What's a nice Catholic guy like you doing in a place like this?

As one might imagine, at a seminary such as Westminster, there are all sorts of internal discussions going on in the classroom, hallways, cafe and at various blogs. So far on this blog I have steered clear of such discussions, at least directly, though I've touched on and implicated them within the context of some broader remarks. My reason for doing so is not because I find the discussions uninteresting or irrelevant, even to those outside the Westminster community or the seminary setting. They are not merely matters of esoteric knowledge but bear directly on issues that affect all of us, even if not readily apparent on the surface. However vital, I do not see such debates as consistent with this blog's primary purpose, which is accessibility to a broad readership interested in thinking about the issues raised here, and I hope at least sometimes challenged. Besides, any such discussion assumes knowledge of background information, including names, vocabulary and theological distinctions.

All of this is to say that, in contrast to the above, this post was prodded by a lecture in one of my classes earlier today, though I think it should be of interest to at least some of you. Today in a Christology ("Salvation I" at WTS) lecture, the material focused on Karl Rahner's theology of the incarnation, comparing his underlying thinking to Schleirmacher, and also touched on Vatican II and its trajectory going forward.

In the January 2007 issue of First Things, Catholic theologian Edward Oakes briefly reviewed NT Wright's Simply Christian. As I imagine is the case at any Protestant (and maybe even Catholic) seminary that affirms historic Christianity, at Westminster, NT Wright is, for good reason, widely read and much discussed. In case any one thinks that I am somehow "Anti-Wright" or am taking sides here, to the extent I've read him, I think Wright is in many respects outstanding, having cited to him positively twice on this blog - here and here, including a recommendation of Simply Christian, which I continue to recommend. I look forward to reading much more of Wright.

As you will read in Oakes' review below, he is measured in his critique of Wright, being careful to give him the credit he is due and almost admitting that his difficulty arises out of an impression as much as anything else. He does not (and I certainly do not) claim that Wright's theology is that of Schleirmacher or Rahner. Interestingly, as a Catholic, his critique has to do with an approach to cultural engagement encouraged by Vatican II he finds in Wright.

The reasons I cite to the review are twofold: 1. It is a review of Wright's well-received book outside of the Protestant polemical context in which he is normally discussed; and 2. as much as I think Wright is an excellent and creative ambassador for historic Christianity, I don't want to be uncritical of him. While not necessarily endorsing the review in its entirety, I think Oakes' reflections are serious, sobering and worthy of consideration, more so for how they might challenge us than for what they say about Wright's approach in particular.

Here's the review:

Speaking very generally, Christian apologists can go down one of two roads: Friedrich Schleiermacher’s or Blaise Pascal’s. According to Schleiermacher, man’s inchoate sense of absolute dependence can best be assuaged by following Jesus, who, more than any other human being, conducted his life not just sensing his absolute dependence on God (which Schleiermacher claims we all do) but actually living it out. In other words, man is thirsty for God, and Christianity offers the most limpid and salubrious water for slaking that thirst. But for Pascal, Christianity is not so much pleasing water for a thirsty but otherwise healthy traveler; rather, it is harsh chemotherapy for a desperately ill cancer patient.

Because C.S. Lewis-the most famous and influential of all Christian apologists in the twentieth century-adopted the avuncular style of the fireside chat (indeed, his most famous books began as a radio addresses during World War II), superficial readers often consider him to be vaguely Schleiermacherian. But a careful reading of his works, especially Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man, puts him squarely in the Pascalian camp. His style might imitate the bedside manner of the kind physician, but his diagnosis is grim.

By his title alone, N. T. Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham, is clearly trying to provide a twenty-first-century reenactment of Lewis’ apologetics. But in contrast to Lewis, Wright uses an approach that is, in my judgment, too "apologetic"-in the ordinary-language sense of that term, which is to say, too Schleiermacherian ("Please don’t despise me"). Whether other readers will also consider that strategy to be unwise depends on what question they think Christianity is meant to answer.

In any event, one cannot help reading Wright’s noble effort in the context of the implosion of the contemporary Church of England (where he shines as Anglicanism’s best New Testament scholar since two earlier figures in the See of Durham, the nineteenth-century scholars J.B. Lightfoot and B.F. Westcott). Lest this juxtaposition sound too triumphalistic, Catholics, too, I think, need to reassess the Second Vatican Council-which also largely adopted the "we can answer your deepest needs" approach. Judging by its rhetoric alone, Vatican II seemed to adopt this strategy: You "cultured despisers" could really learn something from us Christians, really, if you would just sample our wares!

Despite the validation bestowed by that epochal council on this all-too "apologizing" approach, I think nearly every headline one reads today, from the rise of militant Islam to the popularity of The Da Vinci Code, has shown that approach to be a non-starter. Besides, one might also note, if only in passing, that it is always the most "pessimistic" Christian apologists (Augustine, Pascal, Kierkegaard) who continue to gain a hearing, while the "optimists" (Origen, Schleiermacher, Karl Rahner) go largely unread.

Much as one can respect Wright’s gentle approach in Simply Christian to win hearts and minds over to the Christian religion, his book, one can confidently predict, will never eclipse or replace Mere Christianity. I think people who reject the gospel have not the remotest idea how desperate their plight really is-and what the consequences of their rejection will prove to be.