We are discussing Tom Wright's new book , a book that responds to John Piper's criticism of Wright and the New Perspective (Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision
). In the prologue to the book, Wright sketches out what is to happen in this book. "Piper," Wright observes, "is one of an increasing number who, supposing the great Reformation tradition of reading and preaching Paul to be under attack, has leapt to its defense, and every passing week brings a further batch of worried and anxious ripostes to the 'new perspective on Paul' and to myself as one of its exponents" (9). Indeed, this is the issue: today many think the New Perspective, and the critics focus on Wright, has denied the Reformation.
Wright sees three issues at work in this book:
First, the question about the nature and scope of salvation. Wright, leaning as he often does on Romans 8:21 ("in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."), sees redemption/salvation in more robust terms than does Piper and Wright reminds here that other Reformers -- and Kuyper came to my mind immediately -- have had a more robust sketch of redemption. Let it be clear: Piper thinks he's accurate; so does Wright.
Second, Wright says this of Piper: salvation is accomplished by the sovereign grace of God, operating through the death of Jesus Christ in our place and on our behalf, and appropriated through faith alone. Wright's response: "Absolutely. I agree a hundred percent. There is not one syllable of that summary that I would complain about." But, he asks, where is the Holy Spirit? Part of Wright's plea is to take the Spirit more seriously in redemption.
And, third, the meaning of justification. Justification, Wright has been saying all along, "is the act of God by which people are 'declared to in the right' before" God (11). Piper insists, according to Wright, that double imputation is the point. Wright: "Paul's way of doing it [comprehending justification] ... is not Piper's" (11). Why?
1. Justification is about the work of Jesus the Messiah of Israel -- and the long story of Israel must be given its due weight. He thinks Piper doesn't do this enough.
2. Justification involves the covenant -- "the saving call of a worldwide family through whom God's saving purposes for the world were to be realized" (12). Wright observes: "For Piper, and many like him, the very idea of a covenant of this kind remains strangely foreign and alien."
3. Justification is connected to the divine lawcourt -- and Wright sees the image to be God's finding in favor of those who believe in Jesus Christ. For Piper the issues becomes the transfering of Christ's righteousness to the sinner -- double imputation again.
4. Justification is connected to eschatology -- Wright and Piper have a both-and dimension, but Piper -- he observes -- focuses on the present justification. Wright, Piper thinks, has too much suspense here and thinks Wright gets entangled in moral effort -- and back to Wright: "I insist that I am simply trying to do justice to what Paul actually says" (13).
Now to put this in perspective: "Piper claims to be faithful to Scripture; so, of course, do I" (13).
The issue is about what the Bible meant in its context. This is a purely Protestant debate. Ad fontes!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Brian McLaughlin,
As someone who tends toward what you describe as the "Wright/Emerging/et al. camp," I share your concern. We all worship the same God and share His one mission, and we are all part of one family. (That's, incidentally, one of the main messages of justification, if you believe Wright).
Josh Rowley,
Wright has a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement than the traditional Reformed folks. I suspect it will be covered in more detail in one of Scot's later posts regarding this book, but, in short, its more along the lines that Christ suffered the curse of sin as the representative of Israel, in fulfillment of the covenant, and the promises of blessings and curses in the OT.
Eric@#37:
I'm eager to learn more about Wright's understanding of substitutionary atonement. Hooker also speaks of Jesus as a "representative" (but not as a substitution).
Brian,
I agree that God works things out for his purposes. I suppose I would disagree with Piper about what God's purposes are, and in which sorts of ways God works them out. I think God's purposes are bigger than simply getting as many souls into "heaven" as possible. I realize that Piper is more nuanced than that. At the same time, that is what the Puritan end of things emphasizes, and with Phillips of a previous generation, I say "[That] god is too small." I don't think God is all about God's Glory; there's not much room there for the self-giving love that is the Trinity. I don't think man's basic problem is sin; I think it's Death (which sin feeds). I don't believe God is angry at people; I think God went to astounding lengths to rescue humanity, and all creation. There's more, but perhaps from this you can see something of my point of view, even if you can't share it.
As to the faithful embedding, reading and living out of God's story, I have very little sense, from what I've read of the Reformed end of things, of the embeddedness of the story of God in the actual history of Israel, and particularly the meaning of Jesus wrt his acutal historical context in the first century. All Reformed folk I've encountered jump straight to Paul, thinking Paul's writing is clear (!), and pretty much skip the Gospels. But there are too many loose ends in the Reformed reading of Paul without an understanding the meaning of Jesus in the Gospels; all of scripture needs to be viewed through that lens. Wright acknowledges this and does it. There is much talk about covenant in Reformed theology, but RT never succeeded in helping me understand its meaning (not its definition, but its *meaning*), nor did it explain to me why the Law was good. Wright has done both.
You're a better man than I for trying to soften the dividing lines and avoid splitting into "camps". This is admirable. What you're missing is that Scott M and I both see the dividing line not between Wright/emergent and Piper/puritan/reformed, but rather between the development and approach of the western church (Roman Catholic and all the Protestants) and the eastern church. There are significant differences.
I was unaware of the differences until 3-4 years ago. For some time before that, my received Protestant theology had been crumbling away under my questions about many, many things; I won't take up Scot's combox describing them all. I've been reading Wright for eight years, and along the way I discovered that about 85% (my subjective number) of what he expounds is Eastern Orthodoxy, though he doesn't claim this in any way. I thought I could manage to remain a Protestant by being a kind of reasonable, "Wrightian" middle-of-the- road "conservative mainliner" with Celtic Christian sensibilities :) That didn't work, precisely because of where the dividing line lies.
Wright can remain in the West because he is an English Anglican (where there is room on the theological spectrum for overlap with EO, and which actually has been aware of and in dialogue with EO for a long time). But in these last few years my gaze has turned more and more toward EO because that's where I find the God Whose story Wright tells. And I'm on may way in, because I found that I already believe what Orthodoxy describes as reality, and my conscience requires me to do something with what I now know- not simply intellectually, but increasingly with my whole being.
Thanks for your good-hearted questioning. I appreciate it.
Dana
Dana, thanks for the response. I think I do understand where you are coming from and I share much of it. Interestingly, in my journey it was being introduced to Reformed theology that opened up the scope of salvation to all creation, introduced me to more of a narrative (Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation), overcame a sacred/secular divide, emphasis on new earth, God's overflowing love (in J. Edwards) etc, etc. Of course, coming out of dispensationalism you can see how RT can do that! I have very little knowledge or experience with EO, so perhaps that would open things up even more for me!
I agree that RT spends too much time with Paul and NT Wright is providing some very helpful corrections and pulling some pieces together. I have one of his "big books" I just haven't cracked it yet, but I'll get there.
In the end I enjoy a robust debate and hope we can debate more, but I find joy in the fact that we worship the same God now and forever.
Josh Rowley,
I agree with much of what you say, but your point on substitutionary atonement misses the mark. Albeit I have no exact exegetical research to back up my statement, but I believe the death Christ died manifests itself not bodily and physically, but more spiritually and inwardly. After all, Christ death is not so much physical as it is spiritual when he says, "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?" I think many would agree this the death Christ died in our stead, that is the spiritual death we sinners were supposed to die.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.