Breaking News! N. T. Wright Believes in the Trinity!
A couple of issues back New Horizons, the official magazine of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (”We’re Tiny, So You Know We’re Orthodox!”) printed what in my opinion was one of the most virulent smears against Bishop N. T. Wright that I’ve seen in print. That’s saying a lot, because among the Truly Reformed, smearing Tom Wright is generally considered more fun than finding a box of Banner of Truth back issues at a garage sale. In a review of a popular Bible study series by Wright, John Fesko implied that Wright was a closet modalist who denied the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. This set off a firestorm of blog posts and at least two letters printed in the next issue of New Horizons documenting the many, many places in his writings and speeches where Wright is crystal clear on the Trinity.
Not only did this not result in any retraction (thus far) from Dr. Fesko, but Dr. Richard Gaffin, Jr, for whom I otherwise have immense respect, seemed to add insult to injury in a follow-up letter to New Horizons. He objected to one of the previous letter writers having cited him as saying that Wright provided “a helpful and lucid demonstration of Paul’s triune view of God.” Gaffin did not deny having said that, but for some reason felt that he needed to “correct” that quotation by informing us that he went on to say in the original context that his “…ongoing reading of Dr. Wright leaves [him] with growing concerns about his Christology, especially his view that the messianic consciousness of Jesus during his ministry on earth was no higher than that of an eschatological prophet, without a consciousness of his essential deity.” So if we can’t catch him on trinitarianism, we’ll get him on his christology?
This evening I was delighted to find that David Booth, a member of the OPC, had contacted Bishop Wright and obtained a response to both of these accusations. Read Wright’s own words here.
While Fesko, Gaffin, and the editors of New Horizons may still not agree with Wright’s way of speaking of the messianic consciousness, I believe they owe him an apology for insinuating that he is anything less than orthodox in his trinitarianism and in his christology.
Photo “borrowed” from Snubnosed-in-Alpha
Share on Facebook
May 1st, 2007 at 1:47 am
more fun than finding a box of Banner of Truth back issues at a garage sale
One of the funniest one liners I have read in a long time.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:46 am
Mark,
If someone has a defective Christology, does not also mean they have a defective Trinitarian theology? Dr. Gaffin certainly was not mean spirited in his brief comment in New Horizons, he was just expressing concerns he has about Wright’s view of the second person of the Trinity. Dr. Fesko’s article is another matter though.
Ben D.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:51 am
By the way I am not saying that Wright has a defective Christology. . . I am just responding to your question: “So if we can’t catch him on trinitarianism, we’ll get him on his christology?”
May 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Ben,
I didn’t mean to imply that Dr. Gaffin was “mean-spirited,” just that I’m confused by the purpose of the “clarification.” He did not deny that he had written that Wright had provided “a helpful and lucid demonstration of Paul’s triune view of God.†So if he is suspicious of the orthodoxy of Wright’s christology to the point that he would bring it up as a clarification of his previous statement, was he trying to negate his previous statement, to take it back? That’s what is not clear to me.
Whether or not Wright’s christology is orthodox is a matter for another debate, it seems to me. But as you helpfully point out, if your christology is seriously messed up then you can hardly come out orthodox in your trinitarianism.
So is Wright’s christology unorthodox? Just as with the issue of the trinity, he has been abundantly clear in many places that he believes that Jesus Christ is indeed God incarnate, the second person of the Trinity. What he has questioned is not that essential truth but rather what is known as the “divine consciousness” of Jesus Christ in his human nature. To put it in modern investigative reporting terms: what did he know and when did he know it?
I know that Gaffin, following Vos, holds to some kind of “full consciousness” view. In other words, the walking around Jesus of Nazareth was fully aware of his divinity. But as Wright says in the post I linked above, that seems to beg the questions dealing with passages that seem to indicate limited knowledge and growing awareness on the part of Jesus of Nazareth. If you read Wright’s response, you’ll see that he is quite clear that in some way Jesus, at least by the time he began his “ministry,” knew that he was “doing and saying what only YHWH coudl do or say.” Wright just has his doubts that Jesus of Nazareth woke up every morning thinking, “Hey! I’m the second person of the Trinity!”
Personally, while in the end we might not be comfortable with Wright’s take on messianic/divine consciousness, I don’t see how it leads to a conclusion that his christology is so messed up that he’s not really an orthodox trinitarian.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:26 am
I might add that the fact that this is controversial at all points to what I see as the heart of what in my opinion has become a lamentable and unnecessary breach among some in the WTS tradition of presbyterianism. Because of fears that something essential will be lost, we have been reduced to a Miller Lite shouting match in which one side shouts “more divine!” and the other “but human too!” This drives some in each camp, perhaps out of frustration, to begin to pound on their side of the table with only an occasional hat tip to the other side. What gets sadly lost in all that is true Chalcedonianism: Jesus Christ is both divine and human in one person.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:55 am
Mark,
I do believe that Dr. Gaffin’s and Dr. Fesko’s descriptions of Wright’s views are fundamentally different. Dr. Gaffin thought that Bishop Wright was being unclear - and this troubled him. Dr. Fesko suggested that Bishop Wright’s views on the Trinity would be acceptable to Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Such language is extremely inflammatory and demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth.
My chief concern about Professor Gaffin coming to Dr. Fesko’s defense is that we in the OPC rightly esteem Dr. Gaffin for his careful scholarship. His support for Dr. Fesko could lead the majority of people in the OPC to thinking that N.T. Wright is a Trinitarian heretic.
We all make mistakes. Sometimes we make big ones. Yet, when we misrepresent someone as badly as Dr. Fesko has done - we don’t need to be defended - we need to apologize.
David
May 1st, 2007 at 10:06 am
I think that’s an excellent way of setting out the issues, David.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Pardon me if I ask the unaskable, but why the need to defend Wright? What makes him so special? He is a bishop in a church with serious problems and if his biblical skills are so superior, he might use them more deftly for the sake of his communion than in leading Presbyterians away from their traditions. Aside from this, he’s a bishop in a powerful state church. Does he really need assistance from Presbyterians whom the Church of England has never heard of?
I also find it somewhat humorous that tensions between Wright and Gaffin are apparently less funny than those between Hodge and Murray on the Covenant. Why not a post title, “Breaking News: Murray Doesn’t Believe in the Covenant of Works”? Now that would be funny.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Darryl,
First of all - I love your books. Thank you!
Second, the reason why it is necessary to point out that Bishop Wright is Trinitarian is because my denominational magazine has published an article that wrongly accuses him of being a heretic. As someone who has been quite critical of Wright’s formulation of the doctrine of justification, I certainly don’t believe that he, or any other minister, is somehow above criticism. Yet, don’t we have an obligation to treat those we disagree with fairly? When it is brought to our attention that we have misrepresented someone, or judged them unfairly, isn’t it our Christian duty to apologize?
David
May 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
A “I like wright, he has some helpful things to say”
B “are you inSANE? He denies the trinity and divine consicousness of Christ!”
A “Really? I read somewhere he didn’t”
A “Look, here he says he didn’t”
B “why do you feel the need to defend Wright?”
A: “My sanity was called into question because I said I appreciated him”
May 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[...] What is with the TRs and NT Wright? Now Richard Gaffin is thinking that Wright is downplaying Christ… Posted by: Adam Omelianchuk @ 3:20 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
May 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Is the problem not that folks are desperate to avoid “guilt-by-association”? In an environment where heresy hunting is the most popular sport, you want to duck wherever you go…
May 1st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
If readers of Wright read him as critically as they read New Horizons, I wonder if they might have a different assessment of said bishop. I am actually having trouble understanding why criticism of American Presbyterian writers is okay, but critiques of English clergy is prohibited. I thought we fought a war to be free to criticize English bishops. Are defenders of Wright really Communists?
May 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
((Mark puts on his red beret and prepares to hurl Molotov cocktails at the tsar’s winter palace))
Come now, Darryl. Has anyone said that Wright should not be read critically? I think any of us who have read Wright carefully and extensively have found areas of his thinking with which we are not comfortable. David Booth, the blogger who was able to obtain a personal response from Bishop Wright, himself admitted above that he could not agree with Wright on justification.
What is being protested here is not critical readings of Wright. For truly fair critical readings we should be thankful. But what Fesko wrote is difficult to characterize as anything other than a smear. Do you really want to go on record, Darryl, that Fesko’s assessment was fair and accurate?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Mark thanks for the link and the discussion here.
David, an additional thanks to everyone elses for pursuing Wright and trying to make peace here. The Lord bless you in that effort.
I don’t know Fesko but I hope he’s able to see Wrights response and this discussion. It would good to seem him chim in here…
May 1st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
It speaks volumes that when denizens of an academic ghetto makes verifiably false and also baseless statements about a man on the outside, that someone from that same academic ghetto will use the man’s unsavory church associations to question why anyone who is orthodox would defend the man.
If you want a working example of real NT Pharisaism within Reformedville, it ain’t the FV. It is right here.
“I am actually having trouble understanding why criticism of American Presbyterian writers is okay, but critiques of English clergy is prohibited.”
The issue is using positions of authority to sell lies to laymen.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Darryl,
(a) The reason Murray v. Hodge is “less funny” than Wright v. Gaffin is that, at least to my knowledge, nobody questioned whether Murray or Hodge were God-fearing Christians because of their views on the covenant of works.
(b) You know full well that this responses to *certain* of Wright’s critics has absolutely nothing to do with either his job or nationality. Many American scholars and laity alike have points of contention with Wright and welcome healthy debate. What they’d/we’d object to, however, is when those points correspond to misrepresentation or slander. Nobody–at least, nobody I know–is defending Wright for Wright’s sake. If they are, they should be ashamed.
(c) Speaking of Murray, I’m a little confused/frustrated that Gaffin would criticize Wright’s view of Jesus’ messianic self-consciousness, yet assign Murray’s essay on “Christ’s Obedience,” which contains lines like, “If [Jesus] increased in wisdom he must have increased in knowledge, and this increase in knowledge must have applied preeminently to his understanding of the Father’s will and of the purpose for which he came into the world” and others (Collected Writings, 2:153). Given his other essay on the hypostatic union, one wonders what Murray would say about Jesus’ divine self-consciousness, which is admittedly a different issue.
(d) You wrote: “He is a bishop in a church with serious problems and if his biblical skills are so superior, he might use them more deftly for the sake of his communion than in leading Presbyterians away from their traditions.”
That’s unfair and you know it. The man writes tons of books, many are aimed just as much at the Anglican Communion as they are for other denominations, and there’s absolutely no way a person can write a book to please everyone from every angle. And in addition to that, in his own diocese he’s brought numerous measures to improve the biblical, theological, and pragmatic knowledge of both priests and laity. The man can’t change the whole Communion either with writings or running a diocese, but he’s doing his best with the talents God’s given him. Give the man a break.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Arrrgh. Why must this devolve into the usual polemical mug-slinging!?! Darryl, c’mon! This is about Wright’s Trinitarian doctrine. There are men who have grave disagreements with Wright who have the integrity to defend him against Trinitarian heresy. It’s the honorable thing to do:
http://tinyurl.com/298m3w
May 1st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
The problem turns into one of trust. If a group of leaders make a habit out of saying things that are, well, wrong, then after a while I have to stop viewing them as credible sources.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 am
Sinclair Ferguson, in the midst of a critique of Wright and the NPP, said the following:
“He has strongly defended Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxies.”
Reference
HT: Barb
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am
“more fun than finding a box of Banner of Truth back issues at a garage sale” … *big smile* … Uhm, should I say, “Thank you!” for the honorable mention? By the way, I might be able to hook you up with a few of back issues without visiting too many garage sales.
Steve Burlew, Manager
Banner of Truth - North America
Carlisle, PA
http://www.trophiesofhisgrace.blogspot.com
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 am
[...] the other hand, defending Wright from misrepresentation and slander can get one labelled as a “follower” in some [...]
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 am
Lemme just add why I think people might be uncomfortable with Wright’s understanding of Jesus’ self consciousness.
We have the hypostatic union as a matter of simply expressed dogma. We teach it to our kids. My son at 4 loved to say “God is Jesus and Jesus is God”.
It seems hard to accept that at some point when Jesus was 30 years old, he would have had LESS of an understanding of his own hypostatic union than we ourselves might express as 12 year olds or 20 year olds. Is Wright saying that he did? He says something about “test-tube” knowledge, but that’s ill defined and we need to say that Jesus had a dogmatic knowledge as well.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 am
“I am actually having trouble understanding why criticism of American Presbyterian writers is okay, but critiques of English clergy is prohibited.”
he he! Pretty funny!
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Wait. Is “Darryl Hart” in this thread the same person as the author of *Deconstructing Evangelicalism*, *Recovering Mother Kirk*, and *With Reverence and Awe*? Please tell me no.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
“Pardon me if I ask the unaskable, but why the need to defend Wright?”
Because there are people who bear false witness against him.
“What makes him so special?”
I like to think that part of it is that he’s clearly someone who knows something about music. In any case he’s an engaging writer. And when he speaks, he speaks English rather than sect-speak.
Mr. Hart,
Are we catholics or sectarians? Where’s your catholicity? Who is my neighbor?
Before N.T. Wright is a bishop or an Anglican, he is a man baptized into Christ. As such, he belongs to the whole church. And I, before I am a member of the uncatholic sect that is today’s “Presbyterianism,” am a man baptized into Christ. As such, I belong to the whole church, not just to an “-ism.” That makes us brothers in Christ. If he, or someone else, is falsely accused, it’s worth setting the record straight.
“What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity [or covenant theology, or anything else] if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity?” ~ Thomas à Kempis
Lord, have mercy.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
This is something I wrote elsewhere, that some might find useful.
RJRushdoony would say that God created hell for people who ask questions like how Jesus’ divine and human consciousness(es?) worked. It borders on blasphemy to think that we can think as God thinks. We are not God, and to try to put ourselves in God’s shoes is blasphemy. And for that reason, to try and understand in depth how Jesus could have the eternal mind of the Son and yet also grow up as a human being, is blasphemy. We have to leave it as a mystery.
Though I think this much can be said. Human beings, the images of God, have the ability to suppress what they know. We call it self-deception. We can conveniently forget things that we don’t like, bury them deep. Now if WE can do that, surely the Son can also do it in a sinless way. If the Son buried His divine self-awareness at his incarnation, and only gradually allowed it to resurface, well, that’s the kind of thing we who are in the image of Son often do. I’d be willing to say that much.
But beyond that I’m not going. No way.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Joel wrote:
“Wait. Is “Darryl Hart†in this thread the same person as the author of *Deconstructing Evangelicalism*, *Recovering Mother Kirk*, and *With Reverence and Awe*?”
‘Tis.
And before someone asks, yes, the James B. Jordan whose comment appears above this one is that James B. Jordan.
What a strange world this blogosphere be!
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:58 am
Obviously, people are touchy about Wright. And I thought this was the age of Prozac.
Let the readers understand that Mark started this string of comments by saying that Fesko et al should apologize to Wright for suggesting or stating that the bishop’s views are less than orthodox. Wait a minute. Since the Church of England is not in communion with the OPC, the bishop’s communion has already made it known that it considers Orthodox Presbyterians less than Orthodox. Who needs to apologize now?
No one. Because this is what churches and book reviews and pastors do. They criticize. Where did this idea originate that to disagree is a breach of one of the commandments? I think it actually predates Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together. But after at least a millennium of church divisions I’d have thought Protestants of all people wouldn’t be shocked by the proposition that Presbyterians may actually disagree with Anglicans.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Darryl,
If New Horizons had written: “While one cannot be sure what Hart’s personal views are on the Trinity, his statements reveal no concept of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Given this absence, one suspects that Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses would have no problem with his definitions and descriptions of the Holy Spirit” - please know that I would defend you. Why shouldn’t I do the same for Bishop Wright?
As to Wright’s actual teaching in his own words, he writes: “OF
COURSE I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as set out in the Apostles,
Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds and formulae, not to mention my own
denomination’s 39 articles.” And contrary to the quotation above from New Horizons, Wright refers to the Holy Spirit as being “a distinct member of the divine Trinity (Simply Christian, p. 140).” These hardly seem like the sort of views that would be acceptable to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnessess.
