***QUOTE***
Very interesting. When I compared the academic credentials of NT Wright to a Reformed teacher who was critiquing him in a recent publication, I was roundly condemned.
What's the difference?
# posted by Michael Spencer : 12/14/2005 8:05 PM
***END-QUOTE***
1.Let me first say that I wasn’t party to that particular debate.
2.There is no doubt that one’s level of education can make a difference. There are certain highly specialized fields in which an amateur can’t very well wing it on merely facility. There’s no substitute for technical expertise.
3.By the same token, some fields demand more brainpower than others. Let’s face it, folks--it doesn’t take the same mental horsepower to be a sociologist as it does to be a mathematician.
4.We all know college profs. who couldn’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag. They got to where they were by riding on the crest of the latest academic wave, by dutifully reproducing every jot and tittle of the new orthodoxy, and by being chaperoned through their degree program by a star professor and a timely nudge from affirmative action.
5. There are some deadly dull fields of study in which quicksilver brilliance would be a positive disadvantage. Only someone with a plodding mind would have the patience for all the tedious minutiae.
6.You don’t have to be brilliant to be a fine Bible scholar. You just have to be disciplined and diligent.
7.There are many men with the same academic credentials as NT Wright, yet they don’t dominate the debate the way he does. Education alone is not the differential factor.
8.There are some gifted autodidacts who can argue circles around the average college prof. The contributions of (the other) Philip Johnson to the ID movement is a case in point.
9.There are few basic problems with Paul Owen’s appeal. There’s the glaring double standard in which he holds his critics to a higher standard than his colleagues at Communio Sanctorum.
10.Beyond the hypocrisy is a more fundamental point, and that is the illicit appeal to the argument from authority. Now there are fields in which this is relevant. Since most of us can’t sight-read hieroglyphics or cuneiform, we take the word of an Egyptologist or Assyriologist.
11.In general, though, your education is not something apart from the argument, but something which figures in the argument.
In writing a scholarly book or article, your education is something which feeds directly into the argument in terms of the evidence you put on public display and the quality of your reasoning.
Only when a scholar is getting desperate does he brandish his credentials to shore up what is lacking in the actual presentation. For unless he can translate his education into a well-reasoned argument, the quality of his education is irrelevant to the quality of his argument.
12.NT Wright is not only or primarily writing for the benefit of his fellow academics. Rather, he is writing for general consumption, for the church, for the educated layman.
The act of writing presupposes that the implied reader is competent to follow the reasoning, follow the conclusions, weigh the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. Otherwise, why bother to write?
13.Needless to say, many critics of the NPP are just as well-educated as the advocates of the NPP.
14.Returning to Dr. Owen, it is particularly stupid for a blogger to talk down to his audience. Blogging is inherently a mass medium for general consumption. It is not like a refereed journal. Does the standard fare over at Communio Sanctorum measure up to the standards of a refereed journal? Obviously not. Do the puff pieces that Dr. Owen is posting over there on a regular basis distinguish themselves by their tight reasoning and meticulous documentation? Obviously not.
15.Let us suppose that Owen is right. Suppose that I labor under the double handicap of being both incompetent and wrong. In that event, Owen should be able to make short work of such a lame opponent. Here I am. Come and get me.
16.Returning to Spencer, he is clearly a bright, articulate, well-educated man. But there are better educated men. So does Spencer want us to judge him by his diplomas, or by the quality of his writing?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSteve:
ReplyDeleteI think you make an excellent point in one regard: Wright's "popularization" project does put him in the line of fire of less credentialed persons. It is the case, in my experience, that Wright's scholarly work is, in general, written for more of a general audience than the typical scholar, to which I suggest someone might learn a thing or two from his success.
But the further oint would be: Do less credentialed critics understand the larger field in which a smaller argument takes place, and does it matter if they don't (or do)?
I think it's worth noting. I am seminary and post seminary trained, and I can comprehend a lot of discussions that I really have no business contributing to, because I don't know the larger field. That a foot soldier can shoot the general in front of him with a pistol doesn't mean he should be running the war.
There are a number of other points I could make- mostly about how the work of Wright hangs together as a whole, and the so-called strategic importance of the 6-most-often-critiqued-pages in one book- but that's another discussion.
I mainly wrote this so "Christian Library," aka C.T., could call me a devil suck.
For the record the comment I deleted had nothing to do with Michael Spencer, and he shouldn't attempt to give that impression. The comment was me talking about how regeneration is obviously more important than formal education regarding ability to be on-the-mark with doctrine, etc., etc. I deleted it because I'm withdrawing from commenting on blogs for the near or far future...
ReplyDeleteiMonk:
ReplyDeleteI am genuinely curious. What is so appealing about Wright, for you? Obviously, there are some who will follow every new fad, and some who like anything new because they are against what is old, yet I'm not convinced that's why you would like him. Is it the ecumenical explanation that he's provided (providing a way for RC's and Protestants to be reunited)?
Is it his writing style? From the internet version of Phil's Fool's Gold article, he compliments Wright on his ability to write both to academics and to laymen. I read the review that you posted, but I'm not convinced Phil has mischaracterized Wright's teaching, at least not without some specific examples. Also, even though he only deals with the popular book, I believe he has read the others. I know James White has. I haven't read the book, but from what I've seen on critiques, and snippets I've seen on the New Perspective website, I feel pretty comfortable that what the opponents are saying about his position is accurate (whether you agree with them or not is a different story).
So what am I missing? Why do you like him, and how are they mischaracterizing him?
Matt,
ReplyDeleteMy primary point in all my internet discussions of this type is always misunderstood.
