|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion JustificationGod's plan and Paul's visionWright of replyJUSTIFICATION Ten years ago, I was given a thick book by N.T. (Tom) Wright, now Bishop of Durham. Since then I have read several thousand pages of his writings (only a small part of his prolific output!). And I still don’t know what to make of him. Is he a heretic, whose distorted gospel is all the more dangerous because he writes not only scholarly tomes, but popular, engaging books for ‘the man on the street’? Or is he a brilliant expositor whose explanation of the New Testament and the gospel is ground-breaking and hugely significant? It is certainly refreshing to find a mainstream Anglican and biblical scholar who is so enthusiastically committed to Scripture’s authority, Christ’s deity, his resurrection, and the Bible’s moral requirements, e.g. on sexual morality. It is also stimulating to encounter fresh exposition of the gospels, careful exegesis of Paul’s writings, and potential solutions to a number of puzzling Bible passages and conundrums. At the same time his teachings appear to tamper with the gospel itself — for instance, he opposes the idea that ‘grace vs. works’ is central, claiming, rather, that Paul opposed nationalism, not legalism, in his Jewish opponents. Further, he denies the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (in the sense of his perfect lifelong moral obedience) to the believer. In place of ‘Jesus’s blood and righteousness’, Wright puts ‘Jesus’s death and resurrection’. It is his view on imputation, and justification in general, that has called forth a host of critiques from prominent evangelical writers, including John Piper’s book, The Future of Justification. In response, Wright has written Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision to rearticulate and defend his views. Paradigm shiftThe difficulty with reading Wright is that he uses familiar words with radically different meanings — not to be obscure or deceptive, but claiming to recover their biblical meanings, as opposed to their usage in, for example, Reformed Confessions and popular Christian jargon. This presents a double problem: reading things that sound orthodox, but actually mean something different, and reading things that sound all wrong, but may in fact be perfectly orthodox. Many critiques of Wright are simply at that superficial level, finding a ‘sentence’ to disagree with, rather than interacting with what he is actually saying. To give a simplified example, Wright argues that ‘future justification (i.e. on Judgment Day) is based on a believer’s works’. Surely any good Protestant should be aghast at such a denial of all that the Reformers fought for? But, in fact, Wright understands justification to mean, ‘God’s declaration as to who are the true people of God’, in which case, perhaps he is saying ‘individuals will be seen to be part of God’s people by their life of obedience’ (which is far less controversial). So why doesn’t Wright write more clearly? (Why don’t his critics read more carefully, he might retort.) The big challenge is that Wright presents a new paradigm. You could say, rather like Copernicus proposing that the earth circles the sun and not vice versa — but of course, Copernicus was right, and Wright is… well, the jury is still out for this reviewer! Many books simply require us to affirm or slightly rearrange our existing views — like moving furniture in the room, or, at most, building an extension. Wright’s view is more like moving house — and you’re not sure which treasured possessions won’t fit into the new home. We should be wisely cautious about such upheaval… but at the same time ready to go where Scripture leads. Piper acknowledges this challenge, but nevertheless seems to fall into the trap of judging Wright by the old categories in a number of places. Thus, while his critique is incisive in places (and better than many), it is disappointing at key points. Individualism vs. IsraelWhat is Wright saying? Most basically he is reacting against an individualism which views Scripture and salvation simply in terms of me, my sin, and my need for forgiveness so I can go to heaven. In fact, argues Wright, without denying an individual element, the great thrust of Scripture and salvation is ‘God reclaiming his world from the grip of evil and death’. The concern of the first-century Jew was with God’s purposes for Israel and the world; his great hope was not to ‘die and go to heaven’ but for God to savingly intervene in history, setting all to rights and vindicating his waiting people. And thus the question was, how could you tell who would be part of that people when God did act? Furthermore, Wright reacts against the sort of ‘gospel presentation’ which jumps straight from Genesis 1-3 (God as Creator, Man as law-breaker, liable to punishment) to Matthew 1 (Jesus, God’s Son, coming to deal with sins, by dying for sinners). What about Israel? Is the nation’s sole significance that Jesus would be a born a Jew? What about the Old Testament? Is it merely a backdrop to the New, a repository for proof texts, prophecies and types that help us understand Jesus and his work? Rather, Wright sees Israel’s history as the story of God’s saving purposes. Its double climax is the death of the Jewish Messiah, under the curse of the law, and his vindication from God, who raised him. This resurrection was the true ‘return from exile’, after which God’s Spirit could be poured out, and the nations gathered in and blessed, as God promised back in Genesis 12. Wright points out how central this story of Abraham and Israel is to Paul, e.g. in Galatians 3 (see Paul’s ‘explanation’ for the cross in 3.14, and how he addresses the question, ‘Who is in Abraham’s family?’, vv.7 & 29). Much of Wright’s thesis makes exciting sense (after all, which of us doesn’t want to understand the OT better?). We cannot claim the gospel summary — ‘Christ died for our sins…’ (1 Corinthians 15.3) — and then practically ignore the following bit: ‘…according to the Scriptures’. Nevertheless, gaps and questions remain. Wright claims ‘the task of the Messiah… was to offer to God the “obedience” which Israel should’ve offered but did not’. But if the cross is central, and was always God’s plan (as Wright insists), what contribution could Israel make, except their sin? What was Israel supposed to have done (be obedient to death?!) — and how were the nations supposed to have responded? Wright’s says the law was ‘intended to heap up sin in one place, so the Messiah could deal with it’ — but what does that actually mean? Wrighteousness?For Wright, God’s ‘righteousness’ is his faithfulness to his covenant plan, as described in, for example, Genesis 12 and Deuteronomy 30.1-6 (Paul alludes to Genesis 15 and Deuteronomy 30 at key points, e.g. Romans 4&10). This certainly fits Daniel 9.16, where God’s righteousness is urged as the reason he should rescue sinful Israel. Also in Isaiah 40-66, salvation and righteousness are often found side by side. Thus the gospel reveals ‘God’s righteousness’ (Romans 1.17, not NIV) because it is the account of his salvation (1.16). Also, in his scheme, justification is God’s declaration that a person is already ‘in the right’ with him, because he is incorporated in Messiah Jesus, who has exhausted the consequences of sin and has been vindicated. Put another way, the righteousness of the Christian is God’s declaration of their covenant membership (compare Romans 4.11 with Genesis 17.11: Paul replaces ‘covenant’ with ‘righteousness by faith’). Thus, for Wright, justification does not answer the question, ‘How can a sinner find a gracious God?’ but, rather, ‘Who is part of God’s people?’ — obviously a hot-potato issue for the new Gentile Christians. The answer is that faith in Jesus shows a person to be ‘in’ (and thus disagreements between Catholics and Protestants were a fundamental category mistake on both sides!). Final justification is the moment when God declares people to be ‘in’ by gloriously raising them, in keeping with their life of obedience (guaranteed by the indwelling Holy Spirit) which has shown them to be God’s people. Here Wright is unconvincing. He makes all ‘righteousness’ language refer to the covenant, whereas it is often used in the ‘ordinary sense’ of ‘what is right’, namely the ‘opposite of sin’ (Romans 3.9-10, 5.7-8, 6.18-19; 1Corinthians 5.21, 1 Kings 8.32). Wright insists that righteousness is a status… but always the status of membership, rather than of being ‘righteous’! In this instance, Philippians 3.9 is helpful: surely ‘righteousness from the law’ is more likely to mean ‘the law’s declaration that you are righteous on account of keeping it’ (see Deuteronomy 6.25), rather than ‘proof that you belong to God’s people evidenced by your law keeping’? In his insistence that justification must incorporate covenant categories, Wright accuses others of trying to solve the puzzle with most of the pieces still in the box. But perhaps he is insisting on using pieces from other sets! Wright is also confusing when talking about faith. For one thing, he consistently describes faith as the thing that shows we are members of God’s people (in keeping with his view that justification is a post-conversion issue). But this downplays the insistence that faith is the initial response required by the gospel (Acts 16.31, etc.), a necessary condition of entry, which is where justification is traditionally located. Indeed, Romans 4.1-8 makes forgiveness a vital component of justification. On occasion he sounds more orthodox: ‘God, as judge, “finds in favour of”, and hence acquits from their sin, those who believe in Jesus Christ’ — but if this refers to justification, it appears to contradict his general position. Also, despite his insistence that faith justifies precisely because it looks away from itself and reflects ‘human dependence amidst helplessness’, Wright muddies the water by then claiming that the word ‘faith’ can also mean faithfulness, which has a very different character. Another gospel?Some readers may know that Wright is a key exponent of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul)…and therefore ‘beyond the pale’ (?). To be fair, Wright seeks to synthesise the insights of the NPP with traditional emphases. For example, in discussing why ‘works of the law can never justify’, he rightly argues both that such Torah obedience would separate Jew and Gentile (contrary to God’s plan of one united people) and that ‘law’ can never justify, because it only reveals sin. But at this point, he fails to concede that therefore justification might address both issues (rather than simply Jew/Gentile) or, indeed, might address the Jew/Gentile issue precisely because it creates a right standing with God. Many Christians remain rightly sceptical of the NPP, not least because some of its exponents seemed exuberant in their rejection of the traditional categories cherished by believers. Such believers are not overly reassured by being told that those categories were not jettisoned, but simply overlooked, and have now been reintroduced (into the footnotes!). If someone denied Christ’s deity in an effort to proclaim his humanity, we would be rightly cautious of a muted concession that Jesus was God after all. Wright is sure that his proposal does not in any way undermine grace or promote self-congratulation… but is he right? Or, is Piper right to warn: ‘In Wright’s passion to liberate the gospel from mere individualism and to make it historical and global, he leaves it vague for individual sinners’? ConclusionWhat are we to make of Tom Wright? Some writers denounce him using Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1.6-9. Wright ironically compares himself to Paul in Galatia — under attack from his own right wing! Wright rightly insists that his critics listen to what he is actually saying, and then judge his work against Scripture not merely by traditional formulae or even treasured confessions. What appears as the ‘obvious’ meaning of a passage may, in fact, be simply imposed by tradition. And we must be particularly wary of saying, ‘What Paul was really trying to say was…’. Paul has said exactly what he meant! At its best, Wright’s exegesis is competent and rigorous, and his logic compelling, in striking contrast to at least some of his vocal critics. At other times his big picture seems to sweep aside the actual details of his text, and rhetoric makes up for lack of argument. In particular, he tends to dismiss or caricature alternative views using loaded language (‘abstract, simplistic, merely…’) rather than seeking to present them as attractively as possible, before effectively critiquing them (something of which we are all guilty?). Thus he needs reading carefully and critically, to see whether his case is as strong as it sounds! Sadly, sometimes Wright is unnecessarily sarcastic or cutting. Undoubtedly many of his critics are wrestling a ‘straw man caricature’ of his views. But this doesn’t justify his (humble sounding, but actually rather patronising) assumption that the only possible reason anyone might disagree with him is that he hasn’t explained himself clearly. It doesn’t appear to cross his mind that, having understood him, someone might reject many of his key assertions based on the evidence! Critiquing Wright is still ‘work in progress’ — perhaps, realistically, it lies outside the ability of the busy pastor (let alone his flock). As far as I am aware, a definitive appraisal, which integrates his excellent insights and emphases, rejects the chaff, and adequately assesses the quality of his new paradigm, has yet to be written. Phil Heaps,
|
|
