N.T. Wright’s variation of the “new perspective” on Paul has launched a firestorm of controversy on both sides of the Atlantic. Well-known Reformed authors have written books that seek to refute his views. Other Reformed leaders have denounced both New Perspective proponents and their sympathizers.
While I enjoy reading N.T. Wright, I do not find his exegesis of Paul’s views on justification and imputation (for the most part) to be more compelling than traditional Reformed theologians. Some exceptions exist, but I am largely in agreement with traditional Reformational teaching – especially on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
Though I disagree with some of his biblical interpretations, I am indebted to Wright for his scholarship and I appreciate his work. I am willing to read Wright, even when I am in disagreement, and I am willing to listen to Wright because I believe he loves the Lord, knows the Bible well, and has much insight to offer to the contemporary church.
Many authors espouse views that I disagree with. I do not refuse to read C.S. Lewis because of his inclusivism. Neither do I refuse to read John Stott because of his annihilationism. Wright (like Lewis and Stott) simply has too much to offer.
But how does one discern the good from the bad in the theology of N.T. Wright and other New Perspective theologians? Is it worth it? Some in the Reformed camp don’t think so. Better to avoid Wright, Dunn, and their crew altogether and stick with the confessions.
Can anything good come from Durham? some may ask. I say “yes.” Some aspects of the New Perspective on Paul can be and should be incorporated into the conservative Reformed understanding of Pauline theology. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This week, I plan on assessing three areas where the New Perspective makes a positive contribution to Reformed theology. Stay tuned.
(As a disclaimer, I am using “New Perspective” and “N.T. Wright” as synonymous in the series, as Wright is the most influential theologian in conservative circles. I recognize that this might not be the scholarly way to treat issues of the NPP – since there are as many perspectives as there are theologians who promote it. For ease in reading, however, I am asserting my blogging prerogative to take this shortcut.)
