|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The wrongness of Prof Wright
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I was intrigued by this little comment from Lothlorien in a thread in Heaven: quote:
Do not try Tom Wright who has a very poor reputation here as you probably have found out.
I wasn't aware that he had a poor reputation here. Indeed, the back cover of his New Testament translation contains an endorsement from this very website!
Of course, there may be critiques of his work, but even among those who disagree with aspects of his thinking, I got the impression that he is very highly thought of, both as a theologian/historian and as a communicator.
Are there particular aspects to his work that shipmates have a problem with?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I thought the 'here' in the comment was referring to Sydney?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
hmmm... why would that be I wonder?
Among American evangelicals Wright (we usually say "NT Wright"-- I guess he feels more distant and formal than "Tom") has a very good reputation, and his writings both scholarly and mass market are very well read. I attended a standing-room-only event he spoke at last year at a local evangelical seminary where he was enthusiastically rec'd.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Ditto, I didn't think he was particularly poorly thought of, even when disagreed with.
I also thought the Tom/NT thing was based on the kinds of books, i.e. the "light reading for the curious but not theologically versed" stuff gets published as "Tom" and the "this one's a proper academic one, roll up your sleeves" stuff as NT.
Or perhaps Wright isn't con-evo enough for Sydney?
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I suspect Ricardus' comment above is the relevant one. If the "here" is indeed Sydney, the Mathias media ref. suggests a Sydney Anglican perspective, which is I believe strongly reformed type con-evo. Prof. Wright has been strongly disagreed with by several writers from this perspective, and Lothlorien may have been simply warning Evangeline away from using an author who might be disagreed with on principle. You could always drop them a PM to come and clarify!
Not that I think Tom Wright is usually classified as con-evo.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I have never read his stuffed, although I have friends and acquaintances who love him, including one who went to St. Andrew's for his PhD, mostly to study under him.
My ignorance established, a letter that was published in the student newspaper at my Alma Mater after Wright was given an honorary degree might shed some light on the thinking of people who don't care for him. (The letter caused an annoyed reaction from the con-evo branch of TEC.)
[fixed link]
[ 02. August 2016, 13:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Are there particular aspects to his work that shipmates have a problem with?
I think it totally depends on who you are asking. I've heard some very serious academics who decry NT Wright for writing populous drivel which has no relation to the texts he is discussing. The more evangelical/conservative tend to think he is the bees-knees.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Are there particular aspects to his work that shipmates have a problem with?
I think it totally depends on who you are asking. I've heard some very serious academics who decry NT Wright for writing populous drivel which has no relation to the texts he is discussing. The more evangelical/conservative tend to think he is the bees-knees.
Obviously in theology wherever you're placing yourself you're going to have a gob of people who don't agree with you, so I can certainly get that. And the fact that Wright tends to write both to academic and to mass market I suppose can be seen as a mark against him-- altho I tend to see it as a huge plus-- his ability to translate complex and nuanced concepts to laity as well as clergy/academia. He's a great communicator.
I would agree he's definitely appealing to the con-evo wing. But he's not just spouting the same tired old con-evo tripes either. He IS reframing conservative evangelical theology in a strikingly new way (at least from a non-Episcopal American evangelical pov). That's not something that happens every day in the con-evo world. So that in and of itself is quite noteworthy even if one ultimately disagrees with the reframing.
But then I am obviously a fan.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree he's definitely appealing to the con-evo wing. But he's not just spouting the same tired old con-evo tripes either. He IS reframing conservative evangelical theology in a strikingly new way (at least from a non-Episcopal American evangelical pov). That's not something that happens every day in the con-evo world. So that in and of itself is quite noteworthy even if one ultimately disagrees with the reframing.
But then I am obviously a fan.
My understanding of his critics is that they believe he is twisting the texts to fit his theology and I've heard him described as intellectually dishonest.
Of course, some of these people believe that all orthodox scholars are intellectually dishonest, but there are some who seem to think that NT Wright is the worst of them.
Personally I'm not really convinced by the approach of these kinds of scholars (I can't really see the point in being a scholar of the religious text a religion you don't believe in) but then I don't really like the way NT Wright seems to attract groupies who sometimes seem to think he is the last word on certain topics.
