I just got two new books for Christmas, and another arrived in the mail (from Jessica at Oxford University Press) for review. The Christmas pair are:
NT Wright’s: Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Justification
and then,
Eric Metaxas’: Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy
and for review:
J. Todd Billings’: Calvin, Participation, and the Gift
As I sit on my sick-bed (I had the flu, I’m getting better) I’ve read through the first 100 pages of Wright’s book (and the first 50 on Bonhoeffer). What is becoming clearer to me, as I read Wright (afresh), is that I don’t thoroughly disagree with him; in fact in quite a few ways I can say a hearty, amen! Mind you, I haven’t finished the book yet; but thus far I think, ironically, that Wright’s reading of Paul and his supposed law-court theme does not do justice to Paul’s whole corpus. Although what I have found refreshing about Wright — which is in line with Evangelical Calvinism — is his point on re-reading the Pauline corpus through the lens provided by Ephesians and Colossians, Wright says:
Suppose we conduct a thought experiment. Suppose we come to Ephesians first, with Colossians close behind, and decide that we will read Romans, Galatians and the rest in the light of them instead of the other way round. What we will find, straight off, is nothing short of a (very Jewish) cosmic soteriology. God’s plan is “to sum up all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:10; compare Colossians 1:15-20). And we will find, as the means to that plan, God’s rescue both of Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 1:11-12, 13-14) in an through the redemption provided in Christ and by the Spirit, so that the Jew-plus-Gentile church, equally rescued by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:1-10), and now coming together in a single family (Ephesians 2:11-22), will be Christ’s body for the world (Ephesians 1:15-23), the sign to the principalities and powers of the “many-splendored wisdom of God” (Ephesians 3:10). . . .
I think this is a helpful corrective, and one that we in ‘EC’ want emphasize as well; especially in regards to Christ’s supremacy over all of creation (see here)!
Yet with this good stuff in mind, I still think Wright (from what I know of him) is not necessarily emphasizing what Paul emphasized (or at least Wright might be overemphasizing [“law-court”] to the despair of what others like Calvin emphasized [“adoption” — which is what Vanhoozer recently reminded Wright of at the Wheaton conference] or Luther [“marriage framework” cf. Eph. 5]). I think, if anything, what Wright is doing is calling “interpretive tradition” (whether that be Lutheran or Calvinist) into check; alerting those who follow such tradition that they need to be consistent with their own Protestant principle of sola scriptura & The Priesthood of All Believers — something, that Karl Barth — in his own way — was doing in his The Theology of the Reformed Confession. I need to keep reading Wright; thus far I would not declare myself as “Wrightian,” but I will say that a lot of what he is saying is healthy — especially relative to pressing everyone back into the text (which should really press us into the Person of the text JESUS CHRIST!).
Bobby,
I too have all three of these books. You will love the Billings book on Calvin. The Wright book is at least reflective of his position (NPP), somewhat under fire. But the new Bonhoeffer book I just got myself from my oldest son.
Btw, I am myself, re-reading Fr. John Anthony McGuckin’s book: The Orthodox Church, An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. McGuckin is an Orthodox covert, and is an Anglo-Irishman. Also he is older than I am which is nice for me.
*convert
Good stuff Bobby! I hope you are feeling better…I will pray for your upcoming scan as well.
Looking forward to your review of “Justification” when all is said and done. It seems like you’re on the right track of not disagreeing too much. π
Bobby and TC,
I will look at my Wright “Justification” book again, but I tend to the Federal Vision position (which is not the NPP). But, with my renewal this Advent & Christmas with Orthodoxy, I should re-check my position. See my own blog of late, etc. And Bobby, note Robert Letham’s positive book towards Orthodoxy, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective.
@Irish,
I can’t wait to dig into Bonhoeffer, it’s starting out as a good book! Thanks for the recommendation on Letham, sounds like you are really leaning toward Orthodoxy as of late π .
@Brian,
Thanks, and thanks for the prayers, brother!
@TCR,
Well, since I posted this I’ve read another 70pgs; so almost done π . My review should come shortly (did you just assign me some homework π ? ). I will say, that the further I read Wright the more I’m finding that I agree with him; although, I must also say that he is kicking against Torrance a bit π .
Bobby,
No assigned homework just yet. But I’ll like to know what you think about his take on 2 Cor. 5:21.
How is he at variance with Torrance?
Bobby,
As I have written I used to belong to an Anglican/Orthodox society years back. There has been that close relationship between Anglicans (High Church types) and the Orthodox for many, many years. And during this Advent and Christmas, with my defense of Mary as the Theotokos, I have been drawn closer once again. I am still an Anglican, and still at this point close to both the catholic & reformed reality and history therein. But, yes, I am close to the Orthodox in many ways. I am always sojourning! And I am concerned about both the liberal and ultraconservative Reformed. Both are problematic. I do struggle with the lack of what I see to be the need to be Catholic in the Reformed. But, I do like much of the FV people and work itself. Yet they are of course mostly Presbtyterian.
Great xmas reading Bobby.
I like the NPP view as far as NTW (and mark Seifrid also majors on this) in that the law court is NOT a forensic court. this against the standard Reformed view of the role of the law. In the law court NTW/MS outline, God justifies himself, and we call upon him to justify us against our enemies, in spite of our own failings. This fits in well with some of the psalms and prophets. It does move one towards a more pro me God rather than a remote God who has to have his arm twisted behind his back to save sinful humans.
Hope all goes well with the scan. God bless.
Bobby,
Definately with TC on this one. I’ve been wondering what you would think of Wright’s exegesis of 2 cor 5:21 as well…
@Robert,
There are many things to appreciate about various traditions, w/o a doubt; it seems you know this from experience π .
@SG,
Yes, NTW provides some interesting perspective on things; I’m not sure I’m totally sold, though.
@Brain and TCR,
I think I’ll do a post on that. I don’t think NT’s exegesis is off the mark, but I also don’t think he thinks far enough into the “theology” that Paul must be presupposing in order to argue and say things as he does in II Cor 5.21. In other words, all NT does is presses the occasional nature of the epistle and argument that Paul is making contra the pseudo-Apostles; there is still theological things relative to the kind of humanity assumed and such that need to be parsed out further — which I think, of course, that TF Torrance is still quite helpful on.
@ IrishAnglican,
McGuckin is awesome! I devoured his book on St Cyril and the Christological Controversies.
@Legion of the Grail,
Yes, I have several McGuckin books. The one you read, on the Christological Controveries with St. Cyril, (St. Vladimir’s..) is grand. I have dug out my copy of Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Churchmen, also.. by Andrew Blane. I really like Florovsky!