N.T. Wright is an interesting figure in contemporary Christianity. His books are bestsellers across the conservative-liberal ideological divide, and he infuriates people on both sides of that unfortunate aisle. He first came to my attention when John Piper, beloved prophet of we modern Calvinists, took aim at Wright’s theory on justification. In essence, they wrote books to each other each staking out his own position. Given my deep appreciation for Piper and his work, I was naturally skeptical of Wright and would have blithely dismissed him were it not for the encouragement of one of my good friends to give him a try.
Wright is a one-time Anglican bishop. (He recently stepped down to focus more on writing, speaking, and teaching) He is one of the most prominent voices in the old mainline faiths and, like his good friend the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, routinely makes enemies in all quarters--he is neither liberal enough for the full progressivists nor conservative enough for the staunch traditionalists. Wright is also one of the foremost Bible scholars in the world today, having taught for over 20 years at Oxford, McGill, and Cambridge. I recently read two of Dr. Wright’s books--Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope--and while I certainly found things to disagree with, moreso I found him to be a wonderful voice speaking the truth of the Christian gospel, mission, the purpose of the church, and the purpose of the individual Christian. Simply Christian is a sort-of modern Mere Christianity, with Wright asserting the basic doctrines of Biblical Christianity held across all theological traditions while framing the old story under an aesthetic designed to appeal to the educated, much like Lewis’s rather difficult and similar book. In many ways Wright reminds me of that other Anglican whose books have provided me with so much over the years, C.S. Lewis. I cannot say that I agree with all of Lewis’s theology, or even methodology, but he is a believer in the gospel, a compelling voice standing against the tide of universalism or liberalism or even reactionary conservatism, and has so much that is so good that I can read his books with discernment and be incredibly blessed by them.
In the next post I will review the second of Wright’s books that I have read, Surprised by Hope, but for now I want to come out in defense of the all too easily dismissed bishop. When you consider the milieu in which Wright works, his defense of the traditional Christian doctrines of creation, fall, redemption, resurrection, and the setting to rights of the universe in the coming of the new heaven and the new earth he looks extraordinarily faithful and countercultural. Now one could bemoan this as further evidence of the failure of the mainline denominations--that a man holding to basic doctrine is held up as a model of doctrinal purity--but let us be more generous than that to Wright’s endeavors and humble enough to face that whatever evangelical non-denomination we see ourselves as part of was only made possible by the extraordinary sacrifices of those easily maligned mainline churches. William Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury (highest position in the Anglican church) was not ordained until he made up his mind that Jesus rose from the dead. David Jenkins, one of Wright’s predecessors at Durham, referred to the resurrection as a matter of conjuring tricks on the part of the disciples. Jenkins and John Dominic Crossan, another of the more renowned contemporary Bible scholars made famous for co-founding the Jesus Seminar, hold to what is called the moral objection of the resurrection: that Jesus was raised from the dead is all very well and good for him, but since God doesn’t intervene to stop hurricanes and earthquakes like he did to raise Jesus from the dead than what is the point of the resurrection?
Given this backdrop, my appreciation for Wright is immense and grows every time I consider it. Preaching what Wright preaches would not be difficult in a Southern Baptist church in Alabama. In fact, if he didn’t come off a little more conservative he would be booted from a job preaching there. But holding to a literal death and literal resurrection and literal salvation and real eternity is not easy in the Anglican communion. The institutional pressure before Wright and Rowan Williams became more prominent was to slide further into liberalism. Wright and Williams are both working to arrest that slide. May God bless them as they try and may we not judge Wright according to our own supposed doctrinal purity. Let the mere in mere Christianity and, for Wright, the simple in simply Christian outweigh our own pet concerns.
Wright is a one-time Anglican bishop. (He recently stepped down to focus more on writing, speaking, and teaching) He is one of the most prominent voices in the old mainline faiths and, like his good friend the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, routinely makes enemies in all quarters--he is neither liberal enough for the full progressivists nor conservative enough for the staunch traditionalists. Wright is also one of the foremost Bible scholars in the world today, having taught for over 20 years at Oxford, McGill, and Cambridge. I recently read two of Dr. Wright’s books--Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope--and while I certainly found things to disagree with, moreso I found him to be a wonderful voice speaking the truth of the Christian gospel, mission, the purpose of the church, and the purpose of the individual Christian. Simply Christian is a sort-of modern Mere Christianity, with Wright asserting the basic doctrines of Biblical Christianity held across all theological traditions while framing the old story under an aesthetic designed to appeal to the educated, much like Lewis’s rather difficult and similar book. In many ways Wright reminds me of that other Anglican whose books have provided me with so much over the years, C.S. Lewis. I cannot say that I agree with all of Lewis’s theology, or even methodology, but he is a believer in the gospel, a compelling voice standing against the tide of universalism or liberalism or even reactionary conservatism, and has so much that is so good that I can read his books with discernment and be incredibly blessed by them.
In the next post I will review the second of Wright’s books that I have read, Surprised by Hope, but for now I want to come out in defense of the all too easily dismissed bishop. When you consider the milieu in which Wright works, his defense of the traditional Christian doctrines of creation, fall, redemption, resurrection, and the setting to rights of the universe in the coming of the new heaven and the new earth he looks extraordinarily faithful and countercultural. Now one could bemoan this as further evidence of the failure of the mainline denominations--that a man holding to basic doctrine is held up as a model of doctrinal purity--but let us be more generous than that to Wright’s endeavors and humble enough to face that whatever evangelical non-denomination we see ourselves as part of was only made possible by the extraordinary sacrifices of those easily maligned mainline churches. William Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury (highest position in the Anglican church) was not ordained until he made up his mind that Jesus rose from the dead. David Jenkins, one of Wright’s predecessors at Durham, referred to the resurrection as a matter of conjuring tricks on the part of the disciples. Jenkins and John Dominic Crossan, another of the more renowned contemporary Bible scholars made famous for co-founding the Jesus Seminar, hold to what is called the moral objection of the resurrection: that Jesus was raised from the dead is all very well and good for him, but since God doesn’t intervene to stop hurricanes and earthquakes like he did to raise Jesus from the dead than what is the point of the resurrection?
Given this backdrop, my appreciation for Wright is immense and grows every time I consider it. Preaching what Wright preaches would not be difficult in a Southern Baptist church in Alabama. In fact, if he didn’t come off a little more conservative he would be booted from a job preaching there. But holding to a literal death and literal resurrection and literal salvation and real eternity is not easy in the Anglican communion. The institutional pressure before Wright and Rowan Williams became more prominent was to slide further into liberalism. Wright and Williams are both working to arrest that slide. May God bless them as they try and may we not judge Wright according to our own supposed doctrinal purity. Let the mere in mere Christianity and, for Wright, the simple in simply Christian outweigh our own pet concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment