weird.

Which of the programs contains the NT Wright book?

Brad, Bishop Wright is on tonight’s show, look up at the very top of the page.

This’ll be intriguing!

Isn’t going on that program a little like prostitution? Unlike the Dailey Show in which Stewart will seriously interview someone while trying to find the humor in it, Colbert’s entire persona is an act. There can be no real honest dialogue there when the interviewer is a fake from the beginning, a fake with an agenda to mock the conservatives by pretending to be one. Thus the one interviewed becomes complicit in the game.

The only way I would countenance going on that show is to break through the act and call him on the game. But then, that’s all the interview would be, me attacking his stupid act. No discussion of substance would ensue.

Not enough to keep him busy in his poor, crowded diocese? Or more fun jetsetting among the warmongering Aremikkkans?

You guys… somebody needs to exorcise the green-eyed monster around here about once a week. . . .

Not that it makers any difference but isn’t Colbert a committed Catholic?

I was guessing Charlie Rose.  What a shock!

He, he - just to set the cat among the pigeons I’ve heard Tom Wright, more than once, refer to America (jestingly) as “The Great Satan”.

Awesome.

The type of conservatism that Colbert satirizes is the Bill O’Reilly-Rush Limbaugh variety, which, of course, is not exhaustive of the American conservative tradition.

Yes, #8, Colbert is a Roman Catholic.

#5
The Colbert Report is not an “act” as much as a parody.  He certainly does not assume he has anyone “fooled.”  I agree with #12 that he is making fun of the Bill O’reillys rather than the RIck Warrens of the World.  In fact, you can google his interview with Rick Warren - it was excellent and he does not mock Christianity in the least.

I know Stephen, although not well.  Often, he is making fun of himself more than anyone else.  I bet he does nothing to humiliate N.T. Wright tonight. 

And, yes, he is a Catholic

pwhite, I did not mean to imply that there is no seriousness in his act or that he treats his guest with disrespect, within the context of his act. But the fact remains that he is playing a role which requires his guest to play along. Since he is playing an ass his possible agreement with the guest can only stain the guest with the same ridicule he attracts to his parody. So one must hope for Colbert to disagree or to just feign stupidity. But it still makes the guest the straight man to a comedy routine. The guest is not really the star of the moment.

But I must confess my prejudice: I have always found routines in which one person or group acts a part while another does not, but simply is himself, to be unpleasant and a little abusive. The actor always has the advantage. On the extreme end are the prank shows like Candid Camera, which I have always detested. Baron Sasha Coen and his vile routines fall into that category. Colbert is at the other end of the spectrum. At least his guests know he is acting, and they are welcome to join him, I suppose. But the resulting play wouldn’t seem to have much of a purpose to it, unless it is to allow the audience to see how hip the guest is. It just seems one step up from going on a game show and discussing one’s book while hopping on one leg.

Thanks for the heads up.  Colbert is brilliant as is Jon Stewart; CR and Daily Show are my two favorites.  Having just relocated to Tucson where the new Colbert Reports don’t air till 11:30 PM I will catch it on the rerun tomorrow.

Bishop Tom was solid as gold on the show, I thought, just plowing right through with his message, and running right over Colbert at least a couple of times.  Lovely, delightful, faithful. Bravo.

Why is Tom Wright so thin-skinned? He goes into torrents of high dudgeon whenever his views are challenged - as more and more scholars and pastors are doing. Look at this piece from him in First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6253
He should say less (and MUCH less about himself) and listen a lot more. Too much self-justification going on here.

My experience - and I’ve seen him in several New Testament seminars in which his views got a tough time both from the theological right and left - is that I’ve always found him both polite and pugnacious. He clearly loves the cut and thrust of debate and is very good at it - especially when he has time to prepare. I have never seen him make the debate personal. He can seem to bulldozer less experienced debating opponents.

The reply to the First Things article was typical stuff. Fr. Neuhaus’ original article was pugnacious and more or less accused Bishop Wright of anti catholicism. I thought it was positively great that not only did Bishop Wright author a reply but that he turned up in their offices and invited Fr. Neuhaus out to lunch. Folks like the First Things people are Bishop Wright’s natural allies in many ways.

For me, Bishop Wright’s presenting issue is not that he comes across as thin skinned. On the contrary - blows seem to bounce off him like Iron Man. The problem is that he seems unaffected by criticism that is actually thoughtful (and I don’t mean the Piper stuff). I mean, I have seen him in scholarly encounters in which he seems not to back down even when presented with a good argument. That can make him seem not thin skinned but arrogant. On the other hand - he is a skilled and frequent debater - with folks from the theological right and left who would love to publicly humiliate him if they could. So a kind of Pavlovian reaction of showing no weakness, is understandable - it’s just not always very sympathetic.

