In a previous post, I linked the video of N. T. Wright explaining why he hasn’t published on the topic of homosexuality. I didn’t provide any commentary or evaluation, though I did think the spot to be unsatisfying.
Yesterday, Doug Wilson commented on the video, and I think his critique hits pretty close to the mark. He writes,
‘So why is this clip singularly unsatisfying? Why does it leave me feeling bleh? I honestly wouldn’t anticipate any basic disagreements with Wright on the subject of homosexuality. What I see here is profound disagreements on the nature and object of scholarship, and on the nature and object of debate. What Wright says at the beginning about how he was brought up to debate rationally, and how debate was meant to work thoughtfully to a conclusion, is all very well, and works very well on a wide range of issues. Academic rules of rational discourse are very helpful when it comes to the identity of Shakespeare, the authorship of Hebrews, or the root causes of the Civil War. They are no good at all when the serpent is telling us that we will not die. Die? How do you define die? To enter into dialogue at this point is not to uphold the truth, but to compromise it at the outset. I have often said in sermons that sin doesn’t make sense. If it made sense, it wouldn’t be sin. If someone is enticing you to leave the way of God, the temptation is to run headlong down the path with no light. And when you get down there, you can’t see. Longing for the day, as Wright clearly does, when the devil will starting playing fair, when he will starting arguing like a gentleman, is to mistake radically the kind of situation we are in.’
Read the rest here.