|
The future of justificationA response to N.T. WrightDefending free grace in the gospelTHE FUTURE OF JUSTIFICATION Dr. John Piper has once again put us in his debt. He has made a meticulous examination of the Bishop of Durham, Dr. Tom Wright's writings under the general heading of what has become known as ‘the New Perspective’ and makes a gracious and compelling response. It is not altogether easy to summarise what is being taught by the protagonists of the New Perspective (notably E.P. Saunders, J.D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright,) and they do not necessarily agree with each other. Broadly speaking, they say that Luther — and those who have followed him — have got ‘justification by faith’ wrong because they have not understood first-century Judaism which was a ‘grace’ religion and not a ‘works’ religion, and therefore what Paul is attacking when he talks about works are ‘boundary markers’, e.g. circumcision, kosher food. Therefore, as Wright says repeatedly, ‘justification by faith’ is not the gospel, and the gospel is not about how to be saved, but is acknowledging Jesus as Lord, and so coming into the Covenant Community. John Piper does much fairer justice to Wright’s position than this short summary and, in a very gracious and detailed way, acknowledges the good points that Wright makes, but also refutes his main theses. Piper gives Wright plenty of space to answer for himself — e.g. quoting at length Wright's explanation of why he endorsed Steve Chalke's The Lost Message of Jesus. Piper deals with the issues one by one. For instance, the New Perspective (NP) advocates tend to have a monochrome understanding of first-century Judaism. In fact there were many varieties. Josephus, for instance, does, indeed, speak of God's grace, but it is grace that is shown to those who deserve it. The tendency of all religions — even within Christendom — is to move towards legalism, and it would be very surprising if first-century Judaism was an exception. Then, again, the NP advocates — and Wright especially — see everything through the grid of the Exile, and the subsequent return to Jerusalem. This may have been a perspective that has been overlooked, for, indeed, each gospel begins with John the Baptist announcing the end of the Exile. But, in reality, both the OT and the NT emphasise the Exodus much more than the Exile. John Piper's great point is that there is a real danger of seeing everything through one theological system or framework, and then squeezing Scripture to fit that system. One of the ways in which Piper is so good is in his exegesis of Scripture, as he makes us face individual Scriptures rather than just a theological framework. His conviction of ‘sola scriptura’ leads him to believe, as surely we must, that Scripture is its own interpreter. Most seriously, it would seem that Wright, like Second Temple Judaism, does not accept the exceeding sinfulness of sin. H.G.C. Moule in Outlines of Christian Doctrine quotes the perceptive comment that all heresy begins with a weak doctrine of sin. Piper makes the point that in expounding sin Paul goes back to the Fall — and not just the Exile — and therefore includes the Gentiles as being under God’s wrath. The result of all this is that for Wright ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) takes precedence over soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and therefore, tragically, the heart of the gospel is denied. A bishop’s jobThe great sadness in all this is that Tom Wright could have been the Bishop we so badly need. Martin Bucer’s definition of a Reformed Bishop was someone who contended for and preached the faith and also refuted error. Down the years we have seen bishops falling to ‘prelacy' — there is something very incongruous about someone who claims to be the servant of the servants yet who conspicuously wears imperial purple; surely an apron would be a more appropriate garb. Or they have fallen to a Catholic view which sees the bishop and the diocese as the centre of spirituality, rather than the preferably small and local church. Tom Wright has done some magnificent work in contending for the faith — notably his brilliant defence of the physical resurrection of our Lord, and also his strong understanding of the wrath of God and even his argument for penal substitution. Yet here John Piper has shown, I believe, decisively and fairly that on justification by faith Wright is off-course, and to be an inch off-course at the start means that down the track one will be miles off-course. Tom Wright attacks what he describes as the ‘new right-wing (so called “conservative”) evangelicals’. So far from our being new, Piper demonstrates that we are seeking to follow in the footsteps of Luther, Calvin and, more recently, Denney, Guillebaud, Morris, Packer and Stott. Thank you, John Piper. Jonathan Fletcher
|