Is the Righteousness of God the Gift of Righteousness?
Another interesting article on the "righteousness of God" - a key phrase, especially in Paul's Letter to the Romans.
I think the view Bird explains here is probably the correct one. The phrase means "a righteous status from God." Bird's article gives those of us who take this, the classic Protestant line, some food for thought though!
Showing posts with label New Perspective on Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Perspective on Paul. Show all posts
Monday, 1 June 2020
Is the Righteousness of God, God's Covenant Faithfulness?
Is the Righteousness of God, God's Covenant Faithfulness?
Anyone vaguely familiar with the New Perspective on Paul and N. T. Wright's views on 'the righteousness of God' in Paul's letters (specifically Romans and Galatians) will find this article by Michael F. Bird interesting.
Anyone vaguely familiar with the New Perspective on Paul and N. T. Wright's views on 'the righteousness of God' in Paul's letters (specifically Romans and Galatians) will find this article by Michael F. Bird interesting.
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
What St Paul Really Said
What St Paul Really Said
by Tom Wright
Lion Publishing, 1997
I don't often re-post old stuff, but I was re-reading What St Paul Really Said by Tom Wright in the last week and thought it worth putting up the review I first did back in 2009. I have only altered the review slightly where my views have shifted since 2009 or where the wording needed changed to reflect that my first reading of the book was four years ago
--
When I first read What St Paul Really Said I was determined not to like it. In fact I was resolute that I was going to hate it, find it heretical, say so in a scathing review and then chuck it in the nearest bin. It was the first book I read by N. T. Wright, one of the world's most eminent New Testament scholars, (then) Anglican bishop and churchman and leading proponent of the so-called New Perspective on Paul.
The truth proved to be a bit different. Not quite a Damascus road experience, but I finished the book convinced that far from being the heretic that some have caricatured him as, Tom Wright has more in common with the spirit of the Reformers than some of his opponents, even if he sometimes comes to different conclusions than them. His sole concern, it seems to me, is to find out what the Scriptures say, over against any traditions, even those of evangelicalism. Of course that does not settle the question of whether he does, in fact, succeed in finding out what the Scriptures say and in showing that his view is the correct one and the more traditional interpretations of say Romans and Galatians are in error, but in reading Wright it always feels as if his heart is in the right place.
"What St Paul Really Said" is his popular-level treatment of Paul's place in Christian theology. It is an engaging read, extremely well-written and fairly easy to read though dealing with a complex subject matter in considerable depth. In fact, it is a fine example of how interesting prose by theologians should and could be.
I am not convinced by everything Wright says. In fact, I strongly disagree with some of his conclusions - he does not always give enough credit to "old perspective" theology, its emphases, and the arguments of its greatest theologians. Often Wright frames the discussion in "either/or" terms when it might just as well be framed as a "both/and" situation. Justification is not just about ecclesiology in my view - it is also about soteriology and I think Wright overplays his hand on this point. Justification is at least partly about salvation, about how a sinner can be in the right relationship (i.e. be righteous) with a holy God, not just about the fact that Gentiles should be allowed to eat with Jews as members of the one covenant people.
That's not to say that the fact that every Christian is saved on precisely the same basis should not have massive ramifications for ecclesiology and the unity of the people of God. I think Wright is on to something when he emphasises those aspects of justification that Reformed and Lutheran theology has traditionally downplayed. To put it another way, I think the Old Perspective is fundamentally right on the substantial points regarding justification, but the New Perspective has valuable insights to offer regarding the implications of the doctrine of justification for the Church's and the individual Christian's life. Our fellowship with other Christians, our being the church, our being the covenant people of God is, after all, on the basis of this justification we have all equally received through faith.
I think it was Howard Marshall who made the comment about accepting what the New Perspective affirms but having a problem with what it denies. I would certainly share that view.
This book and indeed all Wright's work demands to be read by any evangelicals serious about New Testament theology, particularly the New Perspective on Paul, because I believe there are insights here that are valuable and can be taken on board even by evangelicals who reject the central claims of the New Perspective.
For me personally, I think the central planks of the New Perspective are correct and we need to work to bring the Old and New Perspectives together rather than play them against each other. As I said, affirming what the New Perspective affirms without accepting what it denies.
What St Paul Really Said is thoroughly recommended reading for the thoughtful Christian.
by Tom Wright
Lion Publishing, 1997
I don't often re-post old stuff, but I was re-reading What St Paul Really Said by Tom Wright in the last week and thought it worth putting up the review I first did back in 2009. I have only altered the review slightly where my views have shifted since 2009 or where the wording needed changed to reflect that my first reading of the book was four years ago
--
When I first read What St Paul Really Said I was determined not to like it. In fact I was resolute that I was going to hate it, find it heretical, say so in a scathing review and then chuck it in the nearest bin. It was the first book I read by N. T. Wright, one of the world's most eminent New Testament scholars, (then) Anglican bishop and churchman and leading proponent of the so-called New Perspective on Paul.
The truth proved to be a bit different. Not quite a Damascus road experience, but I finished the book convinced that far from being the heretic that some have caricatured him as, Tom Wright has more in common with the spirit of the Reformers than some of his opponents, even if he sometimes comes to different conclusions than them. His sole concern, it seems to me, is to find out what the Scriptures say, over against any traditions, even those of evangelicalism. Of course that does not settle the question of whether he does, in fact, succeed in finding out what the Scriptures say and in showing that his view is the correct one and the more traditional interpretations of say Romans and Galatians are in error, but in reading Wright it always feels as if his heart is in the right place.
"What St Paul Really Said" is his popular-level treatment of Paul's place in Christian theology. It is an engaging read, extremely well-written and fairly easy to read though dealing with a complex subject matter in considerable depth. In fact, it is a fine example of how interesting prose by theologians should and could be.
I am not convinced by everything Wright says. In fact, I strongly disagree with some of his conclusions - he does not always give enough credit to "old perspective" theology, its emphases, and the arguments of its greatest theologians. Often Wright frames the discussion in "either/or" terms when it might just as well be framed as a "both/and" situation. Justification is not just about ecclesiology in my view - it is also about soteriology and I think Wright overplays his hand on this point. Justification is at least partly about salvation, about how a sinner can be in the right relationship (i.e. be righteous) with a holy God, not just about the fact that Gentiles should be allowed to eat with Jews as members of the one covenant people.
That's not to say that the fact that every Christian is saved on precisely the same basis should not have massive ramifications for ecclesiology and the unity of the people of God. I think Wright is on to something when he emphasises those aspects of justification that Reformed and Lutheran theology has traditionally downplayed. To put it another way, I think the Old Perspective is fundamentally right on the substantial points regarding justification, but the New Perspective has valuable insights to offer regarding the implications of the doctrine of justification for the Church's and the individual Christian's life. Our fellowship with other Christians, our being the church, our being the covenant people of God is, after all, on the basis of this justification we have all equally received through faith.
I think it was Howard Marshall who made the comment about accepting what the New Perspective affirms but having a problem with what it denies. I would certainly share that view.
This book and indeed all Wright's work demands to be read by any evangelicals serious about New Testament theology, particularly the New Perspective on Paul, because I believe there are insights here that are valuable and can be taken on board even by evangelicals who reject the central claims of the New Perspective.
For me personally, I think the central planks of the New Perspective are correct and we need to work to bring the Old and New Perspectives together rather than play them against each other. As I said, affirming what the New Perspective affirms without accepting what it denies.
What St Paul Really Said is thoroughly recommended reading for the thoughtful Christian.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Paul: Fresh Perspectives
Paul: Fresh Perspectives
N. T. Wright
SPCK 2005
Paul: Fresh Perspectives (hereafter "PFP") builds on and updates Wright's earlier work in What St Paul Really Said and the more technical The Climax of the Covenant by focusing on various aspects of the New Perspective on Paul (or "Fresh" Perspective as Wright prefers). However, PFP is very much an "interim report" as we still wait for volume four in his massive series Christian Origins and the Question of God which will deal with a lot of the same material in much greater detail and has the proposed title Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Each of the main chapters in PFP, which are around 20-30 pages, will, so I've heard, be expanded to up to 200 pages in Wrght's much anticipated yet delayed big book on Paul.
This earlier book from 2005 was based on a several series of lectures Wright gave and particularly on the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge University.
Wright's is a grand theological vision in many ways which takes in God creating the world and then recreating or renewing the world through Christ and his people who are in him (en Christo = in Christ = "in the Messiah"). Wright deals with this in his chapters on "Creation and Covenant" and "Messiah and Apocalyptic". He then also argues that the Christian gospel is about much more than "fitting us for heaven, to live with thee there" as the children's carol puts it. It is about bringing the new creation to bear on this world as it is. For Wright, as I think for Jesus and Paul, the Gospel has a hard political edge to it. Wright deals with some of this in the chapter "Gospel and Empire".
In the second part of the book, Wright then turns to an analysis of how Paul built on Old Testament ideas to forge Christian theology and a Christian worldview. These three chapters are entitled "Reworking God" which is about how Paul incorporates a high Christology into the Jewish monotheism he grew up with , "Reworking God's People," about how God's covenant people Israel are redefined and rebuilt around Jesus the Messiah as the one faithful Israelite, and "Reimagining God's Future" concerning eschatology and Paul's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The final chapter "Jesus, Paul and the Task of the Church" explores Paul's mission as an apostle to the Gentiles and tries to draw all the threads Wright has spun together in a conclusion.
This overview clearly demonstrates that Wright's project is much bigger than redefining "justification" though it is about that. Wright believes that justification is primarily about ecclesiology and only secondarily about soteriology (whereas traditional evangelical theology has seen justification as the other way round and perhaps hardly about ecclesiology at all).
This is such an interesting area of theological debate just now. It seems to me that there is no question that the implications of the doctrine of justification by faith alone are writ large in the New Testament. Almost every time justification is mentioned in the New Testament, it is mentioned in the context of Jew and Gentile Christians coming together to form one body, one church. On this I think Wright is largely correct. And it is an implication that much of the church has forgotten for too long.
In a similar way, Wright teaches that justification is first about covenant membership and then - because the covenant's purpose is to bring salvation to people - about individual salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Traditionally, it has been the other way round, that justification is first about salvation - right standing before a holy God - and then about covenant membership as an implication of having a new status of righteousness.
I wonder sometimes if it matters much which way round we view things as long as we teach that both exist and both are important and both have implications for how we "do church". My heart is still with the Old Perspective, but a renewed Old Perspective that takes a lot of New Perspective concerns on board.
That's to get away from this being a book review though. This book is worth reading, and stimulating in many ways. However it may fall between two stools between Wright's earlier work and the big book to come and so may have a limited readership for those reasons.
N. T. Wright
SPCK 2005
Paul: Fresh Perspectives (hereafter "PFP") builds on and updates Wright's earlier work in What St Paul Really Said and the more technical The Climax of the Covenant by focusing on various aspects of the New Perspective on Paul (or "Fresh" Perspective as Wright prefers). However, PFP is very much an "interim report" as we still wait for volume four in his massive series Christian Origins and the Question of God which will deal with a lot of the same material in much greater detail and has the proposed title Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Each of the main chapters in PFP, which are around 20-30 pages, will, so I've heard, be expanded to up to 200 pages in Wrght's much anticipated yet delayed big book on Paul.
This earlier book from 2005 was based on a several series of lectures Wright gave and particularly on the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge University.
Wright's is a grand theological vision in many ways which takes in God creating the world and then recreating or renewing the world through Christ and his people who are in him (en Christo = in Christ = "in the Messiah"). Wright deals with this in his chapters on "Creation and Covenant" and "Messiah and Apocalyptic". He then also argues that the Christian gospel is about much more than "fitting us for heaven, to live with thee there" as the children's carol puts it. It is about bringing the new creation to bear on this world as it is. For Wright, as I think for Jesus and Paul, the Gospel has a hard political edge to it. Wright deals with some of this in the chapter "Gospel and Empire".
In the second part of the book, Wright then turns to an analysis of how Paul built on Old Testament ideas to forge Christian theology and a Christian worldview. These three chapters are entitled "Reworking God" which is about how Paul incorporates a high Christology into the Jewish monotheism he grew up with , "Reworking God's People," about how God's covenant people Israel are redefined and rebuilt around Jesus the Messiah as the one faithful Israelite, and "Reimagining God's Future" concerning eschatology and Paul's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The final chapter "Jesus, Paul and the Task of the Church" explores Paul's mission as an apostle to the Gentiles and tries to draw all the threads Wright has spun together in a conclusion.
This overview clearly demonstrates that Wright's project is much bigger than redefining "justification" though it is about that. Wright believes that justification is primarily about ecclesiology and only secondarily about soteriology (whereas traditional evangelical theology has seen justification as the other way round and perhaps hardly about ecclesiology at all).
This is such an interesting area of theological debate just now. It seems to me that there is no question that the implications of the doctrine of justification by faith alone are writ large in the New Testament. Almost every time justification is mentioned in the New Testament, it is mentioned in the context of Jew and Gentile Christians coming together to form one body, one church. On this I think Wright is largely correct. And it is an implication that much of the church has forgotten for too long.
In a similar way, Wright teaches that justification is first about covenant membership and then - because the covenant's purpose is to bring salvation to people - about individual salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Traditionally, it has been the other way round, that justification is first about salvation - right standing before a holy God - and then about covenant membership as an implication of having a new status of righteousness.
I wonder sometimes if it matters much which way round we view things as long as we teach that both exist and both are important and both have implications for how we "do church". My heart is still with the Old Perspective, but a renewed Old Perspective that takes a lot of New Perspective concerns on board.
That's to get away from this being a book review though. This book is worth reading, and stimulating in many ways. However it may fall between two stools between Wright's earlier work and the big book to come and so may have a limited readership for those reasons.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Tom Wright for Everyone
Tom Wright for Everyone
Stephen Kuhrt
SPCK 2011
This is a short but readable book on the theology of N. T. Wright and how it might influence the local church for the better, written by a Church of England vicar, Stephen Kuhrt. The chapters run as follows:
Chapter one outlines Tom Wright's career both as a New Testament scholar and as a churchman (Wright is an ordained Anglican minister and was until recently the Bishop of Durham).
Chapter two discusses a number of issues and problems facing the 21st century church that Kuhrt obviously sees Wright's theology as a possible way of addressing.
Chapter three is an excellent and accurate summary of Wright's theological distinctives. For anyone who is unfamiliar with Wright's work, this chapter should be required reading.
In chapters four, five and six, Kuhrt explores how Wright's theological approach might reinvigorate and renew the church's work in the fields of pastoral issues, mission and the church's life of fellowship and worship. The final chapter is a challenge to the church to engage with Wright and accept at least some of what he is teaching.
My own view of Tom Wright has always been, and remains, mixed. Much of his focus is different from what I would call mainstream evangelicalism which can tend towards pietism and individualism. Wright's insistence on the gospel's social, political and corporate demands would be a shot in the arm for many such churches. On the other hand, there are times where I feel strongly that although Wright is usually correct in his affirmations - for example that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith must have an impact on how we handle church membership and Christian unity and equality, he is sometimes wrong in his denials - that justification is not about a sinner's righteous standing before a holy God.
If we read Wright with this twofold approach - being slow to reject his affirmations and even slower to accept his denials - there is much in Wright's theology I agree with Kuhrt that we need to engage with and accept for the benefit of our churches.
For the record, I welcome Wright's emphasis on the covenant and the Jewish roots of Christianity, his insistence that the gospel has important social and political implications alongside teaching about personal salvation, his recognition that the resurrection is as important a doctrine in its own right as Christ's atoning death, his analysis that the Christus Victor theme is more important to the biblical authors than evangelicals have traditionally recognised, that eschatology is central to the apostles' message, and that the Christian hope is not "to die and go to heaven" but to have everlasting life in a new renewed creation on earth, and that the Gospel's message of the Kingdom and the Epistles' message of salvation are closely linked, and that justification was used by Paul as a doctrine to explain the breaking down of barriers between Jew and Gentile.
Kuhrt's book is a useful tool in this ongoing dialogue. I feel that Kuhrt is overly gushing in his praise of Wright and his acceptance of virtually every substantial point, hook, line and sinker. The few things where Kuhrt registers disagreement with his hero are few and very minor. My disagreements with Wright are much larger, but since there are also many points that Wright emphasises that I haven't found from any other source, and so I continue to think that Wright is well worth reading and learning from. I only wish he was better informed about Reformed theology. If he was, I think he would realise that the differences between him and us is neither as great as he thinks, nor as great as we tend to think.
Stephen Kuhrt
SPCK 2011
This is a short but readable book on the theology of N. T. Wright and how it might influence the local church for the better, written by a Church of England vicar, Stephen Kuhrt. The chapters run as follows:
Chapter one outlines Tom Wright's career both as a New Testament scholar and as a churchman (Wright is an ordained Anglican minister and was until recently the Bishop of Durham).
Chapter two discusses a number of issues and problems facing the 21st century church that Kuhrt obviously sees Wright's theology as a possible way of addressing.
Chapter three is an excellent and accurate summary of Wright's theological distinctives. For anyone who is unfamiliar with Wright's work, this chapter should be required reading.
In chapters four, five and six, Kuhrt explores how Wright's theological approach might reinvigorate and renew the church's work in the fields of pastoral issues, mission and the church's life of fellowship and worship. The final chapter is a challenge to the church to engage with Wright and accept at least some of what he is teaching.
My own view of Tom Wright has always been, and remains, mixed. Much of his focus is different from what I would call mainstream evangelicalism which can tend towards pietism and individualism. Wright's insistence on the gospel's social, political and corporate demands would be a shot in the arm for many such churches. On the other hand, there are times where I feel strongly that although Wright is usually correct in his affirmations - for example that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith must have an impact on how we handle church membership and Christian unity and equality, he is sometimes wrong in his denials - that justification is not about a sinner's righteous standing before a holy God.
If we read Wright with this twofold approach - being slow to reject his affirmations and even slower to accept his denials - there is much in Wright's theology I agree with Kuhrt that we need to engage with and accept for the benefit of our churches.
For the record, I welcome Wright's emphasis on the covenant and the Jewish roots of Christianity, his insistence that the gospel has important social and political implications alongside teaching about personal salvation, his recognition that the resurrection is as important a doctrine in its own right as Christ's atoning death, his analysis that the Christus Victor theme is more important to the biblical authors than evangelicals have traditionally recognised, that eschatology is central to the apostles' message, and that the Christian hope is not "to die and go to heaven" but to have everlasting life in a new renewed creation on earth, and that the Gospel's message of the Kingdom and the Epistles' message of salvation are closely linked, and that justification was used by Paul as a doctrine to explain the breaking down of barriers between Jew and Gentile.
Kuhrt's book is a useful tool in this ongoing dialogue. I feel that Kuhrt is overly gushing in his praise of Wright and his acceptance of virtually every substantial point, hook, line and sinker. The few things where Kuhrt registers disagreement with his hero are few and very minor. My disagreements with Wright are much larger, but since there are also many points that Wright emphasises that I haven't found from any other source, and so I continue to think that Wright is well worth reading and learning from. I only wish he was better informed about Reformed theology. If he was, I think he would realise that the differences between him and us is neither as great as he thinks, nor as great as we tend to think.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Trevin Wax on Piper on Wright
Enjoyed this series by Trevin Wax reviewing John's Piper's book on N T Wright: http://ow.ly/5RZNE
Thursday, 7 April 2011
The Climax of the Covenant
The Climax of the Covenant
N. T. Wright
T & T Clark 1991
This is a very technical book written about 20 years ago by the New Testament theologian, N. T. Wright. The Climax of the Covenant is a collection of different essays relating more or less to the theme of Christ and the Law, particularly in Pauline theology. As such it lacks some coherence, but each of the essays is of interest in its own way as Wright deals with aspects of a number of New Testament texts.
The book is difficult to follow in places. Although I know some Greek basics, this book requires quite a lot of proficiency in the language. Almost all the quotations from the New Testament text are produced in Greek without English translation or even transliteration.
For most readers, probably more would be gained by reading some of Wright's other works, such as What St Paul Really Said or Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision or any of this commentaries on the New Testament.
N. T. Wright
T & T Clark 1991
This is a very technical book written about 20 years ago by the New Testament theologian, N. T. Wright. The Climax of the Covenant is a collection of different essays relating more or less to the theme of Christ and the Law, particularly in Pauline theology. As such it lacks some coherence, but each of the essays is of interest in its own way as Wright deals with aspects of a number of New Testament texts.
The book is difficult to follow in places. Although I know some Greek basics, this book requires quite a lot of proficiency in the language. Almost all the quotations from the New Testament text are produced in Greek without English translation or even transliteration.
For most readers, probably more would be gained by reading some of Wright's other works, such as What St Paul Really Said or Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision or any of this commentaries on the New Testament.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
N. T. Wright on the Atonement
Interesting article on Theologia: "N. T. Wright on the Atonement" http://ow.ly/4pDFE
Monday, 13 December 2010
Monday, 6 December 2010
Paul for Everyone: Romans
Paul for Everyone: Romans (2 Vols)
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Tom Wright's For Everyone series fills a necessary gap that is very difficult to fill. The books are neither simply devotional reading nor are they commentaries (technical or otherwise). Instead they attempt to be readable by any Christian and get to the heart of the message of the book or letter it deals with. They are the kind of books that are easy to read as they have Wright's own New Testament translation printed at the beginning of each chapter.
Paul's Letter to the Romans is one of the most important sections of the New Testament, for there Paul gives the richest and fullest treatment of his gospel. Tom Wright is an acknowledged expert on Paul and Romans in particular. As well as this popular-level work he has written a major commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter's Bible series.
That's all positives about the book. The negative for many will be the fact that Wright is a proponent of the still-controversial New Perspective on Paul, and NPP and some of Wright's other more idiosyncratic views dominate his interpretation of Romans. This is not to say his insights have no validity, but rather than the reader needs to be aware of where Wright is coming from.
His treatment of Romans comes in two volumes dealing with chapters 1-8 and then 9-16 respectively. This alone lets the reader know that this is a much fuller treatment of Paul's extended argument in this letter than Wright has devoted to almost any other New Testament letter.
I found Wright's treatment of the letter to be very readable and understandable for the most part. There are times I think he raises more questions than he answers. I suppose for readers who feel like that, there is always the big commentary.