In that sense he seems to be operating amongst some evangelicals as a modern version of CS Lewis.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree he's definitely appealing to the con-evo wing.
The conservative end of evangelicalism is the one area where I thought he had most critics. His appeal certainly extends beyond his Anglicanism, into the wider church. Certainly in liberal evangelicalism I've heard him spoken of in positive terms. But the conservative end (e.g. John Piper) don't like his take on justification.
Though I don't suppose there are too many fans of Piper here.
Similarly, the conservative end of anglo-catholicism aren't keen on his endorsement of ordaining women or the fact that he takes a both/and approach to atonement. i.e. He accepts substitution as well as Christus Victor as part of a more holistic take on the subject.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I have never read his stuffed, although I have friends and acquaintances who love him, including one who went to St. Andrew's for his PhD, mostly to study under him.
My ignorance established, a letter that was published in the student newspaper at my Alma Mater after Wright was given an honorary degree might shed some light on the thinking of people who don't care for him. (The letter caused an annoyed reaction from the con-evo branch of TEC.)
[fixed link]
He may have got a good line in insults,
quote:
"an under-funded Scottish university anxious to attract young full-fee-paying American Evangelical men questing for old-world cultural capital".
But is Professor Paul Holloway a well known figure in his world?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
Personally I'm not really convinced by the approach of these kinds of scholars (I can't really see the point in being a scholar of the religious text a religion you don't believe in) but then I don't really like the way NT Wright seems to attract groupies who sometimes seem to think he is the last word on certain topics.
Bit drastic. Should no-one study Homer, or the writings of the Emperor Julian or the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the writings of the Armana period?
And if your stricture applies solely to live religions then I would have thought scholars who are unbelievers will, if nothing else, keep the scholars who are believers on the straight and narrow. Otherwise, it would be like saying that only Marxists should study the works of Marx, only Liberals should study the works of J.S, Mill and only conservatives should study the works of Edmund Burke.
My impression of Wright, FWIW, is that he knows his stuff and that, understandably, Con-Evo's dislike his take on justification and the atonement and, equally understandably, liberal Anglicans dislike his views on a particular Neigh! Bang! issue. My own concern is that, in his popular work, he rather hedges between what he knows as a scholar and what his evangelical base believe. I'm not an unqualified admirer of the whole NT/ Tom Wright bill of goods but he is one of those authors who is worth reading, if only because your disagreements allow you to crystallise your own thoughts.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Bit drastic. Should no-one study Homer, or the writings of the Emperor Julian or the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the writings of the Armana period?
Dunno, probably just me. Some of the most vocal NT scholars are atheists, which always seemed weird to me. But as you say maybe it is only odd from my perspective.
quote:
And if your stricture applies solely to live religions then I would have thought scholars who are unbelievers will, if nothing else, keep the scholars who are believers on the straight and narrow. Otherwise, it would be like saying that only Marxists should study the works of Marx, only Liberals should study the works of J.S, Mill and only conservatives should study the works of Edmund Burke.
This is very likely true, or at least would be if the orthodox spent any time listening to the critics. As it is, I don't think they do give any credence to them (partly, perhaps, because some of the ideas that the critics come up with are very much from left-field and hard to engage with. For example, there are a group of scholars who are propounding the idea that Jesus Christ never existed. Well, that's quite hard to argue against as an orthodox and believing scholar because this is basically taken on trust in a lot of ways.
That said, I think the unbelieving scholars are sometimes coming up with some very interesting albeit very challenging stuff. I just don't understand really why they're bothering.. I guess it is something about the search for truth and wanting to prove that the orthodox are wrong.
quote:
My impression of Wright, FWIW, is that he knows his stuff and that, understandably, Con-Evo's dislike his take on justification and the atonement and, equally understandably, liberal Anglicans dislike his views on a particular Neigh! Bang! issue. My own concern is that, in his popular work, he rather hedges between what he knows as a scholar and what his evangelical base believe. I'm not an unqualified admirer of the whole NT/ Tom Wright bill of goods but he is one of those authors who is worth reading, if only because your disagreements allow you to crystallise your own thoughts.
Again, some scholars are saying he isn't worth reading because his beef is so distorted and disengaged with the text.
I don't think it is fair to say that these are just scholars who are fully engaged with the Dead Horse issues either.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
mr. cheesy wrote: quote:
Again, some scholars are saying he isn't worth reading because his beef is so distorted and disengaged with the text.
Any chance of identifying who these people are, mr. c?
My understanding is much the same as Callan's - the conflation of con-evos with his fanboys is mildly entertaining, but a bit far out.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Tom Wright was required reading (amongst other authors of course) at our ecumenical theological college; a place usually accused by our con-evo students as being hopelessly liberal theologically. Our NT tutor was a fan of his stuff and was himself an open evangelical.
I quite like to read his take on scripture. I find him readable, straightforward and helpful, whatever may be my own opinions and conclusions.
And it's true the 'Tom Wright/N T Wright' thing depends on what kind of book he's writing. I had a slight tussle with my NT tutor over a footnote that he thought I had misattributed, thinking I was getting over familiar with the author; until I pointed out that 'Tom Wright' was what was on the front of that particular book!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals.
Sounds OK to me.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by mr. cheesy:
quote:
Of course, some of these people believe that all orthodox scholars are intellectually dishonest
That is silly. IMO, there are orthodox positions that require, at the very least, some undignified mental gymnastics to maintain. But to tar all orthodox scholars as dishonest is in accurate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I have never read his stuffed, although I have friends and acquaintances who love him, including one who went to St. Andrew's for his PhD, mostly to study under him.
My ignorance established, a letter that was published in the student newspaper at my Alma Mater after Wright was given an honorary degree might shed some light on the thinking of people who don't care for him. (The letter caused an annoyed reaction from the con-evo branch of TEC.)
[fixed link]
Well, that's interesting because the author of that letters predecessor at your Alma Mater's School of Theology loved Tom Wright.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
But is Professor Paul Holloway a well known figure in his world?
If by his world, you mean a certain mountaintop in Tennessee then yes. If by world you mean something else, then no he isn't. Holloway's letter is the typical tripe currently en vogue on college campuses in the US.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Any chance of identifying who these people are, mr. c?
My understanding is much the same as Callan's - the conflation of con-evos with his fanboys is mildly entertaining, but a bit far out.
Well Robert Price immediately sprang to mind, although there are other scholars who are pretty scorching in their criticism about NT Wright.
Price wrote of one of Wright's books:
quote:
One could easily go on and on and on, even as Wright does, and because Wright does. What we have in this book is not a contribution to New Testament scholarship, any more than Creationist “Intelligent Design” screeds are contributions to biological science. Both alike are pseudo-scholarly attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of readers, most of whom will be happy enough for the sedation.
Of course, I'm not arguing that Robert Price is in any way mainstream. But that's just an example of one NT scholar who doesn't rate NT Wright at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is silly. IMO, there are orthodox positions that require, at the very least, some undignified mental gymnastics to maintain. But to tar all orthodox scholars as dishonest is in accurate.
Yes, I think it is a pretty silly position and seems to suggest that nobody who actually studied the New Testament - in a "professional" scholar kind of a way - would believe in Christian dogma and therefore the vast majority of Christian academics in the field are either deceiving themselves or deliberately deceiving others or possibly both.
Which I think is very unlikely to be true. But then I suppose I also believe that the way some seem to try to marry up the apparently contradictory ideas into a cohesive theology is very definitely a serious kind of mental gymnastics. I just wouldn't call that dishonest myself, because there appear to me at least to be a significant number of people who really and truly believe that. I'm not sure one can really be described as dishonest without some level of foresight and deliberate intention to deceive, but maybe that's just me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
NTW has a 'take' on the NT which doesn't exactly fall within the con-evo/atheist spectrum. His critics, such as Piper, don't tend take the trouble to understand his framework, and attack only part of what he's doing, and as a consequence the attacks miss entirely.
To understand NTW, we need to remember that the NT events occurred as part of the Jewish story and in a 100% Jewish context. It's about a Jew doing things that Judaism said would happen, albeit in a very different way to what had been expected. Jesus saw himself as the one to enable the Jewish people to fulfil the covenant, and hence save mankind and creation. The NT reflects this.
Just read the Xmas bits, and see how many Jewish OT references there are in this most 'Christian' story.
When you get the framework, it's a bit like you've been staring at a beautiful view, without glasses on. Then you put them on. What you see hasn't changed, but now you see it properly, and get why and what it's about.
If that's OTT, so be it. I remember reading “Jesus and The Victory of God” with my mouth open, thinking “Why have I never heard this before”?
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree he's definitely appealing to the con-evo wing.
The conservative end of evangelicalism is the one area where I thought he had most critics. His appeal certainly extends beyond his Anglicanism, into the wider church. Certainly in liberal evangelicalism I've heard him spoken of in positive terms. But the conservative end (e.g. John Piper) don't like his take on justification.
Though I don't suppose there are too many fans of Piper here.
And honestly, Piper is ridiculously narrow in his approach. If you don't agree 110% with the particular form of hyper-Calvinist complimentarianism he ascribes to, then you are horrible, blasphemous minion of the underworld. Pretty much every contemporary theologian I enjoy has felt the flick of Piper's lash. But Mark Driscoll, sure he's just fine in Piper's book-- sexism, authoritarianism, dishonest manipulation-- that's all fine as long as you affirm the 5 Dortian essentials.
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Similarly, the conservative end of anglo-catholicism aren't keen on his endorsement of ordaining women or the fact that he takes a both/and approach to atonement. i.e. He accepts substitution as well as Christus Victor as part of a more holistic take on the subject.
Yes, he's definitely reframing evangelicalism in new ways-- which imho is his greatest gifts. For those outside evangelicalism it might be more of a ho-hum, but for those of us inside the tent it can be a breath of fresh air-- if you'll allow it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals.
Sounds OK to me.
We Anglicans do love our fallacy of the middle :/
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Wright will have his critics because, well, all theologians have their critics. It's the stock in trade of the professional theologian that people who disagree with them will attack their methodology as a way of undermining their conclusions. Wright also gets attached because he's a successful author - there's plenty of professional jealousy in the academic world. And if you're a largely anonymous theologian and get published for attacking someone famous there's a chance your visibility might increase as a result.
In other words, don't get fooled into thinking that arguments between theologians are just about the validity of their ideas. They are as much about personalities, profiles, and career prospects as in any other profession.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Wright will have his critics because, well, all theologians have their critics. It's the stock in trade of the professional theologian that people who disagree with them will attack their methodology as a way of undermining their conclusions. Wright also gets attached because he's a successful author - there's plenty of professional jealousy in the academic world. And if you're a largely anonymous theologian and get published for attacking someone famous there's a chance your visibility might increase as a result.
This is certainly true, although some of the criticisms I've read of Wright (a) do not tend to have much visibility and (b) are very detailed point-by-point arguments of the assertions made in Wright's books.
But of course you are correct to say that as he has visibility he is also painting a target on his back, to borrow a phrase.
quote:
In other words, don't get fooled into thinking that arguments between theologians are just about the validity of their ideas. They are as much about personalities, profiles, and career prospects as in any other profession.
Well I'm not sure anyone is being fooled. The question was whether there are serious objections to NTW's scholarship, and clearly there are.
Of course, one has to make a judgement whether to accept or reject these objections (and I'm not here making any kind of recommendation of the quality of those, other than what I've already said) and also take into account many other factors in weighing the value of any given thesis. Just like any other form of scholarly activity, of course.
[ 03. August 2016, 07:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, I'm not arguing that Robert Price is in any way mainstream. But that's just an example of one NT scholar who doesn't rate NT Wright at all.
Robert M Price has an interesting podcast, but OTOH he takes a mythicist view of the NT, so he is bound to critique anyone who doesn't. So it's one example, but not a particularly good example.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
or the fact that he takes a both/and approach to atonement. i.e. He accepts substitution as well as Christus Victor as part of a more holistic take on the subject.
No, I think the majority of their critiques would centre around how he understands substitution. I don't think many of them would have an objection to Christus Victor to being a valid approach to the atonement when alongside other approaches.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
or the fact that he takes a both/and approach to atonement. i.e. He accepts substitution as well as Christus Victor as part of a more holistic take on the subject.
No, I think the majority of their critiques would centre around how he understands substitution. I don't think many of them would have an objection to Christus Victor to being a valid approach to the atonement when alongside other approaches.
Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution.
Can you provide support for this assertion? From this book here https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B004774D0K (which I presume has Piper's imprimatur):
"In this respect, Aulén's view was seriously inadequate. He displaced the motif of penal satisfaction with that of victory. But, as we have seen, in Scripture the satisfaction of divine justice, the forgiveness of our sins, and Christ’s defeat of Satan are not mutually exclusive but complementary.
Each is an essential dimension of Christ’s work.
Each is vital for our salvation, and each provides an aspect of the atonement from which the other aspects may be seen with greater clarity and richness. "
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought the 'here' in the comment was referring to Sydney?
As we all know, context is everything and Ricardus is right or perhaps that is Wright.
Evangeline and I are both in Sydney where he is regarded in a very poor light. The line quoted had nothing to do with his reputation on board here.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
Evangeline and I are both in Sydney where he is regarded in a very poor light. The line quoted had nothing to do with his reputation on board here.
Why is that then?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
Mr cheesy, I enjoy Wright's books. I have nothing against him. However Sydney diocese holds views mostly diametrically opposed to his. I do not intend to take this up. If you know both Wright and Sydney,then I can imagine you could answer your own question.
Perhaps I should have been clearer in my original answer to Evangeline, but I knew she would understand my point. We tire down here of trying to explain what makes Sydney so different to much of the Anglican community elsewhere.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Hmm. I read that "To be called a disciple of Tom Wright in Sydney suggests that your theology is sadly mistaken." - Kevin Giles
[ 03. August 2016, 13:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution.
Can you provide support for this assertion? From this book here https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B004774D0K (which I presume has Piper's imprimatur):
"In this respect, Aulén's view was seriously inadequate. He displaced the motif of penal satisfaction with that of victory. But, as we have seen, in Scripture the satisfaction of divine justice, the forgiveness of our sins, and Christ’s defeat of Satan are not mutually exclusive but complementary. "
This handy Christianity today interview does a good job of laying out the differences between Piper and NTW, the discussion of substitution v victory theory is on the 2nd page.
I'm not familiar with the book you quoted from above, but from the link & title it looks like a Festschrift. Note that a festschrift is written by colleagues to honor an academic but not necessarily to agree with everything they say, and such would not necessarily have Piper's "imprimatur". They are written to continue the honoree's scholarly discussion. So the fact that an author in the book is discussing theories of the atonement only affirms that Piper is concerned with theories of the atonement. But again, I'm not familiar with the work.
fyi: to be clear, I'm agreeing with the author you quoted and NTW that both substitution and Christus victor are part of the biblical record, and that both (in fact, all 5 biblical images) are, in fact, images-- i.e. useful metaphors to understand a transcendent reality far bigger than either could describe alone.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This handy Christianity today interview does a good job of laying out the differences between Piper and NTW, the discussion of substitution v victory theory is on the 2nd page.
I cannot read that as it is behind a paywall - it is probable that his presentation is skewed due to the specifics of dealing with one particular persons arguments.
Assuming that this is the same article http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/content/pdf/justification_june09.pdf I don't find anything that explicitly rules out Christus Victor in the way you suggest. The majority of the material there seems to be quotes from a book responding to NTW which could explain some of the emphasis.
quote:
Note that a festschrift is written by colleagues to honor an academic but not necessarily to agree with everything they say, and such would not necessarily have Piper's "imprimatur".
Yes, I know what a festschrift is. However, that particular book is published by Crossway, and publicized on both the Gospel Coalition and the desiringgod websites. The section I quoted was from an essay by Sinclair Ferguson who has been invited by Piper to speak at his conferences, so I presume that Piper wouldn't object to his views.
