I haven't read his Romans commentary, but if Scot McKnight's summary is correct, I don't think it's all that far off-base. In the modern academy, yes it does. To be an academic NT scholar, you have to be versed in these things. Otherwise Wright wouldn't have the right to write for academic audiences.* And Wright still gets accused of being a raging fundy who thinks the Bible is crystal-clear in some quarters. Read the first couple chapters of PFG, where he goes into his method: he basically concludes that the Bible is understandable. It might help to compare his involvement with NPP with his involvement with the so-called "third quest for the historical Jesus." His conclusion is that the church has had it right all along, but to reach that conclusion, he has to do the work of a historian because he's doing work in the academy. It's just that he's also a churchman and so his work has a pastoral edge to it and is meant to be accessible as well as scholarly. This piece of "perspective" could be illustrated from another anecdote from the Harvard talk: he was presenting on Paul, and a divinity student asked the question, "Which Paul?" And Wright had to present a brief, but also hilarious and pointed, argument for why we should assume that Paul wrote the letters attributed to him. That's the primary context he's addressing. Another way of putting is this: we seem to be fine with this method of exegeting the Bible in context first when Meredith Kline and Geerhardus Vos do it, but we object when Wright does it. It seems that the difference here is that we dislike some of Wright's conclusions. If that's the case, then what we need is simply better scholarship. *apologies for the pun, but it was inevitable, really. Again, read the first couple chapters of PFG and you may be pleasantly surprised. Part of the challenge for many of us is to read Wright charitably first and then to go back and critique. So many of the articles I've seen on this take sides without really taking notice of Wright's context or his real position. He really is a Christocentric thinker, and many of our disagreements with him actually stem from places where he is inconsistent with the implications of the more basic commitments he has! And the places to critique are numerous: he's fairly ignorant of what Luther and the reformation actually taught; it's sometimes the case that he claims he's being original when most of us in the reformed camp have been saying something similar for a while.