#19: You make some interesting observations. I agree that Wright doesn’t engage with his critics sufficiently, and I suspect there is a personal or political agenda going on: he wants to be the standard bearer for evangelical scholarship and the ecclesiastical leader of evangelical Anglicans. Evangelical scholars like Westerholm, Gathercole and Piper (not a lightweight writer on justification), along with the philosopher Helm and Carson, certainly don’t agree with Wright on Paul and justification and they are bringing up more critiques, in defense of the Lutheran or Reformed view that Wright seems to have slighted, in his development of Sanders/Dunn on the ‘new perspective’. Wright, OTOH, issued a very long attack on the conservative evangelical authors of ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’ on penal substitution (despite agreeing this is how the Cross should be understood), while completely ignoring the fact that he had written a commendation for a book ‘The Lost Message of Jesus’ attacking PSA!
The attacks he has made on GAFCON are, I think, because he sees many evangelicals preparing to break with Canterbury, while he constantly jumps to RW’s defense - over sharia, over Windsor/Dromantine/DeS etc etc - matters that tested many Africans way beyond their patience.
There is, I fear, a side to Wright’s work that does seem to say, ‘Nobody saw this before me.’ But Piper’s book (available free online) finds many grave weaknesses in Wright’s theory.

Of the folks you mention IMO Gathercole is the most interesting (Piper I think really isn’t scholarly interesting). I’ve not seen Gathercole and Tom Wright go at it - but I have seen Gathercole and James Dunn argue about the New Perspective. As you probably know, Jimmy Dunn supervised Gathercole’s thesis. I would say the honours were shared. I think in person (at least in a mixed room of scholars) Gathercole is rather more balanced about the NPP than the scholars who did the blurb for the back of his book. Indeed, in the conversation I saw, Gathercole slightly distanced himself from the more extreme comments on the NPP.

I think folks like Gathercole are a valuable corrective to the NPP. At least when I heard Gathercole speak he affirmed the basic need for the NPP and said that it needed corrective/supplementing/developing.

Piper’s focus has been as a pastor and preacher rather than a schoalr, but I think he makes telling points in his book The future of Justification, which you can find & read for free on the web about the meaning of dikaioo. Paul Helm (see his website Helm’s Deep) also criticizes Wright from a systematic pov. Helm supports Piper. Gathercole is more nuanced - as befits a Cambridge lecturer! You can hear Gathercole discussing NPP on the bethinking.org website - as well as his interesting lectures arguing for preexistence in the Gospels - another point of difference with Dunn! Gathercole thinks Westerholm does a good job in summing up the debate.

My mistake - I meant ‘Theology Network’ - here’s a link to Gathercoloe’s CT article:
http://www.theologynetwork.org/studying-theologyrs/what-did-paul-really-mean.htm
& the same site has an mp3 interview with Gathercole.

Actually the Dunn/Gathercole discussion on pre-existence at SBL was way, way more antagonistic that their conversations about the NPP. Dunn seemed personally offended that Gathercole had not asked for his comments on the pre-existence book before it was published. As I recall, he seemed to feel that he could have helped Gathercole avoid some of the errors of judgment he (Dunn) identified in the book.

Gathercole’s CT article caused some discussion on the scholarly blogs - with some feeling that as a review article it was unbalanced.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised that Dunn should reject Gathercole’s ideas on preexistence in the Synoptic Gospels. Dunn’s old views on preexistence in Paul (‘not there’) have been given another thumb’s down going over by Fee (Pauline Christology), & Gathercole takes the ‘I have come’ argument to a further level. I don’t know if Gathercole really succeeds with this one, but it is a tour de force. Even Dun had to concede that preexistence is in John - & imagine if John was dated on the early side? Well, why not? There is no much circularity in all this.

I didn’t see this show(don’t get cable) and right now, I’ve got other problems with Tom Wright but I don’t see anything wrong with him appearing on Colbert.  Wright’s smart enough to hold his own with anybody.

Well well well, I’ve just read Bishop Tom’s response.  The Gordian I hope your ears are burning.  But seriously it is great to hear from you Bishop Tom on the blogs and to hear directly on some of the issues.  You have no idea what an encouragement it is.

Many thanks and I hope you will be encouraged to engage again.  Blogs are a strange new way to spread the Word.

Pageantmaster Incognito.

I had to chuckle throughout the Colbert/Wright interview.  Colbert is a hoot.  Very funny man.  And he knows enough about Christianity to actually ask intelligent questions, if sometimes in a backhanded way.  But his show is not for the discussion of serious matters; indeed, seriousness undermines the comedy.  Colbert needs interviewees who will play along. 

I admire Wright’s tenaciousness in staying on message.  He knew what he wanted to say and refused to be distracted.  But in the context of the show, the message came off somewhat trite.  I therefore have to question the wisdom of appearing on the Colbert Report.  But no harm was done and a dimension of the gospel was faithfully presented.  Who knows?  Perhaps Bishop Tom’s words encouraged one or more hearers to explore more deeply the authentic Christian understanding of Heaven and life after life-after-death.  Kudos to the Bishop of Durham.

But his show is not for the discussion of serious matters; indeed, seriousness undermines the comedy.

That was one of my points. I guess Puritan minds think alike. 

Bishop Wrights says he was thinking of Booth’s adage, “if I could win one more soul to the Lord by playing the tambourine with my toes, I’d do it”. I was thinking of the Lord’s saying, “Do not cast your pearls before swine”. But it is a judgment call, and, as I didn’t see the show, I can’t really speak on the final wisdom of his choice.

As I suspected, Stephen did not harm with his interview.  I agree with Bishop Wright that this was a great way to perhaps get some people to think about serious theology who might not otherwise.  I am glad he took the risk and went on the show.  Its wonderful to see some serious, orthodox thinking mixed into the pop media.

Blessings to the Bishop and Stephen!

I finally got around to watching the interview.  I thought it was a moderately successful one—Colbert certainly wasn’t trying to upstage or trap Bishop Wright, but +Wright struck me as not the most experienced interviewee.  He stayed mostly on-message, but he could have been a bit clearer, I thought.

It also struck me that the subject of this particular book of his seems more geared towards people who are already Christians—he’s saying, “Look, this way that you’ve been thinking of heaven is probably not quite right”—whereas I’d lay money that Colbert’s audience is mostly agnostic or in the vague spiritual-but-not-religious camp.  If his goal was evangelism, then this particular book is probably not where I would have started if I were in his shoes.

Still, it was a good enough interview, and it probably did Colbert’s demographic good to see a representative of organized religion acting like a reasonable person.

And just maybe two or three people will pick up ‘Surprised by Hope’ and read it.

That was one of my points. I guess Puritan minds think alike.

Thank goodness Christ didn’t say: don’t cast your pearls before puritans, or one would fear that you are doing just what you accused NT Wright of doing.

...And I like Sascha Cohen (with all his cussing, gross-out humor) and Candid Camera. Both, to me, are more honest and introspective than just about any and every Christian attempt at entertainment. A word to the wise: Christ tolerates logs in the eyes of the world more than he tolerates splinters in our own.

I thought it was an interesting, useful approach to sharing the Good News of God’s love made known in Jesus Christ—and i added the link to the footage to the Bishop’s wikipedia entry!  So if anyone wants to see it for themselves and not have to stay up past one’s bedtime, click and view . . .

justinmartyr, your logic escapes me. I was the one accused of puritanism by +Wright. I’m not likely to be suspected of casting pearls before myself. Am I?

Oh, and the site used to let you use a user name which hyperlinked the user name to your blog, which i’ve found handy for keeping straight which venue is which, not to hide my name—http://knapsack.blogspot.com would get one to my actual identity and e-mail in a speedy, non-spam promoting manner, but there are good reasons to not put one’s full name and direct e-mail into every interaction on the web!

I misread :( Sorry. Log in own eye. Ouch!

Just to reply to Bishop Tom’s request to know in which piece he wrote that America was the ‘Great Satan”. In my comment in #10 I said I heard him say such - and stand by my recollection. As I recall it was at BNTC in a seminar in Edinburgh about resurrection. It was, clearly a joke and a throw away remark, and I don’t think anyone took it to mean that the Bishop had become enamored of Iranian style rhetoric or of the ideology which accompanies it. It was part of a discussion of the meaning of the resurrection - in terms of the same general critique delivered in more scholarly terms (as is appropriate) in Surprised by Hope.

We may have different recollections (it was several years ago and the Bishop has thousands of meetings more significant than a small academic seminar) so I don’t expect the Bishop to pay anything.

Let me also say that ISTM there’s no doubt that Bishop Wright does genuinely love America even as he is critical of some parts of its life (as many US Christians are too, in one way or another). Indeed ISTM that when he is critical, he is critical because he loves America.

I had never seen the Colbert show. What an ego Mssr Colbert has.

On the other hand, Bp Tom did a fantastic job of being witty and warm. Christians tend to get portrayed as stuffed shirts on mainstream media. Bp Tom seems to be the kind of guy that one would like to pop down to the pub with.

Nice to see a different side of the good bishop. I thought he did very well. You know, it’s nice to see someone getting positively excited about explaining how the afterlife works. Well done!

Bishop Wright for the WIN!

Gee, I think it’s quite a feat to get a gig on American comedy television - name the last Anglican bishop who’s managed that!  Once you’re there it’s quite another thing to get your point across.  He certainly does plough ahead trying to make his point.  Not sure he quite managed it but he died trying.

Bishop Wright (if you’re still out there) - you did a fantastic job!  Not many people can hold their own with Colbert—I bet even he enjoyed the jabs.  But best of all, you held true to the message and delivered it to people who probably don’t spend much time thinking about the gospel.  You’ve reached an audience that may never hear yours - or any other pastor’s - sermons. I bet more than one person watching picks up your book and maybe even opens their mind and heart to the Lord.  I think it’s the kind of conversation Jesus would have enjoyed
bless you!

This story will draw me to log in again.

There was a news story on the radio in DC in which it was cited a surprisingly large number of Americans get their news from the Daily Show.  My apologies for not being able to cite any source or recall the exact statistic to put this in context (then maybe it could be empirical by the disengagement of many Americans in important issues). So in the bishop’s defense, he took his message to the masses, maybe not prim and proper, but most of America is not prim and proper. He shared the Gospel and considering all things, this was less a hostile forum than many other venues he could have shared the Good News. Anytime a short presentation of our hope makes it to the market place, I think we should celebrate.