" Generally good, but I'm not sure I would recommend it. As always, Wright is an engaging writer, and communicates effectively at a lay-level. He paints a grand vision and has some great "big picture" insights. However, several factors make this book one of his worst. First, he dances around the important question of inerrancy. No doubt he would make some dismissive comment about how that is a distinctively North American question (as he does occasionally throughout the book with other issues). He would be right, but being a NA question doesn't mean it isn't an important one. How can the Bible be authoritative if it isn't inerrant? There may actually be a good answer for that, but Wright doesn't deal with the real problems that question poses. If the Bible is full of "errors," then which parts are authoritative and which parts are erroneous and who gets to decide? Typically, when inerrancy is thrown out, the parts that are judged to be "errant" are the parts that the individual does not particularly like. Canaanite genocide? That was an error. Teachings about sexuality? Errors. Jesus' divinity? Error, error, error. Thus, for those who throw out inerrancy, the Bible can become functionally subservient to the authority of the individual, not the other way around. Wright's constructive chapter is fairly good, and brought the book from 2 stars to 3. Also, his example chapters on the Sabbath and monogamy are also very well done. Though I disagree with him on the Sabbath, he made a very good argument that respects the text. Wright also tries to place himself between two extremes, as he always does. It must be the Anglican in him. His critiques are often spot on, especially when he speaks against the "liberals," but he generally gets the "conservatives" right as well. Even so, this attempt to always place himself in the via media can be condescending and at times it seems as though there really isn't a "middle" despite his attempts to create one. Several times he brings up the death penalty noting that most of the early church fathers were against it and critiques the "right" for holding to it as a misapplication of the authority of Scripture. However, he offers not a shred of Biblical argument, so this critique fails and is rather an annoyance. Wright should have left those comments out as they only serve to distract.
Wright's main point is that the authority of Scripture must be understood as God's authority exercised through and by Scripture. Scripture has a transformative purpose in the world that corresponds to Jesus' work to bring about the eschatological New Creation in the here and now. That purpose must be borne in mind when we talk about the authority of Scripture and how it applies to us. "
— Peter, 1/6/2014