Much of what Wright says here helped allay my fears about some of his doctrines. For example, in this book Wright makes it quite clear that though he believes in present justification by faith alone and in final justification on the basis of the whole life lived in the Spirit, he is very clear that the present verdict always anticipates the same final verdict. In other words, Wright's doctrine does not undermine assurance in tender Christian believers. For Wright it is impossible for someone to be justified now but finally lost. It was interesting that I read these books at the same time as Wright was clarifying his position at the ETS meeting where he clarified that final justification on the basis of works really means "in accordance with works". This brings Wright much closer to the evangelical mainstream as reformed theology has always affirmed the final judgment is in accordance with our works. The Westminster Confession of Faith xxxiii.1 says as much:
Similarly in the second volume, I enjoyed most of Wright's treatment, however I think he was very weak in his handling of divine election in Romans 9. Wright fails to see that though it describes God's choosing of the elect within Israel (and the elect have responsibility and not just blessings), this doesn't mean the chapter does not have a more general application to how God chooses any of his people.
At times, these books seemed much more technical than Wright's handling of the gospel narratives in other books in the series. It is not a simplistic treatment of the letter, but then Romans is not really a book that can be handled with simple devotional sentiments. Paul's argument is so tightly constructed that it won't really lend itself to that.
I enjoyed the books very much. Few preachers would fail to benefit from reading this. In this series, the "hooks" that Wright uses to draw the reader into his argument are a masterclass in gaining the reader's or hearer's attention. The ones used in Romans are no exception.
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Tom Wright's For Everyone series fills a necessary gap that is very difficult to fill. The books are neither simply devotional reading nor are they commentaries (technical or otherwise). Instead they attempt to be readable by any Christian and get to the heart of the message of the book or letter it deals with. They are the kind of books that are easy to read as they have Wright's own New Testament translation printed at the beginning of each chapter.
Paul's Letter to the Romans is one of the most important sections of the New Testament, for there Paul gives the richest and fullest treatment of his gospel. Tom Wright is an acknowledged expert on Paul and Romans in particular. As well as this popular-level work he has written a major commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter's Bible series.
That's all positives about the book. The negative for many will be the fact that Wright is a proponent of the still-controversial New Perspective on Paul, and NPP and some of Wright's other more idiosyncratic views dominate his interpretation of Romans. This is not to say his insights have no validity, but rather than the reader needs to be aware of where Wright is coming from.
His treatment of Romans comes in two volumes dealing with chapters 1-8 and then 9-16 respectively. This alone lets the reader know that this is a much fuller treatment of Paul's extended argument in this letter than Wright has devoted to almost any other New Testament letter.
I found Wright's treatment of the letter to be very readable and understandable for the most part. There are times I think he raises more questions than he answers. I suppose for readers who feel like that, there is always the big commentary.
Much of what Wright says here helped allay my fears about some of his doctrines. For example, in this book Wright makes it quite clear that though he believes in present justification by faith alone and in final justification on the basis of the whole life lived in the Spirit, he is very clear that the present verdict always anticipates the same final verdict. In other words, Wright's doctrine does not undermine assurance in tender Christian believers. For Wright it is impossible for someone to be justified now but finally lost. It was interesting that I read these books at the same time as Wright was clarifying his position at the ETS meeting where he clarified that final justification on the basis of works really means "in accordance with works". This brings Wright much closer to the evangelical mainstream as reformed theology has always affirmed the final judgment is in accordance with our works. The Westminster Confession of Faith xxxiii.1 says as much:
"God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil."I thought Wright's treatment of chapters 1-6 and chapter 8 were excellent. I was glad to see he argues for 'propitiation' in Romans 3:25 and his handling of Abraham in Romans 4 is excellent too. However, I remain unsure about his interpretation of Romans 7. My own view has always been that it represents the 'normal' Christian life and our battle with sin. Wright takes a very different view and sees the "I" of chapter 7 not as the apostle Paul describing his experience either pre-conversion or post-conversion (my view) or post-conversion but pre-baptism of the spirit. In fact it is not Paul at all, but a rhetorical device to describe Israel's history under the law. I didn't find this convincing to be honest. But I will read the big commentary and see more of his arguments there.
Similarly in the second volume, I enjoyed most of Wright's treatment, however I think he was very weak in his handling of divine election in Romans 9. Wright fails to see that though it describes God's choosing of the elect within Israel (and the elect have responsibility and not just blessings), this doesn't mean the chapter does not have a more general application to how God chooses any of his people.
At times, these books seemed much more technical than Wright's handling of the gospel narratives in other books in the series. It is not a simplistic treatment of the letter, but then Romans is not really a book that can be handled with simple devotional sentiments. Paul's argument is so tightly constructed that it won't really lend itself to that.
I enjoyed the books very much. Few preachers would fail to benefit from reading this. In this series, the "hooks" that Wright uses to draw the reader into his argument are a masterclass in gaining the reader's or hearer's attention. The ones used in Romans are no exception.
Friday, 26 November 2010
The New Perspective on Paul
I'm becoming more attracted to the NPP (New Perspective on Paul).
Seems to me as if we view "union with Christ" as the centrepiece of Paul's soteriology this is a simpler and more biblical scheme than the classic Lutheran or Reformed one (though it is very close to Calvin's view).
N. T. Wright has taught me a lot in this area.
"In Christ" (en christo) is a key idea in Pauline theology. It is through our union with Christ, through our being in the Messiah that his death and resurrection become ours, so that "what is true of the Messiah is true of his people" as Wright might say.
If "righteous" becomes not regarding someone as having a moral status they don't really deserve, but rather simply as regarding someone who is "in the right" - someone who has received the divine verdict of innocent and hence "made righteous" then imputation starts to be unnecessary.
As Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer have argued (and it looks as if Wright agrees) it is not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather than we are righteous because we are incorporated into the faithful Messiah, Jesus.
This subject is so interesting and deserves much more thought. I never thought I'd say this, but could it be that Wright is actually right??
Seems to me as if we view "union with Christ" as the centrepiece of Paul's soteriology this is a simpler and more biblical scheme than the classic Lutheran or Reformed one (though it is very close to Calvin's view).
N. T. Wright has taught me a lot in this area.
"In Christ" (en christo) is a key idea in Pauline theology. It is through our union with Christ, through our being in the Messiah that his death and resurrection become ours, so that "what is true of the Messiah is true of his people" as Wright might say.
If "righteous" becomes not regarding someone as having a moral status they don't really deserve, but rather simply as regarding someone who is "in the right" - someone who has received the divine verdict of innocent and hence "made righteous" then imputation starts to be unnecessary.
As Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer have argued (and it looks as if Wright agrees) it is not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather than we are righteous because we are incorporated into the faithful Messiah, Jesus.
This subject is so interesting and deserves much more thought. I never thought I'd say this, but could it be that Wright is actually right??
A Clarification from N. T. Wright
The ETS meeting was important. N. T. Wright clarified his position that future justication is "in accordance with the whole life lived" rather than "on the basis of the whole life lived."
The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.
The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF
The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.
The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF
Monday, 22 November 2010
Simply Christian
Simply Christian
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.
Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.
The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book.
Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?
Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!
Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.
Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006
Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.
Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.
The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book.
Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?
Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!
Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.
Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
The Saving Righteousness of God
The Saving Righteousness of God
Michael F. Bird
Paternoster/Wipf & Stock 2007
This is an important if rather technical work from a talented Australian theologian on the much debated areas of Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Bird's book is irenic in tone, in fact it's practically a call for a cease fire in the hostilities between the Old Perspective and the New Perspective on justification.
