N.T. Wright Project

Having reached the end of our study of NT Wright, I would like to reflect on one of the things I have most appreciated about Wright’s work: his use of Scripture.  Because so much of our theology depends upon how we treat and use the Bible, understanding the way in which Wright works with Scripture is helpful in understanding the conclusions he makes about certain theological points.  I found this to be especially true when reading “The Future of Justification”, John Piper’s critique of Wright’s treatment of justification.  While reading Piper’s critique, it became abundantly clear to me that in order to evaluate if his critiques were fair, it would be necessary to understand how Wright treats Scripture as he builds his various arguments.

The first place I turned was Wright’s popular work “The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture”.  This proved to be immensely helpful.  His discussion of the authority of Scripture was particularly insightful, because he argues that the authority we are talking about is not the authority of Scripture itself, but “the authority of God exercised through Scripture” (Last Word, 138).  This shift in emphasis helps me to use the text as an avenue to hear and know God, rather than to view it as an unliving document to which my life and every decision must answer.  It allows for flexible and creative interpretations, and it opens up the ability for people who end up with different opinions on matters to respect each others use of the Bible as having led them to that position.  Ultimately, it allows for a much more faithful witness to the truths of God which are revealed in Scripture.

This change of emphasis on the authority of Scripture also helps in understanding the seeming inconsistencies of the Bible.  Wright addresses this in “Climax of the Covenant”, as he is discussing some of the inconsistencies of Paul.  He says, “The way to produce inconsistency is to ask a sharp question…and to insist on a yes-or-no answer…if you manage to answer yes and no, you’re just a harmonizer, a flattener out of Paul’s craggy contours, denying the poor apostle the fun, and the scholarly prestige, of his own splendid inconsistency” (Climax of the Covenant, 5).  This helps me to understand that sometimes the questions with which we approach the Bible and insist on an answer from are the wrong questions.  We expect the text to do things that it just can’t do and wasn’t intended to do.

Another area in which Wright has been very helpful is to help me in understanding how to use Scripture in forming my theology.  One of the most difficult obstacles I have encountered as I engage further and further in theological conversation is my constant frustration at the ease with which we appropriate and manipulate Scripture to justify our positions and beliefs.  Wright addresses this frustration in “The New Testament and the People of God”.  He spends some time discussing when and how it is best to use the New Testament.  He claims, “There may be a sliding scale of appropriateness for the use of the New Testament.  It may quite properly be used to reconstruct the life, language, religion and beliefs of the early Christians, provided we remember that it was not written for that purpose, but rather as something more like a play to be staged, that is, as a charter for a community, a set of books designed (in their very different ways) to fuel worship and witness” (NTPG, 470).  This reminder has been important in helping me remember that the texts of the New Testament, particularly, were not written as systematic theological doctrine, but rather as guides in helping people figure out how to best follow Jesus as they live their daily lives.  If we understand the texts in this way, it is freeing and enables us to dream and imagine with Scripture rather than declare and restrain.

Finally, I want to share Wright’s summation of early Christian theology, as it reminds me of the most important things we learn through Scripture and what this journey we have embarked upon is really all about.  He says, “The fundamental theological position is a view of creator and creation, of evil within creation and the rescue of creation from that evil, of hope fulfilled and hope to come, of a people who are both rescued and rescuers, Christology, pneumatology, and ecclesiology grow naturally and Jewishly from this basis” (NTPG, 458).  To understand the Christian story in this broad, sweeping perspective, allows me to recognize the evil and claim the hope, and to realize that this hope is the most important thing and what must be communicated to others in each and every theological converstaion I have, through every truth claim I make, and in every step I take along the journey.