Excurses: Wallace on Wright or Why N.T. Wright should never teach Greek Exegesis

I found this article by esteemed Greek scholar Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary by way of Justin Taylor's blog at thegospelcoalition.org. He spends 13 pages critiquing Wright and the presentation he makes concerning his doctrine of justification contra Piper and his critiques.

In regard to Wright's rhetoric, or style of writing and speaking, Wallace points out Wright's "hubris" (3). "To say that anyone who doesn't see things his way has lost his moorings and has, in fact, 'allowed the little ship of exegesis to be tossed to and fro with every wind of philosophy..." is akin to saying that if anyone disagrees with Wright that God's righteousness = God's faithfulness he could exegete his way out of a paper bad...'My way or the highway' may work in monarchical episcopacy, but it has no such place in exegetical debate" (3). Wallace hits on an issue that I have taken with Wright in much of his work: his arrogance. Identifying Wright's approach to exegesis as 'my way or the highway' is exactly right. The problem with such an approach to anything (including exegetical discourse) is that if anyone disagrees even slightly with any part of his argument he is instantly mocked and/or vilified. His derision for any perspective but his own demonstrates nothing of the humility or generosity which ought to inherently accompany a gospel-transformed heart.

This is further complicated by the observation of Gerald Bray in his review of Wright's new work, Justification. Unlike John Piper who went to painstaking ends to ensure he properly represented Wright and his argument by sending his manuscript to Wright himself, Wright did no such thing. Bray continues, "The result is that the book bears all the hallmarks of hasty production. It is full of digressions, personal anecdotes which appear to have no purpose other than to win sympathy for the author, and random attacks against unnamed people who are supposed to be typical of popular modern Evangelicals. Whereas [Dr.] Piper is unfailingly gracious and sticks rigorously to his subject, Bishop Wright verges on the downright rude and wanders all over the place, with the result that it is often hard to know whether he is addressing [Dr.] Piper's concerns or not" (qtd. in Wallace 13). Wallace adds, "one of the most disturbing things about Wright's Justification is that it explicitly interacts with so few scholars" (13). Wright has such little regard for others and their work and such high acclaim for his own that he has a (horrific, I believe, as well as foolish) practice of writing works without consulting other scholars (cf. Paul, as well as his more popular works Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope). Contra Piper (a scholar/pastor in his own right) who painstakingly cites other scholars and provides a justification and support for his arguments and also takes strong positions on areas of doctrine.

This hubris is either the result or the source of his (lack of) exegetical prowess. Wallace comments that Wright seems to make a practice of sitting "three feet above the text at all points where it would be inconvenient to wrestle with what the text actually says" (13). Part of Wright's problem is that he is so insistent that his understanding of Paul is correct that he substitutes a hard, diligent study of the writings of Paul with rhetoric that, more often than not, attacks his opponents rather than attempting to deconstruct their arguments. It seems more like childish behavior than an attitude becoming an accomplished bishop.

I do not intend to make an ad hominem argument, but I do think that his attitude and practices weigh against him and his conclusions heavily. The fact that he does not cite other scholars or attempt to deconstruct opposing conclusions, that he attacks his opponents instead of engaging them and that he belittles anyone (regardless of their scholastic capability) who disagrees to any degree I do believe diminishes the respectability of his work and his conclusions.