Piper, Wright, and the way we read scripture
John Piper's new work, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), is free online (thanks you Nick for the heads up!). Piper has some good things to say in his many books. Has he hit the nail on the head this time?
I haven't made time to read Piper's work yet, I've just skimmed it, but I wanted to share a few thoughts that occurred to me as I read. I am not sure if the problem I will detail below is symptomatic of Piper's argumentation in this work generally. That waits to be seen. But let me share my thoughts as I read the following passage:
'dikaiosu,nh qeou//
Does Not Mean Covenant Faithfulness
Finally, Wright's assumption that the phrase dikaiosu,nh qeou/ means "the covenant faithfulness of God," instead of the more traditional "the righteousness of God," is not warranted. I have tried to show why this is the case (see chapter 3). The meaning of dikaiosu,nh qeou/ is most fundamentally the "righteousness of God" in reference to his unwavering commitment and follow-through to do what is right—which is to always uphold the worth of his glory. It is the opposite of sin, which is a falling short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23); and it is what God requires that all of us must have (Rom. 1:21), but that none of us does have: "None is righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10)' (Page 179).
I need to back up and try to explain something before I comment on this. We all read scripture in terms of a certain story (or stories) that makes sense of our world. When we read scripture, many of us will effectively decorate with biblical quotes a story of what we think Christianity is and what Jesus means, but even though that story uses biblical language to describe itself, it is one that is not faithful to the general scriptural narrative. It is like reading astrophysics as if it were all about chemistry alone. To simply transport one discourse into the other is to misrepresent. When this happens, scholars say people are proof-texting (proof-texting is NOT simply drawing from scripture to justify arguments, by the way). I.e. they are decorating a story or metaphysical structure with bible verses as if it was simply the construction of a biblical teaching or worldview, as if it were careful exegesis. This happens so much it can be depressing.
As an example, let me be provocative: many approach the scriptures with a pre-understanding that the essence of Christian faith is all about individuals being sinful before God, and that in order to get to heaven when you die one must have a personal relationship with Christ. Some passages of scripture, of course, can be cited in strong support of aspects of this picture, and it becomes the basic story to which all passages of scripture then become attached. This pre-understanding of the meaning of Christian faith may sound scriptural (and contain a good deal of truth), even if it is off track. Hence,
- if Paul speaks about 'new creation' in 2 Cor 5, this must be another way of speaking about something that happens to me in my relationship with Christ.
- If I read 'righteousness of God' it must point to something I get in order to cancel my sin and be saved (I'm deliberately being course with this description).
- If I read Jesus' words: 'Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven' (Matt 19:23), this must mean that I need to be careful with my wealth or I won't go to heaven.
- If I read of the power of sin in Paul, or seeking to be justified by law, all must revolve around my sin and my legalism etc.
The examples cited above are mixed. However, I suggest we would not understand what the scriptures in each case actually mean if accept the above readings as 'what the text really says'. If you read those examples thinking, 'yes, that's what I think', I suspect that your understanding of scripture is being channelled through an interpretive lens that distorts what is in front of your eyes. The little interpretative story I prefixed these examples with, about going to heaven, sinful before God etc. contains truth, but is also inadequate and can lead to scriptural misunderstanding.
It is not that the above meanings and interpretations are inherently or totally wrong. Of course not. However, to return to the examples:
- the 'new creation' language of 2 Cor 5 point to something bigger than me and my standing with God (which is only a subset of this larger picture – cf. Joel Green's Salvation). But to see this one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative.
- This is a complex one, but in my view the righteousness of God is not simply something that makes up for the hole in me after my sin is forgiven (or something like that). It is God being faithful to his covenant promises to defeat evil and renew creation, a movement up into which individuals are caught. But to see this one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative.
- To enter the kingdom of heaven is not to enter heaven. They are not synonymous. 'Heaven' was just a pious way of avoiding saying 'God', and Jesus here is speaking of entering the kingdom of God, i.e. the economy of existence over which God is undisputed King. This may be related to some notions of 'going to heaven', but they are not synonymous. The goal of Christian hope is a new heavens and a new earth, the resurrection of the body, that God will be all in all. But to see this one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative.
- The power of sin in Paul is a slave master (cf. Lichtenberger's monograph on this), a semi personification that enslaves all humanity. It is related to but, again, not the same as the notion many Christians have in their heads. It is a cosmic force that Christ alone can defeat. And the 'works of law' Paul attacked may well be related to modern notions of legalism (in their corrective, I personally think Wright and Dunn go too far here), but they are not synonymous. Works of the law were tied to social and 'horizontal' matters, not simply about how one related to God. But to see these points one will have to read the scriptures with different 'lenses' – one informed more thoroughly by the scriptural narrative; one more informed, simply.
Scriptures are so often transported into a different economy of discourse, into a different story of the meaning of Christian faith, and they are thereby obscured. Read from the perspective of the less scriptural lenses, these errors will not even be seen, and wrong claims will be fervently and confidently made as if they were doing simple exegesis, as if one were attending to the historic meaning of the texts. But the truth is different.