I think there's plenty to criticise Piper on, but I don't think your original statement is supported by the evidence shown so far.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
Some years ago (2007) Eddie Arthur quoted Doug Chaplin on the debate between NTW and John Piper regarding the atonement, the original blog post is no longer available, unfortunately. I don't think Chaplin has any particular axe to grind in the debate, so his comment is pertinent:
quote:
But on these points where Piper chooses to engage him – issues perhaps especially significant for the evangelical constituency – it is fairly clear to me that it is Wright who engages the text, for better or worse, and Piper who reads his tradition into it.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Some years ago (2007) Eddie Arthur quoted Doug Chaplin on the debate between NTW and John Piper regarding the atonement, the original blog post is no longer available, unfortunately. I don't think Chaplin has any particular axe to grind in the debate, so his comment is pertinent:
quote:
But on these points where Piper chooses to engage him – issues perhaps especially significant for the evangelical constituency – it is fairly clear to me that it is Wright who engages the text, for better or worse, and Piper who reads his tradition into it.
This gets at the essence of traditionalism. Piper has picked his tradition (conservative Reformed) and has then made a career out of defending it, without seeming to give countenance to the possibility that it may contain errors.
On the justification debate, it was interesting to read a multi-author book entitled Justification: Five Views in which both the traditional Reformed and Roman Catholic authors made, as their point of reference, their traditions as their main reference point, with little to no engagement with scripture.
Where Wright has greater credibility (IMHO) is that he has picked his tradition (Anglicanism) but while being faithful to it, he does issue critiques from within, as well as giving observational critiques of other traditions. It's a healthy antitode to this kind of thinking.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This handy Christianity today interview does a good job of laying out the differences between Piper and NTW, the discussion of substitution v victory theory is on the 2nd page.
I cannot read that as it is behind a paywall - it is probable that his presentation is skewed due to the specifics of dealing with one particular persons arguments.
Assuming that this is the same article http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/content/pdf/justification_june09.pdf I don't find anything that explicitly rules out Christus Victor in the way you suggest. The majority of the material there seems to be quotes from a book responding to NTW which could explain some of the emphasis.
Well, yes, it is summarizing Piper's book which is published (and subtitled) as "an answer" to NTW. Read the section on the pdf you linked under "gospel". Piper is clearly advocating for penal substitution, NTW for Christus victor. That difference is the whole point of Piper's book, and the whole point of the interview with Piper.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Some years ago (2007) Eddie Arthur quoted Doug Chaplin on the debate between NTW and John Piper regarding the atonement, the original blog post is no longer available, unfortunately. I don't think Chaplin has any particular axe to grind in the debate, so his comment is pertinent:
quote:
But on these points where Piper chooses to engage him – issues perhaps especially significant for the evangelical constituency – it is fairly clear to me that it is Wright who engages the text, for better or worse, and Piper who reads his tradition into it.
This gets at the essence of traditionalism. Piper has picked his tradition (conservative Reformed) and has then made a career out of defending it, without seeming to give countenance to the possibility that it may contain errors....
Where Wright has greater credibility (IMHO) is that he has picked his tradition (Anglicanism) but while being faithful to it, he does issue critiques from within, as well as giving observational critiques of other traditions. It's a healthy antitode to this kind of thinking.
Yes, precisely-- I could not agree more. This in a nutshell is what I most appreciate about NTW and what I least appreciate about Piper.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper is clearly advocating for penal substitution, NTW for Christus victor. That difference is the whole point of Piper's book, and the whole point of the interview with Piper.
No. I don't think that segment (a summary of an excerpt from a book explicitly written as a response to NT Wright) constitutes evidence for your statement above. That Piper associates with, and promotes people who have views that includes Christus Victor is strong evidence to the contrary.
and I would agree with all sorts of critiques of Piper - including parts of Sipech's above. To my mind he has become a fairly unbalanced and otherworldly figure (in common with his great idol Jonathan Edwards).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Assuming that this is the same article http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/content/pdf/justification_june09.pdf I don't find anything that explicitly rules out Christus Victor in the way you suggest.
The summaries are excellent, but the 'Pastor's speak' section under it is awful.
A lot of the quoted pastors don't seem to have actually read anything by NTW. And unbelievably the section is introduced as “Which is more scandalous? The multitudes of Christians who think they need to earn their salvation by being good? Or the throng of Christians who think that holy living doesn’t matter so long as they have prayed the sinner’s prayer?”
It's so far behind the actual debate that it wears a mullet and thinks that Graham Kendrick is the future for Christian music.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wright is a homophobe. Like his ex-boss. And the guy who claims to be their boss. As for the East ... bless them.
