Bishop N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report

Last week Anglican Bishop Dr. N.T. Wright was on The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert was "interviewing" Wright about his recently released book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. If you are not familiar with Wright this might not be the best introduction to him, but it will certainly be the funniest.

Tom Wright is both an Anglican bishop (Durham) and a pre-eminent New Testament scholar. I have been reading Wright for several years and in July, 2004, had the privilege to travel with my friend Jason Clark to Leicestershire, England, to attend a conference that featured him as its keynote speaker.

I have had many opportunities over the last number of years to meet and interact personally with some of my theological mentors. Surprisingly, that can be a deflating experience. In fact, being an interesting scholar does not necessarily translate into being an interesting (or compelling) human being. However, in the case of Tom Wright, it does. As good (and creative) a scholar as Wright is, he is an even more interesting person to interact with as a human being. Sometimes you interact with someone whom you quickly realize has given everything they have in the form of their writing - and if you try and get them to depart from the script it is not pretty. On the other hand, interacting with Wright you get the sense that you are just skimming the surface of what he knows and has to offer. I remember finding myself wanting to get through the "talks" (which I had flown to England to hear and were incredible in their own right), so that after the fact I could sit down with him in a group, drink a beer, and interact. That is the kind of guy he is. Not to mention prolific. Did I say prolific?

Anyway, you can watch him trying to engage Stephen Colbert on the topic of heaven and the resurrection. Usually I enjoy Colbert's irreverent, incessant, and hilarious interruptions of his guests with his meaningless dithering. In this instance I found myself wishing he would shut-up for awhile and let Wright complete a sentence. Oh well, it is funny (and it was broadcast on Comedy Central after all) and so I guess I need to shut up and take the book off my shelf and read it.

Comments

[eric reynolds]

Thanks for sharing. Wright held his own pretty well in this interview.

The book is fantastic! I marked up my copy on every page.

[Larry]

A joke I heard about Wright:

A young student went into Wright's office and asked his secretary if he could see him. The secretary responded that Dr. Wright was in the middle of writing a book. The student replied, "OK, I'll wait then".

[Larry]

And by all means, read the book!

[bj]

what an anoining interviewer. he seems only interessted in his own jokes. and he's not funny at all!

[Tim]

I'm the same way, Eric - as it relates to Wright I would be better off highlighting what doesn't stand out to me. It would save me ink.

That is rich, Larry. And probably true for that matter. I am going to try and read the book this summer.

BJ - yeah, I don't know if you have sen Colbert before, but he has created this character as a parody of several self-important news magazine broadcasters (Bill O'Reilly is the main one I think). The whole thing is tongue-in-cheek and purposely obnoxious.

[Steven Carr]

Hebrews 1
In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.

The heavens and earth will be rolled up and discarded, in the way that clothes are changed.

The old clothes that have perished are thrown away, and replaced with new clothes.

The old clothes are rolled up and thrown away.

Wright is very good on explaining this 'clothing' metaphor, which many people up to now have failed to understand.

[Dan Wilburn]

In this day of progressive culture, I found Colbert's entrenchment in dualism revealing. If Colbert and his audience (?) have anything new to imagine about god or spirituality it sure didn't come out here in this interview. Stuck, stuck, stuck.

[Tim]

Steven - thanks for the comment. I look forward to reading Wright's explication of this.

Dan - right.

[Steven Carr]

Now I come to think of it, Wright doesn't touch Hebrews 1 with a bargepole.

It doesn't say what he wants it to say, you see.

[Tim]

Ah, Steven...I detect sarcasm. ; )

Having read Wright I doubt he is leaving things out to bolster his own opinion. Something that obvious would leave him at the mercy of fellow scholars. My guess is that he treats this passage (or doesn't treat it) based on exegetical concerns. I'll read the book and then see if there is anyplace he engages the Hebrews 1 text.

Just looking at it quickly, however, it's worth noting that the author of Hebrews is quoting from Psalm 110, where the language is poetic, not literal. Also the context of the passage is one where the author is seeking to demonstrate the superiority and primacy of Jesus to what has come previously - namely the angels. It seems that the passage you quote is more about the presence of Christ with God throughout all of time and the use of the verses you quote speak to the transitory nature of creation measured against the stability of God and the presence of Christ with him before all things.

I believe the context of the letter to the Hebrews is primarily that of a community of Jewish Christians who are being persecuted for their faith. As a result they are being tempted to abandon Christianity and return to Judaism. Thus the author's determined strategy to demonstrate that Jesus precedes the angels (who mediate the law) as well as Moses. The author's point is that to abandon Jesus is to abandon God - who has now sent us this final revelation...himself.

Hebrews is a fascinating book. the way the author interprets and uses Old Testament passages would certainly not pass muster in most seminary hermeneutics classes. ; )

Anyway, thanks for posting Steven.

[Larry]

Actually, Tim, the passage in question is from the 102nd Psalm. It is, of course, poetic, and the emphasis is on God's reliability and steadfastness. But to directly answer Steven, there is nothing there, even if interpreted in a woodenly literal fashion, that contradicts Wright, which is probably why Wright, IIRC, didn't deal with the passage in Surprised by Hope. Wright is quite aware of the passages in the Bible dealing with a recreated and renewed Earth and does deal with them. In fact he compares the renewing of Earth to the resurrection of believers, there is still a connection to the old Earth so nothing that we do here will be vain, as Paul states, but, like our resurrected bodies, the new Earth will be restored to its original goodness. The metaphor of changing clothes used in Psalm 102 actually fits this idea pretty well, even without allowing for poetic license.

[Tim]

Thanks for the clarification, Larry. I looked at the wrong footnote. Verse 13 is the one that quotes Psalm 110. Great stuff.

[Steven Carr]

Leave Wright at the mercy of his fellow scholars?

He got mercilessly dispatched in 'The Stars will Fall from Heaven' by Edward Adams.

I quote him 'Wright's other major claim - that the idea of the created cosmos coming to an end was alien to mainstream Jewish though - is also NOT based on an assessment of the literary evidece....'

Wright's 'fellow scholars' are scathing.

What is Wright's response?

None. Why should he bother if scholarly books trash his dogma?

Wright really doesn't mind if he writes things which leave him at the mercy of his fellow scholars.

He is the one selling books and appearing on TV

He knows the general Wright-buying public won't have a clue about his fellow scholars.

Wright is right about that.

Hebrews 1 is about discarding the heavens and earth the way that old clothes are rolled up and thrown away.

I'm sure Wright has changed his clothes now and then.

He knows what happens to old clothes. They do not get patched up when they perish.

Eventually, they just get rolled up and thrown away.

That is the point of the metaphor. The heavens and earth perish, but God remains.

In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain...

As you point out '.... the use of the verses you quote speak to the transitory nature of creation'

Creation is transitory.

Wright says creation will never perish.

It will be patched up the way old clothes are not rolled up and thrown away, but sewn up and made new after they have worn out and perished.

I guess Wright has sold enough books that he can now afford to buy himself new clothes, don't you?

[Steven Carr]

LARRY '... but, like our resurrected bodies, the new Earth will be restored to its original goodness. The metaphor of changing clothes used in Psalm 102 actually fits this idea pretty well...'

CARR
When you change clothes, the new clothes you wear are the old clothes restored to their original goodness?

What is this?

Why do Christians say things which seem so bizarre to atheists?

[Tim]

Steven,

Thanks for your input and the lively exchange. I am even more excited to read Wright's material firsthand, assess what he says, and then look at those who disagree with him. Many blessings.

Tim

[Steven Carr]

Hi.
You won't find him dicsussing Hebrews 1 in his Suprised by book.

And you will wait a long time for his response to Edward Adam's demolition job on his claims that early Christians did not expect some sort of cosmological catastrophe.

[Larry]

Christians say things that seem bizarre to atheists because, as a rule, atheists read everything, including the Bible, like it was written since the Enlightenment. (A hint: the Bible is not an Enlightenment text.) In this instance the "clothes" metaphor seems to be throwing you, to expand on it, clothes are something that one _wears_. The old, worn-out clothes may be discarded, but the person who was wearing the clothes remains, so creation's "clothing", damaged and worn-out, will be discarded and replaced, but the creation remains. Also keep in mind that Psalm 102 is poetry, and so may not be as explicit in its metaphors as you would like.