Bird charts a "third way" that is basically still the Old Perspective but augmented (and I use that word deliberately as opposed to "diminished") by some valid New Perspective insights. Such an approach is risky - it always risks being attacked on two fronts, as being not true to either perspective. But Bird is a careful exegete and willing to be critical of both sides.
Some of the chapters have appeared in some form within theological journals and periodicals, but have probably been revised for publication here, and there is also a fair amount of new material.
Of particular interest was Bird's concept of "incorporated righteousness" rather than imputed (traditional Protestant theology) or infused (traditional Roman Catholic theology) righteousness in the doctrine of justification. If I read Bird correctly, he has no problem with, and agrees with, imputation as a systematic theology category, but he thinks this is not how Paul himself understood our becoming righteous. In a way, Paul's scheme is simpler. We are righteous because Christ is righteous and we are "in Christ" - incorporated into Christ, in union with Christ. I found Bird's analysis interesting.
The end result may be the same, but there is a difference between Christ giving us his righteousness and us benefiting from his righteousness by being united to him. Either way we are righteous through an alien righteousness being reckoned to us, but there are differences too. One is like a cosmic set of accounts being drawn up and righteousness being transferred from one account to the other. The other is much more relational and organic. It's like the difference between handing someone one of your umbrellas and a raincoat to protect them from the rain, and inviting them to come into your house. Either way you are kept dry, but the methods are very different.
The other chapters were interesting too, particularly his analysis of the close link between Christ's resurrection and our justification (cf Romans 4:25). Rather than looking at Christ's life in terms of merit that can then be passed around the faithful, Bird sides with the New Perspective and sees it in terms of fulfilling his mission as Messiah and being the one faithful Israelite. Then the resurrection is seen as Christ's own vindication and justification first and then ours through union with him. If Christ's resurrection becomes our justification, it is difficult to see how our future justification can be based on works as N. T. Wright posits. Indeed Bird comes fair and squarely down on the side of the Old Perspective when he states that our future justification is based solely on Christ's death and resurrection. Our works, for Bird, are evidential and not instrumental in our justification.
I found this book stimulating and challenging reading. It deserves to be widely read in Reformed and evangelical circles.
Michael F. Bird
Paternoster/Wipf & Stock 2007
This is an important if rather technical work from a talented Australian theologian on the much debated areas of Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Bird's book is irenic in tone, in fact it's practically a call for a cease fire in the hostilities between the Old Perspective and the New Perspective on justification.
Bird charts a "third way" that is basically still the Old Perspective but augmented (and I use that word deliberately as opposed to "diminished") by some valid New Perspective insights. Such an approach is risky - it always risks being attacked on two fronts, as being not true to either perspective. But Bird is a careful exegete and willing to be critical of both sides.
Some of the chapters have appeared in some form within theological journals and periodicals, but have probably been revised for publication here, and there is also a fair amount of new material.
Of particular interest was Bird's concept of "incorporated righteousness" rather than imputed (traditional Protestant theology) or infused (traditional Roman Catholic theology) righteousness in the doctrine of justification. If I read Bird correctly, he has no problem with, and agrees with, imputation as a systematic theology category, but he thinks this is not how Paul himself understood our becoming righteous. In a way, Paul's scheme is simpler. We are righteous because Christ is righteous and we are "in Christ" - incorporated into Christ, in union with Christ. I found Bird's analysis interesting.
The end result may be the same, but there is a difference between Christ giving us his righteousness and us benefiting from his righteousness by being united to him. Either way we are righteous through an alien righteousness being reckoned to us, but there are differences too. One is like a cosmic set of accounts being drawn up and righteousness being transferred from one account to the other. The other is much more relational and organic. It's like the difference between handing someone one of your umbrellas and a raincoat to protect them from the rain, and inviting them to come into your house. Either way you are kept dry, but the methods are very different.
The other chapters were interesting too, particularly his analysis of the close link between Christ's resurrection and our justification (cf Romans 4:25). Rather than looking at Christ's life in terms of merit that can then be passed around the faithful, Bird sides with the New Perspective and sees it in terms of fulfilling his mission as Messiah and being the one faithful Israelite. Then the resurrection is seen as Christ's own vindication and justification first and then ours through union with him. If Christ's resurrection becomes our justification, it is difficult to see how our future justification can be based on works as N. T. Wright posits. Indeed Bird comes fair and squarely down on the side of the Old Perspective when he states that our future justification is based solely on Christ's death and resurrection. Our works, for Bird, are evidential and not instrumental in our justification.
I found this book stimulating and challenging reading. It deserves to be widely read in Reformed and evangelical circles.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
The Future of Justification
The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 2008
This is an important book from John Piper in which he outlines and then criticises in detail the teachings regarding justification by New Perspective theologian and Anglican bishop, N. T. Wright.
Piper here is at his very best and writes as a theologian and as a concerned pastor. Point-by-point he criticises Wright not just because Wright's views are different from the Reformed/Protestant tradition (the proponents of Wright's views who dismiss Piper with this kind of remark have totally missed the mark). Piper engages Wright on the texts and the discussion is at the exegetical level for the most part.
The Future of Justification brings into sharper focus just how much the New Perspective on Paul - even in its most evangelical guise under Wright's advocacy - is a serious departure yes from Reformed tradition, but more seriously from the New Testament. Time and time again, Piper demonstrates just how Wright's claims take some of the evidence and treat it as if it was all and then dismisses the texts that don't fit. The truth is that Wright is the one committed to a theological project through which he reads the texts. Claims to be only concerned with the texts fail to convince.
Piper writes with an irenic spirit yet not one that will compromise the gospel. He bends over backwards in fact to put Wright in the best possible light he can. Yet even with this, he still makes many telling criticisms of Wrightian exegesis and theology. I think the power of Piper's "response" is obvious - not least in the fact that Wright felt he had write a reply (though a very indirect and frustrating one) and seems to have modified his view from earlier statements. I think the Wright of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009) is much closer to Piper than the Wright of What Saint Paul Really Said (1997). Perhaps in time, he will go further get closer to Piper's view yet. One hopes so, for Piper is on the side of Protestant orthodoxy on this issue and Wright, at times, isn't.
This is bound to become a key text in the ongoing theological discussion and dispute between the Old and New Perspectives on Paul.
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 2008
This is an important book from John Piper in which he outlines and then criticises in detail the teachings regarding justification by New Perspective theologian and Anglican bishop, N. T. Wright.
Piper here is at his very best and writes as a theologian and as a concerned pastor. Point-by-point he criticises Wright not just because Wright's views are different from the Reformed/Protestant tradition (the proponents of Wright's views who dismiss Piper with this kind of remark have totally missed the mark). Piper engages Wright on the texts and the discussion is at the exegetical level for the most part.
The Future of Justification brings into sharper focus just how much the New Perspective on Paul - even in its most evangelical guise under Wright's advocacy - is a serious departure yes from Reformed tradition, but more seriously from the New Testament. Time and time again, Piper demonstrates just how Wright's claims take some of the evidence and treat it as if it was all and then dismisses the texts that don't fit. The truth is that Wright is the one committed to a theological project through which he reads the texts. Claims to be only concerned with the texts fail to convince.
