Interview with N.T. Wright on Surprised by Hope

At the Kingdom People blog, Teven Wax has published an in depth interview with Bishop N.T. Wright on his most recent book Surprised by Hope. A lot of blogs are linking to this interview- it really is interesting and well done. Read the whole thing at : Trevin Wax Interview with N.T. Wright on Surprised by Hope « Kingdom People

In the interview N.T. Wright made some very interesting comments on controversies between him and John Piper over the nature of Justification and the "New Perspective" understanding on Paul's epistles. The most immediately interesting parts of the interview to me, however, were Bishop Wright's comments on the frequent comparisons of his books to the works of C.S. Lewis, and his respectful comments on where he thought Lewis made apologetic and/or theological errors (and why those errors were made). Here's some of what Wright said:

First off, let me make it quite clear: I don’t think anyone is “the C.S. Lewis of this generation.” Lewis was inimitable. I take my hat off to him. He did an extraordinary job. Consider his range and the fact that he had a photographic memory for everything he read. He could recite poetry from way back. So I don’t aspire to that. But if I can be an apologist, somebody who explains the faith in ways that folk on the street can understand, so be it! That’s great.

Apologetics was Lewis’ great gift. He wasn’t a theologian. He was, obviously, wonderfully well-read. He knew literature rather than theology.

But Lewis made some rather simple, basic mistakes about the historical Jesus. For instance, in The Screwtape Letters, he says that you shouldn’t go looking for the historical Jesus because we all basically know who Jesus was, and any attempt to make that portrait better is just going to result in making him either a crank or somebody who’s just very strange. I know what he meant. He probably read Schweitzer and Bultmann and thought, If that’s where we’re going, let’s not bother.

His summary that Jesus must have been either mad or bad or God fails to take into account the subtleties and the nuances of first-century Judaism. Lewis’ views on the historical Jesus are odd because Lewis in his own professional work spent a great deal of time telling people (famously) in his studies on words that when you’re reading an old book, and you come to a word you don’t understand, you look it up in the dictionary. But the real danger is when you come a word you do understand in modern use, but it means something slightly different or completely different, and you don’t look it up, which will cause you to misread the passage. I wish he had taken that same lesson back into the first century and said, Hmm. Let’s actually find out what’s going on there. There’s nothing to be afraid of in doing that.

So, there are places where, as a New Testament scholar, I want to say, Lewis just didn’t get it. Deficiencies show up even in some of his basic arguments about Jesus. As I pointed out in an article last year, astonishingly in Mere Christianity, he doesn’t mention the resurrection (which considering he believed in it robustly is remarkable). I think he was doing those broadcast talks, and he did the next one and the next one, and I don’t think he stood back and said, “Wait a minute. Is this a full presentation or not?” So there are certain oddities about his work.

Criticising C.S. Lewis almost seems sacrilegious to many evangelicals (me included). But I must admit Wright has made some very good points.

Whether you agree with, disagree with, or are somewhere in the middle on the New Perspective on Paul, every student of theology and New Testament studies has to read N.T. Wright. He is that important, and that good a writer.