Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Wright’ New Book: This Is Irenic?
I’m not sure if I am qualified to comment here since I had to look up the word paronomasia, but just to throw in a thought anyway…..
Dr. Burk said that the reviews of the book touted it as having an irenic tone. The tone of the book as far as Dr. Burk had read is quite the opposite and has started off more bombastic and insulting. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t confirm, but what is written appears to be what is written in the book. Far from holding a peacemaking tone, it sounds like Dr. Wright is condescending (patronizing) toward those who disagree with him.

All that said, this was a comment on merely the preface and chapter one and Dr. Burk states that from the beginning (Having now read through the preface and chapter one, I have to say that Wright is getting off on the wrong foot if he’s trying to be irenic.).

And we should take what anyone says with a grain of salt, however, there is a vast difference between that and an “incapabilit[y] to review books”. One is a biblical admonition to weigh carefully what we hear (compared with scripture) and the other is simply an attack meant to be injurious. At least it would appear to me, anyway.

I can understand the vitriol if Dr. Burk had said that Dr. Wright’s book was awful because Dr. Burk disagreed. That isn’t the case. The post was aimed at how the book was championed as a source of a peaceable tone and, thus far (again, only a chapter and preface into it) does much damage to that view. So for the folks who just shredded the original post, what about the book was misquoted or wrong?*

* - John, the statement was that Wright invented “new perspective”. Not the new perspective. He mimicked Dr. Wright’s statement.

New Comment
I am serious when I ask this question. Would the beginning rejoinder parable in Festooned With Ribbons be considered a polemic? Or would that be an incorrect usage?

Darius, I think that is Wilson’s question (concern?) as well:
Perhaps this is because his insights have emerged in a fresh place -- his environment of mainstream Anglicanism -- which has perhaps been misleading to him. Anglicans are surprised when they discover that their bishop believes in God, and when they go on to discover a published faith in the resurrection, they begin to teeter. Is nothing stable anymore? So then when Wright surfaces in their midst as a kinder, gentler Rushdoony, nobody quite knows where to look. If you are treated like a green space alien for years, it is perhaps excusable to begin thinking you are one.

PS: Alan, though I disagree with the argument, good post!

No comments: