Recently the magazine Tabletalk published a series of essays against Calvinist theologian N. T. Wright. The black cover of this issue lets us know just how dangerous this man is.
But how dangerous is N. T. Wright? Well, he’s dangerous to some people, but not to others. Let’s see:
1. He believes in paedocommunion. He thinks baptism is enough to admit children to the table. There’s no particular essay on paedocommunion in this issue of Tabletalk, but you can be sure that it’s in the background. Paedocommunion is a much more churchy and less intellectualistic approach to the Kingdom than the writers in Tabletalk believe in.
2. He believes in theocracy. He thinks that it is of the essence of the Gospel that Jesus is King, and not just King of the Church but King of kings. God has been forgiving and justifying people ever since Adam, but now He’s made Jesus King and calls all societies to repent. This is completely rejected by the Klineans and pietists who dominate the “Reformed” world today. They are opposed to any idea of theocracy. For Wright, salvation is both individual and social, and the baptistic individualists who attack him completely disagree with this, especially John Piper, who as a baptist is not really into a covenantal view of society and salvation. It is no surprise that baptists and amillennialists, who think that God is only saving individuals and not societies, would be confused by traditional Calvinists like Wright.
3. He’s basically postmillennial. He thinks we have not yet arrived at the end of history. He doesn’t think everything has been settled, and that the Great Conversation needs to continue. He’s willing to be open to correction on lots of secondary issues. This is a problem for amillennialists, who naturally tend to think that everything has been settled and that any departure from their views is a move into serious error or heresy.
4. He’s a member of the Church of England. So, he believes in sung, liturgical worship. As far as the Ligonier types, most of them anyway, that’s a great evil. I know some of the men who wrote in this issue of Tabletalk, and believe me, they are strongly against weekly communion, singing psalms, and structured covenant-renewal worship. Two of these authors are pastors at First Presbyterian, Jackson, MS, and you can go to that website and see for yourself.
5. He’s a bishop. You’ll notice that all the people attacking him in this issue of Tabletalk are baptists or presbyterians. But Wright’s view of bishop is very low church: The bishop is nothing more than an ordinary minister who is regarded as first among equals. Wright is strongly opposed to any separate “office” of bishop. The “presiding minister” in the Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches is pretty much the same as what Wright views as a bishop. Still, just hearing the word “bishop” makes some of these men react. I know some of these men, and they have an emotional revulsion when it comes to Episcopalians of any variety.
6. Wright joins with the original Calvinist reformation and views justification as forgiveness, and does not see any “imputation of active obedience” as part of it. This is a technical question that grew up a generation or two after the Reformation and that was an issue at the Westminster Assembly, and concerning which the Westminster Standards are deliberately silent. Many modern Calvinists believe that when we are united to Jesus in His resurrection, we receive all His righteousness plus His glorified power, and that is what gives us the power to obey and live as Christians. But we are pronounced innocent simply because of the cross. As far as I am concerned, this is correct. The Lord’s Supper shows forth Jesus’ death, not some kind of “imputed righteousness.” But whatever the case, anyone who thinks that “imputation of active obedience” is part of the essence of the Reformed faith is in error. The Reformed faith has always had people on both sides of this question.
7. The fact that Wright is an openly declared Calvinist is not an issue, of course, but you’d never know that from the way these men have written about him. Wright has never tried to be “above” the differences between Protestant and Catholic, as one of these writers falsely alleges. He’s completely Reformed and Calvinistic, and has said so many times.
8. Of course, Wright, like most English evangelicals, is in favor of women’s ordination. And he’s got some political views that I don’t agree with, though he’s an openly declared “small government man.” And of course, as a participant in the Great Conversation, there are a number of places where I disagree with Wright’s interpretation of a particular passage.
9. The final thing I’ll say about Wright is this: There is absolutely nothing in anything N. T. Wright has ever written that even in the slightest compromises the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant.
10. So, the question for us is this: Is N. T. Wright dangerous to US? I don’t think so. He’s a fine evangelical and Reformed scholar who has much to say, and we should not be afraid to listen, and disagree sometimes or often.
[…] brings me to this post from Jim Jordan. Jim points out some of the factors provoking the reaction against Wright and gives us some very […]
Unfortunately, I think that point #1 is enough for his critics. Having been in the Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian camps for years, I saw how easy it was suspect anyone who held to paedocommunion regardless how correct they sounded at all other points.
Excellent post!
It seems J.N. Darby, brethren pioneer, concurs with your take on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and it’s lack of early reformed credentials:
http://purescum.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/darby-on-justification-as-pardon/
Call me ignorant if you must, but how is making justification about church membership not “compromisi[ng] the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone?”
Mr. Walker,
What’s the problem? Salvation is by faith (trust) in God alone, whether justification is primarily about “getting in” or about “who is in.”
I’m reminded of Barron’s columnist Alan Abelson, who said on more than one occasion that the problem with France is that it’s filled with Frenchmen. I say this with all respect, but perhaps what’s wrong with N.T. Wright are all of the “N.T. Wrightians.” Why are so many enamored by him? I would much rather read Jim Jordan!
Also, you lost me at point 8. I’m not sure the ordination of women should even be a part of The Great Conversation — any more than shooting free throws should be a part of a football game. At the risk of stretching my analogy a bit too far, he’s not even playing the same sport, why should we consider him a part of our team?
I agree that it seems that a large number of “NTWrightians” are just people looking for an excuse to become liberals. But then, people have used me as an excuse to become apostates into Rome or EO, and this has always been completely illegitimate. People used Luther as an excuse to become political revolutionaries and polytheists.
I don’t think ordination of women to the pastorate should be in The Great Conversation either. That’s why I said NTW was wrong about that.
“Our team” can mean different things. It depends on which team you’re talking about.
Thanks, Jim. Good points.
[…] Wrong With N.T. Wright James Jordan explains what’s wrong with N.T. Wright: He believes in theocracy. He thinks that it is of the essence […]
[…] Bonus question: In light of the very political connotations of a first-century Jew and Roman citizen saying “Jesus Christ is Lord,” does N.T. Wright believe in biblical theocracy in a way that approximates James B. Jordan’s use of the term? Jordan thinks so. […]