The task of critically reviewing books of theology is an important part of safeguarding the orthodoxy of the church. While engaging in such a process, errors will inevitably be made and people will be critiqued for views that they don’t hold. When we make such mistakes, shouldn’t we correct them?
I’m certain that you don’t mean to give this impression, but your three posts on this blog almost imply that it doesn’t matter whether or not Wright’s views are being fairly presented - that it is o.k. to say things that aren’t true about his teaching simply because he isn’t one of us. Again, I’m certain that you don’t mean to give that impression.
So when you are accused of teaching a doctrine of the Trinity which “one suspects that Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses would have no problem with”; you may be surprised how few people defend you. After all, who wants to be known as a defender of a Trinitarian heretic. Nevertheless, I will defend you … and I’m pretty sure that Mark will defend you as well.
David
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
Come to think of it, in all of his many comments on this blog and the other blog in which I participate (connversation.wordpress.com), I’ve never once seen Darryl reveal a concept of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. So maybe…..
I keed! I keed!
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
Dr. Hart,
Mark started this string of comments by saying that Fesko et al should apologize for suggesting or stating that the bishop denies the doctrine of the Trinity, not for stating or suggesting that his “views are less than orthodox.” We are talking about a specific outlandish, unsubstantiated allegation made against Wright, not about criticism of Wright in general. David Booth criticizes Wright for his take on justification. But that doesn’t keep him from recognizing that Fesko’s claims were without warrant and might even be slanderous.
Now I find it hilarious that you have yet to go on record to say that Fesko’s assessment of Wright’s Trinitarian views was fair and accurate. In fact, you’ve never actually engaged the specific issue this post brought up. I suspect this is because you know that Fesko’s charge was without foundation.
If you want to criticize Wright, fine. Go ahead. Nobody said you shouldn’t or couldn’t (and no one was daft enough to think that you wouldn’t). But be honest in your criticism. As it stands it doesn’t seem like you’re really defending the OPC’s right to engage in theological criticism but rather the OPC’s right to spin out slanderous, obscurantist bull-crap.
The real irony is that the complaint against Fesko et al was that they had created a strawman of Wright by saying that he was a non-Trinitarian and in order to defend Fesko et al you have set up a further strawman of Wright’s defenders by saying that they object to criticism of Wright per se.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I was caught speeding the other day, but the cop was Presbyterian. I showed him my official Real Human Being card and he apologized and waved me on by.
I chatted with him at church later and he confessed he didn’t always read the radar right. He had in my case (not that it mattered), but some foreign cars just distracted him and he would jump the gun–pull out with lights flashing before realizing they weren’t speeding. He shrugged and said in those cases he had to follow through and issue a citation. Otherwise no one would respect the law.
I confess I had been a little put out by the inconvenience, but I saw him writing an Anglican a speeding ticket this morning and it made me feel better.
Just so long as everyone knows their place and we treat our real family with the proper respect.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Nicole Terry Wright looks alot cuter than she did when I met her in philly.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Without your comment, pduggie, the humor would have eluded me.
LOL!
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
And me! I had no idea that the woman in the picture was named Wright.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I feel like I’m listening in on someone else’s conversation, as I have no particular connection to any of the communities that you all are discussing. But I have to say that I’m appalled that Christians who defend other Christians against slander and false witness must then defend themselves as well. What happened to things like integrity and character among those who would call themselves the people of God? It’s embarrassing.
Mark - thanks for being a voice of reason and justice.
May 5th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I know I’m jumping in way too late, but whatever.
It seems like not defending Wright upon reading the Fesko review would violate a person’s adherence to the Westminster Standards. So, shame on all the ministers out there who didn’t jump on this thing.
Q. 143. Which is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.
Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any; endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I’m glad Mark avoided a speeding ticket, but I hope the cop was a member of the real Presbyterian church, not one of the poser denominations. You can’t take the P-word for granted.
David accuses the OPC (that is the true one, right?) of spinning out “slanderous, obscurantist bull crap” (Does the foolishsage.com really forbit the s-word?) but balks at Fesko suggesting that Wright is less than orthodox. I’m not sure why he can’t see that what I am doing in defending Fesko and the OPC is just like what he is doing for NTW. If Wright can be defended, why can’t Fesko and the OPC?
It seems that the reason is that Fesko is wrong and Wright is right. And worse, I am wrong to defend Fesko and the OPC because I haven’t engaged the substance of the issue. But neither have Wright’s defenders here. They have quoted from an e-mail he sent. They haven’t actually gone either to the book in question and shown how Fesko misread the book or gone to other parts of the Wright canon to show where Wright corrects Fesko. (BTW, if Fesko is correct in detecting a modalist view of the Trinity in Wright’s book, then wouldn’t the h-word be appropriate?)
Commentators here are correct to notice that I haven’t engaged the substance. I haven’t because — horrors — I haven’t read Wright (do I earn credit for listening to his Aub. Ave lectures). My reason for jumping in is partly my own involvement in that true Presbyterian church mentioned above. But mainly it has to do with my work as an observer of American Presbyterianism. I am and continue to be truly bewildered by Wright’s appeal. I can’t think of other non-Reformed religious scholars whom students at WTS and members of the PCA and OPC would go to such lengths to defend. I myself have my own non-Reformed favorite authors, like Gil Meilaender, C. S. Lewis, Stanley Hauerwas (who could be counted on to use the s-word), Leon Kass, and even Wendell Berry (who does a pretty good imitation of a Christian ethcist). But I don’t feel compelled to defend them if they are reviewed critically in New Horisons. That publication evaluates books differently than say First Things or Books & Culture. That is the nature of an editorial point of view.
So I’m still puzzled by the shock and outrage and wish someone would try to explain the wonder that is N. T. Wright.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Darryl:
Being puzzled by what you perceive as an unwarranted love affair between many in PCA/OPC/WTS and N. T. Wright is one thing. You have every right to be as baffled as you like. Befuddlement is on no one’s list of the deadly sins.
However, to continue to insist that because Wright is not Presbyterian we should not bother to defend him when he is clearly slandered in print is quite another. It would seem that if you have not read Wright then perhaps you should remove yourself from knee-jerk defense of Fesko.
Your statement that no one has gone to the Wright canon to refute Fesko’s charge is simply inexplicable. Have you not read your own denominational magazine? Two letter writers (in the short space allowed to a letter to the editor) gave several references from Wright’s writing that he is staunchly and vociferously orthodox in his trinitarianism. Additionally, even though Dr. Gaffin in his follow up letter to New Horizons objected to being named in Wright’s defense, he did not deny that the quotation of him was correct. And then we have Wright’s own testimony in the email receive by David Booth. Are you prepared to call the bishop a liar when he asks us to take him at his word that he believes and teaches the historic, orthodox doctrine of the trinity?
To reiterate what has already been said about the Fesko inisnuation, what he did was to pick out one section from a popular-level Bible study, and because Wright in that one place did not spell out in full confessional form every single aspect of the doctrine of the trinity, Fesko implies that he may be a modalist. If we scanned every article or Bible study written at a popular level by every theologian in this way, the heresy trials would never end. This is why you see us so worked up. What Fesko did can in no way be defended as the normal give-and-take of scholarly debate. To willfully ignore or dismiss the entire canon of a scholar’s writing along with his own personal testimony and affirmations is, as Jason demonstrated above, sinful. It violates the ninth commandment.
Darryl, I have to say that you are stretching my ability to take you seriously as a scholar to near its breaking point. To admit that you are largely ignorant of Wright’s work but then call us who have studied his work to task for pointing out that Fesko has slandered him so blatantly seems to reveal that you are operating out of prejudice rather than scholarship. Wright is “bad” (so you’ve heard) and so if Fesko says something hideous about him, it must be true. And if it’s not true, well at least it’s warranted, because after all, we all know Wright is “bad,” right? And besides, he’s not a member of the True Church, so slander away. You can rant all you want about the tragedy of Presbyterians and WTS students spending time on N. T. Wright. You can name it the demise of Christianity or of Western Civilization if you like. But that is clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand, and you must know it. It is a smokescreen. The issue before us is whether or not Fesko was in his rights to proclaim in print that Wright may be a modalist. That’s it. Let’s keep to what this is really all about, shall we?
May 6th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Darryl,
Jason’s quotation of the Larger Catechism’s discussion of the 9th commandment is quite appropriate. The question is: Why would someone choose to defend Wright, when he is critiqued in New Horizons, rather than defend R.C. Sproul and Dick Gaffin when they are critiqued by the Trinity Review?
My public defense of Wright is based far more on my love for the OPC than for Bishop Wright himself (not that there is anything wrong with those who are motivated primarily from their appreciation of Bishop Wright). The reason I don’t bother to defend R.C. Sproul and Dick Gaffin is that I feel no sense of solidarity with the Trinity Review. In fact, I believe the best thing that can be done with the Trinity Review is to ignore it. But I can’t ignore my denomination’s magazine precisely because it is MY denomination’s magazine.
The OPC is my church family. I feel a profound sense of corporate solidarity with those brothers and sisters with whom I am united in this branch of Christ’s church. So when we, through our official magazine, badly misrepresent someone - I feel a very real and personal responsibility to attempt to rectify the situation.
What is baffling to me is why rectifying situations like this is so difficult. It is easy to point to places in Wright’s teaching where he “celebrates the fact of the Trinity” or calls the Holy Spirit “a distinct member of the Trinity” (contrary to the suggestion that his view is modalistic). Furthermore, this is not a debate about nuanced differences of understanding. To say that “one suspects that Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses would have no problems with his definitions and descriptions of the Holy Spirit” is an extremely evocative comment. Given that Bishop Wright’s Trinitarianism is clearly unacceptable to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, shouldn’t we retract and apologize for this claim?
Why can’t we seem to do this? Why can’t we simply clarify our statements in light of the evidence, to point out that we didn’t mean to be taken the way some people have understood us, and to apologize if that is what is called for?
David
May 6th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Mark: no need to get personal about this and question my abilities as a scholar. It would be like my thinking you a good guitar-player because you put up a decent website. We may be talking about different categories — blogging and other bits of life.
But scholarly dispassion might have a role in this debate since I am trying to point out that the issue is not simply Fesko’s review but also the amount of heat it has generated. Do people realize the sorts of claims that are made monthly in denominational periodicals that may not be agreeable to a host of readers? And yet one negative review of Wright generates all sorts of moral grandstanding about fairness, slander and even the ninth commandment.
Could it be that the avid readers of Wright have some personal bias in their reading of Fesko? Could it be that the studious reading of Wright also has the infatuation of being a fan?
I don’t know if Wright is wrong. From what I heard in the Aub. Ave. lectures I tend to side with Gaffin. But Wright knows more Greek than I. So he might have some points. But then, so does any other member of the Society of Biblical Literature. Which is partly my point in asking what the deal with Wright is. Of all the contemporary writers on the Bible, why has he gained the the sort of celebrity that used to be reserved to Tim Keller?
At the same time, I know more of the Westminster Standards than Wright does. And for me part of my commitment as a Presbyterian is informed by my vows to subscribe those statements. I am not a biblicist. The Bible can be interpreted and reinterpreted to make it mean almost anything. That’s one thing the history of Christianity teaches. But to be a part of a church is to play by the rules that define it as a moral community. The reason for playing up the differences between Presbyterianism and Anglicanism is to try to help people see what their ecclesial commitments might involve. Being a Presbyterian may mean that I don’t recommend Al Mohler to the rest of the OPC.
You may think that I divide the world between Presbyterians and all the rest. You wouldn’t be the first. I actually think it is possible to read all sorts of non-Presbyterian authors for profit and even edification without wanting to admit them into full membership. But I also have heard enough of Wright not to be shocked that Reformed Christians would criticize him. Some of those criticisms may be better or more plausible than others. But is criticizing Wright a sin? Is it completely forbidden in a review to suggest the implications of a writer’s thought? Is it irresponsible to draw out ideas that the author may not have considered? And is it wrong in a magazine for church members to give them some guidance about what to look out for in a book? If the answer to these questions is yes, then haven’t the people attacking Fesko committed the same sin?
May 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Darryl,
Criticism is “Wright’s interpretation on passage X does not take into account…”
Criticism is “Wright’s conclusion does not logically follow from his premises…”
To claim that Wright denies the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is not “criticism.” They used to burn people for such things. And it is all the more heinous when there is abundant evidence to the contrary of such a ridiculous charge.
You keep trying to obfuscate the central issue by claiming that since I’m a Presbyterian and Wright is not, a bold-faced lie told about him, brazenly in a denominational magazine, just shouldn’t matter to me. Sorry, I have a higher regard for brothers in Christ than that, no matter their denomination. Heck, I have a higher regard for human beings created in God’s image than that.
Hide behind your denominational, confessional cloak all you want. Call me biblicist; I guess I’ll wear the label with pride. Because my Bible says that bearing false witness is a sin.
Come to think of it, someone recently pointed out that so does your beloved Confession, Darryl.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:58 am
The two best lines I’ve heard in a long time - absolutely priceless! I hereby confer my own personal “D.D.” on you.
MT:
That’s saying a lot, because among the Truly Reformed, smearing Tom Wright is generally considered more fun than finding a box of Banner of Truth back issues at a garage sale.
DH:
Of all the contemporary writers on the Bible, why has he gained the the sort of celebrity that used to be reserved to Tim Keller?
May 7th, 2007 at 7:08 am
So Mark, does the Bible tell you to call other Christians liars by way of a blog? I seem to recall Matt. 18 had something to say about this.
But aside from these high moral stakes, I don’t see how you have “proved” that Fesko lied any more than that he “proved” Wright denied Christian orthodoxy. I don’t believe that reviews have to prove everything they say. You may certainly disagree with Fesko. Does that disagreement make him a liar, a slander, a man worthy of being slandered?
And if you have such a high regard for brothers in Christ, is Fesko chopped liver? Didn’t Christ hang with prostitutes and tax collectors? Can’t you find some room in your compassionate heart for authors of bad reviews?
So the question isn’t whether Fesko lied. For me anyway it is whether it is possible to discuss defects in Wright’s views. I do find it curious that to discuss the latter leads some to jump to moral conclusions about discussants.
Would it be possible to chill?
May 7th, 2007 at 8:03 am
I am utterly speechless after your last response, Darryl. If your goal was to silence me on this issue, you’ve succeeded….but not for the reason you might think.
If anyone else wants to fly to Planet Hart and try to communicate with the aliens, have at it. He’s all yours.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:11 am
And yes, I know that last comment sounds horribly disrespectful. I will probably need to repent. But right now I am terribly frustrated. A clear and very dangerous falsehood about Wright has been published. I and many others have called attention to it, provided proof that it is false, and simply asked for retraction, if not an apology. Now for doing that I am accused of violating Matthew 18. Additionally, Mr. Hart would like to play “blame the victim” and turn this into a discussion about Bishop Wright.
Can anyone else see why I might be just slightly flabbergasted?
May 7th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Mark,
While I share your frustration, you did make a mistake in one of your earlier posts when you wrote that there was a “bold-faced lie told about (Wright)” in New Horizons. While what Dr. Fesko wrote is demonstrably false, we normally and rightly reserve the word “lie” for when the author is knowingly saying something that is false.
For Darryl:
You are still my favorite church historian, but I am truly stunned by some of the comments that you have posted in this thread. Two questions:
1. Did you really mean to write: “The Bible can be interpreted and reinterpreted to make it mean almost anything”? “Or did you intend to convey that the Bible can be ‘misinterpreted’ to make it mean almost anything”? Surely studying church history hasn’t caused you to abandoned the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura!
2. You write: “Do people realize the sorts of claims that are made monthly in denominational periodicals that may not be agreeable to a host of readers?” Of course I do, but we are not talking about denominational periodicals in general, we are talking about OUR denominational magazine. Secondly, we are not talking about writing things that people don’t like - we are talking about accusing someone of being a Trinitarian heretic when the evidence clearly demonstrates that such a claim is false. I don’t open New Horizons every month wondering who we are going to wrongly accuse of being a heretic this month - and I’m sure that you don’t either. But let me ask you to simply demonstrate your claim. Would you please provide a single example from an article (letters to the editor are by their very nature more controversial and are not generally thought to represent the views of the magazine) in New Horizons from the past two years where:
a. Someone was accused of teaching doctrinal error on the magnitude of saying: “one suspects that Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses would have no problems with his definitions and descriptions of the Holy Spiritâ€; and
b. That claim was demonstrably false; and
c. The magazine refused to retract and apologize for the error.
