Yes, I know, this pun is getting really really old in Reformed circles. But blog post titles are hard, you know. I'm just setting out to read N.T. Wright's new book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, in which he seeks to respond summarily to all of his critics, including the slightly deranged ones here in the US who've been leaping up and down in inarticulate alarm for the past decade.
It is a well-known fact (at least in my own wee circles) that my erstwhile professor, the Moscow pastor-pugilist Doug Wilson, has not found Wright altogether to his taste on these matters, and has not hesitated to say so repeatedly in a series of blog posts he labels "N.T. Wrights and Wrongs." Having often wondered exactly what the good Pastor Wilson could find to object to in Wright's work on Paul, I have finally decided to get to the bottom of it.
Thankfully, Wilson’s observations on Wright, whatever one may think of his conclusions, are based on a thorough, chapter-by-chapter interaction. So I won’t be prejudiced in Wright’s favor, I plan to read through Wilson’s review of each chapter before reading Wright, and then I’ll hopefully have the time to put up a few remarks on both up here. I state this intention up front, because publicly pledging to be so thorough may assist me when I grow impatient, as I am sure to do. This whole issue has not been tremendously interesting to me for a few years, ever since I first heard the good Bish explain himself on the topic at Auburn Avenue and said to myself, “Well, that makes perfect sense, and I never heard anything so fine about Paul. What’s all the fuss about?” (Don’t worry, I did do a bit more research than that, but that did mostly clinch it) But, in my circles, it continues to be a fuss, so I suppose I need to take the time to see if there’s any good reason why.