I love how certain sectors of the Reformed world think their reading along of Reformation history is the correct one.

I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the Reformation, particularly its emphasis on ‘salvation (justification) by faith alone,’ has fueled much of the current inertia in the Western Church to which this book is a helpful corrective.
I’ve had, for instance, well-educated Lutherans tell me that we are not apprentices or disciples of Jesus, but rather disciples/students of the gospel, by which they meant students of justification by faith alone. And I regularly hear similar ideas with reformation/lutheran roots that seek to divorce belief and action, or the gospel from earthly concerns. I’m sure Wright is aware of sections of Luther’s or Calvin’s writings that can be quoted to show each man’s deep concern for virtue and formation of character, but it remains true that the movement they helped birth is the theological center of a Christian culture that needs books like this one from Wright.

Hi,
as much as I admire Wright, in this case I think Horton is right. Wright seems to read Luther (and Calvin?) through Bultmanian eyes. And T, theses Lutherans you’ve met should read more Luther (and the Bible, of course), then they propably wouldn’t say such stuff.
Horton wrote: “Wright says the goal of sanctification is ‘to grow in looking away from oneself and toward God on the one hand and one’s neighbors on the other.’ This is nearly a verbatim formula from Luther. So is this one: ‘The Christianly virtuous person is not thinking about his or her own moral performance. He or she is thinking of Jesus Christ, and of how best to love the person next door.’”
If it is ok, I’d like to add a somewhat lengthy quote from one of Luther’s most important writings, “On the freedom of a Christian”, to show how strongly he could call for proper Christian living. Much more could be added!
That later Lutheran orthodoxy in it’s struggle with Roman Catholicism and Calvinism later pushed this part of Luther’s teaching to the margins is sadly true. As early as the 17th century Spener, the father of (Lutheran) Pietism, complained heavily about that and wrote his Pia Desideria where he again and again went back to Luther himself, to make his points.
God bless,
Andreas
On the Freedom of a Christian (http://www.theologynetwork.org.uk/unquenchable-flame/luther/the-freedom-of-the-christian.htm)
“[...]
A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none, a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one. [This is his central thesis. He is unfolding it in the course of this work.]
[...]
And now let us turn to the other part: to the outward man. Here we shall give an answer to all those who, taking offence at the word of faith and at what I have asserted, say, “If faith does everything, and by itself suffices for justification, why then are good works commanded? Are we then to take our ease and do no works, content with faith?” Not so, impious men, I reply; not so.
[...]
We do not then reject good works; nay, we embrace them and teach them in the highest degree. It is not on their own account that we condemn them, but on account of this impious addition to them and the perverse notion of seeking justification by them.
[...]
Lastly, we will speak also of those works which he performs towards his neighbour. For man does not live for himself alone in this mortal body, in order to work on its account, but also for all men on earth; nay, he lives only for others, and not for himself. For it is to this end that he brings his own body into subjection, that he may be able to serve others more sincerely and more freely, as Paul says, “None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord” (Rom. xiv. 7, 8). Thus it is impossible that he should take his ease in this life, and not work for the good of his neighbours, since he must needs speak, act, and converse among men, just as Christ was made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man, and had His conversation among men.
Yet a Christian has need of none of these things for justification and salvation, but in all his works he ought to entertain this view and look only to this object–that he may serve and be useful to others in all that he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and the advantage of his neighbour. Thus the Apostle commands us to work with our own hands, that we may have to give to those that need. He might have said, that we may support ourselves; but he tells us to give to those that need. It is the part of a Christian to take care of his own body for the very purpose that, by its soundness and well-being, he may be enabled to labour, and to acquire and preserve property, for the aid of those who are in want, that thus the stronger member may serve the weaker member, and we may be children of God, thoughtful and busy one for another, bearing one another’s burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ.
Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.
[...]
Thus a Christian, like Christ his Head, being full and in abundance through his faith, ought to be content with this form of God, obtained by faith; except that, as I have said, he ought to increase this faith till it be perfected. For this faith is his life, justification, and salvation, preserving his person itself and making it pleasing to God, and bestowing on him all that Christ has, as I have said above, and as Paul affirms: “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God” (Gal. ii. 20). Though he is thus free from all works, yet he ought to empty himself of this liberty, take on him the form of a servant, be made in the likeness of men, be found in fashion as a man, serve, help, and in every way act towards his neighbour as he sees that God through Christ has acted and is acting towards him.
[...]
Thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily, without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under obligations, nor does it distinguish between friends and enemies, or look to gratitude or ingratitude, but most freely and willingly spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude, or gains goodwill. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to all men abundantly and freely, making His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Thus, too, the child does and endures nothing except from the free joy with which it delights through Christ in God, the Giver of such great gifts.
[...]”

