Any way you slice it N.T. Wright is an important figure in evangelicalism. He's a prolific author and speaker and, having been around for a while in both academic and popular settings, has an ever sprawling audience.
When most evangelicals talk about their nervousness with Wright they're referring to his thoughts on the doctrine of justification. From what I understand Wright is off-center on this issue--an issue that bears as heavily on the Gospel as any. Wright, in typical British evangelical fashion, gives himself to pacifism (in more ways than one!) and would like to stay above the fray, but the protection of this doctrine makes it worth picking the fight--a fight which Wright consistently characterizes as "mean".
However, his thoughts on "redeeming culture", seem to me at least, to be just as de-centered. These, while not as immanently dangerous as those on justification, will do serious damage if left unchecked. The combination of their palatable appeal with the lack of criticism Wright receives for them leads me to fear these ideas almost as much as those on justification (I may be reaching here).
The purpose of these posts (I'm assuming it will take several) is to interact with these ideas of Wright--ideas which I have no reason to believe will fall out of vogue any time soon. Currently my conscience is not burdened in characterizing his writings on this topic as confusing at best and dangerous at worst.
Points to keep in mind while critiquing Wright's ideas about redeeming the culture
1. N.T. Wright is Bishop of Durham in the Anglican Church and therefore also a member of the British House of Lords. If that sounds weird to American Christians it could be simply because, on this side of the Atlantic, we've grown up under a form of government that separates church and state. I would also attribute the perception of oddity here to good instinct. In any event, Wright's office in the church is tied to his participation in government, public policy, legislation, etc. Obviously, this will color his thoughts on these issues.
2. I've heard one brother give an Anglican definition of church as, "the plural word for Christian". This gets at what I think is a crucial distinction in any conversation about the Christian's role in politics--we must distinguish between a local church's responsibility as the church vs. an individual Christian's responsibility. The two are NOT the same! Wright assumes that they are.
3. Wright probably feels more freedom to publicly speculate on these matters than I do. That's not to say that he's not intellectually careful--he is. It is to say that Wright sees value in public theological speculation--not just in the academy, but also in the pulpit in ways that I don't.
If these points don't make much sense now, they will in conjunction with future posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
With this in mind, i look forward to the upcoming posts. I've been thinking a lot about how we respond to culture, politics, academia, etc... and I agree, there is a difference between 'church' and individual Christians.
I'm struggling with this church-individual distinction and I'm excited to hear more of your thoughts. Keep 'em coming.
I'm not quite sure how you make the distinction between individual Christians and the church. I agree with you that Wright understands the main thrust of Romans as ecclesiological rather than soteriological and this causes a distoration to his reading on individual justification, but it seems to me that you are making an over-correction of Wright in saying that individuals and the church are separate. The over-focus on salvation as being brought into the new covenant community (the church) has caused wright to put how one comes into the community (individual justification) on the backburner. To be sure, Vickers had a good critique of this reading when he said that they forget what a community is comprised of, namely people united by a common denominator, or in the case of the new covenant community, members united because they have all been justified by faith in the son of God. To separate individual believers from the corporate community would create a false dichotomy and would be to swing the ecclesiological pendulum to the other side.
That being said, Wright's theology is extremely complicated and well-developed and I have not read enough to adequately discuss all of the intricacies of his views on justification.
I guess what I'm saying is I would like to hear you expound why and how you see the distinction betwene the responsibilities of the local chuch and individual believers.
-
Mcgalyon
Don Carson has been a big help in understanding how there is a clear dichotomy between the individual believer and the church.
For one, we can't say that 3 or 4 christians meeting together to hold a bible study is 'the church'. There is a clear sense of what we consider to be the church.
In terms of the church's role in how it should approach culture and politics (of any kind really, including places such as academia as I mentioned before), it should make sure it's agenda is not to set up a theonomy of sorts, in any role.
Eschatologically speaking, we should be in culture, to allow Christ to transform culture, but to never think that we will fully succeed. We unapologetically preach the gospel, hope for Christ to be the change in people's(or nation's) lives, but always know that we are looking forward to the future return of Christ where he will come to restore and undo all evil in the consummation.
But with that said, there should be a sense in which the church draws in people from government which begs multiple questions in how these figures should seek counsel from the church. It's difficult but I think this is where there is difference in how these individuals should play their cards versus the church. The church shouldn't have it's ecclesiastical mandate in leveraging it's members in order to gain political control.
I think it's necessarily difficult to balance this truth, because we also need there to be church members in roles of leadership where positive choices are being made for the good of the people in the city.
Scott,
I would encourage you to read Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series, or at least the volumes so far. You mentioned you are reading The Resurrection of the Son of God, but I would strongly recommend you read New Testament and the People of God. I had the hardest time in the world understanding the New Perspective (or at least Wright's variation) until I read this book (actually am reading; got fourty pages left). I think Evangelicals mischaracterize Wright and some of that seems to come through in your analysis and critiques thus far. Anyway, the posts are interesting, just be sure to read the most relevant material.
Noah Evans
Cats,
My intention in these posts isn't to critique Wright on Justification. It's to critique Wright's view of a Christian's role/local church's role (the same for Wright) in culture as an agent of kingdom ushering.
Post a Comment