In his Oct 15 intervention, the Rt Rev N.T. Wright, the Anglican observer to the synod, said the challenges of “secularism and relativism” alongside the problems raised by “postmodernity” faced by the churches had bred an “anxiety” that the “Bible might tell us unwelcome things,” and that “its message might be stifled.” He urged a “balanced” fourfold reading of scripture founded upon the heart, (Lectio Divina, liturgical reading), mind (historical/critical study), soul (church life, tradition, teaching) and strength (mission, kingdom of God).” “In particular, we need fresh mission-oriented engagement with our own culture,” Dr Wright said, according to notes released by the VIS. As Paul confronted paganism “so must we. In particular, we must engage critically with the tools and methods of historical-critical scholarship themselves,” he said. Dr Wright said the “climax” of the canon of Scripture “is Jesus Christ, especially his cross and resurrection. These events are not only salvific, they provide a hermeneutical principle, related to the Jewish tradition of ‘critique from within’.”
Drawing upon the speech of Cardinal Ivan Dias to the Bishops at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, Dr Wright said the church should take Mary as its model and embody “fiat (mind), magnificat (strength), conservabat (heart) — but also stabat, waiting patiently in the soul, the tradition and expectation of the church, for the new, unexpected and perhaps unwelcome, but yet saving, revelation,” he said.
I hope that Bp. Wright will, on another front, take to heart the wise counsel of Cardinal Kasper: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17372/#comments
The article above has a strange title – NTW’s intervention certainly does not go out of the way to advocate biblical criticism – in fact his main point is that we should approach scripture with the great commandment in mind – we should read it with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. The title gives the impression that RCs are afraid of biblical criticism and NTW was telling them there is nothing to fear. Wright’s approach is much more complex – that enlightenment biblical critiicism provides tools and opportunities but also many mis-steps – see his revision of Stephen Neill’s history of the interpretation of the NT – NTW revisied the whole thing and added the final chapter on the period from 1961-86.
Dr. LeMarquand is quite right — a strange and imbalanced title to that lecture. Moreover, the judicious use of biblical criticism is already advocated and ably defended in “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” by the Pontifical Biblical Commisson (1994) , of which I am sure +Wright is well aware.
The bigger problem is most folks do not quite understand what “criticism” means in this context, mitaking it for a negative or skeptical stance to the Bible. That some biblical “critics” work with those assumptions is clear enough, but it is not the essence of biblical criticism.
Bishop Wright doesn’t appear to be the one who brought up the issue of fear of historical critcism.
“Bishop Friedhelm Hofmann of Würzburg said the German-speaking bishops group was aware of “a certain fear about the historical-critical method.†Such fears could “endanger the merits and fruits of scientific exegesis.â€
.
Yes, but if the merit is to be judged by the effect on mainline Protestants and, oh, say, the Anglican Communion -particularly its Global North postmodern components- that may not be unreasonable.
Surely Wright has read some of the excellent biblical criticism (both higher and lower) written by Roman Catholic scholars in the past 50 years.
It is helpful to distinguish between scholarly expository work and law brief biblical interpretation designed to persuade to a position or a cause.