|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 19, 2006 14:24
Subject: RE: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245
I took note of the
following:
Ian noted from Wrights response to
Barnett:
>>
>> > declare that if the Reformed emphasis on continuity
between
>> >
OT and NT had been dominant in NT scholarship rather than the
>> > Lutheran
discontinuity view, much of the NPP would have been
>> > unnecessary.
>>
>> I find that an interesting comment.
I too find it "an
interesting comment", for reasons you've already heard me on; i.e., a
significant amount of what I hear as new and fresh in the evangelical community
is very familiar from the Reformed part of my background.
The other message I
really appreciated, especially the day after watching Good Night and Good Luck,
was Ian's below. I noted, without having read the book myself, how much of the
reaction from Americans on the list was negative. It seems that in America, the
entire left-right spectrum is shifted sharply to the right, so that if you are
anywhere near the centre, or at all critical of the US, you are a Marxist!! How,
otherwise, could anyone confuse Wright with a Marxist?
D
Message: 17
> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006
05:50:35 -0000
> From: "Ian Packer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Wright's politics
>
> Bill S: Having read a lot of Wright's
stuff I think it is fair to
> call him Marxist...
>
> Ian P: Nonsense... as a reader of sociology and philosophy, I
can
> hardly
imagine how you make such a connection between Wright and a
> materialistic, deterministic,
economic apocalypticist.
>
>
--------------------------
>
> BS:
... and hard left but that is inevitably a matter of opinion and
> of semantics.
>
> IP: Opinion it may be but not 'mere
opinion'... one would expect
> the 'semantics' to match in some clearer way to how one
can
> accurately
describe the world. But this discussion seems all the
> more absurd having just heard Wright
talk about the childishness
> of 'left' and 'right' talk as though things can be so
neatly
>
characterised as such. (e.g. Archbishop Rowan Williams holds open
> the prospect long-term gay
relationships as warranting some kind of
> affirmation of the church but is against
abortion. Is he right or
> left?) It is this kind of talk which I think is
"fundamentally
>
naive"; as is anyone who imagines that matching troops around the
> world is actually what 'we'
Christians are about... for goodness
> sake, don't we believe we are part of God's transnational
people
> now...
why all the defensiveness over our views (from the irrelevant
> sidelines) over American,
British or Australian policy? Hail,
> Caesar...
>
> If Wright is "in the corner with violently anti American and
anti
> Jewish
political types", then that is a corner so vast that it
> hardly deserves to be called a corner
(note the highly conflictual
> boxing analogy for any disagreement).
>
> May I suggest that no-one talk about 'their politics' in
relation to
>
Wright until they can articulate it from an ecclesiology that
takes
> seriously
the corporate nature of Christian faith and our unique
> vocation in the world between the
horizons of our crucified but
> risen Lord and the inaugurated eschatology of peace
(shalom).
>
>
Thanks to John S and Rance for sharpening the significant issues
for
> us though,
as usual.
>
>
Grace and peace
>
> Ian
--
No virus found in this
outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus
Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006
| 
