Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

N. T. Wright

Book about the Bible : Bible :: Sandcastle : Matterhorn

by

“Writing a book about the Bible is like building a sandcastle in front of the Matterhorn.”

That arresting analogy is the opening line to N. T. Wright’s The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. (Incidentally, it’s not the best sandcastle. Watch D. A. Carson knock it over [pp. 45–62].)

Guy Waters on Tom Wright

by

Guy Waters thoughtfully reviews N. T. Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.

His conclusion:

Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision is the most comprehensive and current statement of N. T. Wright on justification to date. Justification is largely a restatement of Wright’s views, with some amplification and rhetorical refinement. It is not a detailed textual and theological interaction with his Reformational readers’ concerns and objections. To the degree that Justification summarizes and synthesizes nearly three decades of Wright’s publications on justification, the book is useful to the student of Wright’s work. To the degree that Justification has failed to engage criticisms of Wright’s formulations on justification in such a way as to advance the discussion, the work is a missed opportunity. What is clear from Justification is that the fundamental concern of Wright’s Reformational readers remains unallayed and firmly in place: Wright’s views on justification have parted company with the teaching of the apostle Paul.

Whose team is Tom Wright on?

by

While blogging through N. T. Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, Douglas Wilson pithily observes,

Wright is like a wonderful three-point shooter in American basketball, but one who can’t be troubled to find out who is wearing what uniform, or which team is supposed to be going in what direction, so when he takes to the floor, he scores a dazzling series of points—sixteen for the home team, and twenty-four for the visitors. One can be simultaneously impressed and wish that he would just stop it.

What’s even more sad is that many people don’t take theology as seriously as they take sports (though, granted, the analogy breaks down on several levels when applied to theology). To recall an extreme (and unfortunate) example, do you remember what happened to the soccer player Andrés Escobar after he accidentally scored a goal for the opposing team in the 1994 World Cup?

“Forgiving oneself is, quite frankly, incoherent.”

by

And what biblical warrant is there for this easy way many have of talking about “forgiving myself”? In the domain of pop psych, we all know, more or less, what we mean. But in the matrix of Wright’s discussion of what forgiveness is and entails, you have to have two parties to talk about forgiveness: the offender and the offended. Forgiving oneself is, quite frankly, incoherent. One can accept God’s forgiveness, and the forgiveness of others, and press on in various ways. But talk of forgiving oneself merely has the effect of muddying the crispness of the earlier discussion.

-D. A. Carson, review of N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, RBL (April 23, 2007): 7-8 (emphasis added).

N. T. Wright Lecture Series

by

Today I went to hear N. T. Wright for this lecture series on sacramental theology at the University of Saint Mary of the Lake / Mundelein Seminary. (For more info on Wright, see this unofficial N. T. Wright page and this collection of his works.)

I went to see Wright in order to get a glimpse into how his mind works and to see how good he is at answering questions.

Here are a few of my (not very profound) impressions:

  1. N. T. Wright is a gifted extemporaneous speaker (especially in Q & A).
  2. Wright has a very likable personality.
  3. Wright is witty and clever.
  4. Wright has a refined British accent. I love it. I’ve heard it before on MP3s but never in person. That accent can make the most trivial things seem interesting and intellectual.
  5. Wright’s presentation style disappointed me, mostly because I strongly dislike being read to in person (though I don’t mind it on MP3). It felt like I was being talked at, not talked to. Since these lectures are going to be published in the seminary’s journal, Wright carefully wrote out the lecture as a journal article and consequently spent several hours reading to us.
  6. Wright paints with a massive brush. He approached the issue at hand by taking hours to discuss time, space, and matter with reference to realized eschatology and a proper framework for assessing the meaning of the “sacraments.” I brought my GNT, but I didn’t crack it once; exegesis was pretty much non-existent. This is not to say that he can’t do exegesis; rather, I’m saying merely that he didn’t do it, probably assuming that we can go to his books to find that. His time constraints no doubt had something to do with this.
  7. Wright and I have at least one thing in common: when teaching from a lectern, we both use a laptop (and I think his was a Dell, too). I typically use my laptop when teaching and preaching–though I tend to walk around a lot. Wright stayed behind the lectern the entire time except for the very last bit of Q & A after the second lecture. I was sitting in the middle of the third row from the front, so I could see him only from the neck up. He looked like a talking head.

I have a lot of questions about Wright, and I have not yet read enough by Wright himself for my opinion to be worth much. See Ligon Duncan‘s “The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul” and his interview with Mark Dever: “Justification and the New Perspective.” Cf. two posts by Phil Gons: “New Perspective on Paul” and “Wright on Imputation.”