Tom Wright, Paul and Empire

I've begun listening the very helpful "debate" (not so much direct interaction so far, but responding to each other with full length lectures) between John Barclay and Tom Wright on the theme "Paul and Empire".

I've not listened part two yet, but in part one some of Wright's mistakes are shown up very effectively. In fact it's one of the most comprehensive dismantlings I've ever heard in a debate since I listened to Professor Malcolm Stein utterly flummoxed in his debate on theism with Greg Bahnsen (here). Basically, Barclay explains clearly and cogently in his lecture as to why certain lines of argument are insufficient An embarassed and unprepared Tom Wright then steps up, realises what's just happened and makes a few comments about Barclay having given a "neat sidestep" and mutters a bit about "rhetoric", and then proceeds to make precisely the arguments that have just been exposed as insufficient.

I'm looking forward to see what happens in part two. You can get the links to the MP3s for download from here:

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/11/barclay-vs-wright-on-paul-and-empire.html

Commentary on an interview with NT Wright (installment 3)

Here I'm seeking to explain some of the teaching of and controversy surrounding Tom Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham.

Part 1: http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2008/02/interview-with-n-t-wright-with.html

Part 2: http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2008/02/commentary-on-interview-with-nt-wright.html

Interview: http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/19/trevin-wax-interview-with-nt-wright-full-transcript/

The First Meaty Question: On The Gospel

Trevin Wax: Could you give us a brief definition of "the gospel"?

N.T. Wright: I could try taking a Pauline angle. When Paul talks about "the gospel," he means "the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world." Now, that's about as brief as you can do it.

An interesting follow-up question here would have been "and what did the other New Testament writers mean by 'the gospel'?". Wright's speciality in New Testament studies has been Pauline studies, though he has written very widely, including a popular-level commentary series over the whole New Testament. We'd have to go there to get his answer to this follow-up.

Look at his answer to the question very carefully, and analyse its structure. Its structure is no mistake - the answer very accurately reflects Wright's thought at large:

The gospel is, according to Wright, the good news that Jesus (who is crucified and risen) is Messiah (of Israel) and Lord (of the world). It is a essentially declaration about Jesus' person, and not so much about his work. Now, we do well to note that Wright includes the fact of Christ's death in identifying Jesus, and an exanded explanation of this is of course implied as necessary if we're going to expan Wright's definition into a full presentation or sermon. But the subsiduary placement of that concern is the thing to notice here. Wright doesn't deny Christ's sin-bearing death in the place of his people, or say that it's not related to the gospel - but he does say that the gospel's heart must be seen structurally in terms of Christ's Lordship, not his saving work at Calvary. The latter is a supporting component - both important and a necessary part of the scheme - but not the heart of the scheme. The gospel is not, according to Wright, fundamentally concerned with sin, wrath and atonement - but with the revelation of a person who is the Christ and King.

To spell out that this is exactly what Wright is saying, he expands his answer as follows:

The reason that's good news… In the Roman Empire, when a new emperor came to the throne, there'd obviously been a time of uncertainty. Somebody's just died. Is there going to be chaos? Is society going to collapse? Are we going to have pirates ruling the seas? Are we going to have no food to eat? And the good news is, we have an emperor and his name is such and such. So, we're going to have justice and peace and prosperity, and isn't that great?!

Now, of course, most people in the Roman Empire knew that was rubbish because it was just another old jumped-up aristocrat who was going to do the same as the other ones had done. But that was the rhetoric.

Paul slices straight in with the Isaianic message: Good news! God is becoming King and he is doing it through Jesus! And therefore, phew! God's justice, God's peace, God's world is going to be renewed.

Do you see what's happening here? The gospel is, according to Wright, essentially a proclamation modelled after a political type, akin to the announcement of a new Caesar. It follows from the character of the actual "new Caesar" in question - namely Jesus - that there's going to be a lot of good stuff to say about justice, peace and renewal. But that is all derivative, not fundamental.

Wright goes along this path because he has accepted the following as the "back story" of the New Testament: God's people are in a kind of exile, because they are suppressed by the Romans. God has made a covenant with them to promise them his covenant blessings. Whilst the Romans rule, those blessings aren't being enjoyed. Israel has failed to achieve what God needed for it. It now needs a Messiah to come and bring it to its rightful position.

That's all true in as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. There is a more ultimate and fundamental back-story which we need to read the New Testament against. It is the story of the fall and humanity in general in sin - not just Israel. All people everywhere are under the wrath of God, because they have sinned against him. They cannot enjoy fellowship with their maker until their sin is atoned for. Being unable to themselves, they need a Saviour who will make an effectual reconciliation between them and God.

