Book: Surprised by Hope, NT Wright, Church of England

[sirach2v4]

While some Catholics have a rule for themselves to not read any non-Catholic author, the Church (popes) have actually said we can take what is useful from other faiths. I think that is the reason Dr. David Anders may have recommended this book on his EWTN program Called to Communion.

This book is non-Catholic and at times, anti-Catholic. So, you are warned. So, what’s good about it?

Wright, a Bishop of the Church of England and well-regarded scripture scholar, has written here a book explaining well what the Resurrection means.

While, in Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI said that Jesus was the focus of all scripture, Wright says here that the Resurrection is the focus of all the Bible, the story of creation and the new creation (as St. Paul cites as the effect of Baptism).

I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church several years ago, so I can’t go toe to toe with Wright on his thesis from that perspective, it’s been too long. He seems to be correct, overall, on what the Resurrection meant in the early Church and what it should mean to us now. The book is worth reading for that, to recognize what Baptism should mean to us and how to live as members of God’s kingdom, as we should, looking forward to our own resurrection.

I’ve heard women say that their wedding day is the most important day of their lives. Well, it may be to some, but my Baptism day was the most important day for me.

Wright particularly attacks the idea of Purgatory, and cites Catholic authors Rahner and Ratzinger to demonstrate that Catholic teaching is quietly changing on that subject, Tim Staples notwithstanding. His references for this are obscure to me.

The first part of this book has some very good analyses of the gospels, that I haven’t heard before.

I’m waiting for the mail to get here, with Wright’s study of the gospel of Luke. Wright quotes St. Paul a lot and explains what he’s saying, but apparently Wright has expanded this into a full book, What Paul Really Said. On the basis of this book, I might be tempted to get that one.

In passing he says the Inquisition and the Crusades were “monstrosities.” Wright’s non-Catholic beliefs are his weaknesses, and they are evident. Matrimony is not a sacrament in his Church so he can rationalize divorce, I guess. He doesn’t discuss this at all, except obliquely, to assert that there are only two sacraments.

 

[adamhovey1988]

While some Catholics have a rule for themselves to not read any non-Catholic author, the Church (popes) have actually said we can take what is useful from other faiths. I think that is the reason Dr. David Anders may have recommended this book on his EWTN program Called to Communion.

This book is non-Catholic and at times, anti-Catholic. So, you are warned. So, what’s good about it?

Wright, a Bishop of the Church of England and well-regarded scripture scholar, has written here a book explaining well what the Resurrection means.

While, in Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI said that Jesus was the focus of all scripture, Wright says here that the Resurrection is the focus of all the Bible, the story of creation and the new creation (as St. Paul cites as the effect of Baptism).

I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church several years ago, so I can’t go toe to toe with Wright on his thesis from that perspective, it’s been too long. He seems to be correct, overall, on what the Resurrection meant in the early Church and what it should mean to us now. The book is worth reading for that, to recognize what Baptism should mean to us and how to live as members of God’s kingdom, as we should, looking forward to our own resurrection.

I’ve heard women say that their wedding day is the most important day of their lives. Well, it may be to some, but my Baptism day was the most important day for me.

Wright particularly attacks the idea of Purgatory, and cites Catholic authors Rahner and Ratzinger to demonstrate that Catholic teaching is quietly changing on that subject, Tim Staples notwithstanding. His references for this are obscure to me.

The first part of this book has some very good analyses of the gospels, that I haven’t heard before.

I’m waiting for the mail to get here, with Wright’s study of the gospel of Luke. Wright quotes St. Paul a lot and explains what he’s saying, but apparently Wright has expanded this into a full book, What Paul Really Said. On the basis of this book, I might be tempted to get that one.

In passing he says the Inquisition and the Crusades were “monstrosities.” Wright’s non-Catholic beliefs are his weaknesses, and they are evident. Matrimony is not a sacrament in his Church so he can rationalize divorce, I guess. He doesn’t discuss this at all, except obliquely, to assert that there are only two sacraments.

I listen to Dr. David Anders quite often. Smart guy. I find it odd some Catholics won’t read non-Catholics. I don’t know many Catholics that would tell me not to read C.S. Lewis.

 

[RPRPsych]

I listen to Dr. David Anders quite often. Smart guy. I find it odd some Catholics won’t read non-Catholics. I don’t know many Catholics that would tell me not to read C.S. Lewis.

In the time of Fr. Feeney (RIP), it was routine for people to inveigh against reading C.S. Lewis. One sermon from that era was recently reposted on a fairly well-known Catholic web ministry. In our day and age, a more patient attitude prevails.

 

[adamhovey1988]

In the time of Fr. Feeney (RIP), it was routine for people to inveigh against reading C.S. Lewis. One sermon from that era was recently reposted on a fairly well-known Catholic web ministry. In our day and age, a more patient attitude prevails.

Lewis wasn’t perfectly orthodox in his theology. Why should he be, he was Protestant? But he did believe: The real presence of the Eucharist, the need for auricular confession (if you type that phrase into google, tread lightly), purgatory, and seemed to believe in the intercession of the Saints. Heck, he was more Catholic as a Protestant than many Catholics are now. With regards to NT Wright, I mean, I have found, in my opinion, much better non-Catholic writers with much better arguments.

 

[Picky_Picky]

While some Catholics have a rule for themselves to not read any non-Catholic author, the Church (popes) have actually said we can take what is useful from other faiths. I think that is the reason Dr. David Anders may have recommended this book on his EWTN program Called to Communion.

