Overview of this series
- First post, background issues
- Example passages
- Reductionism in Wright
- Conclusion (This post)
I’ve read a quote relevant to the NPP, but I don’t know what the source is at the moment. The substance of the quote is: “the NPP is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it denies.” Perhaps another way of saying this with respect to Wright is “what lies within his approach to law is useful, what he has fenced out of his approach is critical.”
I believe that a Reformation approach to law and righteousness, because they are wider, can incorporate Wright’s useful exploration of the Jew/Gentile context for justification in Paul–Wright’s insights can greatly inform a Reformation reading. But Wright’s approach cannot accommodate the Reformation readings of law and righteousness, because they are wider that Wright can allow, even though they are as wide as scripture. As a result, justification is not the same kind of good news with Wright as it is with the Reformation. Wright dampens and reduces the import of justification to a portion of the context in which Paul applied justification (covenant membership issues). Consequently, Wright has the effect of stripping away the even greater significance of justification: that it represents the best possible news for sinners, as in Romans 4:5, that God justifies the ungodly. Wright would not deny this, but his covenantal membership emphasis make it relevant only to Jew/Gentile disputes.
I have simplified things considerably for the sake of presentation, but I think this is a faithful rendition of the basics of Wright’s views on law and righteousness as they relate to justification (correcting comments welcome!)
One caveat is important: Although Wright’s understanding of justification is not the Reformation understanding, Wright has repeatedly made clear that he holds to much, if not all, of what the Reformation gathered under the mantle of its doctrine of justification; he would get at the content of that doctrine via different means (such as union with Christ). One ought to take Wright’s word for it. Wright’s intent is not heretical (measured against Reformation orthodoxy). At the same time, intent and delivery are not the same thing. I think Wright is in a convenient position of wanting to claim all the fruits of the Reformation, while denying the means to those fruits (the full Reformation doctrine of justification). If Wright were truly faced with the dilemmas of the medieval church without the resources of the Reformation, he might well gain a greater appreciation for how a Luther or a Calvin handled justificaiton.
In any case, my argument here is not that Wright’s views are “heresy” (a word that is flung about all to quickly). He is a Christian brother with a considerably (possibly vitally) different interpretation of scripture when it comes to justification. My argument here is simply he is wrong in his approach to justification because of his extraordinarily reductive approach to law and righteousness. I do count myself among those who think that something extraordinarily important is lost amidst Wright’s brilliant but reductionist reading of law and righteousness and justification. I find Wright’s reductive views on justification regrettable, even as I find part of his work on justification highly helpful in understanding the Jew/Gentile context of what Paul is saying.