Nicholas Thomas Wright (born 1 December 1948), known as N. T. Wright or Tom Wright, is an English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian and Anglican bishop. He was the bishop of Durham from 2003 to 2010. He then became research professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland until 2019, when he became a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall at the University of Oxford. Wright writes about theology and Christian life and the relationship between them. He advocates a biblical re-evaluation of theological matters such as justification, women's ordination, and popular Christian views about life after death. He has also criticised the idea of a literal Rapture. The author of over seventy books, Wright is highly regarded in academic and theological circles for his "Christian Origins and the Question of God" series. The third volume, The Resurrection of the Son of God, is considered by many clergy and theologians to be a seminal Christian work on the resurrection of Jesus, while the most recently released fourth volume, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, is hailed as Wright's magnum opus.
|
|
|
Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird have written a concise primer on Christian political engagement. This is a worthwhile book for any Christian concerned with a proper Christian political witness. The overall message for readers is that they should reaffirm the tradition of liberal democracy as the most plausible political option for our times. Wright and Bird state that “Jesus and the Powers has one objective: to say that, in an age of ascending autocracies, in a time of fear and fragmentation, amid carnage and crises, Jesus is King, and Jesus’ kingdom remains the object of the Church’s witness and work….Such a conviction means that the Church needs to understand how it relates to empires biblical and burgeoning, how to build for the kingdom in our cities and suburbs; to understand the time for obedience to the State and the time for disobedience to the State” (xiii-xiv). (Reformed Journal 12/23/24) READMORE>>>>> Wright is wrong. The English theologian creates a moral muddle on gun rights and abortion in America Bishop N.T. Wright is one of the most influential scholars of the New Testament alive today, able to write not only for academic audiences but also for popular ones. If I want to gain insight into Second Temple Judaism or the reality and implications of the resurrection of Jesus, Wright is certainly one of the authorities I’d consult first. I don’t always agree with him, but I certainly respect him on issues of Biblical theology. However, when it comes to politics, his opinions would not rank nearly as high. It’s a subject that is outside his bailiwick. And that is where our story begins. You see, there was a bit of a social media dustup over an interview with the English theologian on the upcoming elections here in America. While I appreciated several of his points, I found some of his comments lacking, and I was far from the only one. As is pretty common among evangelical commentators outside the United States, Wright dinged conservative American Christians for their attitude toward guns. But he also made some comments on abortion and the pro-life movement that I found unexpected and disappointing. (World 12/12/24) READMORE>>>>>  NT Wright Files
If you want to know who God is, look at Jesus. If you want to know what it means to be human, look at Jesus. If you want to know what love is, look at Jesus. If you want to know what grief is, look at Jesus. And go on looking until you’re not just a spectator, but you’re actually part of the drama that has him as the central character. -N.T. Wright |
September 12, 2024: Barton J Ginerich wrote: “Everyone has an opinion,” as my father once said. I typically appreciate hearing the opinions of Bishop Wright. He is much smarter than I am, and his scholarship is formidable—I’ve learned much from him. But I don’t agree with his take on conservative Christians in America and their views on gun rights, and I am troubled by his weird analysis of the pro-life movement.I guess that, sometimes, Wright is wrong. April 2019: Wright wrote on the Theology of the people: People today often comment about the decline of civil, reasoned conversation in all walks of life. Theology has an opportunity to model a genuinely interdisciplinary conversation of the sort we urgently need, not least because in its very nature it ought to bridge the gap between the academy and the larger world. The great theologians of the past—such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—all tried to bring the Bible, philosophy, and theology into a shared conversation. As each of these fields advances, they need one another all the more. April 2008: Wright wrote: This way of coming at the tasks of the church in terms of space, time, and matter leads directly to evangelism. When the church is seen to move straight from worship of God to affecting much-needed change in the world; when it becomes clear that the people who feast at Jesus' table are the ones at the forefront of work to eliminate hunger and famine; when people realize that those who pray for the Spirit to work in and through them are the people who seem to have extra resources of love and patience in caring for those whose lives are damaged, bruised, and shamed—then it is natural for people to recognize that something is going on that they want to be part of. No single individual can attempt more than a fraction of this mission. That's why mission is the work of the whole church, the whole time. Paul's advice to the Philippians—even though he and they knew they were suffering for their faith and might be tempted to retreat from the world into a dualistic, sectarian mentality—was upbeat. "These are the things you should think through," he wrote: "whatever is true, whatever is holy, whatever is upright, whatever is pure, whatever is attractive, whatever has a good reputation; anything virtuous, anything praiseworthy." And in thinking through these things, we will discover more and more about the same Creator God whom we know in and through Jesus Christ and will be better equipped to work effectively not over against the world, but with the grain of all goodwill, of all that seeks to bring and enhance life. |
NT Wright Files
Christian theologians and philosophers regularly claim that their thinking is grounded in Scripture. But they seldom pay the text the kind of close attention expected in contemporary biblical studies. This may owe something to the less than helpful teaching about the Bible that some have received, but it is still regrettable. Theologians’ engagement with Scripture often lapses into proof-texting, with little regard for the authors’ thought-worlds and original intentions.
