N.T. Wright on Person and Nature

Bishop Wright is attempting to navigate difficult academic questions by reformulating Christology. He puts the difficulty this way.

I think it offers a way through the impasse between saying either ‘Jesus knew he was the second person of the Trinity’ or ‘Jesus was just a human being who had no thought of being divine’. But to pursue this further we must come to the substantial topic.

He goes on to show again his distaste for traditional formulation of Chrisology especially the formula of Chalcedon. Again using his words:

I simply don’t think it’s good enough to talk about two minds (or one), two natures (or one), or about the various combinations rind permutations of persons and substances. Any such discussions should be grounded in Jesus himself. But when we try to talk about Jesus himself we may find that, in the first instance at least, our enquiry leads in quite a different direction.(Jesus Self Knoweldge)

Before we examine Bishop Wright we should see what the Ancient Councils have to say about Christ’s person. Here is the relevant portion of the Formula of Chalcedon.

recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;

Chalcedon makes the claim that Jesus has two nature, one divine the other human, but is only one person. The question immediately comes up what is the difference between nature and person. I believe the creeds are fairly consistent on this point, and looking at some of the others we can discover what is meant. Chalcedon itself mentions that Christ has a ‘human body and reasonable soul.’ So we can chalk reason and physical bodies up to nature. The controversy erupted and was settled in the next ecumenical council about whether or not Christ had one will or two. The answer given by the church (from Scripture of course) is that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Chalk the will up to nature.

Other creeds give us more a glimpse of what is considered part of the nature or substance when we examine the Trinity itself. God is three persons in one substance or one nature, ie. divinity. The The Athanasian Creed states that the one nature of God includes three persons. That shared divine nature includes the glory, majesty, and power of God. All of that is found the substance, not in the person. What then is left to the person? It seems something akin to consciousness. It seems in the Trinity (remembering this is a bit of a mystery that we will not know until the Lord comes again) there are three consciousness that are distinct and separate, but share one will, one power, and one glory because they share one nature, the divine nature.

So we can apply that to Christ, and say that Jesus Christ has only one consciousness, but two wills, two powers (a divine power and human weakness in this case), so on and so forth. It is this that I believe Bishop Wright has openly violated. Asking the question what does the human Jesus of Nazareth know about being the Son of God is denying that Jesus Christ has one consciousness. It is implicitly saying, the human nature of Jesus is not conscious or aware of the divine nature within him. It necessitates two consciounesses in Jesus Christ, one for the ‘unaware’ human and one for the divine second person, assuming of course N.T. Wright believes Jesus to be both. Simply by the statement of Bishop Wright’s question he has already rejected the Chalcedonian formula.

Admittedly this leaves us a little in the dark as to what Bishop Wright would ascribe to nature and what he would ascribe to person, if he would even hold to such a position. I have not been able to find anything online where he dives into that topic. However, he does show us that much of his position is motivated by a rejection of Western Ideas of knowledge, in favor of his First Century Judaism view of things. Notice also the inability of Bishop Wright to answer a question straight, which should be enough to worry us all. It is one thing to be scholarly and understand words may have meant other things in bygone days, it is another to use that excuse to duck the obvious questions asked of him.

It seems obvious that from here we must now proceed to an examination of Bishop Wright’s methodology since he uses it to exclude the historic orthodox Christian position.

Jena 6 displays racism

I promise I will get back to the N.T. Wright discussion, but something have to be commented on. Let me start by saying Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson are the two most racist people in America. If you have not read about the Jena 6, it is basically a story about racial tensions that still exist in the Deep South. It started with a bunch of white idiot teenagers making an incredible insensitive and racist display by hanging nooses over tree branches. The school suspended them, and the tree was cut down to prevent further acts of stupidity. However, they were not charged with any crimes. Then six black teenagers took matters into their own hands and beat one of the white kids severely, after three months had elapsed by the way.

Now I am not trying to defend the incredibly racist demonstration of putting nooses in a tree. That is sinfully wrong, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if it is illegal or an act of free speech. Let us not forget that I have seen nooses in trees on Halloween many times. The kids were suspended from school, but the federal government decided it did not fit the bill of a ‘hate crime’. So it is not as if these kids received nothing, and it is not as if the federal government did not investigate. Either way, the racism of the white kids is appalling, and sinful. Let us be clear on that.

However, what I find more appalling is Al Sharpton and his gang of racists. They are actually protesting the fact that the six black kids were arrested for beating a white kid up and putting him the hospital. The charges were originally attempted murder, but they were lowered. Is Sharpton happy with that victory? No. Sharpton actually took over this town by busing people in from all over America. Notice in the article that the lone resident interviewed thinks racial tension in the town is low, or at least was low until Sharpton came to town. Businesses closed, schools closed, people left town. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. In fact, I would bet that Sharpton and Jackson’s constant tactics of playing the race card creates more racists than it stops.