Andreas,
Yes. I’ve read those quotes and similar ones from Luther. But the Reformation, like all movements, had points of emphasis, some of which were so strong as to eclipse many other matters, especially over time. Ultimately, I tend to think the fault lies with the Law vs. Gospel lens through which the Reformers and their progeny view and sort out all of scripture, even Jesus himself, and then, naturally, prioritize the bits that they believe are properly called “gospel.” This leads to several problems, one of which is the classification of virtually all of Jesus’ own teaching and the vision of his reign on the earth as “Law” and not good news, and therefore, subject to secondary status and priority.
And I wish the example I gave was an isolated experience, but that’s not the case. Don’t get me wrong, I know some awesome Lutheran folks, but I also get routine experiences of “Weak on Sanctification” t-shirts worn or advertised with pride, and more frequently from more Calvinist reformed, suspicions that kingdom-gospel articulations are “another gospel” that are deserving of the most serious distrust. The bottom line seems to be that the reformed definition of “gospel” is significantly more narrow than the NT concept, which continues to demote the issues of this book and other issues from the priority level they are given in the NT.

Those in the neo-Reformed revival (like Horton) cannot bear to think that anything Reformed is open to critique. There is almost an overlay of “inerrancy” on all things Reformed.
From my observations as a pastor over 35 years, I agree with T that the Reformed schema that separates justification from sanctification has gutted any human impetus to progress in the Christian virtues. Reformers put everything in the justification-by-faith-plus-nothing basket and in practice nothing is usually what you get in Christian formation. No matter what Luther wrote.

sounds like Horton just doesn’t want the Reformation to wear shoes that fit it…Not trying to open the “what is the conventional understanding of X” discussion, but regardless of how reformed theologians articulate their views, there’s the reality of “the pews”.
The other optionis that Horton doesn’t really grasp that Wright is no Bultmannian…he’s an Anglican and that means that the “reformed” character of the Anglican stream is not going to go as far as Horton would probably like. (Thank God! But I’m a confirmed Episcopalian/Anglican so I might be biased.)

T,
1. Lutheran tradition emphasizes the Law/Gospel distinction; the Reformed tradition does not.
2. Salvation is not the same thing as justification.
3. There’s a difference between offering an account of how something affected something else (x led to y) and an account of something on its own terms (x includes p and q). You offered the former, which is fine: the reformation led to a devaluing of works. The problem, of course, is that causality is inherently interest relative. You tend to find what you look for, and finding one set of results does not exclude a contradictory set of results. It is logically consistent with your claim to state that the reformation led to a renewed emphasis on sanctification.
4. If you want to provide a characterization of views, you ought to take them at their strongest. Otherwise you’re describing a straw person and only convincing the already convinced. I understand the reality of the pews as Nathan pointed out, but it is unseemly to get into debates about which adherents of which faith are better than others.
John,
Psychologizing isn’t helpful. Why should it matter if Horton can’t bear to hear something reformed is wrong if he’s right about the point he’s making?
I’ve been deeply involved in evangelical, reformed, episcopal, catholic, and methodist contexts. Your criticism could apply to them all. Plus, as I said above, getting into the debate about who produces better Christians is unseemly.
Ask Stanley Hauerwas what he thinks of Calvin on sanctification, and he’ll tell you that he sees a fundamental confluence in Calvinist and Wesleyian theology in this issue.
Horton did not emphasize that the reformers did tend to reject talk of “virtue.” That’s not to say that they didn’t have something to replace it with. Nor is it to say that what they replaced it with isn’t problematic. Horton is right, however, that Wright isn’t up on actually reading the reformers and should probably either qualify his statements better or (better) refrain from making such sweeping statements of any kind if he is unable to defend them. I believe that he was called out on this in different ways at Wheaton by Richard Hays and Kevin Vanhoozer.
For a critique of the Reformation traditions (indeed, all the Augustinian traditions) see Notre Dame/Yale ethicist Jennifer Herdt, “Putting on Virtue” where she critiques what she calls radical Augustinianism.
For a view of Calvinism by one of the major reformation scholars writing today, see Steven Ozment’s section “Were the Calvinists Really Protestants?” in his classic “Age of Reform: 1250-1550″. His account of calvinism conflicts with Wright (and T, John, and Nathan).
For a theologically astute reading of Calvin (surprisingly on short supply among reformation scholars who are not trained to think systematically like theologians), see Todd Billings “Calvin, Participation, and the Gift” (OUP; Harvard dissertation written under Sarah Coakley). This book reframes common criticisms of calvinist theology (whether Weberian, Thomist, Radical Orthodox, etc.) and shows why claims like Wright’s are ill informed.