I don't believe that Wright would deny any of what I've just said. He'd just say that it's not what Paul calls the gospel. He'd say that it was more Biblical to emphasise things the way he has, instead of the way that I, as a historic evangelical, have. That is, in fact, pretty much exactly what he does say in completing his answer to the question:

And in the middle of that, of course, it's good news for you and me. But that's the derivative from, or the corollary of the good news which is a message about Jesus that has a second-order effect on me and you and us. But the gospel is not itself about you are this sort of a person and this can happen to you . That's the result of the gospel rather than the gospel itself.

It's very clear in Romans. Romans 1:3-4: This is the gospel. It's the message about Jesus Christ descended from David, designated Son of God in power, and then Romans 1:16-17 which says very clearly: "I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation." That is, salvation is the result of the gospel, not the center of the gospel itself.

I'm not going to launch into a refutation of that statement now. I'm taking it that historic evangelicalism is correct, and that Wright is not one of the first people in church history to correctly describe the focus of the gospel. That can wait for another post, if I decide to argue that point. My point now is this: If Tom Wright's theology gains more wide acceptance, as it is doing in some particularly American circles where pastors are being trained, it will be disastrous. Wright's message fits in very well with a modern world which likes to relegate thoughts about God's holiness, wrath, human guilt and sinfulness. It fits comfortably with an agenda which treats these concerns just as one thing amongst many, and wants to also place political concerns (which for Wright includes socialist economics and environmentalism) at the same level, as just one amongst several issues of comparable importance. It fits dreadfully with the word of God and with authentic Christianity, which must insist that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross is primary, and that all other concerns are derivative from this. Jesus' Lordship is a redemptive Lordship - he purchased sinners through the blood of the cross, and insists that before we can have any other kind of dealings with God at all, we must come to the Father in repentance and faith, seeking and finding forgiveness. By all means let us seek to be Christians in the sphere of politics and in the sphere of looking after the created world - but before this, we must be Christians.

Wright's error is so devastating because it is so subtle (and so skillfully presented, with Wright's massive learning). You won't often hear Wright saying anything outrightly heretical. You'll just hear him de-emphasising the things that the gospel emphasises, and pulling into the foreground some of the things that the gospel implies, but puts further back. To my mind, this kind of error is worse. Open heresy that directly attacks the gospel is easy enough to spot and avoid. Subtle mistakes which undermine from within more easily catch out the undiscerning. That's why church leaders today need to understand Wright - and why he's wrong.

To be continued...

Commentary on an interview with NT Wright (installment 2)

Here's we having a bit of a fire-side chat in which I attempt to introduce people who are interesting in the "New Perspective(s)" and the theology of N T Wright to the topics, using a recent interview as our guide - in bite-size chunks!

Part one (introduction): http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2008/02/interview-with-n-t-wright-with.html

Link to the interview (which you'll need to have open to folow this commentary): http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/19/trevin-wax-interview-with-nt-wright-full-transcript/

The interview starts off with a few softballs. The first answer, given to the question from Trevin Wax "Would you tell us about your spiritual journey, how you came to faith in Christ?" is rather interesting for what it omits.

Firstly, Wright's polemic when explaining the "New Perspective" is often aimed against conservative evangelicals. Interestingly, Wright omits to mention his time as president of that historical bastion of 20th century conservative evangelicalism, the Oxford University Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. During that time he co-authored (together with some of his fellow OICCU executives) a book "The Grace of God in the Gospel" published by the Banner of Truth Trust, in which pulled no punches in setting out and defending the historical Calvinist position. This is particularly interesting to Calvinist critics of Wright (such as myself), because Wright is often guilty of putting forward some fairly ugly caricatures of historic Reformed orthodoxy. This might be excusable if Wright were coming from somewhere completely different and just didn't know what he was talking about - but in fact, he actually in the past wrote a book to defend that position, which makes it something else entirely. I found it interesting that Wright chose to omit this phase of his life from his answer to the question. I think there is a strong case to be made that a lot of Wright's later theology is a manifetation of "the zeal of the convert" - he displays an excessive zeal to downplay or combat the position that he once stood in.

A second omission also struck this critic as being in line with Wright's theology in general. Asked to explain his experience of Christian conversion, Wright omitted any mention of conviction, sin, need for atonement, the cross of Christ, personal repentance, awareness of free grace, etcetera. Now, don't get me wrong - I well know that Christian conversion is a varied experience and that there is no merit in testimonies being tediously formulaic. We don't want to sound as if we were all drilled in the same barracks! There are no set phrases that we must trot out to prove the reality of our love to the Lord Jesus. The point, though, is that this testimony is also reflective of the omissions which Wright's critics have identified in his theology - without being denied, important fundamentals (and always the same ones) of the gospel are all but missing, hovering somewhere in the background. What makes this omission all the more interesting is the fact of these things' prominence in Wright's first book, "The Grace of God in the Gospel". Whereas in his 60th year Wright's testimony has very little to say about these matters, at the other end of his scholarly career he could hardly be quiet about them. I think this is reflective of the direction in which Wright's theology has taken him and no doubt we'll unpack this a bit more as the interview goes on. Note that Wright says that his theology before his twenties wasn't sacramental enough.

