Into the Wardrobe

I found this which I think has never appeared in these pages and wondered what people thought:

This is all clear, JR - my understanding and definition of "Incarnation" is clearly far narrower than Wright's. It means "becoming flesh" - no less. This is distinct from God's activity in the world without flesh.

Interesting article! Thanks for the link!

I was wondering if you think that N.T.'s attempt in his book titles helps him sell books? Does grabbing onto the coat tails of Lewis peddle more books?

I have read both surprised by hope and simply Christian but I did not find the clarity of speech that Lewis is so known for? A little nitpicky I know but I find that a lot of people who are not Christians read Wright. (Thank you Colbert Report) Why do you think he has such a readership among non-christians? Especially given that he is not exactly a liberal theologian?

Concerning N.T. Wright, he was on the Colbert report and received a very generous greeting. He actually did very well to by the way!

Many of the non-Christians that I work with are familiar with his work and do not forget that Anthony Flew was heavily influenced by Wright in his recent conversion (if you may call it that) to deism. It is very true that bringing Christianity back to its basics was Wright's goals. Especially his four proofs for God. Powerful stuff. However, he still is a rather conservative scholar (maybe except for his ideas of pauline literature) that is looked at without the usual stereotypes associated with the label. I just wonder why that is? The only other person I can think of like that is maybe Ravi Zacharias?

And I hope I did not imply that he was grabbing onto Lewis' coattails as a negative thing. I just wonder if that has sold more of his books and if he benefited more from that association then his book itself? I guess overall I'm just interested if Wright could be 80 years from now what Lewis is to us today?

He is like Lewis in that he has written both scholarly and popular books. However his scholarly books are more directly theological whereas Lewis's were in the field of literature. Personally I didn't like Simply Christian. He is a good communicator but it's his more scholarly work that is most impressive. He is not really a full on post millenialist. He once was but came to reject one specific aspect of traditional postmillenialism (the conversion of the Jews bit. He does not think all Israel shall be saved refers to large numbers of Jews becoming Christians.) But his eschatology is optimistic and I think he is right even where he would differ from a full on postmillenialist like Keith Matheson.