A few weeks ago James K.A. Smith wrote a bit about N.T. Wright’s new book How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels (see “Kings, Creeds, and the Canon: Musings on N.T. Wright”). Initially he praised the work, then he moved into his critique. To summarize Smith didn’t like (1) that Wright seems to present his views on the Kingdom of God in the Gospels as something of which everyone is woefully ignorant until he came to explain it; (2) that Wright talks about the creeds as if they are “…the villain that tempted us to miss this ‘forgotten story.’ “; and (3) Wright dismisses “canonical readings” of Scripture (if this true then what are we to make of this video titled ‘The Whole Sweep of Scripture’ produced by The Work of the People featuring Wright?) and “the rule of faith” because he sees “tradition” as a “blinder.” Smith announces, “I’m not persuaded that the fruits of historical science have suddenly put us in a position superior to pre-modern interpreters.” (This is his challenge to Wright’s “originality” as someone who is as much a historian as a theologian.)
To summarize, Smith doesn’t think Wright has introduced something new that the Reformed tradition overlooked. He doesn’t see historical research as having added something essential to our understanding of Christian doctrine that the canon and creeds failed to provide. This book says what people like Abraham Kuyper, Richard Mouw, or others in the Reformed tradition have said already.
Some people commented questioning Smith’s suggestion that Wright sees himself as delivering something new that is actually quite old. One person pointed out that even if there have been people saying the things Wright is saying this doesn’t mean it is not a message that many still need to hear. Then N.T. Wright responded:
He began by clarifying that his experience has led him to come across many people who do not have a solid answer for why we need the “content” of the Gospels themselves. Many see the reason for Jesus as being his death, burial, and resurrection. What are we to do with Jesus’ life and teachings? I must say as someone who has been around Pentecostal and E/evangelical groups if it weren’t for the writings of Wright I wouldn’t have an answer to that question either. It is great that Smith’s tradition has addressed this subject. For the rest of us who are outside Reformed circles with little to no interest in entering we are thankful for the work Wright has done on this subject.
Second, Wright defends his appreciation of the creeds. I must quote a large section:
“I take care precisely NOT to ‘fault’ the great creedal tradition. I use the two classic creeds in my regular prayers and worship – in the Anglican manner: the Apostles’ Creed every day, and the Nicene Creed at the Sunday Eucharist. (Just as they do at Calvin, of course.) The creeds are not the ‘villains’. They were not written to provide a teaching syllabus. They are the symbol, the badge, the list of things that were controversial early on which the church had to hammer out. The problem comes – and at what point in church history this occurred I couldn’t say, that not being my period – when the creeds are used as teaching outlines; because of course they skip precisely over the ‘middle bits’ of the gospels, and thereby, quite accidentally and non-villainously, collude with a quite different movement, with which many of my readers tell me they are all too familiar: a form of Christianity in which it would be quite sufficient if Jesus of Nazareth had been born of a virgin, died on a cross and never done anything in between. The rise of such a truncated form of Christianity is not at all (I suggest) the fault of the wonderful and beloved Creeds, but of quite different movements which have then (ab)used them as a teaching outline which has reinforced (quite accidentally in terms of the Creeds’ original purpose) the omission of the kingdom of God as a present reality. In other words, I not only don’t reject Nicene Christianity, I embrace it, affirm it, love it, live it, and pray it. But the best sort of Nicene Christianity has always insisted that you read the gospels themselves, and indeed pray the Lord’s Prayer, and that these are just as important for shaping who we are in Christ as the formulaic creeds themselves.”
Third, Wright rejects that he dismisses canonical readings. He states that his book is “a plea to let the canon be the canon!” According to Wright appeals to “the canon” often mean appeals to a tradition and not the biblical canon at all.
