|
| Waters on Wright | | Date Created: Dec 02, 2004, 09:59 PM |
I'm more than halfway through the book, but I'm having a difficult time appreciating the praise heaped on Justification and the New Perspective on Paul by the reviews on the back cover, and, for that matter, on the website, too. I just finished the chapter on NT Wright and I have to wonder if Wright would recognize himself in this chapter. So much of Waters's analysis--it seems to me--is based on the worst possible reading of Wright. Well, maybe not the "worst possible reading." That's too strong. Waters is not John Robbins! Robbins is the current world champion in the Worst Possible Reading category. Maybe it would be better to say that Waters reading of Wright is not the best or does not give him the benefit of the doubt. This makes me wonder if Waters has interacted with NTW at all. Just curious.
Here's one example from this chapter (chapt. 7). In the second subsection called "'Theology' Proper in N. T. Wright" Waters is summarizing Wright's understanding of "theology," particularly NT Theology, as it is laid out in Wright's New Testament and the People of God. Waters does this in three paragraphs (pp. 120-21). Those of you who have read TNPG know that NTW spends a good deal of time establishing a theological methodology, even his own epistemology. Waters notes that NTW seeks to break free of the logjam caused by "post-Enlightenment rationalism" and "anti-Enlightenment supernaturalism" by identifying the central place of "story" in one's worldview. This is true.
Waters quotes NTW as saying that Paul understands that "statements and arguments are in fact expressions of the essentially Jewish story now redrawn around Jesus." Then follows Waters conclusion:We have, then, in Wright's thought, an inherent bias against doctrinal formulation and linear, logical reasoning, a predisposition against conceiving of the relationship of God and man in verticalterms. Rather, Wright is inclined to understand that relationship in essentially horizontal categories. Say what? This conclusion doesn't follow. It doesn't follow from anything Waters has written in the preceding paragraphs. And what is more, it doesn't follow from NTW's discussion in TNPG.
Giving "story" a central place does not necessarily imply a "inherent bias against doctrinal formulation." This comes out of thin air. To say that "story" plays a vital role in the formation and expression of one's worldview does not necessarily imply that one has an "inherent bias against. . . linear, logical reasoning." To accuse NTW of an inherent bias against linear, logical reasoning is almost comical. What would Waters say is happening in that ocean of words NTW has written, for example, against the Jesus Seminar liberals? It reads like linear arguments to me. If NTW has an inherent bias against linear, logical reasoning he sure doesn't act on his bias.
And what is this predisposition against conceiving of the relationship of God and man in vertical terms? It is a misreading and misrepresentation of NTW to say that he understands the relation between God and man "in essentially horizontal categories." I'm not even sure what Waters means by this. How can the relationship between God and man be horizontal? What does that mean? Given God's transcendence, by definition this is a vertical relationship. What NTW teaches is that God's relationship with us and ours with Him always involves the social dimension of human life. But this much different than collapsing the "vertical" into the "horizontal," as Waters accuses. One can clearly distinguish these two coordinates in NTW's theology.
Now, I'll surely have more to say about the book as I move through the final chapters. But I don't want anyone to think that I'm gogga about NTW. I appreciate a great deal of what he writes, especially his work on the Gospels. He's an Anglican and I'm a Reformed Presbyterian. I read and learn from him like I do from other Anglicans like Stott or Packer or the late Philip E. Hughes. Stott's an annihilationist, but that doesn't make everything he writes suspect or dangerous. Wright has some odd and erroneous views on quite a few doctrinal and ecclesiastical matters. I'm not interested in defending his stance on women ordination, his overdosing on the "exile" motif in the Gospels, or his quirky use of justification language. I would like to see him receive a fair hearing and reading before his trial, however. And the fact that he uses language and categories that don't always match our own tradition is not enough to condemn the man. This rush to condemnation is premature. The conversation and debate has just begun. Let's talk. |
|
