Bet You a Can of Corn

I should begin by saying that this bit of writing is not a rant. I can assure you that at no time in the composition was the screen spittle-flecked. I remained in a good humor the entire time. And I mention all this because it is my intention to step out a bit, high, wide, and handsome. My criticism of Wright at this juncture is going to have a little tang to it. My adjectives and my metaphors are going to be slathered in West Texas barbecue sauce, that one for instance.

The title of this chapter is “Our Politics Are Too Small,” when the actual problem is that our politics are far too large. If responsible government were considered as two or three of those little marshmallows, the kind you put into jello for the kids, our modernist concept of idolatrous government is that marshmallow puff monster at the end of Ghostbusters.

True, our cultural vision is truncated and pinched, and much of what Wright is arguing here could be used to broaden that vision — but he doesn’t do it. If, under the lordship of Jesus, our politics assumed a more reasonable size and shape, our culture, free of coercion, and also under the lordship of Christ, would be in a position to truly flourish.

But Wright doesn’t do this. He is like the constables in Penzance. “We go, we go, we go!” “But you don’t go!” Let me splain.

First, Wright is absolutely correct that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessarily political. Jesus rose from the dead in the middle of history, and so the old ways of doing politics must be abandoned. This happens progressively in history, not all at once. Building on the foundation of the resurrection, the Church is God’s plan for getting this task done, and He is willing for it to take a while. And those who hold to power in the old ways don’t want to let go of it. “God acting in public is deeply threatening to the rulers of the world in a way that gnosticism in all its forms never is” (p. 173). The “political implications [are] inevitable” (p. 163). Wright correctly stands against the notion “that God doesn’t belong in public life” (pp. 164, 169).

The structure of his position is marvelous, but what does he fill it up with? Picture a four-hundred-year-old bookcase, made out of seasoned walnut, the kind you can easily find in the part of the world Wright lives in, crammed full of bodice-buster romances, the kind you can find in the part of the world I live in, like at Safeway.

To his credit, Wright does invites scrutiny of his position. “We could do with a similar analysis of the political setting of all Gospel criticism, my own included” (p. 174). Okay. Let’s do this thing then. I am just going to swing from skyscraper to skyscraper here, like basic mistakes were buildings, and book reviewing had somehow given me spider powers.

He begins with an irrelevance. “In Britain, the issues are bundled up in different ways than in America” (p. 164). So? If we must reject the split thinking of Heaven/earth dualisms, let us practice by rejecting any dualisms caused by the Atlantic. Jesus was the one who rose, so we don’t care how Americans bundle things. Jesus conquered death, and so the Brit bundling is also a nullity, theologically speaking. How does Jesus bundle them? Let’s answer that question, from the Bible, and then call it the Christian worldview.

Then he does something really odd, and he does it repeatedly, throughout the chapter.

“I want to suggest that the Bible enables us to navigate a path of wisdom not just halfway between secularism and fundamentalism but on a trajectory that shows up those ugly brothers as simply missing the point, representing two opposing wings of a now thoroughly discredited worldview” (p. 165, cf. pp. 166, 170, 174, 180).

In another place he calls fundamentalism a “conservative analogue” to gnosticism (p. 172). All this is just pulled out of a hat somehow. He defined secularism very clearly (and very well), but the closest he gets to a definition of fundamentalism is a slight hint at the top of p. 173. With his reference there to the rapture and Armageddon, he appears to be saying that Christian fundamentalism is simply dispensationalism. Readers of this blog know that I am no dispensationalist, but let’s be fair to them. I mean, crikey. If you are going to say that the most materially-oriented saints you ever saw are gnostic analogues, then please, an argument would be nice.

But, having done this, he then says . . .

“You won’t be surprised that I believe such a way can be found by returning to the foundation documents of the Christian faith, in particular the four Gospels” (p. 167).

Returning to the foundations, eh? Kind of like recovering the fundamentals? Apparently there must be a way to affirm stuff without falling into the “shrill certainties of fundamentalism” (p. 180). I wonder what makes it shrill. These are deep imponderables. How do we declare that Jesus rose without sounding like those other people who really think that?

Next building. Whoosh. Wright quotes Jim Wallis to the effect that he grew up in an evangelical church never having heard a sermon on the Sermon on the Mount (p. 167). This kind of story is very sad, and that lack of early training certainly shows. If we don’t teach children the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, they might never find out.

Coming to the next point, Wright makes an astute observation about certain tendencies in Gospel criticism that then leads to his central confusion.

“The Gospels have thus been seen either as a social project with an unfortunate, accidental, and meaningless conclusion, or as passion narratives with extended introductions” (p. 169).

In other words, liberals don’t get that death and resurrection stuff, and conservatives can’t figure out the monga-preamble to the death and resurrection stuff.

But notice what Wright does next. It is done very deftly, and if you weren’t paying attention, you might not notice it.

“Those who emphasize his death and resurrection do their best to anathematize any attempt to continue Jesus’ work with and for the poor” (p. 170).

This understated slam amounts to a misbegotten slander, and it reveals the heart of all the confusions that are going on in Wright’s analysis. There are two sides to this. First, Wright apparently doesn’t count it as compassion unless Caesar is standing there with a gun at your temple. Private generosity doesn’t count for anything because opposition to food stamps, say, amounts to a repudiation of any mercy ministry whatsoever.

So let’s talk about that. “Anathematize any attempt” to feed the poor? Let’s consider for a moment who really cares — to borrow a phrase from Arthur Brooks’ fine book of that title. When it comes to private philanthropy, private generosity, the kind of giving that is not spurred on by Caesar and his shiny coercion gun, who really cares? I will tell you. Americans are far more generous than Europeans. Inside America, the red states are far more giving than the blue states. Christians of every stripe are far more generous than secularists. Protestants are more generous than Catholics. Evangelicals are way more generous than the Protestant mainliners, and I would be willing to bet a can of corn for your next food drive that dispensationalists are at the very top of this particular food bank chain.

They are also least likely to vote for a candidate who will, if elected, send people to your house with guns and big block letters on their windbreakers after the IRS has determined you have been Insufficiently Generous. Keep in mind that dispensationalists are the least likely to correctly identify the beast of Revelation (who was Nero), but most likely to correctly identify all the contemporary beast knock-off brands.

Wright is correct to note that Christ’s program for this world calls for “radical personal moral demands” (p. 173, emphasis mine). But let me say this again. I am not tired of saying it. Personal moral demands of this nature do not flow from the barrel of a gun. That’s not how mercy works. That’s not how compassion goes. Hiring Smith (with Murphy’s money) to extort more money from Jones so that Winston can give it away to Cooper is not compassion. And putting Murphy and Jones in chokey until they start feeling the love is not what Jesus was urging in the Sermon on the Mount. And never forget that Jim Wallis is the one who eventually gets us SWAT teams out of that sermon, and they might even shoot your dog. C.S. Lewis once mentioned the kind of preacher who, if his text had had small pox, wouldn’t allow his sermon to catch it.

On paper, Wright is aware of the possibilities of governmental abuse. He mentions the “hermeneutic of suspicion that we rightly apply to anyone in power” (p. 169). He says this, but doesn’t do it. Nary a suspicion anywhere.

“Human power structures are the God-given means by which that end is to be accomplished — otherwise those with muscle and money will always win, and the poor and the widows will be trampled on afresh” (p. 175).

So what happens when the ones with muscle and money send lobbyists to hobnob with the great and powerful? When was the last golf game that Obama played with a poor widow? When governments put privilege up for sale, it will always be the muscled money that buys it. What did you think would happen? And the way you fight this is not through some joke of a legal reform that puts a law on the books that says government privilege will always be sold to the lowest bidder. Good luck with that. The way you fight it is by establishing a government — as we used to try to have — that is not permitted to sell privilege to anybody, at any price. And the only way to do that is by reducing the size of government to such a libertarian extent that Jim Wallis starts having nightmares, with personal freedom and responsibility riding down upon us like the galloping horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Now to reduce the size of government, incidentally, you must reduce the caloric intake. Get, in other words, between the hogs and the bucket. You must buy a rattlesnake flag for your truck, and attend Tea Party rallies. You must think that David Brat is a pretty okay guy for a liberal.

So Wright does acknowledge that there is “satanic possibility of tyranny” (p. 176). But I think he must be thinking of goose stepping armies and missile parades. What about soft despotism? What about the nanny state? To modify Mencken, what about those who think America is a gigantic milch cow, with three hundred million teats?

Quoting Kofi Annan, Wright says “we urgently need to develop ways of holding governments, especially powerful governments, to account” (p. 179). Huh. This is Boromir-talk. When you get the Ring, you will take it back to Gondor, and you will put safeguards in place. There will be a Review Commission. You will establish a Council of Advisors. There will be periodic audits, conducted by responsible civil servants. We should let Sir Humphrey be the chair.

You actually hold powerful governments to account by throwing their damned ring into Mount Doom.

So then. Jesus is Lord. Jesus has risen. Because of this, our task is not to try to get this swollen government of ours to go on the right path. Nor should we want it to go on the left path. We should tell it — in the name of Jesus, mind you — to go on a diet.

Skip to 35 Comments
Letters
Submit A Letter to the Editor. Well-written, fair-minded letters may be interacted with in featured posts. Also, please mention the title of the post which you are addressing.

