Labels

Poetry (1) Theology (1)

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Book Review: The God i don't understand

Book Review: The God i Don’t understand by Christopher J. H. Wright

This is a book I picked up at the 2008 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I got it for free so long as I agreed to write a review and post it somewhere on-line. So here’s the review. Keep in mind that my reading of the book spans over six months so not all of the book is exactly ‘fresh’ on my mind.

Overall Grade: C

To begin with, Wright tries to accomplish something almost unheard of: wrestle with four of the biggest theological questions ever, in just over 200 pages. He’s insane! That being said, he could have done much worse in his treatment of those four questions. I will break down my response accordingly; one per question, and then a summary statement.

Question: What about evil and suffering?

In the preface, Dr. Wright alludes to human limitedness in understanding, a concept which ought to lead to humility if understood. This is a tremendous place to begin. However, I also think this concept can be used to control people. It’s sort of like the ultimate trump card. If somebody else’s argument doesn’t fit into your system, or rubs you the wrong way, or is too complicated for you to understand, then playing this card gives you a bit of a head start in the debate. No reasonable person will argue that humans are omniscient or that they are capable of full understanding in any category. (by the way it seems to me that this is perhaps the trump card that full-fledged postmodernism may be abusing?) Therefore, if you will argue for any knowable position, you are starting off in the position of arrogant and the burden of proof is on you to show why one could humbly arrive at any degree of certainty regarding your position. So the trump card tilts the scales perhaps unfairly.

I think Wright recognizes this reality when he distinguishes that some things ought to be understood and believed in Scripture (page 19). So perhaps I simply draw different lines than he does. So, while I think he brings up some very good angles on the discussion, and revealed perhaps some further complexities to the issue, I thought he could have worked further to find a greater level of resolution between seemingly contradictory doctrines. Further, it is possible that Wright’s understanding of the problem of evil has led him ultimately to a position of cosmic dualism – God vs. Satan type theology (pg. 55). I think he is actually rejecting the reformation emphasis on the sovereignty of God and replacing it with a type of agnosticism towards the issue.

Question: What about the Canaanites?

This is sort of a follow-up question to his first one. In this question you begin to see his theology regarding suffering and evil played out in a historical setting. Wright argues (along the same lines) for a principle of accommodation in the Old Testament – where God accommodates his plan to the realities of human life, rather than recognizing the realities of human life as a part of God’s ideal plan (italicized words his – pg. 89). This is odd because at other points (pg. 96, 98) Wright affirms that in some sense everything is a part of God’s ultimate plan which is for his glory. However, his treatment of these principles is so brief and left me wondering if he actually had room for that idea in his system, or if he was simply affirming words and phrases that are in Scripture without making sense of them.

Question: What about the cross?

“There is a sense in which our answer is going to be somewhat similar. If we ask “Why did God love us enough to send Jesus to the cross?” the answer is: “because he did.” And if we ask “How did the cross achieve salvation for us?” the answer is: “Because it did.”

It seems to me that Wright tries to put himself squarely in between the substitutionary atonement camp on one side, and the anti – divine child abuse camp on the other. Perhaps if one denies the law of non-contradiction or the laws of logic (as postmodernity does), then this position can be consistent. However, I don’t think Wright is in this camp, and therefore I’m not sure his paradigm is consistent. (Wright does mention that he is NOT denying the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross – pg. 157-8).

Question: What about the end of the world?

I enjoyed this section the most and really did not find many problems with it. That may be attributed to my limitations in eschatology or sympathies with Wright’s understanding. He focused much on redemption and restoration themes and the impact that those themes should have on us.

Conclusion

Overall, I did enjoy reading the book. Although I don’t think I end up where Wright is, I still benefit greatly from reading his thought process on these very difficult issues. Some leniency should be granted to Wright also since he is trying to tackle such big issues in a short space (of course that was his choice tooJ). Perhaps there was a great deal more that he wanted to say. One thing on which I will heartily agree with Dr. Wright: these questions are very complex and demand thoughtful, patient inquiry. Further, the answers that have been posited so many times in our churches today, are far too simple and hasty – and people will see right through that! The answer is not to give up and affirm some sort of agnostic position however, I think instead we ought to learn a great deal of humility in our study and openness, while still pursuing answers.

No comments: