After 100 Pages of N.T. Wright

As one who is sympathetic to the views of J.D. Crossan, I've long known that I should consider myself opposed to the views of N.T. Wright. So I hear. Until last week I had never read anything by him. Several friends had noted how egregious they found this omission, Jonathan among them. So, he proceeded to buy me a copy of Surprised by Hope for my birthday. I'm about a third of the way through it now, and as could be predicted I'm finding myself highly at odds with Wright. Allow me to point out a few of my biggest objections so far:

First, is his method of arguing against Crossan whom he rarely names, but certainly includes as a member of the spurious "revisionists". His use of this term is pejorative and comes across with no small degree of smugness. His reasoning against Crossan does offer what seem to be legitimate critiques, but does so in a way that grossly oversimplifies both Crossan's arguments as well as the level of ambiguity inherent in the texts. Furthermore, Crossan's take on Scripture is one that seeks to understand the world around the it as much as the actual texts themselves. Wright, conversely, only makes vague references to philosophical trends of the world around the Bible. I don't mean to imply that he is ignorant of this world, but his arguments seem trapped within the world of Scripture, and thus (from my limited understanding of the world around Scripture) his arguments seemed to base themselves in contextual hearsay rather than the specific historical context. Again, I'm sure (or at least I certainly hope) in his more scholarly tomes he backs himself up better. Yet here, his scope of reference seems sadly narrow, and so, no matter how sound his arguments are, they seem incomplete.

Secondly, as one who spends much of his time around scientists, I feel that his critique of the myth of Progress is little more than an overblown caricature. True the idea that the human race is progressing towards some heavenly future by means of our own intelligence has been largely cast aside. It is culpable for much of the current ecological crisis and countless other horrid, modern developments. Yet, elements of it are certainly irreplaceable. The myth of Progress is also intimately tied to the advent of antibiotics, current methods of farming, even the electronic world that allows you to read what I've just written. Progress is no longer to believed to be leading us to Utopia, true. The vast number of Dystopian movies produced in the last 30 years proves that. Yet, while we continue to wait endlessly for the resurrection to make all things new, we have little choice but at least hope that progress will help us fix what we've already messed up, and add dignity where we have formerly only known pain. I agree with him that progress is not the answer for everything. I agree that it does a poor job of accounting for evil in our world. Still, his flippant rejection of its merits seems naive at best.

Third, it seems that Wright would prefer that we all simply reverted to a first century apocalyptic worldview. I find this laughable. I realize that he is really arguing for a return to a resurrection eschatology, and that he believe that this should prevent things such as nuclear war. But, anyone who studies the results of apocalyptic expectations in the first century would be hard-pressed to convince me that this would not imply the swift annihilation of everything on this planet other than rocks and bacteria. After all if God can simply transfigure the world in the resurrection glory of the new creation, then what does a few thousand years of desolation matter? So, I fear, would go the rationale of the masses, should they follow Wright's train of thought. I don't see a return to expectation of resurrection really solving many of our current problems. Furthermore, the current unfashionableness of belief in resurrection is equally tied to the fact that we've been waiting for two millennia, through countless religious wars, through a seeming endless return of the same, clinging to a hope that is ever more remote and ever more difficult to reconcile with what we know of the world. If we've seen too much to have faith in progress, then how much more so with the resurrection?

Lastly, allow me to quote:
"Every force, every authority in the whole cosmos, will be subjected to the Messiah, and finally death itself will give up its power. In other words, that which we are tempted to regard as the permanent state of the cosmos - entropy, threatening chaos, and dissolution - will be transformed by the Messiah as the agent of the creator God." (99, bold mine)
I find this abuse of science to be highly annoying, especially since it sounds as though it is being paraphrased out of Time magazine. Entropy is often cast as an insidious and irrepressible force of meaninglessness. Yet a universe without entropy would be incapable of life. Entropy allows for all the chemical processes in our world which give way to life. It is generally referred to as "disorder", but can just as accurately be referred to as "freedom". The electricity that flows through your brain allowing you to perceive the words on this screen, flows due to entropy. All matter in the universe is seeking the greatest amount of freedom, and thus we can rest assured that unless the Order of the Universe is completely altered, our world will one day end. This also goes to say that any other worlds in the universe which may harbor life, though they may long outlast us, will end too. Yet, if it were not for this same force, life in any form would never have come into being in the first place. If the force of entropy is halted, then life is still just as impossible as it will be when entropy is carried to the farthest extreme. I believe a Creator God could easily recreate our universe such that our existence continues without entropy, but to do so would also mark the end of what we know as reality and the start of something totally different. This seems, to me, to render Wright's arguments for resurrection null and void. Maybe that's just my take. Even where I disagree with him historically, I can see his expertise. Scientifically, though, he would do better to take a freshman chemistry class before he publishes.

Nonetheless, it is making me think, and has gotten me intrigued enough to hope to read one of his more substantial works. For the many Wright sympathizers who read this, I am determined to remain open to any defense you might give. I plan to finish the book in any case, and then get back to reading the liberal Christians who are all that manage to convince me not to convert to Judaism.