Last night I lobbed a grenade entitled New Perspectives on Paul, by N.T. Wright into the blogosphere. Not surprisingly I got two predictable response. The first argued we were wasting our time even considering Wright, the second seemed to uncritically accept him. Indeed the second kind of response and its prevelance shows me why at least some of us need to read at least some of what Wright has to say, if only to be equipped to counter it.

In the past I have enduldged in theological warfare with the best of them, I am increasingly of the view that we should in some small way be trying to learn what we can from any quarter. In N.T.Wright's case even if we decide we totally disagree with his views then if the process of doing so forces us back to the scriptures to support our positions, then that is a good thing. I heard a talk recently where a joke was made about people viewing Calvin as scripture- sadly in some circles you have to wonder if that is not so far from the mark! Each generation needs people who will take us back to the scripture and re-examine our assumptions. One hopes that most of our assumptions will survive such an examination, not least because so many generations before us have done exactly that.

I struggle to see much good in N.T.Wright's postion, but his method, at least how it is described in this article seems largely commendable. I am somewhat puzzled by his conclusions, however. I hesitate to criticise him too strongly as he is obviously a scholar of the bible with more credentials than I, but I am going to do so anyway.

The crux of the matter is well stated in this article. His whole position swings on one statement about the definition of "works of the law" in Paul. He believes passionately that these "are not the moral works through which one gains merit but the works through which the Jew is defined over against the pagan". Amazingly to me, he even sees such a definition in Romans 9:-

"Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works."

A straightforward examination of that text supports the faith vs works distinction that so many of us have made. It allows for the notion that the law was actually a good thing given by God to "lead to righteousness". It states that righteousness could only be attained by faith. It makes clear that the problem with the law was only with the use that it was put to- ie to obtain righteousness by works.

What also concerns me about all this is how we should be responding to it when we disagree with people who expound it. Chrisitans often seem to forget that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, and thus for many people who hold views that challenge christian orthodoxy they are not deliberately setting themselves up as the enemy of the church. Sadly in at least some cases these folks are sincere, but sincerely wrong. Some are being led astray by our enemy into false doctrine, and despite great intellect seem to me at times to be totally blind.

How then are we to respond to these people? Where is the line we should draw between the "accursed" of Galatians 1 who preach another gospel and who we should have nothing to do with, and those who have erred who we need to approach as Paul urged in 2 Timothy 2-

"The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

Sadly I suspect I have been guilty in the past of correcting people in an ungracious manner far removed from the gentleness Paul here advocates. I get the feeling from this article (of which I have still only read the introduction) that N.T.Wright has had few if any who have reached out to him to gently try and lead him back to the truth. Indeed I will give him the last word in this post.

"Speaking as one of those who is regularly thus carpet-bombed, what I find frustrating is the refusal of the traditionalists to do three things: first, to differentiate the quite separate types of New Perspective; second, to engage in the actual exegetical debates upon which the whole thing turns, instead of simply repeating a Lutheran or similar line as though that settled matters; and third, to recognise that some of us at least are brothers in Christ who have come to the positions we hold not because of some liberal, modernist or relativist agenda but as a result of prayerful and humble study of the text which is and remains our sole authority."

For an examination and critique of Wright, pyromaniac has some messages online.