This book is non-Catholic and at times, anti-Catholic. So, you are warned. So, what’s good about it?

Wright, a Bishop of the Church of England and well-regarded scripture scholar, has written here a book explaining well what the Resurrection means.
( … )

In passing he says the Inquisition and the Crusades were “monstrosities.” Wright’s non-Catholic beliefs are his weaknesses, and they are evident. Matrimony is not a sacrament in his Church so he can rationalize divorce, I guess. He doesn’t discuss this at all, except obliquely, to assert that there are only two sacraments.

Although Dr Wright’s work has been praised across the whole spectrum of the Church of England he is perhaps personally to be found somewhere among the Open Evangelicals, so it is quite possible that he distinguishes between the two “Gospel sacraments” and the “sacramental rites” that include matrimony (I don’t know his work sufficiently well to tell). But in case anyone is in any doubt about the motley nature of the CofE I should point out that belief in seven sacraments is perfectly orthodox and widely held in that church.

 

[sirach2v4]

Although Dr Wright’s work has been praised across the whole spectrum of the Church of England he is perhaps personally to be found somewhere among the Open Evangelicals, so it is quite possible that he distinguishes between the two “Gospel sacraments” and the “sacramental rites” that include matrimony (I don’t know his work sufficiently well to tell). But in case anyone is in any doubt about the motley nature of the CofE I should point out that belief in seven sacraments is perfectly orthodox and widely held in that church.

Thanks, I have seen the Royal weddings in recent years, but then Prince Charles divorced Diana – which I guess was a scandal for the Royal family, I suspect. I stand corrrected about the CofE sacraments, certainly this book is not a catechism of their beliefs.

I’ve been watching a series of British TV shows on Netflix, which are set in the mid-eighties to fairly recent. The characters profess outright atheism in varying levels of assertiveness, and in one program, the bishop of Oxford is known to profess his atheism openly, as if to prove a point.

Getting back to NT Wright, I like how he uses very colloquial American speech, including late in the book, the phrase “the whole shebang” (I’m presuming that is an Americanism.)

 

[Used2beSherryG]

I recommend “Surprised By Truth” by Patrick Madrid instead

 

[adamhovey1988]

I recommend “Surprised By Truth” by Patrick Madrid instead

I’ve not read it, but I know the book, and I know Pat Madrid (not personally), but I do agree with that.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks, I have seen the Royal weddings in recent years, but then Prince Charles divorced Diana – which I guess was a scandal for the Royal family, I suspect. I stand corrrected about the CofE sacraments, certainly this book is not a catechism of their beliefs.

I’ve been watching a series of British TV shows on Netflix, which are set in the mid-eighties to fairly recent. The characters profess outright atheism in varying levels of assertiveness, and in one program, the bishop of Oxford is known to profess his atheism openly, as if to prove a point.

Getting back to NT Wright, I like how he uses very colloquial American speech, including late in the book, the phrase “the whole shebang” (I’m presuming that is an Americanism.)

It did indeed originate in the US, but it has become common in British English, too, or rather
did become — it’s a bit dated now, I suspect; the sort of thing I’m likely to say myself

Can you, by the way, point me to this atheist Bishop of Oxford?

 

[sirach2v4]

Can you, by the way, point me to this atheist Bishop of Oxford?

No, not at all. That was the subject of a short dialog in an undoubtedly fictional TV program about a fictional bishop – acting out a story line of the screenplay writer.​

I received by study guide for the gospel of Luke. For this publication, NT Wright goes by the name of Tom Wright.

I am disappointed in the book already for two reasons that are contained in the introduction to the book. 1) The study guide is based on Wright’s own translation of the Bible, which must be purchased separately – when I ordered it from Amazon, I did not know that. 2) The study guide has a good introduction to the rules for group Bible study, Protestant style, focusing on open and active discussion (not like, for example, those studies of Ascension Press or Little Rock Scripture Study, which have tough questions to begin with, but are supplied with the answers to the questions). Wright says that there are no wrong answers, as a way of encouraging discussion.

The last chapter of that study guide does not focus on the Resurrection of Christ or the general resurrection of the dead, in only the smallest way, compared to this volume, Surprised by Hope.

 

[Picky_Picky]

No, not at all. That was the subject of a short dialog in an undoubtedly fictional TV program about a fictional bishop – acting out a story line of the screenplay writer.​

I received by study guide for the gospel of Luke. For this publication, NT Wright goes by the name of Tom Wright.

I am disappointed in the book already for two reasons that are contained in the introduction to the book. 1) The study guide is based on Wright’s own translation of the Bible, which must be purchased separately – when I ordered it from Amazon, I did not know that. 2) The study guide has a good introduction to the rules for group Bible study, Protestant style, focusing on open and active discussion (not like, for example, those studies of Ascension Press or Little Rock Scripture Study, which have tough questions to begin with, but are supplied with the answers to the questions). Wright says that there are no wrong answers, as a way of encouraging discussion.

The last chapter of that study guide does not focus on the Resurrection of Christ or the general resurrection of the dead, in only the smallest way, compared to this volume, Surprised by Hope.

Ah, thanks, I misunderstood you about the tv programme.

Dr Wright tends to be N T Wright in his more academic works and Tom Wright in his more popular works. In addition he is perhaps better known in Britain as Tom because he was first and foremost to us Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, whereas you see him referred to as N T Wright more frequently in the US.

Incidentally there are lots of videos on YouTube of him talking about various Resurrection topics; you might find them interesting.