More thoughts on unrest in Reformationland
I found myself this morning amidst a jet lagged discussion of NT Wright. I was once again amazed at the hushed tones of reverential deference afforded his invoked name.– This time by a missionary friend quoting another missionary friend. History is not going to be kind to us. History except for sacred history in Scripture is quite unforgiving. To quote Alister McGrath from Oxford concerning Wright’s view of justification. “If Wright is right then Luther was wrong”.–History will indeed view us as a hapless generation of theological thinkers.
Posted by Ron |
Comments (1)
Dear Bro!
I can tell that N.T. Wright´s writings have become pretty controversial in the US! Of course Wright’s view on the theology of Paul in general and the doctrine of justification in particular has disturbed some evangelicals also here in Europe but to the extent that seem to be the case in your great contry. I wonder why that is, escpecially since lutheran theology never has been as near as strong in the US as it has been in Europe.
I just wanted to comment on the concept on the “reformation” in conjunction with Wright. Since I do not think that he is in disagreement with the reformation so much as with some aspect of the lutheran wing of the reformation. Really, his view on the law, which is important here, is in line with Calvin and basic reformed doctrine. Lutheran theology always have had a difficult time with viewing the law as good and as a guiding light for christians. In various degrees lutherans, historically speaking, have viewed the law as only an instrument to lead sinners to understanding their utter and complete sinfulness before God. As you well know, this is not Calvin’s view. In fact, I believe that the reformed tradition more faithfully represent a biblical and hebrew understanding of the law, which also should lead to a healthy suspicion of the traditional lutheran understanding of jewish theology in NT times as “legailistic” in the ethical sense of equating moral living with salvation. I understand Wright’s reading of Paul, building to an extant on Sanders and Stendahl of course, as trying to come to grips with the doctrine of justification without this misunderstanding of jewish theology in NT times.
I do not intend to elaborate on this, but it strikes me as odd that american evangelicals, with a basic reformed perspective on the law, are so upset with Wright while european evangelical, with more of a mix of lutheran and reformed views on the law, are more positive. Generally speaking that is. And I must confess that I lack good and solid arguments from the critics. It is simply not enough to refer to the reformation, or “history”, where are the exegetical and theological arguments? Also, being myself an evangelical who appreciate much of Wright’s work, sometimes it seems to me that many critics really have not read Wright as well as the should have. Or they read him just to confirm that he is somew kind of semi-pelagian liveral theologian, which he is not (and I can say that from having studying many years at a liberal theological department of theology).
So, in concluding, why not bring forth more solid arguments? Maybe we can in this way have a discussion that can challenge both sides of the conversation?
In Christ,
Jonas
May 11th, 2007 | #