Though I don’t recommend reading them in order, I’ll start with the first in Wright’s series “Christian Origins and the Question of God.”
Earlier, I claimed that every literate Christian will want to read N. T. Wright, specifically his series of “big books.” The reason for this is because Wright takes on modern unbelief, as represented particularly in the Jesus Seminar, with a great deal of success. Reading Wright allows you to immediately converse with the person who goes to Barnes & Noble and reads books from the religion section. He does this way that is a model of courteous Christian debate with nonchristian worldviews.
When I first discovered him, reading Wright was like being shown a hidden room in my house containing hi-tech weaponry (Hello, Homeland Security agent; this is only a metaphor). I have loved Biblical Theology for many years, but I had never realized what power it offered me for apologetics. When you think about it, however, modern unbelief has a great deal to do with fragmenting the text. Showing that the text of Scripture has real unity could not fail to have apologetic value. Wright woke me up to what I had not understood. He carefully and cogently shows how the text makes sense on its own terms nad vindicates traditional Christianity while, at the same time, offering us all challenges to be further conformed to the Word of God.
One oddity in Wright’s series is that he does not capitalize the word, “god.” The reason for this, he explains, is that the whole debate is over who God is. To act like we are all talking about the same person would be deceptive and confusing.
Blogs are free T-K. Get your own.
Ah, the lovely trolls of TR-net!
Not a troll, necessarily. Just don’t think comments should be the place for major essays.
I sincerely apologize, Mr. Horne. When I first approached your blog, I did so because you seem to me to be informed on the subject and hold an alternative interpretation of Wright’s work, specifically his Christology. I did not come here to criticize N. T. Wright but to ask, simply, whether the understanding I have of what Wright believes is an accurate interpretation. I certainly did not expect mutually charitable dialogue of various interpretations or perspectives to be unwelcome to a man who has suffered for want of that very thing.
I do sincerely apologize if I misunderstood the purpose of this blog.
No need to apologize T-K. I just think long pieces should be posted where shorter comments can be made. Your link to your essay in the comments to my previous entry remains for anyone to follow.
I’m glad you stop by and hope you will continue to do so.