Green’s WTS Perspective on NTW
I recently heard about a remark by N. T. Wright that he considered Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) to be at the center of opposition to him. This strikes me as a little funny, since all of harshest critics I have read are non-WTS affiliated persons. Without a doubt, there are faculty here who are critical of Wright, but even they, as far as I know, have stopped short of labeling him a heretic and have admitted on occassion that he has some useful things to say toward our understanding of Paul and first century Judaism/Christianity. And, of course, there are faculty who are much more sympathetic to Wright.
Among those is my Hebrew professor, Dr. Douglas Green, whom many of my regular readers will recognize as a recent regular commentor on these pages.
Today I ran across a brief piece by him entitled “N. T. Wright: A Westminster Perspective.” It began life as a document he submitted to the Westminster board of trustees, but about a year ago he published it on the Wrightsaid email list in a move to go public with his views as an alternative to some statements being made by some other profs at Westminster. In saying that, I hasten to add that there is no “war” going on here among the faculty as far as I can observe, but there certainly seems to be a wrestling with what the Westminster tradition and trajectory mean, and where they are to go in the future. Every professor I have talked to here believes that that wrestling is necessary, and they value the academic freedom here that allows it to go on.
In his piece, Doug Green lays out a case that the central tennets of Wright’s thought do not run counter to the Westminster trajectory. Indeed, he sees them as very much in line with the Westminster distinctives of a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, union in Christ theology (a la Richard Gaffin, Jr.), and the eschatalogical aspect of the Gospel (Gaffin/Ridderbos). In balance, he offers some (qualified) reservations about Wright, many of which he feels may have to do with differences in language and approach due to Wright’s coming from outside the conservative Reformed camp.
Here’s the complete piece (in .pdf format): N.T. Wright: A Westminster Perspective
Share on Facebook
May 14th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
(1) Maybe he meant WSCAL?
(2) If I recall correctly that essay is typical Doug Green - 2x more text in the footnotes than in the body of the document!
(3) Oops - the footnotes on my exam should be interesting now that I’ve said #2 in public . . .
May 15th, 2005 at 12:06 am
I was thinking WTS-CAL as well, although we know he knows Gaffin and WTS-PA…don’t know if he knows WTS-CAL exists.
And, Jason, you yourself are probably as of now just a footnote in Doug Green’s mind.
May 16th, 2005 at 1:49 am
I was going to ask the same question (about WTS-PA vs. WTS-CA) … given that Wright is somewhat aligned with Moscow folks, WTS-CA would make much more sense.
Oh the joys of theological controversies. :-/
May 16th, 2005 at 6:39 am
Thanks, Jason, for giving me another reason not to blog: blogs don’t do footnotes.
May 16th, 2005 at 8:23 am
BTW…the second Jason above is not the same as the first Jason above.
I realized recently that I have far too many friends whose names start with “J.” Some of them will just have to go. As soon as exams are over, there will be a purge. So if you are a friend of mine named Jason, Josh, Justin, Joel, Jordan, etc., now would be the time to start sucking up. Cash gifts are accepted and will count heavily in your favor.
May 16th, 2005 at 8:35 am
Au contraire, mon freres. My friend Alex King uses footnotes. I’m sure that I can find his solution for you.
[Mark, I think you need to extend the metaphor of "evil genius/benefactor" to "evil genius/benefactor/drug pusher". :cough:]
May 16th, 2005 at 8:37 am
You already were that in my mind, Geof. Already there
May 16th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Captain Jack will get you high tonight
He’ll take you to your special island
Captain Jack will get you by tonight
Just a little push and you’ll be smilin’
GFM <– loves quoting Joel lyrics older than he is
May 16th, 2005 at 11:53 am
OK. Blogs do footnotes. So I go back to having only 17 reasons not to blog!
May 16th, 2005 at 11:57 am
And I’m betting that your #1 reason is probably a deal killler
My #1 reason I should not be paying attention to blogs right now: FINAL EXAMS!
May 16th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
Not to bring this thread back to the original post, but I think that Wright probably isn’t sufficiently into the trenches of the N. Am. Reformed world to make the fine distinctions ya’ll are making between WTS-this and WTS-that. Gaffin publishes silly review in WTJ. Gaffin serves as leader of the opposition party at AAPC. Other guys in Gaffin’s circles don’t like him. That’s probably enough to have WTS embody Wright’s vision of the N. Am. opposition. No?