Trevin Wax: Why is it that you have never pursued exclusively an academic post? Why have you chosen to remain so connected to the local church?

The answer to this question has a few interesting insights into Wright's personality. Valuable as that may be though, it's not hard to feel disapointed that the answer completely focused upon personality, and had nothing to say about the importance of local churches in Christ's kingdom. Really the answer is rather weak from a spiritual point of view.

Trevin Wax: How is the worship of the church central to your calling?

This is the last of the soft-balls! The answer, though, is again spiritually very weak. Now, because I'm a critic of the distinctives of Wright's theology it's very tempting just to fall into nit-picking everything the fellow says. Tom Wright is an intellectual and theological giant and nit-picking won't impress anyone who can see that fact. However, if we were interviewing a candidate for the Christian ministry we might hope that a question about worship would give us an answer telling us something about the worthiness of the one being worshipped rather than his great love of eclecticism in music, or the beneficial, renewing effects upon the worshipper.

OK...

This is all a bit of by the by. We haven't learnt much about Wright's theology here. My point in looking at the answers to the easy questions is that I see the whole bent of Wright's theology reflected in them. Historical evangelical distinctives aren't denied, but are shoved out of view, and replaced by something rather weak. At this point if you're unfamiliar with Wright I think you may feel I'm being harsh. I think though that as we get into the meatier theological questions you'll be likely to become a lot more sympathetic.

More next time!

An interview with N T Wright - with commentary; what is the "New Perspective"?

On the 15th of November, 2007, Trevin Wax interviewed controversial Anglican bishop and theologian Dr. Tom Wright at Asbury seminary in the USA.

The audio recording of the interview is here: http://saidatsouthern.com/nt-wright-interview-mp3/

A full transcript is here: http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/19/trevin-wax-interview-with-nt-wright-full-transcript/

The issues surrounding the "New Perspective(s)" are of fundamental importance. They have also generated a great deal of controversy, and influenced a lot of pastors, particularly in American seminaries, and on the Internet through the blogs of Dr. Wright's supporters. These issues, though, are not well understood by most Christians, and even by some involved in the discussions. Many Christians who have read something of Wright haven't done so with a comprehensive understanding of the issues. Wright has a whole system of thought and theology, and unless you understand it you are likely to miss the nuances of what he is saying. Many Christians have, being unfamiliar with the New Perspectives, picked up one of his popular commentaries and not noticed those differences - reading Wright through the lens of their own point of view - except for being puzzled by a few stark statements here and there that don't seem to fit in.

There's plenty of good material available covering these things. What I want to do in a series of blog posts is provide a commentary on this interview that will make some of the issues clear. I'm not making it a primary aim to interact with Wright, though of course I will, but to explain to "the man in the pew" what Wright stands for. Though I am very appreciative of his work in a number of other areas. I am, on the distinguishing issues of the "New Perspective", a deeply concerned critic of Wright and his theology.

This interview will be a good candidate for going through slowly because it is fairly wide-ranging and had the aim of bringing clarity to some of the controversial issues. For now, I'll just quote Wax's introduction to the interview and we'll launch out into it next time.

N.T. Wright is a British New Testament scholar whom Christianity Today has described as one of the top five theologians in the world today. After serving three years as the canon theologian of Westminster Abbey, Wright became the Bishop of Durham in 2003 – the fourth highest ranking position of authority in the Church of England.

Tom Wright has spent his life studying the history surrounding the New Testament and early Christianity. He has written several widely-acclaimed books on the historical Jesus as well as many on the Apostle Paul and the New Testament epistles.

Wright has received both praise and criticism for his work. Anne Rice , the author of the Interview with a Vampire series, has credited Wright's work on the historical Jesus with bringing her back to her Christian faith. Reformed theologian J.I. Packer has described Wright as "brilliant" and "one of God's best gifts to our decaying Western Church."

As Bishop of Durham, Wright has been a lightning rod for controversy from both conservatives who take offense with his political views and from liberals who reject his traditional views on homosexuality.

As a New Testament scholar, Wright has faced criticism from both sides of the theological aisle. Liberal scholars, such as those who make up the infamous "Jesus Seminar" decry Wright's work on the historical Jesus as much too conservative and traditional. Conservative scholars appreciate his strong defense of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity such as the bodily resurrection of Christ.

But many conservatives of the Reformed persuasion are perplexed by Wright's views on the doctrine of justification and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Several well-known theologians, such as D.A. Carson, Mark Seifrid, Guy Waters, and now pastor John Piper , have written extensively to refute the "New Perspective on Paul" that Wright advocates.

In our interview with N.T. Wright, we will ask questions that will help illuminate the current discussions within Reformed circles on the legitimacy of Wright's exegesis of the New Testament texts.