This is probably old news for most of you, but Bishop N. T. Wright (one of my heroes), was recently interviewed by a student, Trevin Wax, at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. You can listen to the full interview here (To download: Mac users->option+click; Windows users ->wake up).
Or you can read a transcript of the entire interview, question by question, here.
Of course, the best thing to do would to read Wright’s work, and do so fairly, but this interview provides a nice introduction to his views on justification, centrality of worship, social justice, evangelism, the definition of the gospel in the NT context, and more.
I thought that it was interesting that Wright mentioned that some critics misunderstood him (particularly an editor responsible for the introduction and conclusion), while others went out of their way in order not to. I don’t agree with Piper’s book, but at least he sought to be fair to Wright.
Hope you enjoy the interview. I’m looking forward to Wright’s sequel to Simply Christian. Here is the amazon holding page. I can’t help but see Lewis’ influence on both of the titles.
While we’re waiting for that, Wright’s other new book (I wish I could write as fast as he does) is entitled Christians at the Cross and will be released January 7.
10 December 2007 at 8.45 pm
Thanks for posting this. I wonder how many times Wright is going to have to give the same defense. I feel bad for him. But, I am extremely excited about his new releases!
10 December 2007 at 9.28 pm
Not agree with Piper? Those are fight’n words in our neck o the woods Art.
On a serious note thought Art, what is it that Piper says that you disagree with? His critique of Wright or the traditional view of Justification?
10 December 2007 at 10.11 pm
poopemerges: To be honest, this is one of the first times that I find myself in disagreement with Piper. I think there is some “illegitimate totality transfer” going on in Piper’s critique, which has been a staple of critiques against Wright. In other words, Piper is reading Wright as if Wright is using terms like “justification” and “righteousness of God” in the same way that Piper is using them. Wright’s category of “union with Christ” essentially does what the traditional view does with “justification.” This is where a lot of the problems have come from. Nicolas Perrin wrote a great article on this issue in response to Guy Water’s book on Justification. You can read it here. I find myself in agreement with Perrin. Although it is written concerning Water’s book, much of it can be applied to Piper’s work as well.
Stay tuned: I’ll be doing a full review of Piper’s book over Christmas break.
Other books I’ll be reviewing as well are A High View of Scripture? by Craig Allert, Israelite Religions by Richard Hess, Prophecy and Hermeneutics by Christopher Seitz, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel by Robert Wilson, Sinai & Zion by Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil by Jon Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism by Jon Levenson, and The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son by Jon Levenson.
12 December 2007 at 9.55 am
Interesting… Dunelm is the Latin form of Durham, where Wright is a Bishop… Okay, its not really that interesting.
12 December 2007 at 2.15 pm
Ben D.: I actually thought it was interesting when I first heard it. Doug Green told me two years ago that when Wright writes inter-Anglican articles, letters, memos, etc. or writes on behalf of the bishopric he uses the name Thomas Dunelm.
It is an Anglican tradition for a bishop to use the city name in his signature, usually in Latin but sometimes in an Anglicized form or even some in French, old German, or Norse. For instance, Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, signs his name as Rowan Cantuar and Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, signs his name Michael Roffen.
So it’s at least a little bit interesting.
13 December 2007 at 7.11 am
Yeah that is more interesting
.
13 December 2007 at 7.13 am
Heh… I just realized what I did. I thought the interview was by a Student at Southern named Thomas Dunelm, which is why I thought it was such an interesting coincidence. I should have paid more attention. Oh well…