May 16th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
You’re probably correct about that Daniel. Guess I shouldn’t take it personally
I do know that he’s aware of Doug, so he can’t think that WTS is monolithically against him.
May 17th, 2005 at 11:52 am
I think this is relevant to the topic of Mark’s original blog. Some might be interested in reading an article by my colleague Dan McCartney: “Ecce Homo:The Coming Of The Kingdom As The Restoration Of Human Vicegerency†(it’s from the Westminster Theological Journal of 1994). It’s just been posted on the Westminster webpage: http://www.wts.edu/publications/articles/mccartney-vicegerency.pdf. This a classic example of a distinctly Westminster (seminary) approach to scripture: strongly redemptive-historical (i.e., reading the Bible as an unfolding story) and Christotelic (Jesus as the climax of the story), with the Gospel defined in kingdom terms … basically, a very similar approach to what you’ll find in Wright (especially his work on Jesus).
May 17th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Thanks for pointing us to that, Doug. I downloaded it yesterday when the WTS e-news arrived and look forward to reading it on the beach this weekend, when I enjoy the consumation of my eschatalogical hope that enables me to persevere through the valley of the death-shadow (AKA final exams).
May 21st, 2005 at 8:08 am
So I’m a few days late…. as usual….
Thanks so much for posting this, Mark (and of course, writing it Dr. Green!). While I haven’t had time to dive head first into NPP quite yet, it has echoed many of the feelings I’d been having, postitive and negative, about the issue(s). I do realize, however, that my thoughts can and are influenced by my classes at ICC here in Scotland, and they have taken a very non-comittal stance on Wright and NPP - not that they claim to be Reformed in the slightest anyway. It’s been helpful to hear such things outright from someone in the Reformed camp, especially in light of the articles I’m reading from much of the PCA side of things (esp concerning the Federal Vision and Auburn Ave…etc). (Though I recognize those murmurings are distant and hard to hear from the other side of the Atlantic!)
M
P.S. Anyone else getting tired of articles that keep putting the term “so-called” in front of any mention of “New Perspective on Paul”?! ARGH!
May 22nd, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Mic, in your honor I shall now refer to it henceforth as the SCNPP.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:25 am
Ha!
We all should. It’s much more indicative of what is ACTUALLY said in most reformed analysis of it!
I hear a TV program coming on soon…..
“My So-Called New Perspective”….
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:26 am
Ha!
We all should. It’s much more indicative of what is ACTUALLY said in most reformed analysis of it!
I hear a TV program coming on soon…..
“My So-Called New Perspective”….
June 4th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Hello guys,
I find this website very helpful, thank to those who takes the time and effort to put it together to help a new seminary grad like me.
Ok, my comments… it’s hard to comment on my professor (Dr. Green), especially if it’s going to be in the nature of interrogation, and more so on a man that I love and cherish as a professor that’s shown me not just the knowledge of God but grace and mercy of God.
On that note, since this is a place for interaction, I just want to throw out a couple of things that I’m not sure NT Wright has done well, and not sure Dr. Green has caught.
1) When NT Wright says “Union with Christ” I believe it is completely different than what the Re
formed Heritage says about Union with Christ (notably Calvin/Ridderbos/Gaffin), i.e. same term, different content. In the Reformed heritage Union with Christ is NOT just about justification and imputation, it’s about the complete package of distinguishable yet inseparatable facets of the grace of God (example: justification, sanctification, adoption, glorification, etc.) given to believers through our union with Christ. Wright, meanwhile, seens to just equate union with Christ with justification.
2) Wright seens to ignore (not completely, but for the most part) Paul’s emphasis of Adam-Christ (first man-second man) protology-eschatology (while Israel is only a type in typology). While not saying Israel is not-important (it is very important), but Paul’s epistles seen to make it clear where he’s coming from in out-working the Doctrine of Salvation (Adam-Christ).
Of course I’m more than willing to admit I’m by far a scholar and would be open to any criticism and correction.
In Christ,
David Chen
June 4th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
David,
Nice to hear from a fellow classmate. Hope your summer is going well.
Two possible difficulties with your assessments: 1) I do not think that Wright “equates” justification with union with Christ. Where did you get the idea that he did? 2) I believe Wright would say that Israel was a type of Adam, thus it is not subordinate in the story of redemption.