N.T. Wright: Fresh Perspective, or Simply, Fresh Insight?

I recently finished reading N.T. Wright's latest book, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, which is based on a series of lectures that he gave at a number of places, including the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference. Having read a good bit of the material that is out there critiquing the New Perspective controversy, I thought it was time to give Wright a fair shot and read some of his original material. This is good place to start, especially for someone like myself who has not previously read any of Wright's works. Paul gives an overview of the work that he has done in Pauline studies up to this point and points forward to possible areas for further research.

I must confess, I was not sure what my reaction would be before I started reading. Most of the summaries and examinations of Wright and New Perspectives that I had read to that point were extremely negative in tone. While I believe that this negative tone is not only warranted but necessary in the discussion of Wright's take on Paul and justification, I was very surprised to find that I not only agreed with much he had to say, but also found his writing style to be winsome and extremely enjoyable. His blending of careful scriptural exegesis with extensive historical context is like nothing else I've read before. In particular, his chapter on Gospel and Empire shows an amazing ability to bring an understanding of the historical aspects of the Roman empire in Paul's day to bring out subtleties in Paul's letter to the Philippians. Wright notes that Caesar promised to be a 'Saviour' to the to cities, bringing freedom, justice, peace, and ultimately 'salvation.' Paul, living in the context of this sort of language, frames his letter to the Philippians in the same sort of language. By telling the Philippians that their "citizenship is in heaven," Paul challenges their allegiance to Rome in favor of the heavenly city. By speaking of the work of Christ in terms of bringing freedom, peace, and salvation, he is challenging allegiance to Caesar in favor of allegiance to Christ.

These type of insights are numerous and truly delightful. However, there are also serious concerns with much of Wright's conclusions, especially on the issues covenant markers and justification. For Wright, the Judaizers in Galatians were not guilty of imposing a 'works' religion on the New Testament church. The issue was not about works, but rather how the members of the New Covenant were to be identified. As Wright states it:

The doctrine of justification by faith...was never about how people were to be converted, how someone might become a Christian, but about how one could tell, in the present, who God's true people were...

This sort of idea is repeated in similar language many times through out the course of the book. The consequence of this is that justification is not longer to be considered (at least solely) as a declarative event that happens at a single point in time. Instead, justification has to do with the identity markers of the sacraments and good works performed, all proven in an eschatological fulfillment. Granted, my rendition of Wright's comments is not doubt far less subtle than his actual statements, and I'm sure that he would take issue with it. I would restate them more closely if I could, but I confess, in attempting to reword them, this truly seems to be the spirit of what is communicated. Wright is of course more capable of communicating them in a way that doesn't seem to indicate a sort of works righteousness than I am. But in this case, I think my inability to artfully cover this over reveals the true error of his view on justification. It seems that the whole issue could be boiled down to this: if being justified is about something seen in us, then it is not longer about what Christ has done and applied to us.

So, while there is undoubtedly much to be gained from Wright, there is also much to be lost. If we read this work uncritically, without being steeped in a biblical understanding of justification as God's declaration that we are right with him on account of the work of Christ, then we are in danger of being directed to trust in some sort of identity marker or eschatological vindication for our peace with God. While there is much insight to be taken from Wright, it seems that his perspective is not so 'fresh.'