The purpose of this brief essay is to address some of the recent controversies in the Reformed camp concerning the works of N.T. Wright and to provide some autobiographical information that might be helpful to the discussion. I would encourage those interested in this subject to also read a related and very helpful, longer essay written by James B. Jordan in 2005 titled “The Closing of the Calvinistic Mind”.
N.T. Wright is the retired Bishop of Durham, New Testament scholar, and prolific writer. Many in Reformed Church circles have referred to him as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, “dangerous man”, “purveyor of another gospel”, “heretic”, etc. Having read several of Wright’s books (my favorite is still Surprised by Hope), I am sure I would agree with some of the objections of his opponents. I do think, however, that asserting that Wright is a heretic, false prophet or wolf is unfair to this eminent contemporary evangelical Biblical scholar. With that in mind, I would like to offer some autobiographical detail to help make my point.
I was first introduced to the Reformed Faith as a senior in high school (1982-1983) by a dear friend and teacher. St. Paul saw a blinding light on the Damascus Road as he encountered the risen Lord Jesus. Augustine was told by a child’s voice to “take and read”. Luther felt as if the gates of paradise had opened to him as he re-discovered justification by faith. Wesley felt his heart “strangely warmed” as he embraced the Gospel. My enthusiastic embrace of the Doctrines of Grace was by no means as dramatic as these experiences, but it was just as paradigm-shifting to me as each. For the first time in my Christian life, the difficult passages of the Bible began to fit together and, if I may be so bold, made sense to me. My understanding continued to grow, as did my sanctification, and continues to do so even at my nearly fifty years of age. Throughout the 1980’s and into my early years as a husband and father in the 1990’s, I had serious questions about a variety of subjects, including the sacraments, paedocommunion, and corporate worship. I was blessed with a pastor who was willing to seriously engage these subjects with me, even if he might in the end disagree with some of my conclusions. There were other pastors, elders, and mature, wise men that would also engage such subjects with me during this period of my life.
Something changed, however, sometime in the early 2000’s. Subjects that before could be seriously discussed and charitably disagreed over, now seemed to bring charges of heresy or were simply just not tolerated. If I were to point to the thing that signaled this shift, I think it would be the response of a couple of men (one a prominent Presbyterian pastor in the South, the other a respected Seminary professor) to fellow pastors with whom they strongly disagreed (proponents of the so-called “Federal Vision”). Instead of charitably lodging their disagreements with these pastors, these men and their supporters resorted to labeling their opponents as heretics. Thus, they ended all possibility of discussion and debate. A heretic is someone who denies an essential of the Christian Faith, such as the Holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. A heretic is not someone who poses a legitimate question, offers a nuance, or presents a clarification to a particular understanding of a somewhat sectarian doctrine. It seemed at this time Reformed scholarship had entered a new “dark age” in which Reformed Christians (particularly pastors and theologians) feared to raise any objection or question any currently held understanding of covenant, sacraments, worship, etc., lest they be brought up on charges of heresy before their sessions and presbyteries. This too would affect the people in the pew (like me) that were perceptive enough of the situation to know that their teachers and preachers now had to tread very carefully as they taught and preached the Bible to avoid charges of teaching heresy.
This brings me to N.T. Wright. Whatever one thinks of Wright, his contribution to a literal reading and understanding of the Gospels’ accounts of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in a very liberal, unbelieving academic community cannot be denied. He has strongly emphasized the current cosmic nature of the reign of Christ against an evangelical culture so terribly influenced by dispensationalism. He has helped lead this same evangelical culture out of a more than two centuries old captivity to a pietism that has so limited the reign of Christ to the four walls of the church building. Is he misguided or in error in some areas? Of course. Is he a heretic? No. Like C.S. Lewis, Alexander Schmemann, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or even John Calvin, Wright must be read with Biblical discernment. Interestingly, Lewis even questioned the authority of the imprecatory Psalms, but no one seems to be saying that his entire corpus is therefore verboten. To simply dismiss Wright’s work as heretical is to do an injustice to the man himself, as well as to greatly impoverish the modern Reformed church that desperately needs to recover its forgotten and neglected cultural voice as taught by Wright.
In summary, it is far easier to dismiss a person as a heretic and end all possibility of serious discussion and debate. It is far more difficult, yet far more edifying to the church at large, to engage this person in serious discussion and debate. So, I would encourage Wright’s detractors to continue to explore his work. Point out areas in which he may be in error. Be sure also to point out the many profound and useful insights he has made in the areas of the Kingdom of God, the necessity of Christian community as opposed to American individualism, the present and future reign of Christ, etc. But please do not resort to name-calling that seems to be the favorite pastime of so many in the Reformed camp today.