This can allow Christian theology and philosophy to escape into mere speculation, grounded on nothing more than the researcher’s intuitions and some parts of post-biblical tradition. The inadequacies of this method are obvious: It is like trying to water a garden having first detached the hosepipe from the main tap. There may be some water left in the hose, but it won’t go far. --NT Wright; Christianity Today: Theology of the Future April 2019
Picturing N.T. Wright
Iwas pleased to hear that CT had commissioned Jason Byassee to do a profile and analysis of N. T. Wright and his work, coinciding with the release of Wright's magnum opus on Paul. The importance of the man's views and his influence on contemporary Christian thought is not easily overestimated. But very few know anything about his day-to-day life. Getting some significant time with the busy theologian would be essential to capturing photos of any real depth. Wright proved to be quite willing to spend a Sunday afternoon with a photographer in and around his rural home in Scotland. I knew of only one photographer in the region that I thought would be right for the job, so I phoned him. He returned my call immediately—from Africa, where he was on assignment. It would be weeks before he returned home—far too late to photograph Wright in time for our April issue. I asked him for a short list of the best photographers he knew in the area, and on that list was the name Sophie Gerrard.
(Christianity Today 4/8/14) READMORE>>>>>
Iwas pleased to hear that CT had commissioned Jason Byassee to do a profile and analysis of N. T. Wright and his work, coinciding with the release of Wright's magnum opus on Paul. The importance of the man's views and his influence on contemporary Christian thought is not easily overestimated. But very few know anything about his day-to-day life. Getting some significant time with the busy theologian would be essential to capturing photos of any real depth. Wright proved to be quite willing to spend a Sunday afternoon with a photographer in and around his rural home in Scotland. I knew of only one photographer in the region that I thought would be right for the job, so I phoned him. He returned my call immediately—from Africa, where he was on assignment. It would be weeks before he returned home—far too late to photograph Wright in time for our April issue. I asked him for a short list of the best photographers he knew in the area, and on that list was the name Sophie Gerrard.
(Christianity Today 4/8/14) READMORE>>>>>
[T]HE PRAYER to the Father for daily bread was part of [Jesus’] wider and deeper agenda. At the heart of it stood a central biblical symbol of the kingdom: the great festive banquet which God has prepared for his people. … The banquet, the party, is a sign that God is acting at last, to rescue his people and wipe away all tears from all eyes. … “Give us this day our daily bread” means, in this setting, “Let the party continue.”N. T. Wright, The Lord and His Prayer
N.T. Wright: Making Scholarship a Tool for the Church
For a very long time, scholars have placed the "Christ of faith" and the "Christ of history" in opposing corners. Historical studies tend to discount claims of God at work on earth, supposing natural, human processes to be more likely explanations. Many have doubted whether the study of history can ever connect with a life of faith.
No evangelical has shown more courage in this contested field than N. T. Wright. He has waded into "ordinary" history to write a thorough, detailed study of Jesus as "The Victory of God," to quote from the title of Wright's principal, 700-page work. Beeson's Timothy George considers Wright "one of the most engaging and articulate New Testament scholars in the world." Greg Jones, dean of Duke Divinity School, notes that Wright has "a preacher's passion" in diving into the study of Jesus, perhaps the most contentious area of biblical study today. "He has shown remarkable courage and vision."
(Christianity Today 2/8/1999) READMORE>>>>>
For a very long time, scholars have placed the "Christ of faith" and the "Christ of history" in opposing corners. Historical studies tend to discount claims of God at work on earth, supposing natural, human processes to be more likely explanations. Many have doubted whether the study of history can ever connect with a life of faith.