35
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
35 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
22 Comment authors
Charlie BakerJane DunsworthMattJoshAndrew Lohr Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JT
Guest
JT

NT is familiar with the apostle, Paul, right? He emphasized the death and resurrection of Jesus, right? Am I taking crazy pills? 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.… Read more »

Seneca Griggs
Guest

Doug, you’re a man after my own heart. It’s like the Affordable Health Care act for the less fortunate. You don’t ACTUALLY nor NECESSARILY get good health care; but you do get a CARD that says you get health care. Big difference between owning the card and actually getting reasonable medical treatment. * “Compassion” only got you a card. We’ll see if the doctors will continue to work for nothing. I’m thinking they might not. However, you tax dollars for the Affordable Health Care Act will certainly go to fund a bigger bureaucracy with more and more paperwork and directors… Read more »

Matthew N. Petersen
Guest
Matthew N. Petersen

I dare say that Wright has played the role of the father in the prodigal son parable far more than everyone on this blog put together. We should set up shop to criticize him when we have embraced as many tattered sinners on the road back as he has.

Matthew N. Petersen
Guest
Matthew N. Petersen

But hey, this is facebook; it’s made for overstatements like Pr. Wilson’s. Bottom line is that I will stand with N. T. Wright, warts and all; he’s my guy. Let’s take care not to play the prodigal son’s elder brother in our treatment of Saint Wright.

Matthew N. Petersen
Guest
Matthew N. Petersen

Blog not Facebook. Sorry.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Sounds like Wright needs to review the False Dilemma fallacy.

“Either you agree with me that Big Government is the solution, or else you don’t care about the problem.”

Brian Watson
Guest
Brian Watson

Brilliant. Love the Pirates of Penzance reference, too. I, coming from a blue state, was slow to realize and embrace what the Bible says regarding the role of government. It’s difficult to dig down to your presuppositions and pull up the roots of one’s philosophical weeds. But it must be done. What makes government different than, say, non-profit organizations? The government has the power of force, and one cannot force virtue, nor can one force the gospel or any work that is done in Jesus’ name.

Daniel
Guest
Daniel

But hey, this is [a blog]; it’s made for overstatements like Pr. Wilson’s.

And apparently for overstatements like Mr. Petersons:

I dare say that Wright has played the role of the father in the prodigal son parable far more than everyone on this blog put together.

Not to mention the omniscience that he must have to know what he asserts in that last quote.

Also…the comment sections are a great place for adventures in missing the point….and passive aggressive comments like mine. :-)

Katie
Guest
Katie

Post a comment

David Douglas
Guest
David Douglas

Matt, I dare say that Wright has played the role of the father in the prodigal son parable far more than everyone on this blog put together. We should set up shop to criticize him when we have embraced as many tattered sinners on the road back as he has. So the standard of whether one can evaluate and criticize the truth or lack thereof in a cleric’s work which may be very capable in some places but flawed in others is…..we have to first be more of a blessing than he has been? So given the biblical injunction to… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Being “compassionate” with resources forcefully extracted from other people is not compassion. Such a system actually kills compassion because the people will naturally feel that they have already been docked those resources that they might have given to the poor. They will naturally feel that compassion is now the burden of the system that confiscated their resources for that purpose. To suggest that God has given His charity purse to the State makes as much sense as suggesting that God has given the sword of His wrath to the Church. It turns Scripture on its head. The magistrate’s sword is… Read more »

GLW Johnson
Guest

I must say Doug that these posts on Wright have given me pause-there may be hope for you after all especially since so many of your FV colleagues have enshrined Wright as their patron saint.

melody
Member
melody

“…to borrow a phrase from Arthur Brooks’ fine book…” for a moment there I thought you said ‘Foster Brooks’. Silly me. It’s amazing to me that any Christian would hold the writer of any book outside the Bible up as “their patron Saint”. It appears that some of the commenters here have not really read the whole Bible because there seems to me to be a serious lack of knowledge of what it actually says. It’s like an English class studying Shakespeare only by reading what other people have said about him and his writing while only reading a snippet… Read more »

Bryan Johnson
Guest
Bryan Johnson

“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.” Jack Handey

prayersofadoration
Member

Love your use of English authors and especially the Yes Minister bit. I wonder if there’s something analogous to a low carb. diet that would make the government feel full enough to not whine about starving and yet still shrink? More pork?

Willis Vida
Guest

I have always thought that Wright provides a great arsenal of weapons for conservatives to use….. then he tries giving them to the confused liberals.

Matthew N. Petersen
Guest
Matthew N. Petersen

Perhaps I should have been clearer in my comments: They’re satire. The first is, almost word for word, a quote from Doug Wilson (though with “Edwards” not “Wright”) the second is, a friend of Pr. Wilson’s, taking Pr. Wilson’s side in the same debate. I agree that we should have substantive criticisms. And I have substantive criticisms of this post. (Actually, I feel like N.T. Wright listening to Tony Blair’s speech on bombing Iraq.) But that’s not my point here.