S C,
On interacting with the best in a movement as large as the Reformation, I guess the first question for me is who counts as the best? Is it the person(s), alive or dead, who is(are) the most influential generally, or the person with the best credentials, or the leader within the movement who has the strongest things to say on the given topic, even if they’re not representative of the movement? Would Luther’s statements in Part V of the Large Catechism of the Lutheran Confessions count as (one of) the best?
You’re right, though, I am not arguing that there aren’t plenty of people whose pursuit of sactification didn’t increase as a result of the Reformation’s influence (thank the Lord!).
And I agree with you that salvation (and the gospel that announces it) is much larger than justification, but surely you agree that even the larger evangelical world, significantly due to the Reformation’s influence, has come to nearly equate usage of “saved” with “justified” and “the gospel” with how to become justified before God (despite some very recent movement in the opposite direction, of which this book is part)? Is it not fair to say that Luther and the the Reformation strongly emphasized Paul’s “faith alone” over James’ “not by faith alone” and similar statements by Jesus himself? Those seem to be the kind of obvious truths that Wright is taking for granted at the popular level in this book, which strike me as fair.
I guess I could pose this as a question: what generalizations regarding the development of virtue would be fair to make about the Reformation and its emphases and influence?

T,
I take it that the best is a relative term: the strongest argument that you can find or think. If you make it maximally plausible to yourself, and only then isolate what you cannot reconcile, you’ll think and argue more efficiently, that is, without wasting time on rabbit trails others have already pursued or obstacles others have already overcome. Once one does one’s best, then one is open to the best type of criticism: the criticism of someone who offers an even better reading or way of thinking.
On influence: there’s a difference between saying, “Many people seem to think x, y, and z” and “this position demands or leads to x, y, or z.” The first statement I’ll call “creating a stand in”, and the second I’ll call, “entering into a tradition”. When some influential articulation serves as a stand in, that’s fine, but one should say that. NT Wright may mean to have “the Reformers” serve just such a role. But then he should say that.
If he wants to interact with a tradition, it’s far more complex. Take for example the Reformed tradition on predestination. You might make Calvin a stand in for the position, and you would rightly criticize some aspects of Calvin’s view. But Calvin is only one part of a living tradition, and that tradition of discourse has overcome problems and isolated disagreements with Calvin. If you were criticizing the tradition, then you’d have to learn to think with it before offering a criticism. You’d have to be aware of debates between the infralapsarians and supralapsarians, of Barth’s influence, of contemporary debates, of the influence of new readings of scripture on the formulation of the doctrine. In short, if traditions of discourse are partially traditions of self-criticism, you have to learn the types of self-criticism already made before representing the tradition as a whole or before offering criticisms. This latter work is in fact much of what theologians do.
I try to shy away from indulging in “large narratives” about what led to what (a la Taylor, Milbank, etc.) and instead ask particular questions. Large narratives that make generalizations (Luther led to secularization, etc.) tend to be imprecise (for example: the protestant conflation of saved an justified came later. It’s the catholics who included in their dogma (trent) that justification includes both forgiveness and renewal. It’s the reformers who wanted to separate salvation and justification by separating justification and sanctification. For Calvin, they are two moments in the same grace, analytically separate in the way that uncle and niece or nephew are both analytically separable but concretely united. You could turn it around: the reformers emphasized the once-for-all nature of faith–that true faith secured the believer’s perseverance. Catholics emphasized loss of theological virtues. Therefore, by making final salvation an inevitable result of justification, the reformers conflated them. But then, isn’t it more helpful just to understand what particular important thinkers understood and said, rather than trying to tell a grand narrative about their nebulous “influence” or inherently relative causality?). In short, generalized narratives can be helpful in understanding overall trajectories, but they are extremely limited. Generalizations that aren’t causal and narratival (Luther rejected the virtues) should only come on the far side of careful consideration not only of what was said, but by what the view actually entails.
Forgive the long response.
Best.

Scot, I’d love to hear your response to Horton. Horton is a winsome defender of Reformed theology and the “village green” of evangelicalism, and I think you would agree. I think he makes a valid point — don’t Ridderbos and Vos emphasize eschatology and cosmic renewal like Wright? Or what about Abraham Kuyper and his emphasis on the “church organic”? And Horton’s recent systematic volumes (Covenant and Salvation, People and Place) present a very non-individualistic holistic presentation of Reformed theology. Perhaps Luther and Calvin didn’t get everything right, but Reformed theology as a whole seems much more holistic than Wright presents.