Bingo! If we should not judge a book by its cover neither should we judge it by its introductory readings. Give Wright a chance here, folks. I would like to believe the Apostle Paul would do so. Moreover, would you not expect others to read your entire works before offering an appraisal? C’mon! Hermeneutics 101 = CONTEXT BEFORE CONTENT!

I’m so sorry.

You wrote, “I hope the rest of the book is not in the tone the first chapter seems to be in, and I don’t think that hope is unfounded because of the respect Wright has shown Piper in the past.”

Let me translate: I hope the rest of the book (which none of us have read) is not in the tone the first chapter (which I have not read and have only heard about from someone with an ax to grind against the author) SEEMS to be in, and I don’t think that hope is unfounded (because it goes against everything the author and his primary critic have demonstrated thus far).

See, Thog (if that is your real name), you have just shown the utter ridiculousness of this entire thread. Denny doesn’t even give us the direct quote about the Stasi officers. We don’t even know what Wright wrote! So, we’re basically arguing that Wright comes out swinging against his detractors based on things we haven’t read, and a one chapter review by one of his detractors! I am insane now.

Denny failed to mention the quote that Wilson noted that was generous and very irenic, and – I’m making a huge assumption here – I’ll bet that wasn’t the only nice thing Wright had to say about Piper in the book. Perhaps the Stasi officer comparison (which, again, we haven’t seen with our own eyes) was poorly conceived, but I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve read the entire book. Not sure why this is such a novel approach, but apparently it is.

Nathan,

I agree with you. Sorry if I beat you over the head. I understand the points you’re making. Thanks for the discussion.

By the way, Luther also went head to head with other reformers (Zwingli comes to mind), so he did not reserve his rhetoric only to the Holy Roman Empire.

I’m not arguing for Luther’s style as the only way. It seemed to me that the majority of the posts were slamming Wright for speaking his mind. And until the entire book is judged it might be well to withhold judgment.

Steve- Like it or not- the first chapter is the intro to the book- it sets the tone for the book and how you view the rest of the book. That is part of the purpose of it. So what Denny said is not unreasonable. He hasn’t read the book, but he has read the first chapter. The parts he has quoted and also from what Wilson has said, do not seem to be irenic. Equating someone with the Nazis is not irenic, and it is not “brutally honest” it is a loaded statement designed to give negative feelings about -and ascribe sinister motivations to -someone. Brutally honest is fine, and sometimes it seems harsh. but comparing someone to Nazis and the village idiot does not qualify as brutally honest. It is basically an add hominim (sp) attack. The fact that you can’t see this is raises concerns about your ability to judge whether Wright is irenic or not (not that that really matters- just you were questioning others). FWIW- I have never read Wright- I am just getting caught up on this whole debate and I am very interested in learning what he has to say- even if it is not irenic. Also from interviews and other statements I have read from both Piper and Wright, they both seem to be charitable to each other. I don’t think either is angry or resentful. They both feel they are fighting for Biblical truth and that is important and their brother is in error on this issue. I hope the rest of the book is not in the tone the first chapter seems to be in, and I don’t think that hope is unfounded because of the respect Wright has shown Piper in the past.
My two cents

There were, however, times when the forces of darkness had to be beaten back instead of given a time out. In such cases I am thankful for the bravery of men like Luther, who had the courage to fight for what was right.