NT. Wright’s Fresh Perspective 4

Last updated on: February 23, 2006 at 5:25 am by Scot McKnight

NT. Wright’s Fresh Perspective 4 2006-02-23T05:25:35-06:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

N.T. Wright’s Paul in Fresh Perspective is “fresh” because on top of the older “new” perspective is added a pervasive Pauline rhetoric against Rome. Wright paves his own path here, he charts a different casting of Paul’s theology and letters, and in so doing lays down an implicit challenge for each of us to consider: How concerned was Paul, ultimately, with Rome’s power?

Chp. 4 is where Wright outlines his basic thesis that has been brewing for about half a decade. His first indicator of this “fresh”ness was in 2001, but it does connect with the work of Richard Horsley from 1997 on. Essentially: Paul’s message is a “subversion of th enew ideology which was sweeping the Mediterranean world… the ideology of the Roman empire” (59).
First, to consider Pauline theology as political rhetoric requires that we drop our left-right poles, drop the distinction between politics and religion, and learn how to discover “echoes” of political rhetoric in Paul’s letters. He relies here upon Richard Hays: (1) availability, (2) volume, (3) recurrence, (4) thematic coherence, (5) historical plausibility, (6) history of interpretation, and (7) satisfaction.
Second, he sketches Caesar’s ideology, and this is the really central to his argument. The rhetoric revolves around freedom, justice (dikaiosyne), and salvation. These themes constitute the “gospel” of Roman ideology, where the cross was the consummate deterrent within Rome’s mighty might.
Third, Wright sketches how other Jews critiqued dominating powers. The critique stems from the prophets, where there is the strange combination of (1) relentless and fearless critique of idolatry and, at the same time, (2) accommodation or cooperation with the ruling power. Live under the power knowing that such powers will eventually be turned to rights. He looks at Wisdom of Solomon, 1QM and other texts. All of this comes out of a creational monotheism.
Fourth, Wright sketches in bold outline but with provocative suggestions Paul’s own theory of resistance by showing how Paul uses anti-Rome imperial rhetoric to announce the gospel. Jesus is Messiah and that means the world’s Lord. I cannot here details what he says about Paul’s letter, but he shows this anti-empire rhetoric in Philippians (esp. chps. 2–3), including 2:5-11. He then sketches themes in 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians and then to Romans.
This is perhaps a summary example of the whole chapter’s thesis: “Paul comes to Rome, ‘not ashamed of this gospel’, as he says in 1.16, becasue — and here, clearly, every phrase counts — the gospel is God’s power (that word again) to salvation (that word again) to all who believe, in other words, all those who are faithful and loyal; because in it, God’s dikaiosyne, God’s iustitia, God’s saving covenant-based justice is unveiled for all, the Jew first and also the Greek” (77).
So, what we’ve got in Wright’s “fresh” perspective is a creation and covenant theology now overlayed with a political claim: Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not.
Response by Bevere:
In general, I like what Wright is doing. I would take issue with him on one important matter:
Wright works through to Paul’s understanding of the relationship between Gospel and Empire suggesting that Paul’s political theology is radically different from ours today. I am not sure exactly what to make of this. In the context of classic Jewish critique, Paul takes the view that the rulers of the nations are evil and God will hold them to account, but at the same time the people of God are to seek the welfare of the nation in which they live. Anarchy is not what God desires; rulers are necessary, and believers are to live under pagan rule and must be constantly on guard against compromise with paganism.
Thus Paul’s counter-imperial theology is clearly summed up as “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not” (p. 69). It is Jesus’ lordship that gives Paul a fresh perspective on Jewish political theology. Jesus’ lordship offers a radical critique of pagan power, in this case the power of Rome, and at the same time it “is a radical restatement of the duty of Godâ€™s people when living under present pagan rule” (p. 70). All of this flows out of the implicit narratives of creation and covenant.
Again, I like what Wright is doing here, but I also feel a sense of frustration in thinking through it. Wright notes a few times in the chapter that Paulâ€™s “fresh” political theology looks quite different from the political alternatives we have today. We tend to think along the political spectrum of “right” and “left” in the framework of eighteenth and nineteenth century Enlightenment political theory. Paul’s theology of earthly rulers is very unlike what has been assumed by Christians in the West.
This is true enough in many ways, but my frustration comes from my own sense that Wright is fundamentally correct, and fundamentally wrong at the same time, in that I wonder as to exactly how dissimilar Paul’s political theology is. Most Christians I know on the left and on the right and somewhere in between, assume that God will hold rulers to account, and that Christians have to work through their duties as Christians promoting the welfare of the nation in which they live, while not compromising their faith. Granted Christians are working through these questions very differently, from foreign policy to domestic issues, but in the final analysis they are the same questions, and the large answers are not all that different.
It seems to me that the elephant in the room that makes Paul so different from the twenty-first century is not that he faced different questions giving different answers, but rather he lived within a different context. Paul is writing to churches living in the midst of a completely pagan society. Western societies contain, more or less, vestiges of Christendom, with most of its leaders professing adherence to Christianity in one form or another in a committed to nominal way. Paul is writing to Christians who are a very tiny minority in the Empire and are clearly not in charge. In the Western nations of the twenty-first century, Christians are still in the minority, but there is a context of Christendom present. Christians in the United States do not view Caesar in a way that sees him as the enemy. This is true even when Christians do not approve of the way Caesar is behaving. In a society where the ruler is viewed as the enemy, no one is interested in polls and approval ratings. I have no doubt that Wright’s discussion would ring true with the Christians in Cuba and Nigeria. In the United States and Great Britain, the substance of the discussion is more complicated.
I am not interested at this point in attempting to decide which Presidents of the United States are true Christians. My experience has been that whether one believes George Bush or Bill Clinton are good Christians is based solely on whether or not one agrees with the politics of one or the other. I have felt for some time that it is rather arrogant to evaluate a politician’s faith commitment on whether or not he promotes a particular political agenda.
What I am driving at is that while I think Wright is correct in reference to Paul’s political theology, I am not sure, in the big picture of things, how radically different it is from how Christian political theology manifests itself today, other than in the false notion of separation of church and state, which is nothing other than a doctrine that domesticates the church silencing it as a prophetic witness. I also agree that the current option of left/right politics is not adequate for the Christian; there is an alternative. But seeking the welfare of the nation as well as rejecting compromise has always been the issue. It is one challenge when Caesar wants to kill us; it is quite another when Caesar simply desires to stroke our religious sensibilities in order to get our vote. Perhaps the latter is more dangerous as the compromises of faith are more subtly forced upon us.
Perhaps the radical nature of Christian political theology revolves, not around whether Caesar is a pagan, but around the issue of Christian participation in war. It would be very interesting to see how Wright works through that subject.

Books

Previous Post

February 22, 2006

Emergent at the National Pastor's Convention

Next Post

February 23, 2006 Emerging Peter: Heaven Hope

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Deuteronomy" mean in Greek?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Sacred Song Second Law Great Journey Many Stories