More to the point notice that Al Sharpton says Jena is the beginning of new civil rights movement. He compares it to the march on Montgomery by Martin Luther King Jr. Let us just compare for a moment. Martin Luther King Jr., went to Montgomery because a woman was forced to the back of the bus. Al Sharpton went to Jena because some black kids beat up a white kid. Martin Luther King Jr. thought violence was not the answer and pioneered the non-violent protest. Al Sharpton thinks that violence against whites is justified if it is a six on one beat down and three months after anything that might have offended them. Rev. Jesse Jackson thinks putting a kid in hospital from a racially motiviated gang beating deserves only probation. How much do you want to bet that Jesse Jackson would think it deserved more than probation if six white kids beat a black kid into the hospital. And this is my main point, Sharpton and Jackson see only skin color. Their sense of justice changes depending on the color of the person’s skin. This is the definition of racism. And just in case you don’t agree that these two gentlemen act this way, then notice Rev. Jackson’s comments about Barak Obama not being angry enough over this beating. Jackson claimed that Obama is acting like he is white. Which means that all blacks have to be super angry and that acting like a white person is morally inferior. Put aside for the minute that I am not even sure what acting white is, Jackson is clearly stating that acting white is wrong. And if it is wrong for a black person to act white, it must be wrong for a white person to act white. If it is not wrong for a white person to act white then Jackson has clearly showed us that different standards exist for the different races, again the definition of racism.

I don’t know much about racial issues, but I do know this: Barak Obama is a much better leader for civil rights than Jackson and Sharpton. I know that Clarence Thomas is another fantastic example. I also know that those men will be rejected by those who make money off of keeping racism alive like Jackson and Sharpton. I also know that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., would be disgusted at what is being done in the name of Civil Rights. He had a dream that all people would be equal. That is not a dream that Sharpton and Jackson share.

Wright, Chalcedon, and Nestorius

As I take on this task of N.T. Wright and his Christology, I freely admit that I have not read any books published by him on the subject. I take all my Wright quotes from his on-line articles which better fits my budget. I hope someone more familiar with his work can come and show me where N.T. Wright repudiates Nestorianism, and where he affirms a historically orthodox position, which is the Biblical position. I do think that with the amount of his stuff on the web, there is enough here to raise the legitimate question of whether or not Bishop Wright is orthodox in his Christology.

We should begin by defining quickly the major points of Nestorianism. Nestorianism is the doctrine that states the human being, Jesus, is morally related to the Divine Son of God or Logos, but Jesus is not united to the Second Person of the Trinity as one person. Thus, they are two persons, not one. The orthodox position, called the Chalcedonian position, is that Jesus is one person who has both a complete human nature and a complete divine nature. The two natures are hypostatically unified into one person.

Bishop Wright makes clear that he is no fan of Chalcedonian formulations. " Chalcedon, I think, always smelled a bit like a confidence trick, celebrating in Tertullian-like fashion the absurdity of what is believed, and gave hostages to fortune which post-Enlightenment fortune has been using well."(Jesus and the Identity of God). Bishop Wright’s main point is that Jesus had a vocational understanding of being God. What that means is that Jesus felt called to do and accomplish what the Scripture said only YHWH would do. But that is a long way from saying that Jesus is God incarnate, or that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. Wright himself is willing to admit:

‘If I am anything like on target this creates a context not only for understanding Jesus within his historical framework, not only for discerning the real roots of New Testament Christology (the reason, for instance, why Paul so quickly took to using the LXX [56] kyrios-passages for Jesus), but also for rethinking traditional systematic debates. What would it do, for instance, to questions about hypostatic union? How might it affect the use of words like nature, person, substance, and so forth? I think it might open up a flood of new possibilities; it might even slice through the denser thickets of theological definitions and enable us to talk more crisply, dare I say more Jewishly, and for that matter more intelligibly, about Jesus and about God.’(Jesus' Self Understanding).

So I do not think the claim that Bishop Wright is not a believer in Chalcedonian Christology should cause a great stir. It seems to be something he is very willing to reconsider by his own admission. That Wright is not comfortable in the formula of Chalcedon then is some what obvious.

It still remains then for us to look at how well he fits in a Nestorian view, and I am the first to say it is not a perfect fit. However, it is not unfitting either. The Right Reverend Wright asks these questions:

‘First, in what sense, if any, can we meaningfully use the word “god” to talk about the human Jesus, Jesus as he lived, walked, taught, healed, and died in first century Palestine? In what sense might Jesus conceivably have thought in these terms about himself? Can we, as historians, describe the way in which he might have wrestled with this question within the parameters of his own first century Jewish worldview?’(Jesus and the Identity of God).