Matthew N. Petersen
Guest
Matthew N. Petersen

Pr. Wilson didn’t “like” the second quote, but he did second it “what he said”.

RFB
Guest
RFB

Matthew N. Petersen,

“Perhaps I should have been clearer…”

Indeed!

One way to become more clear is to cease with the thinly veiled ad hominem.
I think that you could significantly advance you cause by engaging with the arguments being made by providing your own rebuttals and counter-arguments, instead of blowing raspberries.

Just for the sake of clarity, the subject is whether using the sword of government as Gods minister of wrath, as compulsory power to enforce “charity” is a scriptural principle. Engage with that. Act as if you really do not have a personal antipathy towards the site owner; just engage the argument(s).

timothy
Guest
timothy

@RFB @MNP

Or a simple

/sarc

tag will convey the intent admirably.

Matthew N. Petersen
Guest
Matthew N. Petersen

RFB: I have repeatedly engaged the arguments.

BPG
Guest
BPG

Melody said: It’s amazing to me that any Christian would hold the writer of any book outside the Bible up as “their patron Saint”. It appears that some of the commenters here have not really read the whole Bible because there seems to me to be a serious lack of knowledge of what it actually says. It’s like an English class studying Shakespeare only by reading what other people have said about him and his writing while only reading a snippet here and there from his actual works. Ridiculous.” I heartily agree! It is high time the practice of letting… Read more »

Jane
Member

Assuming that NT Wright ought to be regarded in the same way as Jonathan Edwards is, or as whoever that other guy from that other quote may be is, is not the same as establishing it. That Wilson ought to extend the same tolerance to Wright as to Edwards or That Other Guy probably needs at least to be argued before such a reductio has its intended effect of making him look silly.

Matthew N. Petersen
Guest
Matthew N. Petersen

It was not argued on Facebook. Yes, there were arguments, and numerous people have argued with this sort of post. But there were not arguments that we ought to stand with Edwards save what I posted here. However, the real problem with your comment is that it claims to read my motives. And I deny the conclusion regarding my motives.

Andrew Lohr
Member

9 paras up from bottom “That’s now how compassion goes” should perhaps be That’s not how…”?
(If so, correct that delete this.)

Andrew Lohr
Member

The British equivalent of the lifesaving Coast Guard is a private charity. Do those heartless Brits want people to DROWN? How can they call themselves Christian? / Look, if the private sector can do that, which Americans tend to assume government must do, maybe we can question the assumption that government must do schools, parks, welfare, roads…(Read “The Theory of Market Failure,” ed. Tyler Cowen.) @Mr Peterson: I think you’ve sometimes argued, but this time you’ve mostly expressed contempt, not desire to persuade. You might at least link to efforts you’ve made to teach what you believe.

Andrew Lohr
Member

I think I get most of the references, but who is “Sir Humphrey” (3 paras from bottom)?

Satan is a liberal, says Matt Walsh: http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/17/satan-liberal/2/

Josh
Guest
Josh

Andrew Lohr: look up “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister” a BBC comedy series from the early 80’s by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. The perpendicular pronoun thinks you’re in for a treat.

Jane
Member

Matthew, I’ll just chalk up your answer as confusing. I have no idea what Facebook has to do with anything. And your perception that someone else somewhere has not adequately argued his points doesn’t really justify our simply accepting that Jonathan Edwards = NT Wright in all relevant ways merely because you play a substitution game.

Jane
Member

I mean, if I just went around substituting “Barney Fife” for something Wilson says about Wright, I’d think I’d at least need to explain, if not necessarily defend, why Wilson needs to treat Wright exactly the same way he treats Barney Fife. Even a bare assertion that there’s a substantive reason to do so would be better than merely pretending that a substitution makes a clear point.

Matt
Guest
Matt

You’re both reading from a script here, but Wright has the better one.

Jane
Member

Okay, thanks. We’re at least even on the unwarranted assumptions now, so that’s something.

Matt
Guest
Matt

I was responding to the original post, not your comments. This is where threaded comments would come in handy.

Jane
Member

Actually, the confusion was entirely mine: I thought you were the other Matt, which is purely my mistake since he always goes by his full name. My apologies to you both.

Charlie Baker
Guest
Charlie Baker

“Let me splain.” — Ricky Ricardo (not Barney Fife) This is what U.S. have done …
http://www.joshhunt.com/mail21.htm
… and realizing it is our (political) temptation to institutionalize, we may be corrected truly – personally, one by one, by grace if we keep our eyes fixed on Jesus Christ.