Piper writes with an irenic spirit yet not one that will compromise the gospel. He bends over backwards in fact to put Wright in the best possible light he can. Yet even with this, he still makes many telling criticisms of Wrightian exegesis and theology. I think the power of Piper's "response" is obvious - not least in the fact that Wright felt he had write a reply (though a very indirect and frustrating one) and seems to have modified his view from earlier statements. I think the Wright of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009) is much closer to Piper than the Wright of What Saint Paul Really Said (1997). Perhaps in time, he will go further get closer to Piper's view yet. One hopes so, for Piper is on the side of Protestant orthodoxy on this issue and Wright, at times, isn't.
This is bound to become a key text in the ongoing theological discussion and dispute between the Old and New Perspectives on Paul.
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision
Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision
by Tom Wright
SPCK
This is the latest book by New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, in which he outlines his unique interpretation of the writings of the apostle Paul as they concern the subject of justification. As is well known, Wright is one of the key figures in the loose grouping of New Testament scholarship known for better or worse as the New Perspective on Paul. Wright is significant not only because he is the most popular, the clearest, and the most evangelical of the main scholars associated with the movement, and therefore the person whose teachings have made the most inroads into evangelicalism in Britain and the United States, but also because in this particular book, Wright confronts his many critics who come from "the Old Perspective" or more accurately, traditional evangelicalism and confessional Reformed theology. In particular, Wright's critic, John Piper who wrote a book critiquing the new perspective and Wright especially called The Future of Justification comes in for some stinging criticism.
Wright's central metaphor in the book is that the Old Perspective is like someone who insists the earth is the centre of the solar system because the sun rises and sets each day, whereas the New Perspective is (naturally in Wright's mind) like the person who realises the deeper truth that the sun is at the centre and the earth revolves around it. Of course this immediately sets up the idea that the Old Perspective is not only outdated and less sophisticated, but also simply untrue. That does more or less poison the well. The fact is that the choice is not between an unsophisticated and demonstrably untrue view of the Bible and a sophisticated and demonstrably true view. The choice is between two sophisticated views, one which has been understood and believed for centuries and which fits the Bible's testimony (I don't accept Wright's assertions otherwise) and one which has been more or less discovered by Wright himself and missed by every generation of theologians from the post-apostolic period till the 1970s. Of course it is possible Wright is correct and everyone else did get it wrong. But just going back to the texts in itself does not guarantee theological correctness. Not if you go back and interpret them in the wrong way!
Time and time again, Wright says that his opponents "don't get it" as if the only problem with his view is that the rest of us are a bit thick. Maybe that's not how he intended to come across, but I'm afraid that is how he comes across at times, and it is not an attractive quality. It compares poorly with Piper's gentleness and graciousness in dealing with Wright.
Despite many shortcomings, I like Wright. I like a lot of what he says. And a lot of what he says is absolutely biblical and solidly evangelical, even Reformed. Just look at his defence of the bodily resurrection of Christ for example, and the way in which the covenant lies at the heart of Wright's theology. There are aspects of his doctrine of justification that are also, it seems to me, entirely in harmony with the Bible, the Reformed confessions and the best of traditional evangelical scholarship and church teaching.
However, there are also massive problems with Wright's views on the subject of justification, and this book only clarifies that the problems are a clear and present danger to the church, rather than allay any such fears.
There are a number of points that should be borne in mind about Wright's teaching in this book (and his others for that matter - the latest book does not shift much ground from what Wright has previously said).
Firstly, much of what Wright says here would find ready agreement from many "old perspective" people. I think it was the New Testament scholar, I. Howard Marshall, who brilliantly summed up the New Perspective as being "right in what it affirms and wrong it what it denies." Amen to that! Wright, somewhat inexplicably, writes as if almost everything he teaches is revolutionary and was never noticed by Old Perspective traditionalist Reformed theologians like John Piper and many others like him. That's just not the case. Almost all of what Wright states about God's covenant and purposes has been said before by Reformed theologians, particularly in Reformed Biblical theology. It is quite clear from where Wright is coming from that he does not even have a rudimentary knowledge of covenant theology, far less a grasp of its historical development from Calvin to the present day. Otherwise he could not write with that "look what I alone have discovered" tone he sometimes displays.
Secondly, there are new insights that we need to hear and correctives we need to heed in Wright's teachings. The problem for us in dealing with the New Perspective is in sifting out the sound teaching - and there is much in Wright's work that is good and true - from the errors that pepper the book. Wright is correct in probably 75% of what he says. Justification is in part a matter of ecclesiology and of telling "who has membership of the covenant people." It does have ramifications for how we do church and how we treat each other as Christian brothers and sisters. But it does so precisely because all Christians are forgiven their sins and declared righteous in God's sight on the same basis - by Christ's work received in faith. Wright is right that in Reformed theology we have too often made salvation an individual and private matter and not fully realised the implications of the gospel in a corporate sense for the whole of creation. We have de-politicised the gospel and in that sense we have truncated the gospel. Wright is on the right track I believe in all these issues. But this is not the stuff that is actually in conflict with the Old Perspective, though sometimes Wright puts it as if rejecting some of what he says that we cannot agree with means we have to reject that which we can accept. Wright's views it seems to me help us gain a better understanding of how the Gospels and Letters in the New Testament fit together. But yet again, we do not need to accept the most controversial parts of Wright's scheme in order to gain the benefits of some of his stresses and clarifications.
Thirdly, Wright has an unfortunate tendency to set up straw men in the sense that he often writes against caricatures of old perspective theology rather than the real thing. Whether this is because he fails to understand what previous generations of Reformed theologians actually taught, or whether he just can't be bothered reading them, is immaterial. The fact is that Wright often shows a shocking lack of familiarity with that Reformed theology has actually believed and taught. To give one example at the very heart of this whole debate, Wright characterises the Old Perspective of teaching that in the doctrine of justification the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers as righteousness because Christ fulfilling the law so as to store up a "treasury of merit" which can then be granted to believers. As far as I recall, no Reformed theologian has ever taught such a thing. It is rather that in Christ we gain the benefit of his own righteousness as someone who lived without ever having committed a sin. Another example with Wright's bizarre claim that the Old Perspective doesn't have an adequate place for the Holy Spirit. That is simply wrong. As we will see, the difference is that the Old Perspective does not assign the role to the Holy Spirit in justification that Wright gives him (and quite why Wright keeps on writing 'holy spirit' instead of Holy Spirit I don't know, but I found it odd).
Fourthly, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that Wright's view also contain serious errors. The one that stood out above others is Wright's doctrine of two-stage justification, one on the basis of faith in this life and the second on the basis of works at the Last Judgment. Wright's scheme almost says the same thing as Reformed orthodoxy in a different way, but not quite. By making 'the life lived' by believers a part of justification, albeit fencing it with the fact that the works concerned are the Holy Spirit's work, Wright cuts out a key part of the Christian's assurance. Despite his protestations that his scheme is more theo-centric than the Old Perspective (another bit of inaccurate revisionism at best), Wright's scheme actually encourages experiential navel gazing rather than looking to the objective work of Christ for justification. Rather than a two-stage justification, the New Testament talks about justification followed by sanctification. Wright's scheme confuses the two things. Reformed orthodoxy is that we are in the future justified according to works, but not on the basis of works. The difference between those statements is simply whether our works show that we are already justified (which they will) or whether our works are needed in order for us to be justified in the end (which they will not be). In my view he hopelessly confuses justification with sanctification (which is in effect Wright's second stage of justification!).
So, although Wright's book offers us much, in the end, there are significant problems with it that do not make me want to change from the Old Perspective. For every new insight that Wright offers, there are also problems with things he overlooks. An example would be the New Perspective's (and Wright's in particular) inadequate view of sin and the problem it creates for the human race. Many of the problems with the New Perspective stem from this in my view. For instance, if God's plan was to save the world through Israel, how was this to be established? The only way could have been through Christ, the only sinless human being to have lived since the Fall. To my mind, this undermines Wright's insistence on God's plan to save the world through Israel as such, if considered otherwise than through the promised Messiah. The New Testament teaches that only a sinless substitute of infinite merit could achieve the salvation of sinners. Only the Messiah could do it, which is precisely what the New Testament teaches (Acts 4:12).
To conclude, paraphrasing Wright himself, I submit that the Old Perspective can do everything the New Perspective wants to do but by a better route and with much more besides. And in the end, with its emphasis on sin and grace and the salvation of lost sinners, the Old Perspective is actually closer to Paul's vision than Wright's revision.
by Tom Wright
SPCK
This is the latest book by New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, in which he outlines his unique interpretation of the writings of the apostle Paul as they concern the subject of justification. As is well known, Wright is one of the key figures in the loose grouping of New Testament scholarship known for better or worse as the New Perspective on Paul. Wright is significant not only because he is the most popular, the clearest, and the most evangelical of the main scholars associated with the movement, and therefore the person whose teachings have made the most inroads into evangelicalism in Britain and the United States, but also because in this particular book, Wright confronts his many critics who come from "the Old Perspective" or more accurately, traditional evangelicalism and confessional Reformed theology. In particular, Wright's critic, John Piper who wrote a book critiquing the new perspective and Wright especially called The Future of Justification comes in for some stinging criticism.
Wright's central metaphor in the book is that the Old Perspective is like someone who insists the earth is the centre of the solar system because the sun rises and sets each day, whereas the New Perspective is (naturally in Wright's mind) like the person who realises the deeper truth that the sun is at the centre and the earth revolves around it. Of course this immediately sets up the idea that the Old Perspective is not only outdated and less sophisticated, but also simply untrue. That does more or less poison the well. The fact is that the choice is not between an unsophisticated and demonstrably untrue view of the Bible and a sophisticated and demonstrably true view. The choice is between two sophisticated views, one which has been understood and believed for centuries and which fits the Bible's testimony (I don't accept Wright's assertions otherwise) and one which has been more or less discovered by Wright himself and missed by every generation of theologians from the post-apostolic period till the 1970s. Of course it is possible Wright is correct and everyone else did get it wrong. But just going back to the texts in itself does not guarantee theological correctness. Not if you go back and interpret them in the wrong way!
Time and time again, Wright says that his opponents "don't get it" as if the only problem with his view is that the rest of us are a bit thick. Maybe that's not how he intended to come across, but I'm afraid that is how he comes across at times, and it is not an attractive quality. It compares poorly with Piper's gentleness and graciousness in dealing with Wright.
Despite many shortcomings, I like Wright. I like a lot of what he says. And a lot of what he says is absolutely biblical and solidly evangelical, even Reformed. Just look at his defence of the bodily resurrection of Christ for example, and the way in which the covenant lies at the heart of Wright's theology. There are aspects of his doctrine of justification that are also, it seems to me, entirely in harmony with the Bible, the Reformed confessions and the best of traditional evangelical scholarship and church teaching.
However, there are also massive problems with Wright's views on the subject of justification, and this book only clarifies that the problems are a clear and present danger to the church, rather than allay any such fears.
There are a number of points that should be borne in mind about Wright's teaching in this book (and his others for that matter - the latest book does not shift much ground from what Wright has previously said).
Firstly, much of what Wright says here would find ready agreement from many "old perspective" people. I think it was the New Testament scholar, I. Howard Marshall, who brilliantly summed up the New Perspective as being "right in what it affirms and wrong it what it denies." Amen to that! Wright, somewhat inexplicably, writes as if almost everything he teaches is revolutionary and was never noticed by Old Perspective traditionalist Reformed theologians like John Piper and many others like him. That's just not the case. Almost all of what Wright states about God's covenant and purposes has been said before by Reformed theologians, particularly in Reformed Biblical theology. It is quite clear from where Wright is coming from that he does not even have a rudimentary knowledge of covenant theology, far less a grasp of its historical development from Calvin to the present day. Otherwise he could not write with that "look what I alone have discovered" tone he sometimes displays.
Secondly, there are new insights that we need to hear and correctives we need to heed in Wright's teachings. The problem for us in dealing with the New Perspective is in sifting out the sound teaching - and there is much in Wright's work that is good and true - from the errors that pepper the book. Wright is correct in probably 75% of what he says. Justification is in part a matter of ecclesiology and of telling "who has membership of the covenant people." It does have ramifications for how we do church and how we treat each other as Christian brothers and sisters. But it does so precisely because all Christians are forgiven their sins and declared righteous in God's sight on the same basis - by Christ's work received in faith. Wright is right that in Reformed theology we have too often made salvation an individual and private matter and not fully realised the implications of the gospel in a corporate sense for the whole of creation. We have de-politicised the gospel and in that sense we have truncated the gospel. Wright is on the right track I believe in all these issues. But this is not the stuff that is actually in conflict with the Old Perspective, though sometimes Wright puts it as if rejecting some of what he says that we cannot agree with means we have to reject that which we can accept. Wright's views it seems to me help us gain a better understanding of how the Gospels and Letters in the New Testament fit together. But yet again, we do not need to accept the most controversial parts of Wright's scheme in order to gain the benefits of some of his stresses and clarifications.
Thirdly, Wright has an unfortunate tendency to set up straw men in the sense that he often writes against caricatures of old perspective theology rather than the real thing. Whether this is because he fails to understand what previous generations of Reformed theologians actually taught, or whether he just can't be bothered reading them, is immaterial. The fact is that Wright often shows a shocking lack of familiarity with that Reformed theology has actually believed and taught. To give one example at the very heart of this whole debate, Wright characterises the Old Perspective of teaching that in the doctrine of justification the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers as righteousness because Christ fulfilling the law so as to store up a "treasury of merit" which can then be granted to believers. As far as I recall, no Reformed theologian has ever taught such a thing. It is rather that in Christ we gain the benefit of his own righteousness as someone who lived without ever having committed a sin. Another example with Wright's bizarre claim that the Old Perspective doesn't have an adequate place for the Holy Spirit. That is simply wrong. As we will see, the difference is that the Old Perspective does not assign the role to the Holy Spirit in justification that Wright gives him (and quite why Wright keeps on writing 'holy spirit' instead of Holy Spirit I don't know, but I found it odd).
Fourthly, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that Wright's view also contain serious errors. The one that stood out above others is Wright's doctrine of two-stage justification, one on the basis of faith in this life and the second on the basis of works at the Last Judgment. Wright's scheme almost says the same thing as Reformed orthodoxy in a different way, but not quite. By making 'the life lived' by believers a part of justification, albeit fencing it with the fact that the works concerned are the Holy Spirit's work, Wright cuts out a key part of the Christian's assurance. Despite his protestations that his scheme is more theo-centric than the Old Perspective (another bit of inaccurate revisionism at best), Wright's scheme actually encourages experiential navel gazing rather than looking to the objective work of Christ for justification. Rather than a two-stage justification, the New Testament talks about justification followed by sanctification. Wright's scheme confuses the two things. Reformed orthodoxy is that we are in the future justified according to works, but not on the basis of works. The difference between those statements is simply whether our works show that we are already justified (which they will) or whether our works are needed in order for us to be justified in the end (which they will not be). In my view he hopelessly confuses justification with sanctification (which is in effect Wright's second stage of justification!).