Wright likes to focus on the ‘human Jesus’, and what this First Century Jew knew about being divine. This ascribes full personhood to the ‘human Jesus’ by ascribing to him self-consciousness. In effect, Wright is asking what the human person Jesus knew about being the divine person of the Trinity. The answer that Wright produces is that Jesus knew he was vocationally related to YHWH of Israel. But Wright never says Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. Wright prefers the language that Jesus embodied the return of YHWH, or that Jesus was ‘God-at-work-in-the-world.’ This is language accepted by Nestorius. The ancient Bishop of Constantinople states:

"If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virgin is the Only-begotten, who was born of the bosom of the Father, . . .and does not rather confess that he has obtained the designation of Only-begotten on account of his connection with him who in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father . . . let him be anathema."(Nestorius’s Counter Anathema 7).

Wright and Nestorius here drive home the same point. Jesus is in connection with the Divine Person, but is in union with Him. They have a conjunction, but not a hypostatic union. Jesus does the work of YHWH because he is God With Us, but Jesus is not necessarily YHWH. Jesus can be identified with YHWH because of their connection, but not because Jesus the human is YHWH.

I can see that this is going to take much more than one blog post. So I think I will break it up into multiple posts. What is Wright saying about Person and Nature? Critique of Wright’s Methodology. Scriptural examination of Wright’s claims.

Again, this is my impressions from his online articles. I welcome feedback, discussion, and comments.

6th Anniversary of September 11th

This week saw the 6th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It was interesting to me, how little attention it got. Sure, MSNBC ran the NBC coverage of the events, but who watches MSNBC in the morning? Since then the talk of the anniversary quickly faded into accusations. There are always the accusations that America blew up their own building or knew that it was coming. Merinews (which I found via the Huffington Post) even trotted out the expert opinion of the Housing Director in France to bolster their claims of Bush’s prior knowledge. Keith Olbermann, taking his lead from the Huffington Post, began making accusations that the Iraq report was timed to be so close to the 6th anniversary. I find that ironic sense the anniversary passed with only scant notice. OJ Simpson’s alleged armed robbery is getting more press than the 9/11 anniversary.

Six years ago, I was driving to work when I heard the news. It was my second day of work at a new job, so while everyone else in the mail center went to watch the coverage live, I folded 1200 child letters. I did not see any pictures of the Trade Center until almost 5 that evening. I lived in Colorado Springs at the time, and I remember a lot people running around talking about the terrorists attacking NORAD, and then people running around saying the President was coming to NORAD. Neither of which happened by the way. There was a lot of talk about September 11th being the day that changed a nation. Six years later no building have been built and the American government bickers more than it did. That is not a very good change.

The question everyone has been asking this week is ‘Is America safer now’? Sadly, most people asked it because of the report of an army general and the presence of TV cameras rather than because one ought to reflect on such things on important anniversaries. My answer would be no we are not. For two reasons. One is that I still think communism and especially China is a bigger threat than any terrorist group could ever be. Two is that I am not convinced that we understand our enemy yet. I don’t think we understand our enemy because we go out of our way to detach a person’s actions from his religion. American politicians love to talk about how they believe life begins at conception, but they promise not to act on that belief. One of a million examples. The Liberal press goes out of its way to detach terrorist activities from their Islamic religion. Even the republicans like to call it Islamic-Fascism, as if the problem with the terrorists was Fascism some how. I am not saying there are no peaceful Muslims. I know Muslims like Mohammed Ali exist. My point is that Bin Laden is a terrorist because of his religion, or at least his take on it. Either way it is a religious belief. And we can safely conclude he is not alone in that belief. Is our government equipped to fight a religious belief, and is the military the best way to fight a religious belief as the Neo-Cons claim? Is allowing Afghanistan and Iraq to write Islamic based constitutions that Bin Laden would probably approve of the best way to defeat terrorism? The debate today seems to center on whether or not we should pursue a military or a political solution. To me the solution is primarily spiritual, but that is the one solution our government is not equipped to deal out. The Afghan Constitution which we support has made that solution illegal and highly dangerous. To me this is not understanding the enemy.

I suppose the point to my wandering rant, is about lessons. What lesson did we learn from 9/11? The answer is none. What lesson should we have learned? That man is more than a physical being, and thus, he needs more than a physical solution. I hope we learn it soon.

Defeating Xerxes or Enabling Stalin?