Finally, Wright refutes Smith’s seeming dismissal of extra canonical literature. He states,
“So what’s this about ‘extra-canonical resources’? This is often said but it’s (frankly) nonsense. Without extra-canonical resources – e.g. lexicography – I would not be able to read the New Testament at all. Without knowing a bit about who the Pharisees were – and what the Sabbath meant to a second-Temple Jew – I wouldn’t understand Mark 2. And so on.”
Then Wright goes on to say a few more good things about the necessity of understanding at least some things about the context of Second Temple Judaism and the first century world. I am thankful to Smith for highlighting what he thought should be approved (I haven’t read the book yet), but as someone who has read a lot of Wright’s work over the years I am more appreciative of his response which I think frames his project as I have understood it. One comment said that the next generation will look at Wright’s work “as just another dead end project.” This is false already. For many of us in that already emerging next generation he has helped us rethink the Apostle Paul, the message of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God, the use of Hebrew Scripture in the New Testament, Second Temple Judaism, eschatology (one pastor friend of mine said he had given up on eschatology until he read Surprised by Hope), and so forth and so on. In some sense most scholars are forgotten in a generation or two. That is how the guild functions. To say Wright’s work is a dead end is to ignore the impact it has had already! (Of course, that person said in his comment that Barth’s project was “a dead end” and although I am not a Barthian I think this overlooks the reality that Barth remains one of the most influential theologians even now.)
Update (04/13): Smith replied to Wright and Wright has added a couple additional comments. Make sure to read those as well!
the archives near Emmaus 
I haven’t read this NT Wright book yet either. But I think I am mostly on board with your response of agreement against Smith.
One problem with Smith’s comments is that even if Wright has actually done nothing except move us to a postion of looking at scripture in a similar way as pre-historical research, then that is pretty significant. I can’t (and I am pretty sure Smith can’t either) suddenly wish away the actual world we are in. The world we are in uses historical research and critical methods of exploring scripture. Maybe the reformed world that Smith is in rejects it (and I don’t really think that it does) but Wright’s work (and a whole lot of others) is essential to helping those of us that are born into this 21st century world. That world allows us to have a faith that honestly takes scripture and the whole Christian message quite seriously.
I have no doubt that Wright is a bit of a blowhard in person. Yes he presents himself a fairly self-important in his writing. But honestly, who cares. Is what he is writing important? To me the answer is yes. I am reading Frankie Shaefer’s Crazy for God. He quite often is reminding the reader that his father, who is beloved by many, was actually not that great of a guy in many ways. The same is an important theme of Dorsett’s bio of AW Tozer and his very short bio of EM Bounds.
So if Smith’s real beef is that Wright is a bit self-serving or thinks too highly of himself (which is what the post seems to focus on to me) then I think my advice would be to not write a blog post about it. Either go talk to Wright and say “you are acting like a pompous ass” or ignore it and deal with the content. A blog post like that doesn’t really do much for anyone.
by the way. I really like the new blog design.
Adam
Exactly, as I said in the post it doesn’t matter for someone like myself if the Reformed tradition got this right since I am not connected to that tradition. Wright is a modern author sharing a modern world with us. I am glad he has chosen to address this subject and he is right that many Christians do not know what to do with the words and deeds of Jesus. I understood them as a teen as an attempt to prove Jesus’ divinity!
I’ve met Wright once in San Francisco and he seemed quite generous. I met one of his doctoral students at SBL last year and he spoke highly of him. Another scholar I know said that Wright sent him one of his papers asking for criticism and he was very receptive of the critique offered. Even in his comment to Smith Wright mentions wishing he could have met with Smith in person. I am sure some may be turned off by him, but considering his stature I think he’s done a fine job of remaining humble and those I know that know him speak very highly of him.
Thank you for the comment about the blog. I am aiming to make it clearer and easier to read.
This is a good review. I’d agree that Wright is helping us actually do things and see things in the Gospels that my tradition didn’t really give place to. As much as the Reformed church affirms these things, Protestants as a whole are more Paul-based and have (relatively) little place for ideas of the Kingdom of God. I know its a wild generalization and is often proved untrue, but I’m willing to stand by the affirmation. A personal example: As a I started teaching NT over the last year or two, I finally had to face up to the Kingdom issue because even in my Paul work–for myself and for NTW–I never really thought about it much. As I started reading, it made me think that I needed to embrace Kingdom and the Gospels in a way that my tradition hadn’t encouraged. Partially through this transition (as I moved to Houston), I became acquainted with the Vineyard denomination more than the general knowledge I had in the past. I was surprised to learn that one of their key pillars is Kingdom. I had always respected the Third Wave spirituality, but now that I knew that they interpreted this very much through a Gospels/Kingdom theology, I was hooked. So that is where I now reside ecclesiologically. I can attest that Wright is filling a gap in evangelical theology.
I do think NTW is motivated by historical concerns over and against more recent literary and theological readings. I did a short post on this and would be interested in how you think it captures things: http://dunelm.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/post-conservatives-vs-post-liberals/. I will say his style of argumentation can be “I’ve finally got it right” (e.g., the flat earth illustration at the beginning of his Justification book) in a way that I wouldn’t choose. He does have a larger than life personality, but at the same time, I found him immensely gracious interpersonally. I always left our meeting encouraged because of his uplifting conversation and our times of prayer together. Fortunately, his style of framing his argument doesn’t overshadow the depth the argument itself provides.
I love Wright’s comment about Christianity being focused on Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection, without placing any significance on what he said or did when he was alive. The fact is that there is a yawning chasm between those two forms of religion that are difficult — if not impossible — to reconcile.
Jesus didn’t go around telling people that if they believed in his death and resurrection, that they would be “saved” from eternity in hell. He actually told people to behave in a certain way, and if people obeyed (example: forgive others and God will forgive you), then they would be invited into the Kingdom of God, which everybody understood at the time to be a real place on earth. But classic Christianity teaches that people who obeyed the words of Jesus are not justified or saved or whatever way they put it.
Wright gets that, although in the end I don’t think his solution is satisfying because he wants to reconcile the contradiction and I don’t think you can.
Ben
I was raised around Pentecostalism and I have heard some good things about the Vineyard Movement, but I haven’t interacted with anyone from within. I think the Four Square denomination (another Pentecostal like movement) emphasizes Christ as King (not sure how developed this is though).
Victor
Agreed, the “Romans Road” soteriology of some evangelicals is nearly impossible to reconcile with the Jesus of the Gospels.
NT Wright is not completely above criticism. He does occasionally take cheap shots at opponents (especially with regard to politics), and he sometimes overreaches in fitting things into his large-scale frameworks (though perhaps everyone does this to some extent).
Still, he has benefited me and the church at large immensely. A few years ago, I simultaneously went through a personal crisis and became thoroughly disillusioned with the megachurch of my childhood and American evangelicalism in general. I may have abandoned Christianity or at least stopped taking it seriously, but a few writers helped me stay, and NT Wright was near the top of the list.
victor,
the ‘forgive others and God will forgive you’ idea is truncated; the rest of the thought is ‘if you don’t forgive others, God will not forgive you.’ It really changes the meaning. So if you forgive some offenses, but not others, are you completely forgiven by God–or not? What is the mathematical formula at work? Rather than mapping out a plan of ultimate reconciliation with God, he seems to be simply making the point that you need to forgive others to please God. To emphasize either Jesus’s teachings or solely his resurrection seems to miss half of the story. Jesus taught us how we should live, knowing we would also need the grace of his resurrecting work. One idea need not be abandoned for the other.
Joel
I’d say Wright was one of the authors who helped me through some of the most difficult parts of my faith journey as well.
In the first paragraph, I think you meant to write “How God Became King…” instead of “The King Jesus Gospel…” different book, different author.
I will say that I believe Wright’s work will live on much longer than our own lives as I believe he has contributed much, especially in the NPP area, but Wright is a supersessionist and I have to keep that in mind when reading him.
Jon
Good catch, I changed it.