You seem to believe that these things happen all of the time and that the really odd thing is that people care to defend Wright. I am claiming that making such demonstrably false claims about a public teacher like Bishop Wright is NOT something that our denominational magazine regularly publishes and that the shameful, yes SHAMEFUL, reality is that we seem unwilling to simply correct this error and apologize.
Please provide the evidence to support your claims. I am willing to be corrected - are you?
David
May 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am
David,
Thank you for pointing out my unjust statement. When I last replied to Darryl above I hadn’t realized that in the heat of this debate I had said that. Darryl is quite right then that to imply that Dr. Fesko a “bold-faced liar” is way out of line. I apologize to Dr. Fesko and my readers and most certainly withdraw that statement.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Did I really just see a denial of the perspecuity of Scripture?
May 7th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Comment removed at author’s request.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I think I’m pretty much done with this conversation. I just wanted to say thanks to David Booth. Mr. Booth, you’ve been a model of Christian charity, integrity and poise throughout. Thank you.
If only my own comments exhibited the same maturity and level-headedness.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“I’d have thought Protestants of all people wouldn’t be shocked by the proposition that Presbyterians may actually disagree with Anglicans.”
Really a non-sequitur Mr Hart. Presbyterians generally haven’t disagreed with each other as to christology or the trinity. Its a pretty serious charge to complain about Mormonism or russelism among a group that you hold to a common trinitarian faith with
May 7th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“Of all the contemporary writers on the Bible, why has he gained the the sort of celebrity that used to be reserved to Tim Keller?”
wondering in bewilderment at someones popularity and not having read anything by him possibly are connected in some way.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“And if you have such a high regard for brothers in Christ, is Fesko chopped liver? Didn’t Christ hang with prostitutes and tax collectors?”
Thats an interesting comparison.
Of course, I don’t know Fesko’s personal morality well enough to say it isn’t a valid analogy.
Engaging in rarified theological criticism in an unjustified and malicious way would more be the sin of the pharisees, and if Fesko is a guilty sinner on this count, then the biblical analogy would be Christ’s attitude towards the pharisees, who he did not “hang” with.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Mark, I didn’t give my post-titling much thought, and now I see that my trackback comes across in an especially abnoxious manner. I have changed this on my page, but if it doesn’t change here please delete it.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Removed as you requested, Steven.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Well, it sounds like the solution to this little imbroglio is rather simple: Dr. Hart should begin reading Wright’s corpus without further delay. He can then reach his own conclusions about which sections of the Nicene Creed on which Wright is wobbly. May I suggest these three rather large books…
May 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Your 25-page research paper is due in one week…
May 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
What would a book on Nevin look like by Dr. Fesko. But if history had gone differently, and Fesko had made up falsehoods about Nevin’s beliefs, and Mark had pointed them out on this blog, does anyone doubt that Hart would be a good lawyer and pull out all the evasions above to criticize anyone for “siding” with Nevin?
I realize this is not the Westminster Confession and therefore cannot be objectively understoo since God is so much worse at clearly communicating than the Westminster devines, but nevertheless the following passage popped into my head as having direct relevance to what is going on here:
When they were near Jebus, the day was nearly over, and the servant said to his master, “Come now, let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites and spend the night in it.†And his master said to him, “We will not turn aside into the city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel, but we will pass on to Gibeah.â€
May 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“understooD” “Westminster DIvines” and who know what else. Please forgive errors in spelling.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“I don’t know if Wright is wrong. From what I heard in the Aub. Ave. lectures I tend to side with Gaffin. But Wright knows more Greek than I. So he might have some points.”
Since they never disagreed on the Trinity, this is irrelevant.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Just to avoid any confusion, the comments signed “Mark” are by a different Mark. Mine are all signed with my full name.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
If I started to read Wright, I wouldn’t have time to read foolishsage.
I regret having upset Mark, the host. But on the topic of Wright it seems impossible not to upset Wrightians if you suggest that criticisms of Wright might be fair (not necessarily because Fesko was right but because Wright does not walk on water). I have been trying to defend the responsibilities of reviewers to raise problems in author’s work. An author may not always be aware of the implications of an assertion or argument and it may contradict other assertions the author makes in other books.
This seems pretty basic to the world of book reviewing. Add to that a denominational and theological context in which polemical theology has been not merely tolerated but also encouraged and you have expectations for critical comments raised even higher. In that context I don’t see that Fesko did anything unusual. But I do continue to think the attachment to Wright is curious if it unleashes such volatile reactions. As I’ve said, I’d never expect to see Stan Hauerwas or Gil Meilaender emerge unscathed in New Horizons. Why Wright’s fans think otherwise suggests either an inordinate attachment to one man (can anyone remember Paul’s warnings about being members of parties within the church?) or a misunderstanding of the review process.
I’m still convinced Mark is a good guitar player even if I also think that if he was so offended by Fesko’s review he had an obligation on the basis of Christian charity to go to Fesko and point out the error before making it public. If the stakes really are so high, then we better go by the good book.
To David, I appreciate the kind words. On Sola Scriptura — I haven’t abandoned the doctrine. But I have seen it abused in ways to allow individual interpreters to appeal to their own interpretations over the doctrinal standards of their own communion. Church history and contemporary American Protestantism are legion with the individual’s interpretation functioning as the final word on said passage. (I would hope that Wright is not guilty of this but actually checks his own biblical studies against the ecumenical creeds and the 39 Articles?)
On New Horizons, David, I don’t expect the magazine to condemn authors erroneously. I do expect New Horizons to condemn correctly. I understand that people here think the Fesko article was in error. What I don’t understand is the idea that condemning Wright is automatically erroneous. It obviously is controversial. But so is condemning images of Christ and criticizing Pete Enns book. In other words, I expect that New Horizons will run ideas and opinions to which other people object. It has a history of doing this.
If you David published something indicating that Hart denies Sola Scriptura some Hartians might take offense. They might condemn you for slandering me, or even for lying about my good name. But on the basis of an earlier comment here you might have concluded that I did indeed deny the way Protestants have interpreted Sola Scriptura. It seems to me you would be entitled to your opinion and to publish it. I just don’t see what the big deal is about criticizing someone else’s views, even with freighted language. Such polemics have been part and parcel of Christian discourse throughout the history of the church. Fesko looks like a Cub Scout compared to Luther and Calvin.
Why need we take these things so personally?
May 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“In that context I don’t see that Fesko did anything unusual. ”
maybe not. but that’s too bad.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Once upon a time, at an ordination exam of which I was the guest of honor, my orthodoxy was questioned because I was a member of a yahoogroup given to discussing the views of NT Wright. It was not my posts that were questioned. There were almost none, and none were controversial. It was my membership that drew the fire. I was blessed also in that same inquiry to be quizzed publicly as to whether I was in fact the moderator of said list. Not far from asking the loaded question “are you still beating your wife?” Guilty by association I was. Soon after I ordered a small pile of N.T. Wright books, trying to get them in before the banned list is put into force and the confiscations begin. I suppose with this post I now will be categorized on lists of those sympathizing with newly identified and confirmed anti trinitarian movements, though if you look back over, this is not a pro-Wright post but simply an anti-idiocy post.
On another note, it is interesting to me that one who publicly has supported a set liturgy for the OPC as well as an appreciation for historic prayerbook worship, not to mention an outright enthusiasm for other less than orthodox writers such as Wendell Berry, is on the bandwagon to flog an Anglican some Presbyterians find somewhat useful to read. C.S. Lewis should have the same honor, mocking substitutionary atonement as he does. But then he remains politically correct in our circles and does not seem likely to fall under the ban. I just do not understand the hysteria. Who cares if people like Wright? Many who seem to decry fundamentalism in our day still seem to employ one of its most central tenets, namely that purity and isolation necessarily go together. Next we’ll be suggesting that we should not sing hymns written by women, lest we tumble down the inescapable slipperly slope to begin ordaining them. Ah, but that was Eutychus II, wasn’t it?
