Paul Holloway Responds to Michael Bird about N.T. Wright and Sewanee University

Last updated on: February 25, 2015 at 2:44 am by Michael F. Bird

Paul Holloway Responds to Michael Bird about N.T. Wright and Sewanee University 2015-02-25T02:44:48-04:00 Michael F. Bird

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Over at Faith Forward, Paul Holloway responds to my earlier post about his denunciation of Sewanee University for awarding N.T. Wright an honorary doctorate.

Thankfully Holloway’s response attempts some actual reasoning and tries to provide some kind of substance to his criticism of Wright rather than resorting to hyperbolic and vitriolic protest as he did previously. Let me say that there is nothing wrong with robust criticism of Wright, for case in point, see John Barclay’s critique of Paul and the Faithfulness of God. The problem is that Holloway’s initial complaint about Wright was filled with inaccuracies, pejorative anthems, and was transparently tribal.

Let me address some of his recent claims.

First, Holloway thinks it impossible to take Wright seriously as a scholar because of his affirmation of the Reformation principle of “sola Scriptura.” Well, Wright is an Anglican and one thing about us Anglicans is that we regard Scripture as sufficient and supreme in the life of the church. In fact, I would point out that the majority of people engaged in biblical studies do so out of a deep reverence and high regard for Scripture as providing authoritative direction for the Christian faith. It is only unbelievers and perhaps some Episcopalians who are dumbfounded as to why anyone would regard the Bible as somehow normative for their beliefs and ethics. Let me add that this same criticism could apply to a host of other scholars from Raymond Brown to Rudolf Bultmann. The reason why many of us have chosen to be biblical scholars is because we cherish the Bible as a divine Word even if we parse terms like inspiration, veracity, and authority in different ways. I do not think serious study of Scripture is impossible for those with a deep reverence for Scripture. If it does, then maybe SBL needs some kind of Stalinist purge.

Second, Holloway complains that Wright does not have much scholarly capital because he has a limited number of publications in top tier journals like NTS and JBL. You can read Wright’s massive publication list here. I note that Wright has published in top tier journals including NTS, JBL, JNST, SJT, and several other lesser known journals like JSHJ, BJRL, JSPL, Ex Auditu, and even Sewanee Theological Review. This is not including his contribution to countless edited volumes in addition to his plethora of books. As a British academic, Wright has contributed to the five yearly Research Assessment Exercise (or whatever they call it now) which evaluates the research output of British Universities. In this hectic and competitive context, academics are encouraged to publish significant and internationally recognized monographs – not journal articles – that will contribute to the university’s RAE score. Wright has been recruited by Durham and St. Andrews in the past precisely because his scholarship contributes to a high RAE score. To put that into American-language, for the RAE exercise in theology and biblical studies in the UK, Wright is something of a # 1 draft pick! I am pretty sure that Durham, St. Andrews, or the RAE committee don’t share Holloway’s assessment on Wright’s work.

Third, Holloway complains about the hero cult surrounding Wright. I agree, there certainly is one, that is because some of us really, really love and benefit from his work. That said, the same is true of Marcus Borg, Jack Spong, and Bart Ehrman, who are authors who have their own cult following.

Fourth, Holloway has the gall to complain about the “name calling” and “vitriol” that has been directed at him. I don’t doubt that such has happened, and with Holloway I too lament that such a thing would take place in sectors of the church and the academy. However, his complaint is dripping with comic irony because the incendiary responses directed at him were themselves generated by his own invective and intemperate rant against Wright. I have no problem with folks disagreeing with Wright, disliking Wright, disavowing Wright, or rolling their eyes at Wright and his acolytes. I have no problem with people questioning the scholarly and cultural appropriateness of granting him an honorary doctorate. But Holloway needs to go back and read what he wrote in Sewanee Purple. It is a transparently tribal rant full of inaccuracies and ad hominem attacks. Holloway rebukes defenders of Wright for their lack of manners and over-powering prejudice, so be it, but let me add, “Physician, heal thyself.”

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 24, 2015

Steve Walton Reviews Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not

Next Post

February 26, 2015 Paula Fredriksen on Paul and Justification by Faith

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Lands Blogosphere Book Review Calvinism Colleges & Universities Ecclesiology Emerging Adulthood Evangelicalism Foreign Affairs Gospel of John Greco-Roman World Humor Just War N. T. Wright Old Testament Resurrection Terrorism Theological Education Travel Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who were Isaac and Rebekah's twin sons?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Cain and Abel Esau and Jacob Simeon and Levi Joseph and Benjamin

Books by This Author Books by Mike Bird

See All Titles »