Skip to main content

Wheaton Theology Conference - Wright's Non-Answer to the $50 Question

In the Q&A/Response time Wright critiqued Vanhoozer's presentation of justification as insufficiently Jewish. A narrative has to be imparted to Paul because Paul hints at such a narrative (a Jewish one). Our formulation of justification has to be rooted in that narrative. Fair enough. Vanhoozer asked Wright, then (and this is a paraphrase), what role does he assign to systematic theology? How can it dialogue with him more effectively? Wright did not utter a syllable in response. The silence was deafening. It seems that (and I'm not basing this solely on his non-answer here - I get the same vibe in his book Justification) he views biblical theology to be a superior discipline to systematic theology with the former feeding the latter and that's it. There's no reverse feeding.

I am troubled by this. Both Vanhoozer and Wright rank among my greatest influences. I was thrilled when Vanhoozer asked the question because my hope is to see an interchange between the disciplines and I was hoping to hear a fruitful discussion about what that could look like from my favorite systemetician and my favorite biblical theologian. I also am especially disappointed because (and this may not always be evident from my writing) I intend to go into the field of systematic theology. Part of what these formative years are for me is to figure out how to put those two disciplines together in dialogue because the two have been separated for far too long. And again, I do wonder if this doesn't reveal what I sense, an anti-systematic theology sentiment in Wright.

Comments

  1. I have to be honest, the non-answer makes me smile.

    I think if more systematicians were like Vanhoozer, Wright would be more open to engaging the discipline. As it is, he sees it as standing in the way of reading the Bible on its own terms. To be quite frank, he'd be right on many fronts. Systematic Theology is, for many, a static discipline. So while it could seem like Wright is pushing out systematics, he'd probably argue "they did it first" (if this were a 1st grade fight).

    Personally, I think the better answer is for biblical theologians and exegetes to get into systematics more to challenge those in that discipline (and, I suppose, be challenged). I know Carson has been approached about writing a systematic theology, but he's said he simply doesn't have the time nor the life expectancy to pull it off. That's a shame, because I'd love for an exegetically trained scholar to do something like that. I guess that'll be your job...

    By the way, if I knew that we'd be doing this, I'd say you should have set up a message board to have these conversations. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's an interesting point, and I think you're seeing precisely what I am trying to do. My goal is to get as good as I possibly can at exegesis and use that to do systematics. I was deeply moved when I read Hauerwas lament in an essay that he didn't know how to do exegesis. That felt like advice to me that it would be a wise idea to get good at it.

    Yes Systematics is stuck. Look for Graham Cole's Systematic theology in several years. He's going to try to write it on the shoulders of biblical theology. I think it will be a good move forwards.

    My question still remains, though. How does a systmatician help the exegete? I'm not sure what the answer is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, in retrospect a bulletin board would have been nice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was there and don't remember the deafening silence. If anything his reply did not meet to some people's expectations. But in essence his reply was to have more dialogues like this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perhaps, maybe the silence was just defining to me, but I thought it was very noticeable that he didn't engage the question when he engaged the question that everyone else posed of him.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…