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.


  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.

  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.

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

  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.

  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.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Exploring the Christian Way of Life - The Identity of Jesus - Church History (Pre-Reformation) - Aquinas and Conclusion

When we reach Aquinas we come to the pinnacle of orthodoxy when it comes to the Trinity and Christology. Christology was important to Aquinas and he dedicated the first fifty-nine questions of Tertia Pars of his Summa Theologiae[1] to the topic. In many ways it is refreshing because he does not treat solely the more philosophical questions of who Jesus was that preoccupied theologians from the third century on. He also spent extended time on Jesus earthly ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and glorification which was a major innovation.[2] Of course every possible topic of Trinitarian and ontological speculation is also probed. For the sake of space we will only hit some highlights.

Aquinas is clearly in step with the tradition that can be traced from Nicea, through Augustine and the Lombard, to the heart of the Middle Ages. One thing to briefly note is that even in his densest argumentation, Aquinas was not trying to prove elements of his theology via rational argument as that…

Exploring the Christian Way of Life - The Identity of Jesus - Church History (Pre-Reformation) - Irenaeus

Starting from Irenaeus, Christology, in some respects, moves on. A big part of this would have been due to the “gnostic” controversies. It became increasingly important to clarify the relationship between Father and Son and to minimize their distinctiveness, while still maintaining Jesus’ full humanity. From this point on, clashes over heresy about the nature of Christ and discussions related to Trinitarian theology dominate Christological discussion to the point that the original emphasis on Jesus’ Messianic identity fades to the background.[1] Maintaining the affirmation that Jesus was both human and divine was critical for Irenaeus and those after him because they saw that as the necessary grounds of salvation.[2]

Of particular interest to Irenaeus was the baptism of Jesus. What happened when he received the Spirit?[3] It was not the means by which the Word entered Jesus. He was not merely human before that point.[4] Rather it was a divinization of the human nature of Jesus, a nat…

End of Summer Review/Update

The school year is now upon us and I'll definitely not be posting the next two months. This summer didn't quite go to plan so I didn't get to do the blogging I was hoping to do. Specifically I was planning on blogging through 2 Thessalonians, but that didn't happen. It may happen late in the fall, but we will see. I may instead decide to pick up a different Pauline letter (perhaps 2 Corinthians). This is my last year of school  and by the fall of next year I should be back on a more regular blogging schedule.

A lack of blogging was not from a lack of productivity (although I'm sure my Pokemon Go playing did cut into my reading time a little bit). I've had a interesting summer learning about Medieval Christianity and specifically focusing on Peter Lombard and Thomas Aqunias. They'll both be featured in my next paper in Exploring the Christian Way which I hope to publish here in late January of 2017. 90% of the reading and 80% of the writing is done for that …