NT Wright and Postmodern Emmaus

I read a really amazing chapter in a book lately. The book is diminutively titled "The Challenge of Jesus", by noted author and theology NT Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, and was recommended to me by Hans. It has some really stunning ideas about Christianity and God I'd like to talk about here. I know this post is very long, but I think the topic addressed is very important even if you're not concerned with philosophy or postmodernism, but probably very useless if you don't care about Christianity. Still I hope you can all stick it out and get something from it anyway.

But back to the book. By it's title, this book sounds like either a weak and extremely religious, or like a heady tome by it's author, but it's neither - the book is a condensed (less than 200 pages) and fast-paced discussion of what Jesus meant by the things he said and what he still means now. Wright says that Jesus' message only makes sense within a first century Jewish context, and that it's worth writing another book about Jesus because we now know more about that context than ever before. He sets out in the first 160 or so pages to describe six major aspects of Jesus life and mission, and explain why our traditional western conception of them misses the point. I don't have space to go into all of it here, but he discussed such topics as what Jesus thought of his own divinity and what happened during the resurrection in ways that were much simpler and more sensible than anything I've read or been taught before, and I wondered at why no one had ever discussed the gospel like this before.

Most importantly, Wright spends the entire first six chapters reinforcing an understanding of the dominant Jewish worldview of the day. They believed that the messiah was one who would finally bring Israel out of exile and into prominence, delivering them from their enslavement to foreign powers and unfair treatment. Their freedom was associated with the expiation of Israel's sins by God, since he himself would be the driving force behind their liberation as a sign of the end of their punishment. Wright argues that Jesus specifically crafted his message and his actions to speak to people operating in this frame work, and that while he was to fulfill it's real purpose, he'd be simultaneously tearing down this understanding of God's mission on earth, and replacing it with something much bigger and more important. Cast this way, Jesus' conflict with the political and religious powers of the day makes much more sense, but it's understanding how his new interpretation of scripture could be challenging to an everyday Jew living in first century Palestine.

Wright concludes his book with two chapters concerning the relevancy to Christ's message today. He sets this discussion in light of the current conflict in ideologies between the waning modernism and enlightenment ideals of the twentieth century and the recently emerging and more vaguely defined tenets of postmodernism. Wright first gives a brief and broad description of three general areas in which Postmodernism and Modernity are radically different (this is largely paraphrased directly from the book):
1.) Knowledge and Truth - where Modernism thought it could know things objectively, Postmodernity has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge. Everybody has a point of view, and that perspective distorts, and everyone describes things in the manner that best suits them. Similarly, there are no objective values, only preferences.
2.) The Self - Modernity valued the great lonely individual, the all powerful "I": Descartes' cogito ergo sum. Postmodernism has deconstructed the self, stating it as a floating signifier for a temporary collocation of conflicting forces and impulses. Postmodernism says that the self is a combination of will and society, drastically dependent on culture at large, and not the singular existential objective point of reference Modernism revered.
3.) The Story - Modernism told an implicit narrative about the way the world was. It was a story of how History had been progressing toward the point at which industrial revolution and enlightenment would burst upon the world. This huge story - overarching, and known as a metanarrative, has now been conclusively shown under Postmodernism to be an oppressive, imperialist and self-serving story, bringing misery to untold millions through the exploitation of raw materials and cheap labor. It is a story that was invented to serve the interests of the Western world. With this metanarrative as the example, Postmodernity claims that all metanarratives are suspect power games.

Wright: "Faced with this, many Christians have tried - some are still trying - to deny the presence of postmodernity, to retain the modern world that we felt so comfortable in, tow which we preached a modernist gospel (whether we realized it or not). Many want to turn the clock back, culturally and theologically. It cannot be done. My proposal...is that we should not be frightened of the postmodern critique. It had to come; it is, I believe a necessary judgment on the arrogance of modernity, a judgment from within. Our task its to reflect on that moment and...to see our way through the moment of despair to the other side."

Wright continues to first describe a few of the things Christians should NOT do in the face of modernity, such as hurl doctrine at it (which he says is a very good thing, since this was profoundly unchristian behavior anyway.) He continues to positively define how we should address the issue, starting with action. Christians should focus on action and methods - living out the "symbolic praxis" of faith - rather than modernist-focused debates about systems of morality. Second, he says we need to present scripture as a story; as the story of God's involvement with the world, and about his goal of making us really whole and wholly human. Lastly, we must present the Gospel as the one true metanarrative, and show by our action and description of the story that it is not a metanarrative designed to press our own personal material or political agendas, but rather simply pursuit of justice, love and truth. Wright concludes this section with more encouragement against clinging to modernism and rejecting postmodernism, and then returns to the story of Emmaus.

