Comments on: And They’ll Know We Are Christians By Our…? http://www.ntwrightproject.com/2008/11/10/and-theyll-know-we-are-christians-by-our/ A Collaborative Study on the Work of Tom Wright Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:14:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Craig Downey http://www.ntwrightproject.com/2008/11/10/and-theyll-know-we-are-christians-by-our/#comment-26 Craig Downey Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:43:11 +0000 http://www.ntwrightproject.com/?p=147#comment-26 Wright has an interesting comment on how torah functions as a boundary marker in a new sense in Climax of the Covenant, I think this dovetails nicely with Larua’s quote from Wright above. He writes: “The torah is the covenant boundary-marker, and when its δικαίωμα is fulfilled through the work of the Spirit in the new covenant, it retains exactly the same function, of demarcating the people of God.”(Wright 1993. 213) Earlier he writes “They [those in Jesus] are not ‘under torah’; they are not bound by ‘works of torah’; but they ‘submit to it’, in the sense of its deepest intention, and thereby, again by implication from v[8].8, actually please God.” (212). If I understand Wright then here he is arguing that for Paul, the love that characterizes Christians is one that is shaped and informed by torah, one that does the δικαίωμα of the law, but isn’t bound to continue in the “works of the law”. Considering that a large portion of the deuteronomistic and levitical laws are concerned with socio-political relationships, Wright’s reading of Paul has important consequences for Christian praxis and political theology. Hence we see Wright’s continued emphasis on pursuing jubilee style economic justice in the world. With Wright’s reading of Paul in mind, I wonder if part of the reason why western Christians are so hesitant to be defined as Christians grows out of a capitulation by the western church to the political liberalism of our day. Liberalism’s tendency seems to be towards the promotion of moral inclusivism in service to its pursuit of individual rights. Torah’s intolerance for certain behaviors (morally, politically, and, economically) runs counter to this central tenant of political-liberalism. Claiming that love has a particular shape and content would mean running counter to the prevailing winds of our day and running against the cultural grain has always proven dangerous. Wright’s emphasis on Christian praxis, rooted in Christ, and shaped by torah, seems to me to be a much needed prophetic critique of the westerns church’s close affinity with political liberalism. The western church’s capitulation to political liberalism I find to at least partially be influenced by Reformational readings of Paul which have tended to drive a wedge between Paul and the law. Detached from the boundaries of the law, the Church has been free to float around in a world of sub-Christian socio-political ideas at the mercy of those ideas. This however raises a number of questions I’d love to see you guys dive into. Is Wright’s reading of Paul convincing and does the church need to give greater attention to the shape of love in the torah (esp. the socio-political dimensions), or are older Reformational readings more convincing and are we free to reject aspects of the law that run counter to our culture? How would Wright draw a line between ‘works of torah’ and the δικαίωμα of the law? Does torah’s integration of cultic and social-political laws make any sort of separation impossible? Wright has an interesting comment on how torah functions as a boundary marker in a new sense in Climax of the Covenant, I think this dovetails nicely with Larua’s quote from Wright above. He writes: “The torah is the covenant boundary-marker, and when its δικαίωμα is fulfilled through the work of the Spirit in the new covenant, it retains exactly the same function, of demarcating the people of God.”(Wright 1993. 213) Earlier he writes “They [those in Jesus] are not ‘under torah’; they are not bound by ‘works of torah’; but they ‘submit to it’, in the sense of its deepest intention, and thereby, again by implication from v[8].8, actually please God.” (212). If I understand Wright then here he is arguing that for Paul, the love that characterizes Christians is one that is shaped and informed by torah, one that does the δικαίωμα of the law, but isn’t bound to continue in the “works of the law”. Considering that a large portion of the deuteronomistic and levitical laws are concerned with socio-political relationships, Wright’s reading of Paul has important consequences for Christian praxis and political theology. Hence we see Wright’s continued emphasis on pursuing jubilee style economic justice in the world.

With Wright’s reading of Paul in mind, I wonder if part of the reason why western Christians are so hesitant to be defined as Christians grows out of a capitulation by the western church to the political liberalism of our day. Liberalism’s tendency seems to be towards the promotion of moral inclusivism in service to its pursuit of individual rights. Torah’s intolerance for certain behaviors (morally, politically, and, economically) runs counter to this central tenant of political-liberalism. Claiming that love has a particular shape and content would mean running counter to the prevailing winds of our day and running against the cultural grain has always proven dangerous. Wright’s emphasis on Christian praxis, rooted in Christ, and shaped by torah, seems to me to be a much needed prophetic critique of the westerns church’s close affinity with political liberalism.

The western church’s capitulation to political liberalism I find to at least partially be influenced by Reformational readings of Paul which have tended to drive a wedge between Paul and the law. Detached from the boundaries of the law, the Church has been free to float around in a world of sub-Christian socio-political ideas at the mercy of those ideas. This however raises a number of questions I’d love to see you guys dive into. Is Wright’s reading of Paul convincing and does the church need to give greater attention to the shape of love in the torah (esp. the socio-political dimensions), or are older Reformational readings more convincing and are we free to reject aspects of the law that run counter to our culture? How would Wright draw a line between ‘works of torah’ and the δικαίωμα of the law? Does torah’s integration of cultic and social-political laws make any sort of separation impossible?

]]>