No evangelical has shown more courage in this contested field than N. T. Wright. He has waded into "ordinary" history to write a thorough, detailed study of Jesus as "The Victory of God," to quote from the title of Wright's principal, 700-page work. Beeson's Timothy George considers Wright "one of the most engaging and articulate New Testament scholars in the world." Greg Jones, dean of Duke Divinity School, notes that Wright has "a preacher's passion" in diving into the study of Jesus, perhaps the most contentious area of biblical study today. "He has shown remarkable courage and vision."
(Christianity Today 2/8/1999) READMORE>>>>>
Reconstructing Jesus
In the past several years, New Testament scholar Tom Wright has stepped forward as the most scintillating champion of belief that the canonical Gospels, at least the first three of them, give us a reliable record of what Jesus of Nazareth actually said and did. A modern-day Saint George, Wright slays the dragon of skepticism with a flair that leaves even an antagonist like John Dominic Crossan marveling at his ability to captivate a critical audience. Thus the glowing description of Wright in an advertisement for his far-flung seminars: “Internationally acclaimed as today’s most exciting communicator and most inspiring interpreter of the New Testament” as well as “most popular lecturer in the University of Oxford’s Faculty of Theology.” No longer lecturing in Oxford, Wrights jets here, there, and everywhere from the deanery at Lichfield Cathedral to make his case before scholarly elites and popular audiences alike. He has become a one-man show and, not without reason, the darling of many conservatives. So Jesus and the Victory of God, which elaborates Wright’s views, is bound to attract a lot of attention. (Christianity Today 4/27/1998) READMORE>>>>>
In the past several years, New Testament scholar Tom Wright has stepped forward as the most scintillating champion of belief that the canonical Gospels, at least the first three of them, give us a reliable record of what Jesus of Nazareth actually said and did. A modern-day Saint George, Wright slays the dragon of skepticism with a flair that leaves even an antagonist like John Dominic Crossan marveling at his ability to captivate a critical audience. Thus the glowing description of Wright in an advertisement for his far-flung seminars: “Internationally acclaimed as today’s most exciting communicator and most inspiring interpreter of the New Testament” as well as “most popular lecturer in the University of Oxford’s Faculty of Theology.” No longer lecturing in Oxford, Wrights jets here, there, and everywhere from the deanery at Lichfield Cathedral to make his case before scholarly elites and popular audiences alike. He has become a one-man show and, not without reason, the darling of many conservatives. So Jesus and the Victory of God, which elaborates Wright’s views, is bound to attract a lot of attention. (Christianity Today 4/27/1998) READMORE>>>>>
Thomas J Oord
I disagree with N.T. Wright. And I don’t often do that.
In a recent Time article titled “Christianity Offers No Answers About the Coronavirus. It’s Not Supposed To,” Wright makes some statements with which I can agree. But I don’t agree with his main point.
I Agree…
Wright begins his little essay by referring to the Christian practices of Lent. He rightly calls some explanations for God’s relation to the coronavirus “silly.” He rejects the idea God is punishing us, warning us, or giving a sign by sending this pandemic.
I agree with Wright that God is not causing the pandemic for some higher purpose. We should not “explain” suffering as God orchestrated. The coronavirus isn’t part of some divine blueprint.
I also agree when Wright says our suffering grieves God. God is “in the tears of Jesus and the anguish of the Spirit,” as he puts it. “God also laments,” says Wright.
Perhaps my favorite line is this: “Some Christians like to think of God as above all that, knowing everything, in charge of everything, calm and unaffected by the troubles in his world. That’s not the picture we get in the Bible.”
I couldn’t agree more!
Lament
Instead of searching for answers to God’s will and the coronavirus (as I have offered in this essay), Wright says our response should be to lament. The essay’s final paragraph provides his central argument:
“It is no part of the Christian vocation, then, to be able to explain what’s happening and why. In fact, it is part of the Christian vocation not to be able to explain—and to lament instead. As the Spirit laments within us, so we become, even in our self-isolation, small shrines where the presence and healing love of God can dwell. And out of that there can emerge new possibilities, new acts of kindness, new scientific understanding, new hope.”
I agree lament can be a place “where the presence and healing love of God can dwell.” And from this place, I think new possibilities, acts of kindness, scientific understanding, and new hope can emerge. God can squeeze some good from lament.
But do we have to choose between lament and explanation?