Greetings from the perspective of a Christian libertarianism where we can read outside the bounds and find worth in those we read critically.
Eutychus III
May 7th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Have you considered, okay it’s Phil Hodson, that in the world of foolishsage.com the guilt-by-association runs toward those who criticize Wright? If you didn’t like the tactic used against you, it seems to me you’d be able to imagine what it feels like for the likes of a Fesko.
And that is the bandwagon I am on — trying to get the Wrightians to see that their world might be as narrow, unforgiving, and intolerant as the one they imagine the OPC to be.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“But on the topic of Wright it seems impossible not to upset Wrightians”
No, it is impossible not to upset Orthodox Confessional Calvinists when you publicly flush the ninth commandment down the toilet in reference to Wright and then send friends to comment on blogs that this behavior is perfectly acceptable and necessary to Orthodox Confessional Calvinism.
“What I don’t understand is the idea that condemning Wright is automatically erroneous”
Unbelievable. That has been neither stated nor implied.
“As I’ve said, I’d never expect to see Stan Hauerwas or Gil Meilaender emerge unscathed in New Horizons. Why Wright’s fans think otherwise suggests either an inordinate attachment to one man (can anyone remember Paul’s warnings about being members of parties within the church?) or a misunderstanding of the review process.”
Did Fesko attack Wright for believing in Woman’s ordination? For accepting a late date for Daniel and refusing to teach inerrancy? For denying the personhood of Satan? If he did that is fine by me.
But when you deliver utter fictions that no one who knows anything (whom are obviouly all “fans” with a party spirit) could fail to recognize as such, claiming they expect him to be “unscathed” is just another obvious fiction invented to justify the unjustifiable.
“I am and continue to be truly bewildered by Wright’s appeal. I can’t think of other non-Reformed religious scholars whom students at WTS and members of the PCA and OPC would go to such lengths to defend. I myself have my own non-Reformed favorite authors, like Gil Meilaender, C. S. Lewis, Stanley Hauerwas (who could be counted on to use the s-word), Leon Kass, and even Wendell Berry (who does a pretty good imitation of a Christian ethcist). But I don’t feel compelled to defend them if they are reviewed critically in New Horisons.”
But when have gross falsehoods been told about C. S. Lewis or Hauerwas like they have been about Wright? This is the classic bullying attack (where the bully attacks a victim until the victim responds and then the bully runs to the authorities and accuses his victim of being the aggressor). First: act toward a man in a way that defies all standards of Christian behavior and truthfulness. Second: point to those who are outraged as if they aresome sort of subversive disciples of a master who is not properly Reformed. “Obviously we are above reproach; there is plainly something not right about them that they would act this way.”
May 7th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Getting back to the point - wasn’t Fesko WRONG??? What else is there to discuss? Why the obscurantist rhetoric and the knee-jerk defense of someone who has been proven to be wrong? Why is the fault with those who defend Wright - who, again let me emphasize, are the ones who are correct?
May 7th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Darryl wrote: “And that is the bandwagon I am on — trying to get the Wrightians to see that their world might be as narrow, unforgiving, and intolerant as the one they imagine the OPC to be.”
I sympathize with this: I do think that many of us who, for instance, sympathize with trajectory of “the npp” are just as narrow as those with whom we disagree and treat them disdainfully, often with the same inappropriate attitude or intolerance that we accuse “the other side” of having. This is particularly sad because many of us claim to be ecumenical, and our behavior often contradicts that. All of us need to be more conscientious.
However, as important as this point is, it’s really not the point of Mark’s post. The point is one person–or rather, a group of people–consistently misrepresented someone else, even when it had been demonstrated that they had. That is unfortunate and frankly it’s embarrassing and sad to watch.
—–
Darryl, you also commented: “I am and continue to be truly bewildered by Wright’s appeal. I can’t think of other non-Reformed religious scholars whom students at WTS and members of the PCA and OPC would go to such lengths to defend.”
I think the reason isn’t very complicated. On the one hand, much of Wright’s work is very helpful and stimulating to anyone who’s been inundated by the writings of Gaffin, Ridderbos, Vos, etc. and who’s taken OTI and NTI. The emphasis on participation, historia salutis, and historical backgrounds are very prevalent features all around.
As such, when half of the reformed universe then attacks–not just critiques–folks like Wright and Dunn, we’re really surprised and confused because we feel our WTS reformed education set us up to appreciate folks like them. And we then see that that half-universe routinely misrepresents them, first we think surely there must be a misunderstanding because by our reading these guys are so in line with what we’ve been taught, and then we try to help the situation by sticking up for the author.
But then when we find that half-universe digs its heels in, especially in spite of being shown the contrary, we feel a bit disgruntled because at that point it’s become personal–it’s not just about Wright and Dunn, it’s just as much about us–and so we try all the harder to get our point across and move the issue forward. Unfortunately, sometimes we lose sight of what we’re learning and get a little nasty (that part’s unfortunate; all sides are guilty, however).
May 8th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I too want to re-iterate the point that a claim was made about Wright’s basic Christian orthodoxy which was ridiculous and has been easily shown to be false. To note this is no problem, nor is it a problem to note that those who continue such poor work will not be taken seriously in the future.
I’m calm and cool when I say that. No emotions needed.
But of course in the world that our God created, emotions are part of the game. There’s nothing wrong with them, as all endeavors in this world are personal. There is no such thing as “just business.” Maybe for the atheist, but not for the Trinitarian. A man’s work is his person.
Nicholas Wolterstorf has some good things to say about all this. Perhaps various readers would enjoy perusing the article he wrote in the Vanhoozer edition Hermeneutics at the Crossroads. John Frame is also a role model in this regard. A golden rule for interpretation would do us all a lot of good, but perhaps limit our “punching power.”
May 8th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Just to recap the conversation so far:
Person 1: NT Wright is a modalist.
Person 2: Where did NT Wright say that he’s a modalist?
Person 1: Well, he didn’t say that he’s not a modalist…
NT Wright: I’m not a modalist.
Person 1: *crickets chirping*
Person 2: Hey, don’t you think you should apologize for calling NT Wright a modalist?
Person 3: Why is everyone defending Wright?
Person 2: Because he’s not a modalist.
Person 3: But that’s not the point. The point is that if I wanted to call him a modalist, then people would be upset.
Person 2: But he’s not a modalist.
Person 3: See? That’s what I mean! Right there!
Person 4: But he’s not a modalist. He said so himself.
Person 3: I don’t understand why everyone wants to defend Wright!
Person 5: Because he’s not a modalist.
Person 3: Is he a rock star or something?
Person 6: …?
Person 1: *crickets still chirping*
Did I miss anything?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:43 am
[...] if you haven’t read this post and the comments yet, nothing I can say here will be adequate to describe what it reveals. If you care at all [...]
May 8th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Probably around comment 44 we reached the point of diminishing returns. But with Mark Horne weighing in in a way that seems hysterical to me I will try once again to add a measure of dispassion to the discussion — though whenever I try all I get is blow back.
I am thankful for JD’s ability to see that the response by some Wrightians has not accorded with their claims to charity, ecumenicty, etc. I actually believe disagreements are good as long as they don’t turn hateful. It’s one thing to call Fesko wrong. That’s fine. It’s another to infer that he is a scoundrel (or to make fun of the OPC’s size as Mark did in his initial post).
I also appreciate JD’s explanation of Wright’s appeal. That was something I asked for a long time ago and it helps me see what is at work. How you get from the Reformed BTer’s to the non-Reformed Wright is a puzzle, but I’ll leave that for another day.
The only thing I’d add to JD’s remarks is that I’m not sure “half” the Reformed world has discounted Wright. If the OPC is small, which it is, then one article in a church of roughly 25K is hardly half. But I understand the nature of perceptions. I’d like to think that half the WTS community still values Machen but it doesn’t feel that way to me when the recent presidents are more inclined to Jonathan Edwards and George Washington.
