I *heart* N.T. Wright

If you are not a theologian, don't read this or you'll get a headache. If you're a theologian, you might get a headache anyway.

Ok... while I don't feel it's my calling to worship every word that comes from the mouth of the Bishop, I've had enough of the dearly bearded N.T. "Tom" Wright getting burnt at the proverbial stake for his good, helpful New Testament work. My small confession: I've read several of his major books, starting with NTPG, JVG, RSG (partly), SBH, P:FP, Justification and wrote my undergraduate diss comparing his eschatology with Joseph Ratzingers.

The poor battered bishop works with the texts of the New Testament and (shock horror!) sometimes he finds himself giving the odd historic confession a tweak. I think that's what the altprotestantische Orthodoxie called sola scriptura. Anyway, I digress.

What bothers me most is the unfairness of several of his reviewers. Two short and sour examples of people who know far more than me about lots and lots, but are nevertheless to be scolded for their stubborn bumptiousness, are:

Paul Helm (systematic theologian):

"[Wright] routinely thinks of tradition as constraining what is thought in the present, and so anything ‘traditional’ must be rejected or at least viewed with suspicion. (eg 135, 223, and many other places.)”

This is a horrible distortion of what Wright actually wrote on p. 135:

“Part of me recoils from having to question this traditional reading… because I can see a great truth underneath the claim being made… but … we must pay attention to the text…” (Justification, p. 135)

Gerald Bray (systematic theologian):

"... [Wright's] grand picture does not do justice to the
New Testament, where the use of the word ‘justification’ and its many cognates
cannot bear the meaning of ‘covenant faithfulness’ that Bishop Wright attaches
to it." (review of 'Justification' in the Churchman, p.102)

This short sentence reveals lots about Bray's knowledge of Wright's work. Wright does not attach the meaning "covenant faithfulness" (CF) to the word "justification and its many cognates". Wright applies this meaning specifically to "the righteousness of God" (dikaiosune theou). According to Wright, justification is a lawcourt image of God declaring someone to be dikaios, "in the right" - i.e. he's in line with standard reformation thought. That God justifies, declares to be just, is never denied by, rather taught by Wright. The point of contention is whether there is a thing called "God's / Christ's righteousness" which gets transferred across the courtroom. Wright sees this as a 16th/17th Century abstraction of a biblical truth. The problem? Simply: the confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries are written into the constitution of some modern theological colleges/groups. Oops a daisy.

Any reader of Wright will know this, and Bray's sloppy sentence has destroyed much of his credibility when writing / mud-slinging on this topic.

End of rant.

Check out the ntwrightpage.com for lots of his articles
and this blog from some students discussing his work.