This week I have been listening to the “Romans in a Week” lecture series by N.T. Wright that my father-in-law gave me a few months ago. Needless to say, I bumped it up to the front of my queue (past 955 tracks, 330 hours of music podcasts and lectures – I know, I’m a hoarder). Listening through it I find myself both sad and excited.
I am sad because I thought (though am embarrassed to admit) I had come up with something new or, to say it better, realized something lost: Romans is written not as a systematic theology but to make peace between two groups, the Jews and Gentiles who are fighting over who are the true children of God.
Wrong.
Almost everything I have been teaching in the Romans class on Sundays was taught in a better style and with more scholarship and depth – he even reads the Greek from memory – by Wright in this series.
Doh!
Tim Spivey this week wrote a post “Theological Cartography Syndrome” meaning the inability to think critically about our favorite theologian(s). That worried me. Am I following Wright without critique? At this point I realized I did not come to these conclusions because I read or listened to N.T. Wright. I came to these conclusions before I listened to these lectures. Huzzah! I agree with Wright because we read and teach Romans the same way – as ancient history. It has a cultural context which must be addressed before we attempt to make sense of the text. This is what I (woefully) have tried to do in my posts so far – describe the history and mindset of the Jews and Gentiles in Rome reading Paul’s letter for the first time.
Where my work differs from N.T. Wright (at least in this series) is that I want to go beyond mere exegesis and look at a new way to apply Romans today. I wish to compare the 1st Century to the 21st Century. I see many parallels between the Jews then and Churched Christians now which Wright may not agree with. This task is fraught with peril, for I realize there are not one-to-one equal comparatives between these two groups and it is uncomfortable to place yourself in the cross hairs of Paul’s rhetorical arguments; however, the similarities are too great to dismiss. What I wright will be similar to Wright’s findings. But know that these things come from me, not from a devotion to N. T. Wright.
This is why I have entitled the study Romans for the 21st Century. Just as Paul radically challenged the Jews and Gentiles of the 1st Century to live united together in Rome I want to challenge those who wish to obey God inside and outside of a church in the 21st Century to live united together wherever we live. ('united together' was intentional)
 |
| Why must you spoil my fun, N.T. Wright? |
I am sad because I thought (though am embarrassed to admit) I had come up with something new or, to say it better, realized something lost: Romans is written not as a systematic theology but to make peace between two groups, the Jews and Gentiles who are fighting over who are the true children of God.
Wrong.
Almost everything I have been teaching in the Romans class on Sundays was taught in a better style and with more scholarship and depth – he even reads the Greek from memory – by Wright in this series.
Doh!
Tim Spivey this week wrote a post “Theological Cartography Syndrome” meaning the inability to think critically about our favorite theologian(s). That worried me. Am I following Wright without critique? At this point I realized I did not come to these conclusions because I read or listened to N.T. Wright. I came to these conclusions before I listened to these lectures. Huzzah! I agree with Wright because we read and teach Romans the same way – as ancient history. It has a cultural context which must be addressed before we attempt to make sense of the text. This is what I (woefully) have tried to do in my posts so far – describe the history and mindset of the Jews and Gentiles in Rome reading Paul’s letter for the first time.
My Task: Romans Applied for the 21st Century
Where my work differs from N.T. Wright (at least in this series) is that I want to go beyond mere exegesis and look at a new way to apply Romans today. I wish to compare the 1st Century to the 21st Century. I see many parallels between the Jews then and Churched Christians now which Wright may not agree with. This task is fraught with peril, for I realize there are not one-to-one equal comparatives between these two groups and it is uncomfortable to place yourself in the cross hairs of Paul’s rhetorical arguments; however, the similarities are too great to dismiss. What I wright will be similar to Wright’s findings. But know that these things come from me, not from a devotion to N. T. Wright.
This is why I have entitled the study Romans for the 21st Century. Just as Paul radically challenged the Jews and Gentiles of the 1st Century to live united together in Rome I want to challenge those who wish to obey God inside and outside of a church in the 21st Century to live united together wherever we live. ('united together' was intentional)
No comments:
Post a Comment