Wright returns to his first century context briefly to compare the frustration and pessimism surrounding Modernism's failure to the feelings felt by the early church immediately after Christ's crucifixion. He focuses on one story in particular, where two of Christ's former followers are walking towards the city of Emmaus discussing everything that's happened. They were honestly hopeful that Jesus would fulfill the sort of messiah picture their first century Jewish belief system gave them, and that he'd restore Israel to it's prominence and political power after centuries of servitude to foreign empires. Their frustration visibly reflects the sort of perspective Wright has been arguing first century Jews held, and that they, along with everyone else, have failed to understand that Jesus was specifically and purposefully challenging this "worldview" from the very start of his mission. Jesus himself arrives, and though they do not recognize him, he asks what they're talking about. "You must be the only person in town who doesn't know," they reply; "Jesus of Nazareth has just been crucified, but we had really hoped he'd be the one to save Israel, and now we're baffled and confused." Jesus asks a few questions and then begins re-interpreting all of the scriptures for them, explaining how he fits into the story, and how his message makes sense. They invite him to stay for dinner, and he breaks the bread. They recognize him, and he vanishes, and they run off to tell everyone about what they've just seen and heard.

Wright says that many people today, Christians among them, are lost and confused, feeling let down by the philosophy (modernism) they thought was going to bring them out of spiritual or intellectual exile and into some glorious future. Wright has them walking towards "Dover Beach", the place in Matthew Arnold's poem where the "tide of faith" went out with the Enlightenment, leaving humanity depressed and confused (I think J. Morgan may have referred to this once?)

I'll let Wright take over here: "Two serious-minded unbelievers are walking home together, trying to make sense of the world of the mid-1990's. The dream of progress and enlightenment has run out of steam. Critical postmodernity has blown the whistle on the world as we knew it. Our two unbelievers walk along the road to Dover Beach. They are discussing, animatedly, how these things can be. How can the stories by which so many have lived have let us down? How shall we replace our deeply ambiguous cultural symbols? What should we be doing in our world now that every dream of progress [has failed?] ""

Into this conversation comes Jesus, incognito. (It's a good thing they don't recognize him because modernism taught them to disbelieve in all religions, and postmodernism rehabilitated so many that Jesus is just one guru among dozens.) "What are you talking about?" he asks. The stand there, looking sad. Then one of them says, "You must be about the only person in town who doesn't know what a traumatic time the twentieth century has been. Nietzsche, Freud and Marx were quite right. We had a war to end wars, and we've had nothing but more wars ever since. We had a sexual revolution, and now we have AIDS and more family-less people than ever before. We pursued wealth, but we had inexplicable recessions and ended up with half the world in crippling debt. We can do what we like, but we've all forgotten why we liked it. Our dreams have gone sour, and we don't even know who 'we' are anymore. And now even the church has let us down, corrupting its spiritual message with talk of cosmic and political liberation." "

Jesus takes over and explains how God's mission is and always has been to heal and restore. He says he's set out to create a truly human people, to deal with evil, to create a new human family where forgiveness is common, and to challenge the rule of war, sex, money and power. And beginning to end, he interprets both old and new testaments and explains how. "They arrive at Dover Beach. The 'sea of faith', having retreated with the outgoing tide of modernism, is full again, as the incoming tide of postmodernism proves the truth of Chesterton's dictum that when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. On the shore there stands a great hungry crowd who had cast their bread on the retreating waters of modernism only to discover that the incoming tide had brought them bricks and centipedes instead. The two travelers wearily begin to get out a small picnic basket, totally inadequate for the task. Jesus gently takes it from them, and within what seems like moments he has gone to and fro on the beach until everyone is fed. Then the eyes of them all are opened, and they realize who he is, and he vanishes from their site."

Wright's point is that it's the job of Christians today to play the part of Jesus in this story, interpreting his message to the world and providing first through action and second through words a message of restoration, hope, and forgiveness.

Rather than two unbelievers, I imagine the group walking consists of James Dobson, James Sire and Chuck Colson, and that they're discussing how badly the world has gotten under postmodernism, and how we're increasingly in need of more programs like "The Truth Project" to help enforce "a systematic and comprehensive biblical worldview." They're talking about ways they can provide sound doctrinal teaching, speak out against sex and violence in movies, and lobby for a ban on gay marriage. I imagine Jesus himself arriving on the scene, and explaining that more doctrine and argument isn't going to fix anything - that the times have changed, and the time for well-versed systematic theology is passed. I think he'd encourage Dobson and Colson to use their immense influence to spur Christians at large to get involved in directly impacting their communities through non-religious programs geared towards serving others, in whatever way possible, and to stop worrying about persisting systems of morality. I think he'd encourage them to stop talking about homelessness and start feeding people; to stop complaining about broken families and start volunteering to help the social service system; to stop fighting for a constitutional ban on gay marriage and start working to help prevent and cure AIDS, and care for those affected by it. And then I think he'd feed them himself, and hopefully they'd realize who he was, and after he'd left, I hope they'd leave excited and inspired to tell their friends and get the ball rolling.

So let's get it rolling.