The Thing about N.T. Wright

A few weeks ago, theologian and former Bishop of Durham, England, N.T. Wright was asked in an interview what he thought about same-sex marriage. Unless you've been blissfully asleep for many months, you will know that marriage equality is a very big issue in both church and state contexts.  

In the United States, many states are now accepting marriage equality, whereas many others are rigidly opposed. Some religious denominations here have welcomed the concept whereas others are, you guessed it, rigidly opposed.

After much wrangling, it has become legal in England, Wright’s homeland, but not in the Church of England, also Wright’s homeland. I doubt, however, that this delicate predicament had any influence on Wright’s response to the question. He is, if nothing else, confident.

And rightly so. N.T. Wright is just about the foremost Christian theologian writing and teaching today. He has published more than 130 books and is quite beloved by many “progressive” Christians, and there is the rub. We progressive Christians want to embrace marriage equality; we also want to embrace Wright, and now it seems we can’t do both.

You can read Wright’s remarks about marriage here. As you can see, he has rejected the notion of same-sex marriage on two bases. First, he dislikes it when words are redefined. Making a few references to past repressive regimes, he sees this phenomenon (which is a constant of every language on earth) as somehow dystopian. Of course it can be dystopian. Who can forget the chilling pronouncements from 1984: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength? Is Wright telling us that marriage equality is basically Orwellian? That would be a facepalm moment if ever there was one.

The argument that he makes against marriage equality that is getting the most publicity (and scorn) is his reference to and reliance on Genesis I. Wright sees the created binaries of earth and sky, water and land, sun and moon, male and female as fundamental and overriding. He even uses the word “complementary” which has really got some folks’ danders up.

I've read quite a bit of N.T. Wright and one thing that pervades his writing and thinking is the idea that everything fits together. For Wright, there are no loose ends, no coincidences, no accidents. There is one God who is now and has always been faithful to his purposes and promises. No taking anything back. No changing his mind.

Quite frankly, I am with Wright on this. Maybe I’m too greatly influenced by him, but I see the universe in much that way. I don’t see time evolving and causing God to have to regroup. For me, all time is eternally present and who has it all in his hands? God. Obviously.

I do, however, think that Wright has it a bit wrong on this application of Genesis I, and I say that with all the humility I can muster, because he is a lot smarter, better read and even older than I am. So… all due respect.

What I read in Genesis I, is a recipe for creation and increase, not a model for social or political organization. It's biology, not anthropology. Yes, God separated the waters from the land. Why? So that there would be growth. Yes, God made the sun the rule the day and the moon to rule the night. Why? So there would be increase. God created plants that would give seeds and trees that would give fruit with the seed in them. For increase. So, as I see it, creating male and female was done for the same purpose, for increase.

Increase was the main agenda for our early ancestors. At the time when the Genesis story was first told, as well as when it was first written, increase was our job. Is it any wonder that the story we told ourselves about the creation of the universe would also stress this mandate?

And that has not changed. Of course same-sex couples can rear children, but male and female elements are still required to produce a child, or an apple tree. Even with seven billion people on the planet, we are still consumed with increase. Maybe having a lot of children isn't the imperative that it was a few thousand years ago, but we still want to go on. We still need to sustain life and our environment. That continuance and sustenance depend on those binaries that God put in place at the beginning.

What does marriage equality give us then? It gives us another way for the Holy Spirit to indwell in our pairings. It gives us more people who can be loud in their love. Marriage equality gives us a bigger version of family and there is nothing about God that doesn't like bigger.

So should finding myself, ourselves, on opposite sides of this issue require us to burn our N.T. Wright books? Protest his next appearance? Do a glitter bombing on him? Should we dismiss the former bishop as hideously behind the times or hopelessly complementarian? As Paul would say, by no means. 

Until polarization becomes a Christian tenet, until partisanship rises to the godly, we just have to live with each other. We aren't Roman emperors giving the thumbs up or thumbs down on gladiators. We are just human beings, staggering through life, seeking God. And that God, remember, has a place for all of us.