Justification and New Perspective 6

Scot,
Why would you think this? "God's righteousness is to be faithful to that covenant promise. [Not sure Tom is all that clear in this 2d point.]"

This very concept is repeatedly emphasized by Tom Wright...God made covenant promises to Abraham through whom God would bless the world. God stayed true to the covenant though Israel's failing in Jesus' and Paul's day seemed to point to the contrary.

Every time I hear descriptions of God like Piper's, I can't help but think of the way Piers Anthony described the Christian God (Incarnation of Good) in his Incarnations of Immortality series. God had become these three staring at each other and consumed wholly with that process to the exclusion of all else. Anthony is most definitely not Christian, but I'm not sure that he hasn't correctly heard (and rejected) the way many Christians speak of a narcissistic God consumed with concern for his own glory.

I think I'll pass.

I had to check the copyright, but I read that book in the series back in the 80s when I was decidedly other than Christian. As I recall, it struck me at the time as a pretty accurate description of the way I had heard many speak of their Christian god.

I do think Wright does a much better job of interpreting and applying the text than Piper does on the entire topic of justification. I also think he does a better job than the reformers did. I have nothing in particular invested in the reformation so feel no urge to defend it. I'm an accidental protestant and reluctant baptist. The point I don't get and have never been able to grasp is why anyone would ever want to worship Piper's God (or the myriad characterization that are similar to his)? I mean, obviously there are a lot of people who do. I've always been able to see that. But I have to confess I don't get it. I know with absolute certainty that if God is in reality as he is pictured by Piper and pretty much all the streams related to Piper, then I'm not a Christian. For I find that God repellent and would never willingly and knowingly worship that God.

So a lot of these particular sorts of discussions leave me a little confused. We're not really talking about fine points of doctrine and interpretation. We're talking about who and what God is and how he's interacting with his creation and his eikon. I think that does matter. Deeply.

I am very uncomfortable with Piper's view of God's righteousness. God's concern for his own glory reminds me of a narcissitic God. That is not the kind of God I see presented in the big story of scripture. I see a God with a unique and holy character untainted by impure motives. He fully loves, is fully faithful, he is fully just and he fully understands. Like the gospel writer says, God is Love. This God created the world out of his unique and pure love. This God grieved when sin entered, grieved when humans became unrighteous toward one another. This God emptied himself, came into this world to save it.

I agree with Wright that God's righeousness is about his covenant faithfulness. He made a Covenant with us, but we did not keep it. Then his own arm worked salvation and it was the faithfulness of Jesus Christ as the faithful, covenant keeping son who redeemed us. He kept the covenent in our place, fulfilled the vocation of God's people, became the sacrifice and rose again.

God was fully faithful in all aspects, in all ways. Only through faith (a trust that unites us and our response) are we saved. Through that union (like the vine and the branches), we are made righteous and enabled to bear fruit in keeping with God's character.

I think Piper's view is very harsh, it demands worship like a narssistic supply. Wright's view inspires worship and love because we are so amazed and filled with worship and love. (we love because he first loved us).

"Piper sees the issue to be God's concern for himself."

It's a problem we find with many preachers and scholars -- they get a signature approach or catchphrase, and that becomes something to which everything else must conform. They cease learning and exploring and simply go on finding new ways to apply their same old shtick.

Piper's not all wrong. Too many people ignore God's concern with His name, His glory, which is found in the NT as well as the Old. But he puts his "Christian hedonism" in everything whether it's appropriate or not.

ChrisB, I think in the Greek name has to do with God's reputation and involves his character, his personhood, his vision for humanity. What brings honor to his name is that his people reflect him well as his Eikons. Through Christ, we grow more and more like him, and better honor him. Our lives are in that sense worship.

Wow...there have been some fairly, um, robust expressions of difference with Piper here. If the divide is truly as wide as some of the rhetoric indicates (which I doubt) then there truly is no hope for evangelicalism.

Still, I think that perhaps people are misunderstanding Piper just as much as Wright claims that Piper misunderstands him. God's passion for his own glory is part and parcel with his love for his people; the phrase "loving holiness" that Scot mentioned on this blog a few weeks ago would not be too far off. I think that Piper's emphasis is certainly on God's glory, but I don't think that he would deny the intertwining with God's love.

But I don't think that this thread was supposed to be about Piper's theology.

