Jun 26
I am currently working on a paper for a Systematic Theology class. I’ve been wanting to sort through NT Wright (no relation), so I chose to write on Wright and justification. I have a way of not making things easy for myself.
It’s been one of my most challenging and humbling learning experiences ever, as I’ve struggled to “get” his way of reading things. I hope to write a bit about it when the paper is done. But here are a few preliminary thoughts on this first encounter with Wright.
- The man is a brilliant reader of and thinker about scripture.
- Trying to substantively disagree with a small part of his work without first immersing oneself in his larger approach is hopeless.
- Reading Wright will sharpen your (I include myself) understanding of scripture, whether you agree, disagree, or partly agree. In most any area you read of Wright’s large body of work, you will come away thinking about scripture (and its message) in new and fruitful ways.
- I am annoyed at the sub-Christian and unconstructive way this Christian is treated by some in some sectors (e.g., some in some Reformed sectors: here is an extreme example–search for the word “heresiarch”). I am also more understanding of why he causes alarm in those sectors, although that understandable alarm does not justify uncharitable discourse. (Wright himself can incur blame for reducing the level discourse, too).
- An adequate response to his work cannot rely merely on classical Protestant systematic theologies/confessions, because complex underlying presuppositional differences. Exegesis (that’s more obvious), Hermeneutics, and Biblical Theology all must be involved in evaluating Wright.
- At the same time, I am sympathetic with those who would rather just fence out his approach by appealing to Systematic Theology, because an adequate response is complex, requires much study and is at times highly frustrating to work towards. Further, he is not approaching things from a Systematics stand-point at all. Someone with a well-established Systematics/confession can be understood if they initially want to say: “Why should I have to re-cover so much ground that my Systematics/confession has already covered?”. I now better understand the impulses of some in the Reformed world who would rather appeal to Reformed confessions and move on. (Although, again, this won’t ultimately yield adequate responses).
- He is both a great resource for and a great challenge to Protestant approaches on Scripture, the Gospel, and theology.
- I disagree with him on a lot, but also agree with him on a lot (particularly the way he sheds light on how Jesus is the Messiah in accordance with and fulfillment of the scriptures). I am grateful for his scholarship.
- This blunt iron has been sharpened a bit by NT Wright.
