There it is again...another terrible pun. At least I'm predictable. A number of people have asked me what I think about Tom Wright, both on and off of this blog. By now, I'm sure it's more than apparent that I'm a fan, but I've heard various questions about his views in various areas that a general pattern seems to be developing. While I'm inclined to say Wright is like a Glock - you either love him or hate him - the truth of the matter, as is often the case, is probably not so black and white. However, most people who haven't read much by him, often ask one of two questions (depending on what they've read/heard): 1) What's wrong with him? or 2) What's so great about him? How one person can generate such extreme conclusions within so many circles can be a bit confusing, I admit. One of the most helpful "essays" I've read that accounts for this spectrum appeared on another blog a while back. I don't frequent the blog (not because I don't want to but because I already read too many) so I can't preface much about the author, other than to say that what he wrote squared almost perfectly with my experience of reading Tom Wright and his friends and foes. He does an excellent job of introducing the reader to the context in which Wright is carrying on his ministry...after all grammatical historical exegesis is just important with 21st Century documents as it is with 1st Century documents. I've actually linked to it twice now in the comment sections of this blog, but since it keeps coming up, I've been meaning to link it on an actual post. So, check it out here.
***P.S. Do I really need to include somewhere that I don't agree with EVERTHING he says? :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This year I have read two men who I previously regarded as theological villians, and after having read both the proverb comes to mind, "a fool judges a matter before hearing it." I think we would all do well to avoid bashing people we have never read or making hasty generalizations on the basis of a small portion of their work . . . after all, its the golden rule.
of course you have to make the disclaimer, nate - otherwise, you would be caracitured as one of the sorts you describe at the top of your blog.
baylor, i've always said you were a terrible listener.
apart from your deficiency, i'm with you all the way...
we've all been fools.
Ok, ok, I repent. I have been a fool, and I'll say no more, at least until I've read some Wright -- which I want to do, I'm just not sure when I'll be able.
It's funny, I would get so frustrated when I heard teachers at our dear alma mater criticizing men whom it became apparent very quickly that they had never read (or at least never understood). I'm an ass and a hypocrite, for doing the same thing I condemn in others.
I will still say, until the day I die, "Praise God for the imputation of an alien righteousness, without which I'm hopelessly damned." Whether or not that has anything to do with the topic, I'm not sure.
Baylor,
Is Barth the other? He's also on my list to read.
Yep, Barth is the one.
Post a Comment