Simply Christian, by N.T. Wright
Apr 24th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 3 Comments |
Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense (HarperSanFransisco, 2006)
by N.T. Wright
I checked this book out from our local library after a concept which it (implicitly) employs (“thin places“) was used by our Associate Pastor in last Sunday’s sermon. It is, you might say, Mere Christianity for people who know the Emergents are onto something, but think the whole postmodern thing is a bit much.
Bishop Wright is an Anglican, as was C.S. Lewis, and he begins his book with four chapters that remind one very much of Lewis’s concept of “joy” (see Surprised by Joy, and Pilgrim’s Regress).
There is, for both Wright and Lewis, at least one phenomenon which indicates that we are built to partake of something beyond. We experience a call to something more (cf. Heidegger on the call of conscience).
For Lewis the phenomenon is “joy” (or, as I would term it, “mystery”). For Wright the phenomena are justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty. He examines the experience of each, shows how there is a sense of unfulfillment (or hunger) which accompanies each. We have a deep understanding that things need to be “put to rights” (a phrase Wright uses frequently).
Wright then uses the rest of the book to show how the theme of the story which Christianity tells is how God is at work (often through humans) to put the world to rights. As part of his exposition, Wright uses ontology. Which is awesome.
His distinction between the pantheistic, deistic, and Judeo-Christian ontologies is extremely helpful. The question, we might say, is how the physical and spiritual realms (Wright uses the word “heaven” instead of “spiritual realm,” which is a smart move) are connected.
In pantheism, they “overlap” completely (rather, they are the same). In deism, they are completely separate. In Judeo-Christian-ism, they are different, yet overlap in certain places, people, activities, and texts (and at certain times).
God’s work of putting things to rights can be expressed as restoring the world so that the physical and spiritual (i.e., heavenly) realms overlap in all places, people, activities, etc., at all times. This is an ontological (and quasi-metaphorical) description of what we normally call “redemption” (see, e.g., here).
If you want my opinion, I think the understanding of Christianity which Wright expresses is evidence of a growing influence of Eastern Orthodoxy on the Western Church (for similar themes in Eastern Orthodoxy, see here).
But the appeal to what Celtic tradition would call “thin places” (even though Wright never uses the term) seems to represent a particularly . . . well, British Isles contribution as well. (Cf. how Lewis talks about the placement of doors between our world and the world of Narnia in The Chronicles).
And then there’s the fact that Wright identifies the ontology as properly Hebrew/Old Testament, without mentioning how well it fits with Eastern Orthodox and Celtic ideas. I’m finding the confluence of various Christian traditions helpful in my own life, so it’s nice to see it happening in this book as well.
The idea that Christ has made it possible for each and everyone of us to be an intersection point between heaven and earth — and that God has the intention of making the entire universe intersect heaven — is, I think, a very helpful way of talking about redemption.
If you’re finding Christianity dry, boring, or stupid, — of if you’d just like to see another side of your faith — I’d recommend this book. It’s a good start/new beginning.
Thin places. There is a resurgence of interest in anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s notion of thick and thin descriptions these days, especially among writers commenting on postmodern notions.
That includes me commenting on my colleague Crystal Downing’s book on postmodernism. I offer no citation since my talk is only available in PowerPoint®. But I do have a review of her book.
I’m interested to see you identify “thin” with Celtic tradition. Geertz was American. Made me wonder whether Geertz was in turn influenced by Celtic views. Or whether it’s just that the sociologists of the internet are right: Everything is connected.
John Dewey likewise had a theory of meaning (which was, I think — like Husserl’s notion of “horizons” — influenced by William James’s notion of “fringes”) which was contextual/relational in the sense that the Wikipedia article describes Geertz’s as being.
(That was a convoluted sentence. Sorry.)
But so did Ferdinand de Saussure, I just discovered yesterday.
I had never heard of the concept of “thinness” in the religious context until the sermon mentioned in this post.
I wonder whether it might not be better to relate “thickness” in Geertz’s sense with thinness in the Celtic religious sense. Both involve, it seems to me, the issue of expanding a context.
(E.g., the context of a “thin place” is not just the surrounding “material world” but the spiritual world as well.)
*ponders*
Oh, and Dr. Downing’s book is an extremely helpful treatment of postmoderinsim and religion. Quality information and thinking. Hers is the real deal (as opposed to the Brian McLaren’s frustrating A New Kind of Christian trilogy by Brian McClaren).
[...] course, I wouldn’t have thought of the issue in those terms were it not for Dr. Chase bringing up Geertz earlier. And my co-opting of Geertz’s “thin vs. thick” language is a little [...]