RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Wright, G. E. The God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital
A very important work in 20th century biblical studies. Dissatisfied with the liberal gutting of the Faith, yet uncomfortable with actually affirming said Faith, Wright (not to be confused with NT Scholar NT Wright) and the Biblical Theology (not to be identified with Gerhardus Vos's project) movement posited a God who makes himself known by his acts. We know God by what he does in the narrative.
On one level I agree. A narratival theology, indeed a narratival ontology, demands a God who acts. We know God by his saving work, not from our philosophizing about his essence (or if you are into hyperousia, the essence beyond the essence).
There is a problem with Wright’s proposal, though. As numerous neo-liberals have pointed out, Did God actually act in *this* space-time history? If Wright says no then how is he any different from old-school liberalism? If he says yes, how is he not a biblical conservative?
Even worse, by positing God’s acting in a different narrative than the real life narrative, we have a modalistic narrative behind the narrative, which is not so different from the hyper-ousia modalism of God behind God. It posits an Essence behind the Persons who are Behind the Energies which (no longer who?!) are behind the narrative. One cannot miss the heavy irony: If Wright cannot affirm that God acts in history, then his God has not really acted at all. He is back to old-school liberal deism.
Conclusion:
Actually an enjoyable book. I really benefited from it and it probably stands a few rereadings. Still, one must note the author’s presuppositions.
A very important work in 20th century biblical studies. Dissatisfied with the liberal gutting of the Faith, yet uncomfortable with actually affirming said Faith, Wright (not to be confused with NT Scholar NT Wright) and the Biblical Theology (not to be identified with Gerhardus Vos's project) movement posited a God who makes himself known by his acts. We know God by what he does in the narrative.
On one level I agree. A narratival theology, indeed a narratival ontology, demands a God who acts. We know God by his saving work, not from our philosophizing about his essence (or if you are into hyperousia, the essence beyond the essence).
There is a problem with Wright’s proposal, though. As numerous neo-liberals have pointed out, Did God actually act in *this* space-time history? If Wright says no then how is he any different from old-school liberalism? If he says yes, how is he not a biblical conservative?
Even worse, by positing God’s acting in a different narrative than the real life narrative, we have a modalistic narrative behind the narrative, which is not so different from the hyper-ousia modalism of God behind God. It posits an Essence behind the Persons who are Behind the Energies which (no longer who?!) are behind the narrative. One cannot miss the heavy irony: If Wright cannot affirm that God acts in history, then his God has not really acted at all. He is back to old-school liberal deism.
Conclusion:
Actually an enjoyable book. I really benefited from it and it probably stands a few rereadings. Still, one must note the author’s presuppositions.
