I've been reading a lot of NT Wright and find his take on the NT compelling and encouraging to my faith. Yet his "new perspective on Paul," as I've learned his views are categorized, are sufficiently different from "classic" evangelical teaching, at least on certain topics such as justification, that they've attracted a fair amount of criticism. I'm quite interested to understand some of the basis for this criticism so I can wrestle with it myself.
So I was pleased to find the list of critical articles mentioned in the previous post and immediately began reading the first article, which was supposed to be "a very well crafted, effective response to Wright...
The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc
Alas! After an hour of reading (its a long article) I am no closer to my goal. There are perhaps three or four actual places where he "engages" with Wright. The rest is a recapitulation of the NPP ideas surrounded by subtle and not-so-subtle hints that they are seducing promising young evangelical students and laity (always the young ones, mind you, or the "laity", never the mature, evangelical). This is followed by "11 reasons" Wright is so popular (he's a hero for taking on the "Jesus Seminar," he's witty and charming and does a better job supporting his case with exegetical studies.. "don't underestimate him").
Yet when it gets to actually identifying what's wrong, this article at least suffices with assertions primary substantiated by reference to other scholars, who themselves assert such things as "the NPP misreads Luther and Calvin". No where is there the kind of detailed argumentation one finds so attractive in Wright's own writing. He lays out the other side, provides several variations of it and then one-by-one attacks them head on.
Don't get me wrong. I understand how hard it is do what I suggest. I am falling into the same trap in this blog entry (i.e. simply asserting a problem with taking the time and energy to quote the text and show why its' wrong. I just hope I can find someone who do a better job.
There is a good bibliography at the end of the article which appears to offer more meaty fair. If anybody reading this (if anybody is reading this) comes across a good article along these lines, please send them on.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Personally, I think a moratorium on the word, "classic," can only help theological discourse among Presbyterians.
Wright himself recommends Francis Watson's work as an example of a good critique of the NPP position. People like Gathercole, Seifrid, Stuhlmacher and Westerholm also have some helpful observations (don't bother reading Guy Waters). I have yet to read Seyoon Kim. However, in each one of these authors you can find varying degrees of misrepresentation.
Post a Comment