Posted on November 6, 2008 - by Stephen Murray
Narrative-Realism or Preterism? Help Me
Can anyone help me out with a bit of theological jargon and terminology that I’m trying to get my head around? I’ve been reading a fair bit of the articles on Open Source Theology and I keep coming up against, what many of their authors call the ‘narrative-historical argument’ or the ‘narrative-realist’ approach. Andrew Perriman, one of the authors, even describes himself as doing ‘biblical theology after Christendom in a narrative-realist mode’. In reading the various articles however this narrative-realism seems to sound a whole lot like classic preterism. My question for all the budding theologians out there is what is the difference between the two (preterism and the narrative-realist approach)? Or are they pretty much the same thing – in which case this narrative-realist approach is not really all that new. Help me please…
7 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Leave a Reply
Here's your chance to speak.
Stephen Murray
Christian, husband to my beautiful Robin, missional dreamer, pastor, church planter, Arsenal, Sharks and Springbok supporter, surfer (in the real sea), patriotic South African, Capetonian. Find out more about the church planting work I'm involved in at my support blog.
Visit My Website
November 7, 2008
Permalink
Roger Saner said:
If I had any idea of what you were talking about I might be able to help!
Visit My Website
November 7, 2008
Permalink
cobus said:
I’ll try, but might be talking about something completely different. I don’t know much about preterism, and the narrative-realist approach is a new label. But about narrative-historical I know something.
Let’s keep it very very short:
The historical approach worked from the assumption that in understanding the origin and history of a text you’d understand the meaning. For example, knowing about the different layers in the Abraham texts and being able to put each in the context of origin would provide you with a perfect meaning (this is the worst description of the historical critical process ever).
The narrative approach would emphasize the narrative character of scripture (this is not redaction criticism, which search for meaning by understanding what the redactor was doing in putting the final text together). It emphasizes the fact that these stories have meaning, and can be interpreted in different ways (again not a very good description).
The historical approach sometimes claimed to know too much, and also tended to miss the fact that this breaking down into small parts was not the intended way of reading scripture. The narrative approach has a danger of going into literalism. A narrative-historical approach take the insights of historical criticism seriously, and let it influence our reading of scripture, but still know that meaning arrive through the narrative. It would read the gospels as narratives, and read all of scripture as part of a big narrative about God and God’s people, but read it knowing what historical criticism has thought us about the context etc.
Well, this is how I understand it, and then it has nothing to do with preterism, although this reading might bring you to similar doctrinal ideas if you look for them.
Visit My Website
November 7, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
Thanks Cobus – that’s helpful. It makes sense how a narrative-historical approach could lead to a theology that looks really similar to preterism. I guess that’s why you can put someone like NT Wright (moderately conservative Anglican adopting a narrative-historical approach – I think?) next to Douglas Wilson (conservative evangelical reformed Presbyterian who happens to be a preterist) and their theologies look very similar in many ways.
Visit My Website
November 14, 2008
Permalink
Andrew Perriman said:
I took the liberty of trying to answer your question. I hope you don’t mind.
Visit My Website
November 14, 2008
Permalink
Andrew Perriman said:
Hmmm. It’s not obvious that there’s a link in that last comment. Click on ‘trying to answer your question’.
Visit My Website
November 15, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
Thanks Andrew – much appreciated
Visit My Website
January 4, 2009
Permalink
zoecarnate said:
I know some folks who embrace both – you can read their stuff here.