Extraordinary! Tom Wright actually takes the time to reply to a blogpost about his views on justification and gets completely ignored by those discussing him. And then he even comes back again, but only manages to inspire some guy to tell him to take up blogging. D'oh! I can't help but feel we missed an opportunity to convert another scholar to the ranks of bibliobloggers, and what a trophy convert he would be. :-D
I noticed the same thing about the complete lack of interaction with his comment. It was weird. I'm pretty sure that I'd notice if Tom Wright made a comment on my blog.
ReplyDeleteI felt like leaving a comment saying, "come to me Tom and I'll interact with you!"
ReplyDeletebut then i thought it might sound a bit creepy :-)
It's amazing that Denny approved it at all. He's notorious for moderating dissenters into oblivion.
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable what a missed opportunity!
ReplyDeleteWell it does make you wonder about how open some people really are to discussion. I guess it must be nice to have all the answers and know you can't possibly have anything to learn, even from NT wright. I know a four year old girl like that, but i'm hoping she'll grow out of it!
ReplyDeleteI truly live in an entirely different cognitive world from people who debate the meaning of the word "basis" and think that such a debate has something to do with God's salvation for all of creation. And I'm glad that (I believe that) God is bigger than such a etymological debate.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fan of Wright and his New Perspective and I loved he remark about trying to fit Paul into a dogmatic framework. :-) Or God, even.
Hey Pam, i totally agree, although I think there might also be a gender divide on the subject, i've only ever seen men get hot under the collar on such issues!
ReplyDeletealthough I think there might also be a gender divide on the subject, i've only ever seen men get hot under the collar on such issues!
ReplyDeleteThis is probably a lot more than just a throw-away remark which could yield some investigation in several different directions.
In my opinion as a (mere) woman, I have a personal theory that a lot of these debates are had by people with fairly extreme sensing-thinking personality-types and that these individuals are more likely to be men. (Both nature and nurture here, I suspect.)
It was not so long ago in human history that moral philosophers and psychologists drew conclusions such as "Woman are more likely than men to break rules or laws out of compassion - e.g. stealing medication to saved a loved one's life - therefore women have a less-developed sense of morality. So ethics derived from linear thought-forms but divorced from context was considered the highest form of goodness and morality but contextual morality that prioritized human life was an inferior form of morality.
One of my favourite preachers, the Franciscan Richard Rohr, says that he thinks that the reason Jesus was a male was that if a woman had gone around preaching service and pacifism and the last shall be first, everyone would have said "Yeah, yeah typical woman".
Pam, trust you to write a better and more interesting post in the comments than my original post! :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks for that.