Andrew,

Thanks for the comments. I wholeheartedly agree that we have to first try to understand - as much as is possible for us given the data available - how the early church (and Jesus!) would have/could have thought about it’s place, purpose and mission. And I want to learn to allow the texts to speak for themselves, which means that even an historical estimate of how the early church could have thought needs to come under the scrutiny of the texts themselves (and our own critical faculties). When I read of an interpretive grid for understanding the message and purpose of the early church (historical or theological - or both), I tend to view these not as solid structures (modernistic absolute frameworks), but rather as tools for understanding. One can get dogmatic about historical as well as theological grids.

I don’t mean to assert that Wright (or you) are doing that, but merely stating my starting point. I want to be able to hold the theories themselves fluid in my hands, so that I can let the texts speak for themselves, from a literary (not theological) point of view. Theologically I am not (here comes my heresy) Sola Scriptura in the classic sense - I lean more toward a Wesleyan approach to understanding spirituality, in that I see a matrix of various sources influencing how we believe and live. When it comes to the texts themselves, like you I want to let them have their own voice and not impose (as much as possible) from somewhere in the distant future.

Thanks for the link to the article on Wright. His text is high on my “to read” list.