I have read two of Wright's three big books on Jesus, three of his smaller books on Jesus, and several of the "Everyone" Commentaries. I have also read "What Saint Paul Really Said" twice.
My interest is contemporary Jesus studies. I would say, without hesitation, that if someone were going to invest a month in Jesus studies, they would do well to read Wright, simply for his ability to survey the literature, sort it out and put forward a contribution that any orthodox Christian can appreciate.
On Paul, I recognize a couple of things:
1) The contribution of Wright on Paul is connected- vitally- to his study of Jesus. I believe his reformed critics almost always miss this, and that makes for problems.
2) Wright is NOT an "NPP purist." To write about NPP as a single entity is simply the kind of simplistic caricature that makes one suspicious of the whole critique. Wright does buy into some of the work of NPP scholars, but he regularly takes issues with all of them. It is simply not possible to say "Wright=NPP" and have credibility.
3) Wright may be very wrong in some of his statements in WSPRS about Luther and the Reformation. But I am disturbed that the Reformation and its personalities are being treated as canon. Wright may be wrong, but he's not wrong to say Luther might be wrong at points, or the Reformers might not have understood first century Judaism as well as later scholars.
Wright is a historian. I find that his critics tend to treat him entirely as a theologian. If anyone reads the big books, it will be clear that Wright isn't dialoging with theologians as much as he is contributing to a conversation about what was the actual nature of the historical situation. He isn't John SHelby Spong.
Wright also dialogues more than any Biblical writer I know of. The monthly question/answer at the Wrightsaid list is very helpful in clarifying what Wright has said, where he's changed, and where his work is going.
Bottom line for me: He's an excellent scholar, making a marvelous contribution in an area that matters. As a teacher, I appreciate a good teacher, and I find him to be among the best.
It's not a matter of whether he is safely in the Reformed Baptist box. He's not. Neither are 95% of all people doing Biblical study. I appreciate the contribution of Baptist Biblical scholars, but my point is that we shouldn't launder the discussion of Biblical scholars by their commitment to Reformed Baptist Calvinism.
Wright may be wrong, but he's still worth reading, hearing and considering. I think he's on target on Jesus, a mixed bag on Paul and rather loony in places on his applications. I'm not a fanboy, but this business of throwing everyone out of Biblical discussions who isn't members of a very small club is the opposite of my understanding of education.
Thanks for your response. You gave me some things to think about. Here are a couple of thoughts. (I'm willing to take this up via e-mail if Steve gets tired of us taking up his real estate.)
ReplyDeleteQuote: The contribution of Wright on Paul is connected- vitally- to his study of Jesus. I believe his reformed critics almost always miss this, and that makes for problems.
Does he do this in "What Saint Paul Really Said"?
Quote: To write about NPP as a single entity is simply the kind of simplistic caricature that makes one suspicious of the whole critique. Wright does buy into some of the work of NPP scholars, but he regularly takes issues with all of them. It is simply not possible to say "Wright=NPP" and have credibility.
I have no beef with that. In fact, I specifically picked Phil Johnson's review because I think it hits where others may have been lacking. Here's a quote from him: I hesitate to label the New Perspective a movement, because it lacks the cohesiveness of a movement. At this point, it's a loose aggregate of similar opinions. The three New Testament scholars who are the leading advocates of the New Perspective don't entirely agree with one another on some of the most basic points of Christian doctrine. Two of the three don't even claim to be evangelicals.
There's no single spokesperson for the view, and no organization exists to propagate it.
He recognizes the difference of opinions, yet indicates that this is a loose coalition that propogates some similar ideas, and he focuses on those ideas. If he's wrong in that regard, I'd love to know how.
Quote: But I am disturbed that the Reformation and its personalities are being treated as canon. Wright may be wrong, but he's not wrong to say Luther might be wrong at points, or the Reformers might not have understood first century Judaism as well as later scholars.
Your point here is well taken. I have no problem with critiquing the Reformers. I happen to think they were wrong on infant baptism. But while in other places some might be merely defending the man, here I think they are defending the idea--Luther espouses the idea that justification is at the heart of the gospel, and they are defending that idea. My other issue with this is that, although NP's may say that the Reformers didn't understand Judaism as well as they do, there are times when they seem to discount even the Bible's testimony about Judaism in favor of their own understanding. This is where I would have an issue with it.
Quote: Wright is a historian. I find that his critics tend to treat him entirely as a theologian. If anyone reads the big books, it will be clear that Wright isn't dialoging with theologians as much as he is contributing to a conversation about what was the actual nature of the historical situation.
This may be true, but there are at least two good reasons to treat him as a theologian. First, his ideas are getting greater reach, particularly with the publication of his popular level book, and that requires that he be dealt with on that level. Second, he's not like you or me. He's the 5th highest ranking Anglican. I tried to find an apt analogy, but in its absence, it would be like saying we shouldn't deal with Al Mohler as a theologian.
Quote: It's not a matter of whether he is safely in the Reformed Baptist box. He's not. Neither are 95% of all people doing Biblical study. I appreciate the contribution of Baptist Biblical scholars, but my point is that we shouldn't launder the discussion of Biblical scholars by their commitment to Reformed Baptist Calvinism.
I don't see how this enters the picture at all, unless what you're saying is that Wright's constructive comments on say, Jesus, are thrown out by those who object to what he says about the nature of justification. That could be the case; I don't really know. What I've seen primarily is the discussion of justification, and I don't see how that is merely a "Reformed Baptist Calvinist" issue.
In any case, thanks for your comments. At least I have an inkling where to head next. Now I just need the hours to do some reading.