Few theologians in the world are more disliked by people on different sides of theological fences than NT Wright.
Wright seems to draw the most ire from the secular, liberal critics on his views about Jesus.
I just finished an eight-ish week project: "Jesus and the Victory of God," 650-page, massive work by Wright whereby he painstakingly takes on the various views of Jesus put forth by secular and liberal Christian-ish scholars who have attempted to "salvage" Jesus from Christianity and make him...well...ordinary.
In the process, Wright also debunks some fairly cherished traditional Christian views as well. Here's a couple that I will try to summarize, with apologies to my brother and other folks who are much more familiar with Wright than I am:
1. The Pharisees were not sitting around wondering how to get to heaven when you die. They were an occupied people. Jewish hopes swirled around land, Torah (their Scriptures) and the Temple. The Torah said that periods of exile and punishment would be amended upon repentance.
So the Pharisees were calling the people to stricter Torah observance not to get to heaven when you died but so that God would deliver them from the Roman army. Jesus objects to this (and other) attempts at being the people of God that were prevalent in the culture: it wasn't about nationalistic zeal, it was about turning the other cheek.
2. Nearly all of Jesus' parables about judgment have been read by Christians for the past several centuries as an end of the space-time continuum. Jesus comes back and judges all people. Many scholars have argued that Jesus thought the world was going to end in his lifetime, and so he was proven false.
But Wright argues that Jesus follows in a long line of Jewish prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah in announcing God's judgment not as an end to the world but as a call to Israel to repent.
Jesus pronounced himself as being sent to the lost sheep of Israel. He is speaking a word of warning specifically to Israel: if you do not repent from this line of action (everything from militaristic uprisings to oppression in the name of religion), judgment is to come.
In the OT, this judgment came in the form of Babylonian captivity. In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' ministry, the judgment came in the form of the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Jesus was vindicated not only by his own resurrection, but by the prophecy being fulfilled.
Of course there is talk about end-times judgment in other parts of the New Testament. But to over-ascribe this subject to Jesus is to miss out on his actual message.
I've just started Wright's book Justification, his response to his critics on the other end of the spectrum: the angry Christian conservatives who dislike Wright's views of Paul.
So far, I have to say, Wright's winning this argument as well.
5 comments:
Mind if I borrow it when you're done?
Alex,
I wonder if you might want to amend the last statement - unless it was his description of what he's doing:
"...angry Christian conservatives who dislike Wright's views of Paul."
Perhaps "Christian conservatives who *disagree with* Wright's view of Paul." Not everyone who disagrees with his view(s) and elements of New Perspective(s) is angry. Though the prominent critics may be (and I agree many are), there are others who are in disagreement and not angry, per se.
Bottom line: "dislike" means to me distaste rather than "disagree" means holding another position. "Angry" does not describe all the people Wright is responding to.
I don't know where I stand on all this as I admit that I am unable to fully sift through the mire (and have not been particularly proactive in doing so). It's been my inclination to not side with either until I delve in further. It's also been my inclination to side with Wright on the mere basis that he speaks and writes so lucidly, wears a pink shirt with no apology, and sports a fabulous beard.
Burly, wish that the amendment you propose would be more accurate. But alas...
Bro: Glad you finally read a book I gave you. :)
burly,
i don't mean to stir up an already angry pot, but the book that he's writing is in response to the angry ones!
clearly, not everyone who dislikes wright is angry/reactionary. but the man gets lots of hate mail, including the books that get written in response to his stuff.
daniel, sorry about this post--doesn't really even begin to capture the good stuff, but i started to write it up and realized that i didn't know where i wanted to go with it...so i just did some side things rather than take on the big ideas.
Thanks for the clarification, Alex. I'd still want to say "disagree" rather than "dislike" unless in your reading you've noticed that they're not arguing against his position but simply "angrily" discounting it. Haven't read either, so just wondering ...
Post a Comment