Confessing Evangelical

I'm about to put up a post about NT Wright's response to the "Gospel of Judas", but before doing so I wanted to make a few observations about the recent interview with Wright that has caused something of a stir, thanks to his suggestion that it is possible to be a Christian without believing in the resurrection. Here's an excerpt from the interview in question:

"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.

"But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled."

Wright goes on to say that Borg's rejection of the bodily resurrection is "a major problem" that "means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher", but that he doesn't want "to say he isn't a Christian". Wright continues:

"I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational."

Now I'm not here to defend what Wright said in this interview - for starters he's perfectly capable of doing so himself if he wishes, and secondly I don't actually agree with him (well, except for that last paragraph) - but I am astonished by the vitriol that has been poured out on him for these remarks (or "heretical blatherings", as one well-known Lutheran figure has described them).

A couple of thoughts on all this:

1. This was a newspaper interview. Hands up who would like to be judged by others on the basis of what they are reported to have said in a newspaper interview? Hands up who thinks newspapers have a good track record of communicating the nuances of Christian theological statements effectively and without distortion?
   


2. NT Wright describes himself as a personal friend of Marcus Borg. I can understand the reluctance to condemn a more "liberal" friend as a non-Christian. Plus, this means that NT Wright knows Marcus Borg, and I don't - and neither, I'm guessing, do most of Wright's critics. I personally suspect Wright is displaying a surfeit of charity towards those with Borg's views, but if Wright's judgment as a pastor and personal friend is that Borg's position is one of an intellectual muddle obscuring a deeper faith, then I'm prepared (with a dash of scepticism, it has to be said) to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Like it's any of my business, I might add.
   


3. I am baffled as to why people are so eager to condemn NT Wright, to leap almost gleefully on what he says and announce, "Aha! See, we told you! He's a heretic! A false teacher! He's leading the church astray!". I suppose that helps avoid having to tackle his actual arguments. But, while I don't agree with him on everything by any means, Wright has a lot of valuable things to say (as I hope my next post will show). To shut him out and shut him up, as some would seem to wish to happen, would be a tragedy for the church.

Anyway, where were we? Oh yes - the esteemed Lord Bishop of Durham was about to pwn the "Gospel of Judas" for our pleasure and edification. Coming right up.