It is also bad form to yank one verse out of context, as you are doing, and using that one verse to play a game of "Bible Gotcha". Read the verse in the context of the whole Bible. In this case consider, among many, many others, Hebrews 12, which shows the earth being shaken, not destroyed, but that which can be shaken as being removed. Compare this to the casting off of old clothes pictured in Hebrews 1 and Psalm 102. Also consider this in relation to the Christ hymn in Colossians 1 which clearly equates the scope of Christ's redeeming work with the scope of _creation_, that is, of what has _already_ been created, not of a new, ex nihilo, creation. Creation has been, and will be, redeemed, not destroyed then created afresh. Again, there is nothing here that contradicts Wright, who I am sure is well aware of these verses. Whether or not he is aware of Edward Adams, who appears to be somewhat obscure, is another matter. In any event Wright is under no obligation to answer every critic who comes along, or he would have time for nothing else. From what I read on Adams' book on Amazon, it would appear that he badly needs to study some hermeneutics, particularly as applied to apocalyptic literature and how it was interpreted and used in the Second Temple era. He, like you, appears to mistake apocalyptic for an Enlightenment science text.

[Adam]

Tim,

A few posts back you wrote this sentence "The author's point is that to abandon Jesus is to abandon God - who has now sent us this final revelation...himself."

I've been playing the ideas and meaning of the book of Revelations, I have an idea about 'rapture' that I may share later, but more generally I've been examining the book as less prophetic of things to come and more prophetic about things that have happened. If that makes any sense. So, in your sentence you state the final revelation was God as man, incarnated as Jesus Christ. Maybe I'm just picking at semantics but maybe there's something there to look at, as well.

Thoughts?

[Steven Carr]

Hebrews 1
In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.

The heavens and earth are compared to the clothes.

They are not compared to the person wearing the clothes.

So why does Larry claim that the passage is about the person wearing the clothes?

Can't he read properly?

Presumably it is God who changes the heavens and the earth in the way that a person changes his old clothes when getting new clothes.

So God=the person wearing the clothes.

No wonder the verses say that God remains, and the heavens and earth perish.

Please do not insult my intelligence like that again. It find it really insulting to be told I can't understand a plain text like the following :-

In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.

It is only Christians with a theological bias who are forced to state that when the heavens and earth are compared with perished, worn out garments that are rollled up and thrown away , it is all just 'poetry' and so doesn't mean anything.

[Steven Carr]

I think I get Larry's point.

The heavens and earth will be discarded and thrown away, but creation will remain.

A bit like throwing away the head and handle of an axe, replacing them with a new head and handle and claiming that the axe remains and is the same axe.

I guess Adams is really guilty when he reads passages in apocalyptic literature like 'God himself will again fashion the bones and ashes of men and he will raise up mortals again as they were before' and treating that like 'an Englightenment science text'.

The correct hermeneutic is Wright's approach 'What can I sell to the public?'

If a text says people's bodies will be resurrected , it is to be taken literally, because I can sell that to the public.

If a text says the world will be destroyed by fire, I will not sell books (I will become 'somewhat obscure'), if I take that literally.

And , lo and behold, Wright's hermenutic is correct, because he tells it the way that sells books.

And Adams must be wrong. He does not sell many books, and so is 'somewhat obscure', and so must be wrong, and not even worth answering by Wright, who is too busy writing books that will sell, by telling people what they want to hear.

[Larry]

Steven, you just proved my point about reading the Bible like it was an Enlightenment text. Thanks. I would also suggest that your post shows why no poetry worth reading came out of the Enlightenment. The rest is just a bunch of ad hominem directed at Wright and myself that exposes the weakness of your position.

[Tim]

Thanks for the exchange guys. I have a feeling that in terms of profitable interaction we have taken this one as far as it can go in this medium. As a result I am going to close the comments. Blessings.