Yesterday, I wrote the first of a two-part series that summarizes and explores the essays collected in Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright
N.T. Wright and the Apostle Paul
The first essay on N.T. Wright’s “Paul” is written by Edith Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright.” Humphrey’s contribution is unique in that she approaches Wright’s work from the angle of Eastern Orthodoxy. She sees similarities between Wright’s view of righteousness and her own, but she rejects Wright’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21:
Consider the lack of congruity: Christ was made sin – simply so that [hina] the apostles could show forth God’s righteousness! In such a construal the shock of the first part of the sentence (Christ made sin) does not match the functional quality of the second. No, if Christ was made sin it could hardly be for the purpose of the apostolic charism. Instead, Paul indicates a miracle that makes its impact on all in the new creation… It is the God-man who assumes death and sin in order to win life and righteousness for God’s people. It is this one who stands as judge, as advocate and as defendant. (168-9)
Regarding Wright’s view of apocalyptic symbols, Humphrey writes: “I want to affirm what Bishop Tom affirms, without denying what he denies.” (172) This refrain is repeated throughout these essays on Paul, and it sums up much of my own thought regarding Wright in general.
As a side note, there’s a humorous moment when Humphrey chides Wright for his Protestant position on Scripture. Quoting from my interview with Wright in 2008, she says:
At the foundations our friend remains a Protestant. In his own words, “My only agenda is to be as close as I can possibly get to what Paul actually says. And I really don’t care too much what different later Christian traditions say.”
Wright’s response:
“Here we meet once more with the problem of Scripture and tradition. It’s rather fun to be accused, for once, of being a Protestant… Tradition is important, but I will drink to Paul first and to tradition afterward.” (182)
—–
Jeremy Begbie in “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” explores the puzzling fact that N.T. Wright’s theology (though delivered from an Anglican bishop in a bureaucratic, top-down hierarchical structure) is so attractive to young, emerging church leaders (who eschew the type of authoritative framework within Wright serves). Begbie’s summary of Wright’s eschatological vision is worth reading, and his critique of emerging church ecclesiology from Wright’s vantage point is also helpful. But I want to give more time to the next two essays, so I will refrain from summing up too much here.
—–
Markus Bockmuehl contributes an essay titled “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When he Died?“. Bockmuehl critiques Wright’s vision of the afterlife, particularly Wright’s insistence that we think in terms of embodied resurrection and not the intermediate state. Bockhmuehl’s essay fails to persuade because he argues against the soundbite version of Wright’s view of the afterlife, not the expansive vision laid out in Wright’s many books. Wright does not deny that Christians “go to heaven” when they die; he merely insists on placing the intermediate “heaven” within the context of God’s promise of the final resurrected state.
Bockmuehl’s essay rightly leads to this response from Wright:
“I did not fully recognize the presentation of my views in Markus Bockmuehl’s paper… I have never rejected, as Bockmuehl says I do, the traditional Christian believe that the faithful ‘go to heaven’ when they die. I don’t regard that expectation as a ‘corruption of the hope of bodily resurrection.’ I have said repeatedly that ‘going to heaven’ is fine as a description of what happens when the faithful die. The point is that it isn’t the final destination.” (231-2)
(For an explanation of how Wright’s view of “heaven” has changed throughout the years, read this post.)
—–
Kevin Vanhoozer’s paper, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” stirred up quite a bit of conversation after it was first delivered. Vanhoozer enters this debate as an observer from the field of systematic theology. He accurately lays out the issues at stake, particularly the fact that Wright is pressing the formal principle of the Reformation (biblical authority) into service against its material principle (justification by faith). (241) Vanhoozer writes:
“By and the large the perceived problem with Wright’s position is not what he affirms but what he denies. His affirmations are important and exciting… What lands Wright in hot Reformed water are the denials.” (241-2)
What problem Reformed critics have is not so much with the affirmation (“faith is the badge of covenant membership”) but rather the denial (“faith is not the port of entry into the company of the saved”). (246)
Vanhoozer then seeks to bridge the gap by appealing to Calvin’s doctrine of “union with Christ” and in particular, the doctrine of adoption.
“Adoption is an especially rich metaphor that involves both confessing family membership and conferring legal status.” (255)
He then critiques Wright by saying, “He needs to win not more battles, but more allies… The Reformed need to accept the ecclesiological implications of being declared in Christ; Wright needs to retool his understanding of the law court and develop a fuller understanding of our union with Christ.” (259)
—–
The book ends with an essay by Wright entitled “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” This essay sums up the reasons why, for me, reading Wright is so fruitful and frustrating at the same time. Wright’s exposition of the ecclesiological implications of justification is masterful. He glides through text after text, harking back to Old Testament truth, pulling out ethical implications (including a belief in traditional man-woman marriage!), and spotlighting the beauty of the covenant community united by the cross.
But Wright’s summary of Paul’s theology is almost exclusively horizontal. It’s all about the reconciliation of humanity and very little about how that new humanity is first reconciled to God (or why we need to be reconciled in the first place). Perhaps the intent of this essay was merely to provide a study of Paul’s ecclesiology. Maybe, but I don’t think so. This approach characterizes much of what Wright has said in other contexts.
To be fair, some of Wright’s Reformed critics do indeed marginalize the church in their systematization of theology. But I fear that Wright goes to the other extreme. In pointing out the reductionism of his opponents, Wright engages in reductionism of his own. So, at one level, I am thankful for what Wright affirms, but I am constantly perplexed by what he denies (or simply ignores).
Conclusion
Jesus, Paul and the People of God is a helpful addition to the discussion surrounding N.T. Wright and his theology. May this book aid all who are interested in finding out what Jesus and St. Paul really said!