I Disagree…
“Always be ready to give an account of the hope that is within you,” says the Apostle Peter (1 Pt. 3:15). I take this verse to mean we should seek explanations for what God might be doing during this pandemic. I find numerous biblical passages explaining God’s action in response to suffering.
Most of the explanations I’m encountering today for what God is doing are “silly.” I don’t think God sends the coronavirus to punish or teach us a lesson. God has not caused and is not allowing the virus to kill, harm, and cause havoc.
God is not in the evil business.
But it is part of the Christian tradition to offer a plausible explanation to what’s happening. It’s part of being Christian to seek believable answers to the “why” questions. It’s part of being a Christian to give an account of the hope we have.
We should lament the suffering in our world. But we can simultaneously seek answers to why God doesn’t prevent suffering in the first place!......................I agree with Tom Wright on many things. The usual answers for why God doesn’t stop the coronavirus are silly. Christians ought to embrace lament as we suffer the effects of the virus. And God suffers with us.
But unlike Wright, I think we should seek explanations for what God’s will is and what God’s doing. We ought to ask what God’s power must be like in light of God’s love.
We should admit God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly. But God is working against the coronavirus. And God calls you, me, and all creation to overcome evil with love.
-Thomas J Ord; We Should Lament and Explain COVID-19: A Response to N.T. Wright April 7, 2020
In a recent Time article titled “Christianity Offers No Answers About the Coronavirus. It’s Not Supposed To,” Wright makes some statements with which I can agree. But I don’t agree with his main point.
I Agree…
Wright begins his little essay by referring to the Christian practices of Lent. He rightly calls some explanations for God’s relation to the coronavirus “silly.” He rejects the idea God is punishing us, warning us, or giving a sign by sending this pandemic.
I agree with Wright that God is not causing the pandemic for some higher purpose. We should not “explain” suffering as God orchestrated. The coronavirus isn’t part of some divine blueprint.
I also agree when Wright says our suffering grieves God. God is “in the tears of Jesus and the anguish of the Spirit,” as he puts it. “God also laments,” says Wright.
Perhaps my favorite line is this: “Some Christians like to think of God as above all that, knowing everything, in charge of everything, calm and unaffected by the troubles in his world. That’s not the picture we get in the Bible.”
I couldn’t agree more!
Lament
Instead of searching for answers to God’s will and the coronavirus (as I have offered in this essay), Wright says our response should be to lament. The essay’s final paragraph provides his central argument:
“It is no part of the Christian vocation, then, to be able to explain what’s happening and why. In fact, it is part of the Christian vocation not to be able to explain—and to lament instead. As the Spirit laments within us, so we become, even in our self-isolation, small shrines where the presence and healing love of God can dwell. And out of that there can emerge new possibilities, new acts of kindness, new scientific understanding, new hope.”
I agree lament can be a place “where the presence and healing love of God can dwell.” And from this place, I think new possibilities, acts of kindness, scientific understanding, and new hope can emerge. God can squeeze some good from lament.
But do we have to choose between lament and explanation?
I Disagree…
“Always be ready to give an account of the hope that is within you,” says the Apostle Peter (1 Pt. 3:15). I take this verse to mean we should seek explanations for what God might be doing during this pandemic. I find numerous biblical passages explaining God’s action in response to suffering.
Most of the explanations I’m encountering today for what God is doing are “silly.” I don’t think God sends the coronavirus to punish or teach us a lesson. God has not caused and is not allowing the virus to kill, harm, and cause havoc.
God is not in the evil business.
But it is part of the Christian tradition to offer a plausible explanation to what’s happening. It’s part of being Christian to seek believable answers to the “why” questions. It’s part of being a Christian to give an account of the hope we have.
We should lament the suffering in our world. But we can simultaneously seek answers to why God doesn’t prevent suffering in the first place!......................I agree with Tom Wright on many things. The usual answers for why God doesn’t stop the coronavirus are silly. Christians ought to embrace lament as we suffer the effects of the virus. And God suffers with us.
But unlike Wright, I think we should seek explanations for what God’s will is and what God’s doing. We ought to ask what God’s power must be like in light of God’s love.
We should admit God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly. But God is working against the coronavirus. And God calls you, me, and all creation to overcome evil with love.
-Thomas J Ord; We Should Lament and Explain COVID-19: A Response to N.T. Wright April 7, 2020