Towards Disagreeing Well: N.T. Wrong, Tom Schreiner, and Shock-Jockery

Disagreement is a necessary aspect of theological discourse.  Though unity is desirable, and like-mindedness is applauded throughout the New Testament (Phil. 2:2-8), it seems inevitable this side of glory that brothers in Christ will take issue with each other’s biblical interpretation and theological proclamation.  In fact, much of the development of theology throughout the history of the Church has relied on disagreement to flesh out nuances and answer important questions about what we believe, and why we believe it. The installation and adoption of social media as a realm for theological discourse has only served to increase the intensity and quantity of disagreement exponentially.  Social media allows for a disconnect that fosters a propensity to treat those with which we disagree as less than fellow Christians made in the imago dei; instead, they are just distant figures behind a computer screen.  In many cases, it also fosters a confidence that accountability for word and deed is well out of reach, especially in regard to the local church.  It is no surprise that for many in this space, it does not seem illogical or contrary to James 3:17 to speak and engage in a way that would bring about rebuke if employed in person. One need only look at the claims of Scripture (Proverbs 20:3, Colossians 3:7-9) and meager experience with ourselves and other humans to know that our flesh desires contention.  Add to this natural desire the feelings of pride and confirmation bias that tend to come from making theological claims that are retweeted, shared, and applauded by large groups, and you find a recipe for the current state of theological discourse in the realm of social media and content creation.  The content that receives the most retweets, clicks, views, and applause is often not the measured, gentle, and thorough discourse found amongst many pastors and theologians throughout history.  Instead, what receives that confirmation from the consumer is often the reactionary, contentious, and overwhelmingly arrogant ‘hot take’ that finds its home in a medium that lacks accountability, nuance, and brotherly love. Social media and content creation aren’t disappearing anytime soon. In fact, I think that it would be a detriment to the Church for this medium to not be utilized in its fullness.  So, we must then ask an important question, whether we are simply consuming this content or also creating it: How do we disagree well?

N.T. Wrong, Tom Schreiner, and Learning from the Best

It seems the best route for answering this question well is to present an example of

good disagreement.

  Furthermore, I think using an example from someone who I personally disagree with on much will only serve to help strengthen the points being made.  Much discussion and disagreement has been had over the “New Perspective on Paul”, and especially its implications for biblical interpretation and theological discourse over the atonement.  It is no secret that much of what was and still is brought to the table by scholars like Dunn, Sanders, and NT Wright have possible implications for the hermeneutic of reformed theology and some of its theological conclusions. Not surprisingly, this new perspective has been a hot topic of engagement between scholars of these differing persuasions.  On the more popular end, my personal experience is that many have come to conclusions about NPP and its advocates without seriously engaging their work.  Instead, they have adopted the reactive comments of popular pastors and theologians who rejected NPP and its proponents as unbiblical, dangerous, and “NT Wrong”. In the midst of this disagreement, strawmanning, and reactionary contentiousness was a response to NT Wright and NPP from Tom Schreiner, a biblical scholar of the Calvinist persuasion who teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Instead of making sweeping claims about Wright being a heretic or hater of the truth who “doesn’t even believe that Jesus died for our sins”, Schreiner models fair and honest biblical disagreement.  Schreiner’s critique of Wright’s

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

can be found in an issue of Credo Magazine, and a thorough summary by Justin Taylor at TGC will be linked in the footnotes.  What about Schreiner’s critique separates itself from the types of disagreement that plague social media and content creation?

1). Recognition of the Possibility of Overreaction

Knowing the climate surrounding the discussion of the NPP and Wright’s work, especially in his own camp, Schreiner makes two very important points before he begins to critique Wright.  First, he makes clear that Wright is a “clearly not an enemy of evangelicalism but a friend.”  He recognizes Wright’s tremendous contributions to biblical scholarship and his service to the local church.  Schreiner does not begin by framing Wright as an

enemy

, but as a

co-worker

.  On the opposite end, though, he also cautions readers against refusing to question Wright simply because of his influence and accomplishments.  No one is above critique, but critique need not demonize its recipient in order to be received by the audience. To conclude this point, I will just let Schreiner’s words argue for themselves:

“Discussing disagreements has a negative side effect, for we tend to focus on those and to forget where we agree. So too here, the concerns and disagreements may cause us to neglect the many places where there is agreement.  So, let me say again how thankful I am for the scholarship and wisdom evident in Wright’s work. We all stand in his debt, for he has helped us to see in a new way the coherence, historical rootedness, and practical ramifications of Pauline theology.  Wright’s work on Paul will be profited from and read for years to come.  May the conversation continue with charity, grace, and forthright dialogue.”

