question, but more importantly, I believe that he ultimately does answer the two original questions he set out asking, namely, “What does it mean that the Bible is authoritative?” and “How can we participate in that story?”
For those struggling with the concept of the authority of Scripture or interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the Reformed position, I have posted the first section of Richard Gaffin’s Book God’s Word in Servant Form in which he outlines the deeper bibliological themes of Abraham Kuyper’s view on Scripture, and therein explains how the Bible is propositionally authoritative (even on itself) and narratively redemptive.
[1] N. T. Wright, “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?” (accessed February 7, 2009): available from http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bruce Demarest, “Systematic Theology”
[4] What Wright embarrassingly does not acknowledge is the historical fact that the contemporary anti-propositional “Narrative Theology” movement is a product of the failed Biblical Theology movement of the 1960s, not a neo-Hebraism. For further study, consult Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative Theology ed. Stanley Hauerwas and L. Gregory Jones, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1997).
[5] Bryan Litfin, Getting to Know the Church Fathers, (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007), 10. Also displayed in the multigeneric nature of the Johannine corpus.
[6] Wright, Authoritative.
[7] Ibid.