Mark Horne sure uses some rough images: “publicly flush the ninth commandment down the toilet” (can someone say “Abu Ghraib”?); “utter fictions”; “gross falsehoods”; “classic bullying attack”; “act toward a man in a way that defies all standards of Christian behavior and truthfulness.” I’d have thought falsehood was bad enough. But “gross” surely concentrates the wickedness and turns Fesko’s deed from a crime into a hate crime.
Now what has prompted these words? Here is what Fesko actually wrote:
“Wright avoids pantheism . . . but leans toward modalism . . . ”
or “with Wright . . . we gain many other problematic and even heretical teachings. . .”
Fesko did not call Wright a modalist. Fesko said Wright’s view in this book “leans” toward modalism. Fesko rightly implied that in this book, if Wright leans toward modalism, we receive heretical views. Does anyone think that modalism isn’t heresy? But to read Wright’s defenders here you’d have thought Fesko used language that Luther and Calvin did. Anyone familiar with polemical theology would conclude that Fesko’s comments were guarded and cautious.
I continue to contend that if folks are so enamored with Wright that they themselves fall prey to the same distortions and invective that they think they see in the criticism, then the attachment to Wright is unhealthy.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Dr. Hart, you forgot to mention Dr. Fesko’s especially guarded and cautious statement that “While one cannot be sure what Wright’s personal views are on the Trinity, his statements reveal no concept of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Given this absence, one suspects that Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses would have no problem with his definitions and descriptions of the Holy Spirit.â€
I’m curious, Dr. Hart, what do you think about David Booth’s call for Fesko to retract his statement and to apologize? I mean, Booth is no crazed, foaming-at-the-mouth Wright devotee. In fact, he’s an OPCer like yourself.
Hey, and what makes you think that everyone here who sides with Booth in this matter is a Wrightian at all? For all you know we may completely disagree with Wright on 99% of what he says but we just think it’s unfair to call him a modalist. It looks an awful lot like you’ve seen people saying that Wright isn’t COMPLETELY and irremediably unorthodox, at least not when it comes to the Trinity, and you’ve made the quantum leap to the conclusion that we’re all in the grip of a pernicious infatuation with Wright.
Oh, and by the way, Mark didn’t mock the OPC’s size as much as the “remnant mentality” rationalization of the OPC’s size that one sometimes runs into.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Darryl,
You are probably correct about our reaching (passing) the point of diminishing returns, so this will probably be my last post. A few quick points to wrap up:
1. We don’t live in the 16th century. The appeal to Luther and Calvin is interesting, but the same sort of rhetoric that they used is heard very differently today. Also, we are confessionally reformed presbyterians who should care more about what the Larger Catechism says regarding the 9th commandment than how Luther spoke about those he disagreed with.
2. Your reference to the New Horizons article in your last post seems almost mild (although it includes the phrase ‘heretical teachings’). Don’t you agree that suggesting someone’s teaching would be acceptable to Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses is an exceptionally evocative way of putting things in our day and age? It seems odd to me for you to “conclude that Fesko’s comments were guarded and cautious.”
3. Perhaps you and I are experiencing polemical theology in different ways even though we are both in the same denomination. I have had Ministers of the Word (note the plural) tell me that I was committing denominational suicide, in terms of receiving a call to pastor a particular church, because I have pointed out that Wright is in fact Trinitarian. In light of this reality, I tend to see the rhetoric against Wright as reflecting a party spirit rather than a polemical theology.
4. Presuppositionalism doesn’t mean that evidence isn’t important. You seem to think that you are defending what Dr. Fesko wrote in the same way I, and others, are defending what Bishop Wright has taught on the Trinity. Yet, I am offering evidence for my assertions. It really does matter if the claims made about Bishop Wright in New Horizons are accurate.
5. Your concluding comment is entirely correct. It is quite possible to become too attached to any particular teacher. As I often tell young seminary students: “Friends don’t let friends believe that some dead Puritan was the last word on theological development.” For me the temptation is to be too attached to Calvin and Warfield, and I recognize that it can take extra effort on my part to admit that Calvin might be wrong about something. But since I have criticized important aspects of Bishop Wright’s teaching in both lectures and in print - isn’t it at least possible that I am defending his teaching on the Trinity simply because (contra New Horizons) Bishop Wright doesn’t teach a view of the Holy Spirit that would be acceptable to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses? If so, why shouldn’t we correct what we’ve written?
David
May 8th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Fesko’s article does not exist in a vacuum, but in the context of several other written critiques of reformed believers that seem to have missed the mark. Perhaps that is an explanation for why suspicions may be raised beyond the “well, he’s wrong” stage to wondering about personal contentiousness.
From http://www.paulperspective.com/docs/JBJ_responsetoFesko1.pdf
And Ralph Smith replies to Fesko here http://www.berith.org/essays/brief_response_to_fesko.html
May 8th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Well, I could respond to a lot of things, but lets be clear that the “classic bullying act,” if you will go back and read it carefully, is a reference that applies mostly to Dr. Hart. Readers can decide for themselves if Dr. Hart’s use of pull-quotes from my comments do or do not exemplify the exact process I am describing.
On whether it was constructive to say those things, I’m willing to receive correction. If Dr. Hart wishes to make me rethink anything further about them, he’ll need to actually deal with what is happening in the New Horizons magazine and then especially in his efforts to act as the magazine’s advocate.
However, I do think I have said some things that go overboard (though I don’t know that revealing my intent and more careful appraissal is going to satisfy anyone). I am sure the Fesko said what he said with perfect satisfaction that he was justified. He “knows” Wright is an evil, false teacher and that it is necessary to show this to lay people to lead them away from the alleged “Wrightians.” I am sure he felt anything he saw in Wright’s writings was totally clear and there was no need to read or even think any more about it. So he wrote what he did.
The horror is not really the original article. That is bad, but peole make misjudgments and fail to be careful all the time. The horror is the recalcitrant refusal to apologize and move on to write a more accurate attack on Wright. It is that last that shakes up people more than anything.
Just retract the charge and move on. People are truly frightened as to why that does not seem to be possible.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Darry, FYI my “half the reformed universe” was hyperbole. I thought that would be clear.
You wrote: “I continue to contend that if folks are so enamored with Wright that they themselves fall prey to the same distortions and invective that they think they see in the criticism, then the attachment to Wright is unhealthy.”
I think you’re very right, and I would hope that most of us here would agree. We absolutely should. I’m sure this also goes without saying, but the same can and should be said for the reformers and reformed confessions. The question is, of course, what amount of attachment is unhealthy, and I can imagine that’ll be a battle ground. Both sides are touchy. Personally, I’m just as bothered by the so-called TRs as I am by NPP sycophancy. Most people I know in the latter category simply do not have the adequate training and education to warrant being there, and those who do aren’t sycophants, which says something. That scares me both on a spiritual level and an academic one. When Sanders said scholars shouldn’t critique PPJ unless they’ve read the whole Mishnah in Hebrew (and here I speak as one who has), Sanders was not making special pleading, he was making a minimal (and I think generous) request–one that is quite obvious for any historian (and I’m sure you’ll appreciate): one is an unqualified critic until one knows the source material. I say “generous” because if I were him I wouldn’t have stopped with the Mishnah.
You must know that because of your reputation, even though to my knowledge you’ve deliberately withheld judgment on Wright or Fesko’s evaluation because you haven’t read Wright (I sincerely appreciate that, by the way), you’re instantly lumped into one group. If your goal is reconciliatory–which is what I take it to be–I think your ability to serve is stunted significantly by not having read him. So I would encourage you to do so–I might suggest his Romans commentary, which is short for a Romans commentary (400pgs). And personally, I would be very interested hear what you think after you’ve had the chance to digest. Please don’t take this pejoratively (it’s not intended that way), but given that you have the gonads to jump on Mark’s blog on this issue, I have hopes that perhaps you could be a mediating voice.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I guess my apparatus must be large to be a bully. Like so much in life you have to take the good with the bad.
To David: I doubt the reactions here would be as vociferous if most people disagree with 99% of what Wright writes. I’m not sure it matters anyway for me since I don’t disagree or agree with Wright. I am concerned about healthy theological disagreements and criticism descending into speculation about personal motives. I don’t think Fesko did that. But his critics clearly have. As for Fesko apologizing, I think Mark Horne’s closing line above is instructive — “drop the charge and move on.” What we have going here is category confusion. Fesko’s piece wasn’t a charge, it wasn’t the declaration by a court of the church. It was an opinion informed by his own reading of Wright and other material. We would all be sending out a lot of correspondence if we had to apologize for opinions that conflicted with the judgments of others.