So, although Wright's book offers us much, in the end, there are significant problems with it that do not make me want to change from the Old Perspective. For every new insight that Wright offers, there are also problems with things he overlooks. An example would be the New Perspective's (and Wright's in particular) inadequate view of sin and the problem it creates for the human race. Many of the problems with the New Perspective stem from this in my view. For instance, if God's plan was to save the world through Israel, how was this to be established? The only way could have been through Christ, the only sinless human being to have lived since the Fall. To my mind, this undermines Wright's insistence on God's plan to save the world through Israel as such, if considered otherwise than through the promised Messiah. The New Testament teaches that only a sinless substitute of infinite merit could achieve the salvation of sinners. Only the Messiah could do it, which is precisely what the New Testament teaches (Acts 4:12).
To conclude, paraphrasing Wright himself, I submit that the Old Perspective can do everything the New Perspective wants to do but by a better route and with much more besides. And in the end, with its emphasis on sin and grace and the salvation of lost sinners, the Old Perspective is actually closer to Paul's vision than Wright's revision.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Luke for Everyone
Luke for Everyone
by Tom Wright
SPCK
Reading this exposition/commentary on the Gospel of Luke was my first taste of Tom Wright's series of popular-level commentaries on the books of the New Testament and I enjoyed the light meal Bishop Tom served up here.
Leaving aside Wright's distinctive and controversial teaching on justification (as part of the New Perspective on Paul), Wright was an interesting and stimulating companion as I read through Luke's Gospel once again. Although Wright's New Perspective on Paul teaching comes through a few times, thankfully, it did not spoil the book for me. Time and again in reading this I enjoyed fresh insights and soul-uplifting material. And many's the preacher who would benefit from Bishop Tom's gift for hooking the reader before going on to explain the passage.
No-one should be under any illusion - these are slight, lightweight expositions for the most part. This is not a detailed commentary or exposition. The nearest comparison I can think of were also written by an evangelical Anglican bishop - Bishop J. C. Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels - which are very similar in style though the theology is a bit different. Ryle was very Old Perspective on Paul!
All in all, very good devotional reading. I actually read this on by daily commute to work on the bus. It was helpful and refreshing having Wright's own translation of Luke within the book.
by Tom Wright
SPCK
Reading this exposition/commentary on the Gospel of Luke was my first taste of Tom Wright's series of popular-level commentaries on the books of the New Testament and I enjoyed the light meal Bishop Tom served up here.
Leaving aside Wright's distinctive and controversial teaching on justification (as part of the New Perspective on Paul), Wright was an interesting and stimulating companion as I read through Luke's Gospel once again. Although Wright's New Perspective on Paul teaching comes through a few times, thankfully, it did not spoil the book for me. Time and again in reading this I enjoyed fresh insights and soul-uplifting material. And many's the preacher who would benefit from Bishop Tom's gift for hooking the reader before going on to explain the passage.
No-one should be under any illusion - these are slight, lightweight expositions for the most part. This is not a detailed commentary or exposition. The nearest comparison I can think of were also written by an evangelical Anglican bishop - Bishop J. C. Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels - which are very similar in style though the theology is a bit different. Ryle was very Old Perspective on Paul!
All in all, very good devotional reading. I actually read this on by daily commute to work on the bus. It was helpful and refreshing having Wright's own translation of Luke within the book.
Monday, 20 April 2009
What St Paul Really Said
What St Paul Really Said
by Tom Wright
Lion Publishing
When I began reading What St Paul Really Said I was determined not to like it. In fact I was resolute that I was going to hate it, find it heretical, say so in a scathing review and then chuck it in the nearest bin.
The truth was a bit different. Not quite a Damascus road experience, but I finished the book convinced that far from being the heretic that some have caricatured the author as, Tom Wright has more in common with the spirit of the Reformers than some of his opponents, even if he fails to always come to the right conclusions. His sole concern, it seems to me, is to find out what the Scriptures say, over against any traditions, even those of evangelicalism. However, that does not settle the question of whether he does, in fact, succeed in finding out what the Scriptures say and in showing that his view is the correct one and the more traditional interpretations of say Romans and Galatians are in error.
"What St Paul Really Said" is his popular-level treatment of Paul's place in Christian theology. It is an engaging read, extremely well-written and easy to read. In fact, it is a fine example of how interesting prose by theologians should and could be.
I am not convinced by everything he says. In fact, I strongly disagree with some of his conclusions - he does not always give enough credit to 'old perspective' Reformed theology, its emphases, and the arguments of its greatest theologians. Justification is certainly not just about ecclesiology it is also about soteriology and I think Wright vastly overplays his hand in that regard. It is about salvation, about how I as a sinner can stand before a holy God, not just about me as a Gentile being allowed to eat with Jews as a member of the covenant people.
On the other hand, I think Wright is on to something when he emphasises those aspects of justication that Reformed and Lutheran theology has traditionally downplayed. To put it another way, I think the Old Perspective is fundamentally right on the substantial points regarding justification, but the New Perspective has valuable insights to offer regarding the implications of the doctrine of justification for the Church's and the individual Christian's life. Our fellowship with other Christians, our being the church, our being the covenant people of God is, after all, on the basis of this justification we have received through faith.
I got the impression Wright has an at times unhealthy fascination with the 'newness' of his project and this may be one of his weaknesses.
Even so, this work really demands to be read by any evangelicals serious about New Testament theology, particularly the New Perspective on Paul, because I believe there are insights here that are valuable and can be taken on board by evangelicals without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Thoroughly recommended reading for the thinking, if discerning, Christian.
by Tom Wright
Lion Publishing
When I began reading What St Paul Really Said I was determined not to like it. In fact I was resolute that I was going to hate it, find it heretical, say so in a scathing review and then chuck it in the nearest bin.
The truth was a bit different. Not quite a Damascus road experience, but I finished the book convinced that far from being the heretic that some have caricatured the author as, Tom Wright has more in common with the spirit of the Reformers than some of his opponents, even if he fails to always come to the right conclusions. His sole concern, it seems to me, is to find out what the Scriptures say, over against any traditions, even those of evangelicalism. However, that does not settle the question of whether he does, in fact, succeed in finding out what the Scriptures say and in showing that his view is the correct one and the more traditional interpretations of say Romans and Galatians are in error.
"What St Paul Really Said" is his popular-level treatment of Paul's place in Christian theology. It is an engaging read, extremely well-written and easy to read. In fact, it is a fine example of how interesting prose by theologians should and could be.
I am not convinced by everything he says. In fact, I strongly disagree with some of his conclusions - he does not always give enough credit to 'old perspective' Reformed theology, its emphases, and the arguments of its greatest theologians. Justification is certainly not just about ecclesiology it is also about soteriology and I think Wright vastly overplays his hand in that regard. It is about salvation, about how I as a sinner can stand before a holy God, not just about me as a Gentile being allowed to eat with Jews as a member of the covenant people.
On the other hand, I think Wright is on to something when he emphasises those aspects of justication that Reformed and Lutheran theology has traditionally downplayed. To put it another way, I think the Old Perspective is fundamentally right on the substantial points regarding justification, but the New Perspective has valuable insights to offer regarding the implications of the doctrine of justification for the Church's and the individual Christian's life. Our fellowship with other Christians, our being the church, our being the covenant people of God is, after all, on the basis of this justification we have received through faith.
I got the impression Wright has an at times unhealthy fascination with the 'newness' of his project and this may be one of his weaknesses.
Even so, this work really demands to be read by any evangelicals serious about New Testament theology, particularly the New Perspective on Paul, because I believe there are insights here that are valuable and can be taken on board by evangelicals without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Thoroughly recommended reading for the thinking, if discerning, Christian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)