This is hardly the language and approach we tend to find in our current climate of shock-jock reactionary theology.

2). Fair Representation of the Opposition

Present in Schreiner’s critique of Wright’s work is a fair and honest evaluation of his arguments.  Schreiner need not straw-man Wright in order to drive home points of disagreement. He is confident that he can both lay out Wright’s actual concepts, and then argue for those places where he does not agree.  He is fighting a steel-man, not a man made of straw.  Comparing Schreiner’s work to the ever-popular clip of John MacArthur calling him “NT Wrong” and arguing that Wright rejects substitutionary atonement (dispelled over and over by Wright and others), it is immediately apparent that there is a difference in tone, treatment, and content when Schreiner engages this disagreement. Again, I will conclude this section with Schreiner’s own words:

“I am not making any accusations here about Wright’s orthodoxy or evangelical credentials. It is a matter of emphasis instead of denial.  Still, it seems that he emphasizes the horizontal much more than he stresses the vertical.  Both themes are certainly present.  Nevertheless, Wright doesn’t give us an in-depth and profound discussion on the nature of sin in Paul.  He repeatedly says that the problem is sin.  Yes and Yes. But he doesn’t linger over what sin is…”

3). Seeking the Common Ground

Lastly, Schreiner seems intent on finding the nuggets of truth even in the areas where he disagrees with Wright.  He does not, as the saying goes,

throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  This is something that many who fall into the trap of contentious disagreement over theological issues fail to do.  Oftentimes, even those with which we disagree are offering some theological meat of which we can eat and agree.  The wisdom comes in finding that meat, while spitting out the bones.  For Schreiner, that comes in recognizing the importance of Wright, Sanders, and Dunn’s work on covenantal nomism and exclusivism in second temple Judaism, as well as their stress on the communal nature of faith and our

horizontal

relationships. Schreiner does not have to reject these concepts outright in order to disagree with Wright in related areas, or in his emphases.  This is the mistake of many who disagree; contention in one area necessitates rejection of everything related to that person. Schreiner models well the ability to be nuanced, avoiding tossing the baby out with the bathwater:

“We see a both-and problem in Paul: both exclusivism and legalism. The new perspective has helped us see an emphasis that was too often neglected. But Wright insists that it is only one way; there is only one problem (nationalistic exclusivism), and he continues to advocate this line, even though there are good historical and exegetical reasons to see also a polemic against legalism in Paul’s letters.  Here is another place where Wright focuses on the horizontal (boundary markers) and fails to see the vertical (one’s relationship to God).”

Taking Responsibility for Platform and Influence

How then, do we move forward in not just personally applying these principles to our disagreement, but also in changing the culture around us?  I am convinced that it begins with taking responsibility for who we platform, not just how we act personally.  If contentious, shock-jock content begins to lose its following, and the likes, retweets, subscriptions, and views begin to dwindle, the sense of affirmation that comes alongside dies.  Those who currently are emboldened by these confirmations will no longer be empowered to sit behind their cameras and screens, seeking out the next fight that will draw attention.  Practically, this means that we should turn our attention to the content that

deserves

to be built up as edifying to the church and to the landscape of theological conversation.  Those that model what was represented so well by Tom Schreiner above should receive our likes, our retweets, our promotion, and most importantly, our time.  That is how we will create a cultural shift that allows disagreement, even encourages it, but in a way that builds up, promotes Christlikeness, and values truth-seeking in the community of God. Your time and clicks are more impactful than you know. Seeking truth, Dustin Harris _____________________________________________________________________________ 1). Schreiner's work can be found here. 2). Justin Taylor's synthesis can be found here.