To David A. Booth: we probably disagree about polemical theology. I’m with Machen who argued that controversy in the church was a good thing because it kept all parties honest and wary. It is the church militant after all. Last night I was reading on Van Til and Barth and I couldn’t help but think of Fesko and Wright (though neither are in the category of the former two theologians). Van Til was blasted from all sides for his condemnation of Barth. How dare he! My point isn’t that Van Til was right, though I think he was closer to being right than not. It is simply that polemical theology is much closer to WTS and the OPC (even the PCA) than we tend to think. In fact, I wonder how conservative Presbyterians became so unmanly about theological disagreements. I reckon Mark T. will interpret such a testosterone induced sentiment as a sign of mysogynistic troglodyte ways. But conservative Presbyterians used to be as good at getting as they were at giving.
I think I have managed to pacify Mark Horne over at his own website but I would like to mention that the bullying here has been going on on both sides. I’d even suggest that Mark T. started some of it with his sarcasm in announcing this post and in poking fun at the OPC’s diminutive size. And then folks piled on Fesko by questioning his motives and character.
Once again I appreciate JD’s less vituperative response and his recommendation for further reading. I guess I have my Rodney King moments but I’m old enough to know that we all can’t just get along. So let’s be clear that most of our ideas are contested, even when we think they are the most Christian sentiments imaginable. I would only disagree with JD in his comment when he says we need to beware of becoming enamored of Wright, the Reformers and the confessions. It will probably not surprise some readers to see that I think the Reformed confessions fall in a different category. Though enamored may not be the right verb, I do think they deserve my loyalty in a way that no individual does, though theologians in the Reformed tradition also deserve some. That is because I am a member of a moral community, the OPC, that has boundaries established by the church. Those boundaries may need revision at times. But they are not up for grabs in a way that other writers may be. Without boundaries a moral community ceases to exist.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
“The horror is not really the original article. That is bad, but people make misjudgments and fail to be careful all the time. The horror is the recalcitrant refusal to apologize and move on to write a more accurate attack on Wright. It is that last that shakes up people more than anything.”
Mark, this is exactly what frustrates me. In the same issue of New Horizons there is a review of What Saint Paul Really Said. As usual, we conservative presbyterians are at least a decade behind what’s going on. Why no review of Wright’s more current, more nuanced, book on Paul? My guess is that it’s for the same reason the OP report on justification did it: it’s easier to score points against WSPRS in order to scare off John and Jane Pewsitter than to deal with what Wright is actually saying these days.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“I am a member of a moral community, the OPC,”
No, thats a denomination within the moral community of the visible church. You DO eat at the same table as members of the church who don’t sign on to every jot of the WCF, don’t you? Your primary community membership is the entire visible church, not just the OPC.
And to that visible church, you have your responsibility:
“All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification”
May 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I just wanted to chime in to say thanks to everyone who has participated in this…this…hmmm, I’m stuck for the word: debate? discussion? fist fight? playground scuffle? chess tournament? I’ve stayed out of it for a couple of days. It has been beneficial for me to stand back and let some of you much smarter and wiser than I play this out some while I reflected on what I hath wrought. I also sought out and received counsel “off line” from some friends who were able to give me perspective, and I am grateful to all of you who communicated with me outside of this thread.
Most of all I want to thank Darryl for having the guts (may I use that less testosterone-drenched euphamism?) to come on here and stay with this. I still don’t get you, Darryl, but then I’m not called to “get you,” am I? I am called to love you, and I offer that however strange the way you view things may be to me, you hold those views in integrity and sincerity. Sincerity paves some bad roads, they say, but it is also in short supply these days.
It would be an understatement to say that we get passionate about these things. Let us pause to give thanks that we live in a day when no one is burned at the stake over such disputes. A few reputations sullied, perhaps a career destroyed here or there, but no charred bodies. For this we should give thanks.
Oh, my opening jibe about the OPC and size, to which Darryl has referred twice now? A little satire, my friends, nothing more. Something brother Darryl does better than anyone, I might add. Darryl, if I’m guilty of friendly satirizing, know that I learned the skill partly in the pages of a certain journal named after the addictive portions of a pack of Camels. So I offer to you on this point an apology as we so often hear them put in the media today: “I apologize if you have taken offense.”
All in all, I’d say points should be awarded (and deducted) from all sides. Darryl (and my friend JD) are almost certainly right that many of us for whom N. T. Wright opened new doors to understanding our Bibles are way too touchy when it comes to attacks against him. Perhaps we would like to offer the excuse that we should be pardoned for our hair trigger because the critics jerk on it so often, but still, we need to learn to calm down a bit. Point taken.
Likewise, I think a number of witnesses have argued well (if at times with a bit too much heat) that Dr. Fesko’s statements are not your run-of-the-mill criticisms. But…we may never get a retraction or apology, and we’ll need to let that go. None of us that I know of here have been appointed Bishop Wright’s personal representatives, and none of us that I know of is in church fellowship with Dr. Fesko. We have spoken our pieces; we have voiced our opinions. Hooray for the blogosphere. Now let’s go serve in our churches and communities, give the gospel to the lost, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, plant a tree, throw a frisbie in the sunshine, give our spouses or best friends a big hug….and move on.
I think I might dedicate this summer to making this blog really boring again. Write some silly stories about talking mice or something. Presbyterians will continue to shred each other, and there will probably be six more Truly Presbyterian denominations before my 60th birthday, but I really can’t do anything about it. Let Machen’s warrior children devour themselves. It’s what makes them happy, and the pursuit of happiness is what it’s all about, right?
That you’ll never see me ordained, much less on a GA study committee, should be something you all should rejoice over. Me? I’m lifting my glass higher than any of you.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:58 am
The OPC is part of the visible church and Mark is going to be boring? The Day of the Lord is near.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:08 am
It was a narrow margin, Darryl, but the Society of Wright is Always Right voted last night that, yes, the OPC is part of the visible church. Barely visible. You need a telescope, really. But you’re in. Congratulations! Your certificate is in the mail.
And the Day of the Lord is near? That may be the only hope for Presbyterianism!
May 9th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Just my 2 cents worth… I remember hearing a pastor say once that Jesus grew up reading about himself in the scriptures. I thought that was fascinating and all that might entail….! I have no trouble with that.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
[...] Another high-class scholarly offering from a chief member of a, um, “moral community.“Â Right. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can [...]
November 9th, 2007 at 4:29 am
I’m not sure how old this blog thread is, but I thought I’d post. I happen to know Dr. Fesko personally. Actually, he’s my pastor. I’d just like point out that while you may not happen to agree with Fesko’s assessment of Dr. Wright. I’m not sure I understand the insistent plea for an open apology. I don’t wish to sound harsh, but I doubt Fesko reads any blogs at all. I’ve heard him joke around on numerous occasions about amateur blog theologizing. I doubt he’s even aware of these criticisms about his views on Wright. However, I’d just like to point out that Fesko’s not at all some Wright hater as some of the posts on this blog seem to suggest. I’ve heard him applaud and even commend Wright on a numerous issues. The only two issues I’ve known him to criticize Wright are on his somewhat vague views on the trinity and justification by faith. Also, I’d like to point out that Dr. Fesko is one of the most prayerful and godly men I know. He’s not the type to take potshots at someone lightly or for mean spirited reasons.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Dear feelinbeeshy (isn’t it odd to address persons by Internet nicknames?):
I can certainly understand that if Dr. Fesko is your pastor you would take such criticisms personally and spring to his defense. However, your defense doesn’t seem to me to answer the issues at hand.
Whether or not Dr. Fesko is a man of personal integrity and piety is not particularly germane to whether or not the statements he made that we were commenting upon in this thread are true or false. I think they have been abundantly demonstrated to be false, or at the least grossly unfair and exaggerated. I cannot and will not try to guess at Dr. Fesko’s personal motives for saying what he did, but to as