Bill Wilder, An Apology for N. T. Wright

A dear friend and I disagree on N. T. Wright. And I’m wondering why.

   

It’s not that I’m unaware of the issues involved. I’ve had a few words to say about that as well. Indeed, I have my differences with the good bishop too.

   

What puzzles me is not the disagreement, I suppose. At least some of that is inevitable. So what’s the word I’m looking for? Not disdain, in this case. Though there does seem to be an appalling contempt for Wright in some quarters, my friend is much too generous a spirit for that. It’s… a distaste, I think. A sense that much of what Tom Wright is serving up is simply not nearly as nourishing and palatable as the traditional fare.

   

It’s that distaste (if that’s the right word) that I find hard to square with my own experience. Of course, there’s the fact that I just like the man. He did sit through a lunch or two with me when he visited the Center for Christian Study a few years ago, patiently answering questions and generally indulging my theological curiosity. And I myself was able to explain a few things to him as well—mainly, I confess, a few muttered words about a “venerable UVa tradition” as we witnessed a student in running shoes (so he wasn’t completely naked) making the long jog down the Lawn to Homer’s statue and back. 

   

OK, that’s superficial. So how do I convey what’s really important?

How do I convey the excitement with which I read Climax of the Covenant, a birthday present (from a true friend) and my first real introduction to Wright while I was in grad school? How do I convey my delight in the detailed exegesis of the individual passage; the breadth of vision that comprehended Old Testament themes and stories (and especially the exodus) now come to their surprising and climactic completion in Christ; the focus on the cross and the resurrection in ways that made both come more alive to me? How can I communicate the ways in which Wright’s writings have been a banquet feast to me over the years, nourishing and sustaining me intellectually and spiritually?

Of course, a good bit of my teaching is an attempt to do just that, especially my lecture series last year on the doctrine of justification in his work. That may be just about the best I can do on the matter. However, if I had to provide a quick and dirty defense of what Tom Wright is up to, without defending particular positions, I would probably do it in two points.

First, Wright is insistent on interpreting Jesus and Paul (to confine ourselves to these two for the moment) within their historical contexts. This means trying understand what they said and did in the light of the stories and worldview they shared with those around them. It also means—and here’s the potentially unsettling part—that old familiar words and phrases (and theologies) may take on a new aspect or character in this new light.

   

Wright is most famous (or infamous in some circles) for claiming that Christians have largely gotten the meaning of “justification” wrong over the years, that it meant something a bit different to, say, the apostle Paul than it does to many of us. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him on that particular issue (I disagree), surely his approach is in principle correct. Our understanding of all kinds of phrases and ideas (“image of God,” “son of God,” and “son of man” come to mind) is enormously enriched if we first seek to understand them in their original historical (or literary) setting and then move to the New Testament interpretation in the light of the death and resurrection of our Lord.

   

Much more could be said, obviously, but my point is this: our very distance from times and places where Scripture was written guarantees that much of what is there will seem a bit strange and unsettling at times. In fact, if it doesn’t seem so, it may be because we’re entirely too familiar with it. And when that happens, Scripture loses its distinctive voice and becomes, too easily, a mere mouthpiece for our culture or tradition. One doesn’t have to agree with Wright on every point (even major ones) to recognize how hard he is striving to hear (and inviting us to listen in with him on) what Jesus and Paul were really saying. And I thank God for the strange beauty of the strains that, thanks to Wright, now play throughout that old, old story for me.

   

Now for my second point. Part of Wright’s commitment to Scripture plays out in his attempt to imitate Paul (as he imitates Christ) in bringing that old, old story to fresh expression in a changing world. This involves risk, of course. I confess that I’m often less than thrilled at Wright’s rather simplistic (as it seems to me) equation of the first-century Roman empire and the twenty-first century American place in the world. Others (such as my friend) are more concerned about the dangers these days of using the word “story” with respect to our faith. It can seem to imply (though I’m convinced Wright is guiltless in this respect) that the biblical account is simply one narrative among many.

   

Yet the risks of miscommunication cannot keep us from constant and creative attempts to share the gospel in a way that connects in our own time and with our own generation. The apostles were masters at this. I think, for example, of the way in which they took Jesus’ “son of man” and “kingdom” language and transcribed that into language that communicated within the larger Greek and Roman worlds (using words like “lord” and “parousia”). No one is better at describing this apostolic translation of the gospel to the wider world than N. T. Wright (see Paul: In Fresh Perspective). No one tries harder to do something similar in our own time. It is for this reason that I am more likely to hand Wright’s work (such as his recent Simply Christian) off to my unbelieving friends than anyone else’s.

   

My friend and I have agreed to disagree. I understand her concerns, even if I don’t share all of them. She appreciates Wright’s impact on me, even if she can’t quite share my enthusiasm. She reminds me well of what things we cannot neglect in a balanced biblical diet. But I still thank God for the rich fare he provides through N. T. Wright. For substance and presentation few excel Wright’s offerings.

© 2006, Bill Wilder.

Comments

[Hunter Chorey]

Bill, it's refreshing to hear you expound on N.T. Wright again. Well written article.

Take care; will I see you around any time soon?

--Grace and Peace--

- Hunter

[pduggie]

Thanks for posting this.

One quibble/question. You write:

"our very distance from times and places where Scripture was written guarantees that much of what is there will seem a bit strange and unsettling at times. In fact, if it doesn’t seem so, it may be because we’re entirely too familiar with it. And when that happens, Scripture loses its distinctive voice and becomes, too easily, a mere mouthpiece for our culture or tradition"

What does that say about the first century hearers? Since they were at the same time and place as the text was written, does that mean that scripture lacked a distinctive voice and was a mouthpiece for their culture and tradition?

It would seem to be the horns of a dilemma: either scripture transcends all cultures and traditions, in which case its historical setting is of very little significance, or it's bound to its historical setting, in which case we improvise what to do with it in our own setting, instead of following it.

[Bill Wilder]

Thanks so much for your comments. It's late, but let me mention what comes to mind.

It seems to me that our distance from the times and places of Scripture simply exacerbatees the all-too-human (fallen) propensity to domesticate and distort its message. So, yes, the tendency is to make Scripture a mouthpiece for our culture and traditions. One need only recall Mark 7 where Jesus has a few choice words (from Isaiah) for the Pharisees on the traditions of the elders--or Paul who is constantly at pains to correct Jewish or Hellenistic misunderstandings of the gospel. Our own situation is then further complicated by our cultural and geographical distance from the text.

But this tendency doesn't mean that Scripture lacks a distinctive voice. Preaching "Christ crucified," for example, is rather distinctive; indeed, I think it's fair to say that the offense of the cross remains equally great in every generation. And ultimately only the Spirit can overcome this level of offense and certain misunderstanding.

But, then again, to be somewhat whimsical, first-century crosses didn't feature "pastel color crystals in a high fashion antique silver finish" (as one internet ad boasts) either. The Spirit has to change hearts and minds. But that two thousand or more years later we have a bit more explaining to do also seems obvious to me.

As for your dilemma, I think it sets up a false antithesis even on a merely human level. Transcendent or historically bound? Period? On that basis it would be impossible for even human genius (through, say, works of art) to transcend a particular culture and its necessarily inculturated forms. Does Bach not speak with a distinctive voice because his work is Baroque and fugues, say, are bound to their historical setting? Is Shakespeare silenced because he hails from the Renaissance and wrote Italian sonnets?

How much less does this antithesis apply to the God who reveals himself as the (eternal and transcendent) Word become flesh (in a very first-century Jewish historical context). He shows himself preeminently to be one who speaks with a distinctive voice in forms and language we understand (or can learn).

Well, that's the best I can do at the moment. Thanks again.

[Alex]

I don’t understand the finer points of his theology. I’m not interested in any of the debates. But one thing I do know: The dude can write. I frankly think many Christian books can be cut in third and still convey their messages. But NT Wright’s books already are cut in third because he’s removed every unhelpful and predictable word.

Granted, I've only read the short books, because I know the long ones would be *completely* over my head.

[Mark Horne]

No, Alex, the long ones are every bit as engaging and, despite their length, have already been cut of every unhelpful and predictable word. (Hard to imagine, I know.)

[Hunter Chorey]

Bill made the comment in class that N.T. Wright can write books faster than you can read them, and he's right. ;)

[Todd DeLong]

Bill,

To better understand what you're trying to say about what Wright is trying to do, let me offer an analogy from the world of mathematics, and you tell me if this makes sense.

If I were to ask you to answer the following problem:

1 + 1 = ?

you, like most people, would probably answer 2. And, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. The "problem" is that you've made an underlying assumption when formulating your answer which is actually very critical to the solution. You assumed that the number system used for the arithmetic is either the integers or the real numbers. And, using those number systems, one plus one does equal two.

However, if I asked the question assuming that we were using the binary number system (the number system used by computers, calculators, and such), then your answer wouldn't make any sense to me. Why? Because in the binary number system, the set of valid elements is {0,1}. In other words, I don't know what a '2' is. Using the binary number system,

1 + 1 = 0

because a '2' in the binary number system is actually represented as a '10'. In other words, one plus one equals zero, carry one (much like we do in the base 10 number system when we exceed 9).

What's my point? My point is that unless we establish a basis (in this case, a base number system) for our discussion, we run the risk of both of us thinking we're right and the other person is wrong. And, we both are correct, given the assumptions that we've made.

So, if I understand you correctly, what Wright is trying to do is establish a basis for discussing Scripture based on history and context, and identifying assumptions that we make today and first-century Christians might have made at the time of the writing of Scripture. If that's true, then it makes sense to me that he would attempt to do so.

Now, I'm not saying that Wright is correct, nor am I saying that I necessarily agree with him. Frankly, I have read some of his stuff, and I just don't care much for it. But, if what I have stated about what he's trying to do is correct, then I certainly understand why he's trying to do it.

[Briant Wilder]

I'm certainly not a scholar of any sort, much less a biblical scholar but to try to frame a truth within its historical context makes sense to me. Any work of art regardless of its genre or style is literally framed, and carefully so, to help us better understand the meaning. that doesn't change the meaning, detract from it, simplify or lesson it.

[swanson]

I heard Bill Wilder mention the Wright set email group and I am having trouble finding how I can ;ink on to it. Can you help me? Thanks