Wright's theology is one not of sin needing propitiation and atonement, but of disunity needing reunification. Several of his "discussion questions" are just pointed attempts to reframe a passage and explain why Romans isn't so much a book about our sin and Christ's atonement for it (as one might understand by reading the first 6 or so chapters and taking them to actually mean what they say), but is instead a book about how God just wants to be together with us and wants us all to be together with each other.

This is a shallow Unitarianism, not Biblical truth, and the way Wright tries to get the reader to his same conclusion is through pretty obvious linguistic gymnastics, constantly nudging that "you might think the passage means this, but it actually means this other thing!"