N.T. Wright is the retired Bishop of Durham, New Testament scholar, and prolific writer. Many in Reformed Church circles have referred to him as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, “dangerous man”, “purveyor of another gospel”, “heretic”, etc. Having read several of Wright’s books (my favorite is still Surprised by Hope), I am sure I would agree with some of the objections of his opponents. I do think, however, that asserting that Wright is a heretic, false prophet or wolf is unfair to this eminent contemporary evangelical Biblical scholar. With that in mind, I would like to offer some autobiographical detail to help make my point.
I was first introduced to the Reformed Faith as a senior in high school (1982-1983) by a dear friend and teacher. St. Paul saw a blinding light on the Damascus Road as he encountered the risen Lord Jesus. Augustine was told by a child’s voice to “take and read”. Luther felt as if the gates of paradise had opened to him as he re-discovered justification by faith. Wesley felt his heart “strangely warmed” as he embraced the Gospel. My enthusiastic embrace of the Doctrines of Grace was by no means as dramatic as these experiences, but it was just as paradigm-shifting to me as each. For the first time in my Christian life, the difficult passages of the Bible began to fit together and, if I may be so bold, made sense to me. My understanding continued to grow, as did my sanctification, and continues to do so even at my nearly fifty years of age. Throughout the 1980’s and into my early years as a husband and father in the 1990’s, I had serious questions about a variety of subjects, including the sacraments, paedocommunion, and corporate worship. I was blessed with a pastor who was willing to seriously engage these subjects with me, even if he might in the end disagree with some of my conclusions. There were other pastors, elders, and mature, wise men that would also engage such subjects with me during this period of my life.
Something changed, however, sometime in the early 2000’s. Subjects that before could be seriously discussed and charitably disagreed over, now seemed to bring charges of heresy or were simply just not tolerated. If I were to point to the thing that signaled this shift, I think it would be the response of a couple of men (one a prominent Presbyterian pastor in the South, the other a respected Seminary professor) to fellow pastors with whom they strongly disagreed (proponents of the so-called “Federal Vision”). Instead of charitably lodging their disagreements with these pastors, these men and their supporters resorted to labeling their opponents as heretics. Thus, they ended all possibility of discussion and debate. A heretic is someone who denies an essential of the Christian Faith, such as the Holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. A heretic is not someone who poses a legitimate question, offers a nuance, or presents a clarification to a particular understanding of a somewhat sectarian doctrine. It seemed at this time Reformed scholarship had entered a new “dark age” in which Reformed Christians (particularly pastors and theologians) feared to raise any objection or question any currently held understanding of covenant, sacraments, worship, etc., lest they be brought up on charges of heresy before their sessions and presbyteries. This too would affect the people in the pew (like me) that were perceptive enough of the situation to know that their teachers and preachers now had to tread very carefully as they taught and preached the Bible to avoid charges of teaching heresy.
This brings me to N.T. Wright. Whatever one thinks of Wright, his contribution to a literal reading and understanding of the Gospels’ accounts of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in a very liberal, unbelieving academic community cannot be denied. He has strongly emphasized the current cosmic nature of the reign of Christ against an evangelical culture so terribly influenced by dispensationalism. He has helped lead this same evangelical culture out of a more than two centuries old captivity to a pietism that has so limited the reign of Christ to the four walls of the church building. Is he misguided or in error in some areas? Of course. Is he a heretic? No. Like C.S. Lewis, Alexander Schmemann, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or even John Calvin, Wright must be read with Biblical discernment. Interestingly, Lewis even questioned the authority of the imprecatory Psalms, but no one seems to be saying that his entire corpus is therefore verboten. To simply dismiss Wright’s work as heretical is to do an injustice to the man himself, as well as to greatly impoverish the modern Reformed church that desperately needs to recover its forgotten and neglected cultural voice as taught by Wright.
In summary, it is far easier to dismiss a person as a heretic and end all possibility of serious discussion and debate. It is far more difficult, yet far more edifying to the church at large, to engage this person in serious discussion and debate. So, I would encourage Wright’s detractors to continue to explore his work. Point out areas in which he may be in error. Be sure also to point out the many profound and useful insights he has made in the areas of the Kingdom of God, the necessity of Christian community as opposed to American individualism, the present and future reign of Christ, etc. But please do not resort to name-calling that seems to be the favorite pastime of so many in the Reformed camp today.
RSS Feed