critical realism | or why I enjoy reading N.T. Wright so much

I have been reading through N.T. Wright’s major work in progress Christian Origins and the Question of God. I am a little ways into the second volume in the series, but from volume 1 and what I have read so far from volume 2 there is one thing which makes me keep reading with appreciation his insights and thorough study of the material.

He isn’t a crack pot theologian.

He puts forth a sound argument from sound and reasonable premises. He calls himself & his methodology ‘critical realism’; in that there are real objects in the world to be found, even of history, though they are mediated through a conversation of subject/object. We must therefore be critical of the knowledge we acquire but nevertheless we are able to get at some real beyond ourselves. It is a middle ground approach to the two ditches of pure subjectivism on one hand or pure objectivism on the other.

This approach is refreshing. He claims openly that he isn’t trying to create something new but is comfortable being very close to traditional orthodoxy. He isn’t trying to be progressive for its own sake or dogmatic for the sake of refusing change; rather he describes it as answering the questions of today with the wisdom of the 1-2 cen. early church.

I have grown tired of so many contemporary writers who claim to have discovered something new to the Christian faith, something lost or forgotten. It seems that more of us should stop trying to be sensational and be comfortable with the old, stewarding it for our & future generations.

Secondly I appreciate his focus on setting a clear understanding of worldview in his work. His understanding that thoughts and actions do not happen in a vacuum or a bubble what rather are mixed up with other parts of one’s life and also the life of the community.

These thoughts on worldview have been insightful to me in talking with people of disimilar outlook. I am beginning to see that discussions of disagreement are a result of underlying beliefs structures more often than simply A vs. B decision making. A is chosen over B because of a mountain of other decisions which it implicitly acknowledges within a certain worldview framework.

This reminds me of Rob Bell’s phrase of ‘the thing behind the thing’. Bell is speaking something very similar, things are rarely living on the surface; we have to dive down under the surface to under why the thing ticks the way it ticks.

Another great source of N.T. Wright of late has been his recent lectures at Wheaton College. The lectures included some reading of critical papers dealing with various aspects of Wright’s work. It was really illuminating to hear others dealing with his work in a rigorous and academic manner. I would highly recommend listening to the whole of the conference. Thanks to Wheaton for freely distributing those freely online & through iTunes.