There seems to be a lot of talk about the Reformed tendency to devour its own rather than fight the enemy. First off, I do not grant that the Reformed really fight among themselves more than they fight against unbelief and atheism as a whole. But, I do want to interact with the flurry of essays about this very topic on the web right now. Dr. Reggie Kidd uses a history lesson and a pop culture reference all rolled into one. Following up on the movie 300’s success, Dr. Kidd gives us the rest of the story. Athens apparently waves its typical right to lead the sea battles in order to ensure the war is won. Dr. Kidd wants this to be a lesson to the Reformed world. Maybe we should work together in order to defeat the common enemy. Maybe, as he puts it, "civil war in the face of external threats is suicide." He then goes on to list many external threats to Christianity, and he is right about everyone, and I am sure we can come up with a list twice as long.

The problem with historical metaphor is there is almost always a counter example. In this case the example of WWII. In that America and Russia put aside their differences and defeated the evil Axis powers. America waved its right to conquer Berlin, and let the Russians do it. After all, civil war in the face of external threats is suicide right? Despite the pleadings of General Patton, Russia went into Berlin first. What happened? Oh, only decades of a split Germany, complete Communist domination of Eastern Europe, and a nasty Cold War that taught a generation of children Nuclear Bomb drills. Not to mention the fact that blood would be shed in the downfall of the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe as a whole still suffers the ravages of Communism today. In the example of Dr. Kidd the cooperation expelled the enemy and gave the victory to the good guys. In my example the cooperation expelled the current enemy and enthroned one just as bad. Dr. Kidd provides some examples that he thinks we should rally behind and follow. Topping that list is the ever popular N.T. Wright. It is an oddity that Right Rev. Wright is a conservative in England and a bit of a liberal in America. But, should we rush to embrace him and default to his lead as Athens did to Sparta? Dr. Kidd thinks so, but if Bishop Wright is vague on the atonement, promotes a faulty Christology (as I am convinced he does in the articles he publishes on the web, a type of Nestorianism), and compromises biblical authority, then perhaps the following of N.T. Wright will free the people of Poland from Nazi rule only to enslave them to Communist rule, metaphorically speaking of course. Dr. Kidd’s examples assume that the attacks are unjustified. But, isn’t that the whole point in dispute? If Dr. Kidd agreed that N.T. Wright was shaky on the atonement of Jesus Christ then surely he would not argue he should be our leader simply because he reaches post-modern people with his shaky gospel message.

Dr. Frame has a long paper on the history of in fighting in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and thinks perhaps they inherited the problem from Machen’s fighting of the liberals. This historically entertaining and well thought out piece is worth a look. He points to 21 issues where the Reformed devoured their own with the obvious conclusion that it was needless. Now in some of the points he is quite correct. In others he seems to miss the point entirely. Machen led a split over the fact that the PCUSA no longer required people to believe in things like the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, or miracles, etc. John Frame views that as a good reason to leave, but thinks that Justification by faith alone is not a good reason and chastises those who would reject new positions that rewrite or outright deny justification by faith alone. Frame also seems to think that believing God created the earth in six days is unimportant or following the bible’s teachings on women in the ministry are not the same as rejecting the virgin birth of Jesus or the miracles of Jesus as the PCUSA did during Machen’s day. Do not all those positions state what the bible says is not literally true, and that culture and sciences must have their say before we hold to the Bible as the Word of God? And then of course, I think Dr. Frame pads the debates in order to reach a higher number. The debate about Tradition in Theology (his number 18) is just made up, or at least is so internal that I am unfamiliar with it. And then he adds his own Multiperspectivalism to the debate. And while I will be the first one to say I dislike the multiperspectivalism of Dr. Frame, I hardly think it fits in a paper with the Days of Creation, Shepherdism, and Women in the ministry. It seems an attempt to be persecuted.

The same critique applies to Dr. Frame as applied to Dr. Kidd. It really only seems like devouring your own, if you think the error, not an error at all. Can a female minister stand behind a pulpit and tell people to live a life in obedience to the Word of God when the hearer reads for himself I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2? At the very least can Frame not admit a similarity to the events leading to Machen’s estrangement from the PCUSA?

I can understand people who want to make an argument that the Church should be at peace and have a broad tent. I may disagree, but I think I can understand where they are coming from. I certainly understand a call to arms against those things outside the church which need to be confronted. What I do not understand is saying that ‘the Church should be at peace, unite to fight common enemies, and the only reason it is not is because many people are nit picky and devour their own.’ This seems to be what Dr. Kidd and Dr. Frame are saying. It is difficult to comprehend why two doctors cannot understand the difference between quibbling over beer drinking and debating justification by faith alone. The first is a civil war that can cost you everything. The second is a war against an enemy of another color.