Featured Wrightism - New Social order

He has a book on Justification where he explains his view fairly well (not the one presenting his thesis but the one addressing John Piper's concerns). It is not what is presented on this thread (that doesn't mean it is wright ... ...either).

What you have to consider is the topic. Up to 1956 there were discoveries being made that revealed more and more of first century Jewish thought. As this was studied, some began to question a few traditional beliefs as assumptions. Jews are often presented as holding righteousness based on the Law in terms of a "legal righteousness". But there are indications that at least some held a belief in a righteousness, perhaps based in the Law, but in terms of a "covenantal righteousness". The "New Perspective" begun in earnest in the early to mid 1960's as an attempt to understand Paul within the context described by these discoveries.

What has been interesting is the descriptions of first century Jewish practice and belief. Even if these documents are of a later date, it is difficult to deny that the traditional picture of a 1st Century Jew is similar in many ways to a 15th Century Catholic but far from the Jewish ideologies described in these documents.

That's why I think that Wright brings up some good points. These are issues that we should examine, but unfortunately we will not because they strike at our own traditions.

 

I think if Wright had stopped writing about 10 years ago he would be better off. The NPP, except at the hands of Wright, is a waning proposition. It will be around for a while, but as an intellectual exercise it has no gas left.

And Wright's understanding of the NPP is not at all what most proponents want it to be — a rejection of Pauline theology as being opposed to the "true" gospel of Jesus. Wright, unlike many modern theologians, can't throw out Paul's writings as uninspired (which is what most NPP proponents want to do) so he tries to come to grips with it in a different way.

Wright (as B has said) can be hard to decipher because he expounds traditional Reformed theology in bits and pieces and leaves it to the reader to put the pieces together — either into an orthodox or unorthodox whole, depending upon the reader.

This is partly because Wright's mind can't seem to work itself into a systematic theology and partly because he knows he's more clever than 99.9 percent of his audience, which, unfortunately, leads him to a smugness that's unbecoming. (A state of mind, BTW, that Paul himself was prone to, but he was brought down to earth by persecution and his "thorn in the flesh," blessings that Wright, apparently is not subject to.)

As to union of church and state: I do not believe that a close reading of Wright will justify that he believes in theocracy. Like many American Christians, of various political persuasions, he believes that Christians should insert themselves into public life in following their religious beliefs.

As to separation of church and state, Wright is a senior cleric of an established church and an Englishman. He believes in an established church. He thinks that separation of church of state is a mistake of rationalism and Deism. He thinks that Americans established separation because it made religion a secondary consideration, which is exactly the opposite of the case: Religion is too important a matter to be left to the vagaries of whatever government may be in power at the moment. Maybe he should expand his reading to include Helwys and Backus and Leland and even Mullins.

All that said, I find Wright provides flashes of brilliance in illuminating areas that have been darkened by longstanding shibboleths of orthodoxy. It's a pity that he can't see which of his own pet beliefs fall into that category.