There is no sense of trajectory in any of them.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Wright is a homophobe. Like his ex-boss. And the guy who claims to be their boss. As for the East ... bless them.
I don't like Wright's views on homosexuality and, limited though I am, dare to disagree with his exegesis. However, I'm not aware of his being a homophobe. (And I have no idea who is ex-boss is, or the guy who claims to be their boss.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper is clearly advocating for penal substitution, NTW for Christus victor. That difference is the whole point of Piper's book, and the whole point of the interview with Piper.
No. I don't think that segment (a summary of an excerpt from a book explicitly written as a response to NT Wright) constitutes evidence for your statement above. That Piper associates with, and promotes people who have views that includes Christus Victor is strong evidence to the contrary.
Again, the CT article is taken from an interview with Piper as well as the book. Yes, I haven't read the entire book but I've read enough-- and enough of Piper's other work-- to be very, very confident Piper is not advocating for Christus victor or any other atonement theory other than penal substitution. The fact that he has colleagues who believe otherwise is absolutely no evidence-- since this is a common debate among theologians, all theologians are going to have friends who advocate for Christus Victor. One of Piper's colleagues at Bethel Seminary is Open Theist Greg Boyd (shippies know I'm a fan)-- the sort of colleague (on the same faculty) who might be asked to contribute to such a book as the one you're citing. But Piper despite their close association, Piper is definitely not in agreement with Boyd-- he wrote a (different) whole book about how wrong Boyd is (far more scathing even than his rebuke of NTW) and pretty much called Boyd a minion of the Dark Overlord. So, no, the fact that Piper has colleagues who have a broader view of the atonement is no evidence that Piper does. Even the most cursory of reading of Piper's work will show you that.
But, hey, if you choose to believe otherwise it's no skin off my nose.
[ 03. August 2016, 21:52: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact that he has colleagues who believe otherwise is absolutely no evidence
They are more than colleagues. I'm referring to groups which he has a very close association, and the case of the author that of piece someone Piper invites to speak at his Pastors Conference.
quote:
the sort of colleague (on the same faculty) who might be asked to contribute to such a book as the one you're citing. But Piper despite their close association
Actually no. This is far more theologically slanted than a standard festchrift would be as a look through the authors would tell you - as would the fact that it's published by Crossway.
quote:
But, hey, if you choose to believe otherwise it's no skin off my nose.
ISTM you are doing what Piper is said to do above - fitting your reading of the text to fit your opinion.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But, hey, if you choose to believe otherwise it's no skin off my nose.
ISTM you are doing what Piper is said to do above - fitting your reading of the text to fit your opinion. [/QB]
I'm really not-- I have no reason to do so. I have no default reason to place Piper in either camp. It doesn't effect my belief in Christus victor one way or another. I've read quite a bit of both Piper and NTW, their differences have been discussed in many, many academic forums as well as in the CT article I linked. So, if I'm wrong in my reading of what seems to me very, very clear statements on Piper's part, I'm certainly in good company. It would be odd that Piper has not taken it upon himself to correct CT or any of the multiple reviewers who have interpreted his position to be substitutionary-only.
I'm a bit curious as to why you seem so determined to presuppose Piper's position is broader than what he himself says it is, not based on any direct statement from Piper, but simply because others who are associated in some way with him have that broader pov. I'm curious, but ultimately it doesn't really effect me. *shrugs*
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I can't see any reason why you'd find this interview by a blogger any more authoritative than that of a CT reviewer, but since it's so spot on I'll throw it into the mix, fwiw.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have no default reason to place Piper in either camp. It doesn't effect my belief in Christus victor one way or another. I've read quite a bit of both Piper and NTW, their differences have been discussed in many, many academic forums as well as in the CT article I linked.
The most that can be said from the quote in the article you linked is that Piper thinks SA is the primary lens through which the atonement should be understood.
What it doesn't provide evidence of is:
"Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution."
I think Piper is unhelpful, his comments on women in leadership are bizarre and his comments on current events frequently unbiblical, but nevertheless the discussion around atonement is heated enough without an assumption that 'everyone knows' what someone means.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
