Wrong on Wright

This post is rather sad.

According to Wright, the gospel has nothing to do with the message that Christ died for sinners and that His work can be applied to sinners that they might be justified before a holy God.

Nothing to do? Wright’s argument that the term Gospel does not mean a string of doctrines, is turned into a claim that the term does not entail and has nothing to do with these things. I’ve written about this commonplace slander, which is simply a piece of unquestioned internet gossip among certain theological coffeeclutches, here, here and, by implication, here. If I felt it was my calling, I could easily write a new defense every other week against someone somewhere parroting the charge. One can also take a look at Doug Green of WTS Phillie, or Reggie Kidd, or even Charles Hill whose overwhelmingly negative review of Wright doesn’t say anything half so bad as this. Why is that? Is someone going to tell me Hill is disposed to promote Wright?

I’ll take the time to mention one point. Our auther writes that

a problem exists with Wright’s definition of the gospel itself. He makes the gospel about the person of Christ and not about the work of Christ. His mantra is “The gospel is ‘Jesus is Lord and Messiah’ not ‘Jesus died for your sins.'” No doubt exists that Jesus is Lord and Messiah and that truth is indeed part of the gospel message. But, to leave out the work of Christ as part of the gospel message is far from evangelical, much less biblical. In Wright’s thought, the gospel is the simple announcement that Jesus is Lord.

It is simply too easy to find Wright pointing out, in line with Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, that Jesus was installed as Lord by his resurrection. The title not only refers to his deity but to his office as the faithful man called by God to go through death and resurrection for sinners. It involves his work as well as his person. Anyone who had read Wright would know this.

The other day, Pastor Phil Ryken quoted Machen as “perennially relevant”:

If you have the peace of God in your hearts, you will never shrink from controversy; you will never be afraid to contend earnestly for the Faith. . . . But God save you from . . . neutrality! It has a certain worldly appearance of urbanity and charity. But how cruel it is to burdened souls; how heartless it is to those little ones who are looking to the Church for some clear message from God! God save you from being so heartless and so unloving and so cold! God grant, instead, that in all humility but also in all boldness, in reliance upon God, you may fight the good fight of faith. Peace is indeed yours, the peace of God which passeth all understanding. But that peace is given you, not that you may be onlookers or neutrals in love’s battle, but that you may be good soldiers of Jesus Christ.

This quotation, in Machen’s context, and undoubtedly in the context of the Presbyterians Pro-Life News is immensely valuable. But I worry how Machen’s words may have borne fruit in other contexts. We don’t get to choose the times in which we live. If God has not permitted us to be a Luther among the Romanists or a Machen in a denomination going Modernist, we have to submit to God’s (perhaps seeminly boring) will and make it our ambition to live quiet lives. I fear that basic lesson, and Paul’s many exhortations to pursue peace and unity, are not being learned among us split-P’s who maintain the Evangelical Faith.

“Unity must be around truth.” Well, duh; no kidding. If you can demonstrate the Gospel is at stake, well and good. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. But if you have to assure people that it’s a matter of trust, then I have questions. I would have questions under almost any circumstances. I would especially have questions when the context is obviously more than Wright but involves accusations about the orthodoxy of PCA ministers. It seems to me, and I have some intimate knowledge of these matters, that we may be setting up an ecclesiolological gossiper’s paradise.

4 thoughts on “Wrong on Wright

  1. pduggie

    I like the part where he accuses “ECT” types of beliveing that “Roman Catholics… who belive in Jesus Christ are saved”.

    Funny, I though everyone believed that those who believe in Jesus Christ are saved.

    Reply
  2. Patera Silkworm

    “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (Prov. 18:17).

    This accusation made in the quotation you cite, Mark, is outrageous.

    Men who get their knowledge of someone else’s theology from secondary sources ought to keep their mouths shut and their keyboards quiet before they make public accusations against another brother in Christ. Isn’t that entailed in James’ admonition to be “quick to hear and slow to speak” (1:19). The accusations and arguments made in this essay are for the most part preposterous. Anyone who has actually taken the time to listen to and read N.T. Wright himself can identify this for what it is immediately. There are indeed problems with N. T. Wright’s theology, but they are not these.

    Sometimes it seems to me that Evangelical and Reformed people don’t have the patience to try to understand someone who uses different language than they do. When it sounds different and seems too confusing they irresponsibly go for the jugular and start screaming that the Gospel is in danger.

    “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent” (Prov. 17:28)

    I might pick up Wright’s book What St. Paul Really Said and turn at random to find something like this:

    “…the gospel of Jesus reveals God’s righteousness, in that God is himself righteous, and, as part of that, God is the one who declares the believer to be righteous. Once again we must insist that there is of course a “righteous” standing, a status, which human beings have as a result of God’s gracious verdict in Christ… He has been true to the covenant, which always aimed to deal with the sin of the world; he has dealt with sin on the cross; he has done so impartially, making a way of salvation for Jew and Gentile alike; and he now, as the righteous judge, helps and saves the helpless who cast themselves on his mercy” (p. 107).

    Reading the quotation above, does it sound like “the gospel has nothing to do with the message that Christ died for sinners” for N.T. Wright?

    Or how about this from his commentary on Romans (and I did randomly open it to this page):

    “As sin reigned through death” (and we must remind ourselves of the role of the law within that reign, as in 5:20), “so grace also reigned through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” From this tight-packed statement, the key contrast for the present passage is that between death and life: “life” is the golden thread that runs through 8:1-11, the gift of God that the law wanted to give but could not, the gift that comes because God’s Son has dealt with sin and death and God’s life-giving Spirit has replaced sin as the indwelling power within God’s people” (Romans, p. 574).

    There are too many vicious, irresponsible rumors and accusations about Wright that keep getting repeated. Those who repeat them will have to answer before the judgment seat of Christ.

    What these men need to realize is that their credibility with their readers entirely depends on those readers not reading N.T. Wright himself. But when someone actually reads N.T. Wright and discovers just how badly he’s been misrepresented by these popular critics, they are much more likely to swing towards the opposite extreme and swallow everything Wright says. Why not rather be honest about Wright? It won’t lead to a slam-dunk-he’s-denying-the-gospel statement that elevates you (in your own mind) to the status of modern Luther or Augustine. But, you know, it might actually serve the people of God better.

    “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:19-20).

    Reply
  3. solomon

    Proverbs 6:16-19, “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”

    Reply
  4. Garrett

    Interestingly, the “work of Christ as part of the Gospel message” runs noggin first into the Bible itself. The most thorough exposition of the “gospel” itself, Romans 1:1-6, is all passive in regards to Christ. He is declared by the prophets, he comes in the line of David, he is resurrected in power by the Spirit, and he is declared to nations by the apostles.

    Uh yeah, I forgot, systematic theology trumps the Bible.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *