Tom Wright

In this blog I’m just going to give a bit more detail about N.T.Wright, because I feel that his works may well be represent the most exciting and challenging Christian literary contribution since C.S. Lewis and F. Shaeffer. Lewis had a wonderful imagination and a brilliant talent for communication in writing. Shaeffer had a great understanding of the relationship between Christianity and the arts. Wright is of a rare breed – an academic theologian who is equally comfortable writing detailed academic theological arguments and commentaries written in a light and accessible style.

At the moment I am reading his academic work ‘The Resurrection of the Son of God’ which is certainly excellent. Whether or not you agree with what he writes, his three volume work is regarded as the most important work on Christology since Bultmann – and from a generally conservative perspective. He challenges both liberal and sometimes traditional evangelical positions when he doesn’t find they are supported by accurate historical interpretation. However, some of his interpretations are quite novel, and I read his work along with comments on the internet such as those found by googling ‘N.T.Wright critique’ and checking out a biography. So why is this important? Why not leave this to professional theologians to debate and argue about in quiet cloisters? For me it is first and foremost important to be able to understand the original meaning of the words and teachings of Jesus. Whether you agree or not, reading these books will force you to re-evaluate your interpretation of very familiar passages. Second, we are supposed to be able to give a good account for our faith – and that includes reaching out to those who have been influenced by liberal interpretations of the Bible.
The basic thesis of the interpretation proposed by Wright is that we have taken insufficient notice of the expectation of renewal of the people of Israel and the idea of a renewed kingdom where God would reign supreme, that this was a radical message in the context of the Roman occupation and that it was therefore expressed in a secretive way in Jesus’ parables. I can’t do justice to Wright’s careful and extensive arguments in a brief sentence – but there is no doubt in my mind that his approach is honest and sincere. He has an extensive knowledge of liberal interpretations and his dismissal of them seems well argued and authoritative. I can’t wait to study the gospels again in the light of what I’ve read.