Ben (11) is certainly correct. Two things have stuck out as I've read this thread:

1. The primary complaint against Piper thus far has been that he cannot see beyond the "lens" of the Reformation. He reads everything in that context. I think this is probably an accurate critique. However, other "lenses" have been revealed today as well. There are those whose "lens" does not allow them to see anything positive or biblical about Piper and his God (a God some would deny if it were true). So what we really have are various "lenses" through which we see God and His Word.

2. This discussion has moved from exegesis to theology. The primary strength of Wright has been that he is offering exegesis and not his theology. Again, I think this is largely correct (this was my complaint of Piper's book in Nov 2007). However, some of the comments have strayed from exegesis. The reality is, as both Scot and Wright acknowledge, there is some truth to what Piper is saying about God's glory in the Bible (though not equal with God's righteousness). We have to examine Piper's claims about God's concern for his glory exegetically and not simply dismiss it because we don't like it.

I pray that this post did not come across too harsh, but Piper and his "lens" are getting beat up pretty hard. Don't we all possess a lens that influences us?

The Bible does teach that God is passionate for his own glory (Isaiah 42:8 and 43:7 for instance), but Paul doesn't talk about that in Romans. Piper is indeed laying his own theology on top of Romans.

I was struck by a comment that was related by a professor at Trinity in Deerfield (TEDS), quoting another TEDS prof. The quote is this: if there could be only one book of the Bible to read, for him that would be Romans. And if you had only one chapter in Romans, it would be Romans 3. And if there was only one verse in Romans, it would be verse 25. And if just one word, it would be the Greek word which is translated as "propitiation" or "atoning sacrifice." The prof who shared that story agreed with the assessment. But it was so illuminating for me. For these profs, the Bible is basically all about one thing: the atonement. And heaven when we die. Wright isn't disagreeing that the atonement and "heaven when we die" are important. It's just that the heart of Christianity is actually MORE than that.

Joey (16). Good points and you are correct that he doesn't see/admit his own lens. My primary concern is that we see his so clearly that it causes us to put up a "reverse lens" that sees everything coming from Piper as negative.

Another example of this is that we are so enthralled with the global/cosmic/communal implications of the Gospel (which are clearly there and need pointed out)that we neglect the individual implications completely. There are individual implications even in Wright's more robust and accurate Gospel.

Great post and helpful discussion. It seems like so much of this comes down to defining key terms properly; and more specifically, not asking single words to do too much. I still remember my first word study on dikaiosune and coming to the conclusion that in the most basic sense it means "conformity to a standard." At the time I had a pretty typical view of what this means - God has to punish bad and reward good. This is his standard-keeping, his justice, his righteousness. Then Wright (et al) came along and forced me to take seriously the covenant (and the covenant community) as definitive of God's standard. God's righteousness certainly means that he will keep his promises, and the NP helps us see those promise - i.e. that standard - in a more biblical, sharper way. This to me is part of the real genius of Wright's work on this topic: "Let the words mean what they mean, and let the rest of Scripture fill out the picture!" His reply to Piper is yet another example of this - God very much *is* concerned with his glory (rightly seen as inseparable from the destiny of his beloved image-bearers), but that simply isn't what dikaiosune is talking about. Great stuff!

As I read through this series, Scot, I see here and there how Piper's theological grid has a way of shaping an interpretation of Scripture. I say this not in a dismissive way toward Piper, however. It has caused me to also wonder how my own theological grid might shape the way I see some passages of Scripture. Maybe an even greater problem occurs if I am unaware that I even have such a lens before me as I read the Bible.

There are times when Wright's view of God and Piper's view of God come closer together than one might suspect from reading this thread. For example in chapters one or two of Wright's book under consideration (not in front of me right now), he says something pretty close to...

We are in orbit around God and his purposes, not the other way around.

I could see Piper saying something like that.

Scot I didn't know if you saw this but Craig L. Blomberg had a very good review of Wright's book at the Zondervan blog.

http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/05/the-wright-approach-to-justification-in-paul_blomberg.html

I've been enjoying your series, much to consider. I was really impressed with how Wright interacted with the two volumes of "Justification & Variegated Nomism," he didn't dismiss it but neither did he saw they made his work of no value.

Looking forward to more of your thoughts on the book. Tony

Is anyone else concerned that Wright's "divine narcissism" language might inflame the already heated debate to new levels, at least with respect to Piper? I agree with the merits of Wright's views (including on this issue), but the rhetoric? When I read that in the book, my immediate thought was of Piper tearing his robes and shouting "blasphemy!" It seemed like it might be pouring flames on gas-soaked tinder.

Scot,

In a "Community Called Atonement", you speak of double imputation. Can you explain how you differ from both Piper and Wright.

Phil