I'm not sure I've done a good job trying to explain my thoughts there, but now back to Piper. He writes:
'The meaning of dikaiosu,nh qeou/ is most fundamentally the "righteousness of God" in reference to his unwavering commitment and follow-through to do what is right—which is to always uphold the worth of his glory. It is the opposite of sin, which is a falling short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23); and it is what God requires that all of us must have (Rom. 1:21), but that none of us does have: "None is righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10)'
OK, but it all depends according to which story one understands these words. God's 'unwavering commitment and follow-through to do what is right' is, according to the scriptural narrative, in my view God's faithfulness to his covenant promises which themselves find their meaning in the wider scriptural narrative of God's good creation, spoiled by sin, and God's mission to set things right once again. And the worth of God's glory is tied up with this story, this mission, this salvific plan. Is the dikaiosu,nh qeou/ the opposite of sin? Yes, I think it is – more or less! But it depends on how this is understood! If this is understood according to the wider scriptural narrative and the echoes of this story in Paul's argument in Rom 3:23, for example (which Piper refers to), then it will mean something different to how one would understand it according to system of cherishing glory and personal sin (Piper, in an earlier article on this issue fails to grasp the scriptural picture, and instead thrusts everything into his own understanding of 'desire' and cherishing glory and such like). Important as such matters are (and other interpreters forget them, so keep on preaching Piper!), they must not become the interpretative lens at the expense of an appreciation of the wider scriptural dynamic.
I read the passage in Piper's book cited above and smelt the wrong interpretive lens all over it. I hope this is not actually the case, and I need to read the book, but if Piper's work generally simply decorates a pre-given understanding of faith with bible verses, he will be doing none of us a favour. The trick is, these erroneous lenses many read scripture with sound so scriptural. But they are only so in a superficial way. In my opinion, one of Wright's major strengths is that he takes the scriptural story seriously. And though his proposals look different when he is done, it is our eyes that need to adjust, not his.
posted by Chris Tilling @ 11:20 PM
34 comments
34 Comments:
I agree — that is a good post. Mind you, Wright presumably doesn't have the perfect narrative, either.
You are, in effect, arguing that the standard evangelical narrative is too narrow — too "me"-centered. To do justice to the scriptures, we must broaden our perspective — remember that God is concerned with creation in its entirety, with "me" a small part of that larger narrative.
Wright does a fine job of broadening the narrative, which definitely represents progress. But I'm sure you will agree that there may also be points where his narrative stands in need of correction. (Not that I'm thinking of anything specific here.)
Chris,
Thanks for trying to put into words what I have been trying to put into words for so long. It's so hard for me because I can't easily find anything blatantly wrong with Piper and his ilk, but I know that somehow someway we are just not on the same page. Also, just to let you know, my computer is not displaying your greek font properly. I have a Mac and use the latest version of Firefox. It's just showing up as English letters and it shows up like this: dikaiosu,nh qeou/
Hi Chris
Indeed a good post and very stimulating! Thanks.
I have wrestled with what Paul means by 'righteousness of God' for as long as I can remember. I swing. I am attracted by the Lord Durham's argument, it is neat and biblical sounding, and I am sure Paul would have no argument with what my Lord Bishop is saying, it's just whether Paul is saying it with his use of this phrase.
Part of the problem for me is whether Roman gentiles would pick-up on all the nuances. Wouldn't they understand the word 'righteousness' differently, within a different narrative framework, and wouldn't Paul have realized this?
Thanks for the thoughts. It seems to me there is something wrong with Piper's definition or concept of "glory." I believe Augustine defended the idea of God's self-love because since God is the highest good it is not selfish for him to love himself. But if I read John right, God's glory is expressed precisely in his self-giving love. God cannot share his glory with another--in any way that amounts to tolerating idolatry--but part of the Good News is that God precisely does share his glory with his--in that our ultimate destiny in Christ is glorification. As I understand tsedek language in the OT, it refers to God's way of making the world right. As objects of his love, we are included in that and benefit from it.
Chris,
This is definitely one of your best posts! Might I ask you to recommend 1 or 2 Wright books that you feel do the best job of summing up his approach the the issue? The only Wright book I own is The New Testament and the People of God and sadly I've barely gotten into it at all.
Alex,
If you look to Chris' side bar, you will see a graphic that says: 'Click here for the Hebrew & Greek fonts used on this page' -- that will solve all your problems (or you can just click the link I provided to the same page :^D).
I wonder why Lord Tilling doesn't just use Unicode like the rest of us??? :-/
Great post, Chris. I hope you will develop these concepts in future posts.
It has always amazed me how we can listen to someone (e.g. Piper or Wright) and as we are essentially "caught up" in their world-view, everything seems so right, so Scripturally supported. In reality, we have merely donned their spectacles for the moment.
Chris, I've enjoyed reading your blog for a while now, thought I'd chime in and say hi. I think you've touched some on why Wright has gained so much popularity and why Piper's book doesn't seem to have the punch to convert Wright fans. Wright continually is working with the big picture in mind. I, like many other, have found his suggestions incredibly enlightening because they have the sort of explanatory power that the traditional Calvin or Luther readings and seem to miss.
I think if Piper wants to convert Wrightians, he'll need to frame the traditional readings in fresh light showing that they have the explanatory power to begin to address not only the individual, but also politics and policies, communal life, and so on. My quick skim of Piper's book makes me skeptical that his accomplishes this task, but perhaps there are some surprises left in store.
Thank you all for comments
Hi Stephen,
I am sure Wright doesn'T have the perfect narrative. I prefer a different understanding of the 'exile', and Bauckham has rightly pointed out the scriptural narrativeS. The thing is, we all do this, of course. Wright has simply been a bit more up front with his interpretive narrative.
Hi Blake, thanks for the page reference. Piper writes:
"His temptation is to defend a view because it fits so well into his new way of seeing the world. Public traditions and private systems are both very powerful. We are agreed, however, that neither conformity to an old tradition nor conformity to a new system is the final arbiter of truth. Scripture is. And we both take courage
from the fact that Scripture has the power to force its own color through any human lens."
I think Wright would defend himself at thi spoint and argue that "his way of seeing the world" is explicity informed by the scriptural narrative at this point. Hence all his stuff on Who are we? What is the problem? etc. And as Piper rightly points out that scripture is the final arbiter, he will have quite a fight on his hands at this point.
Ross, you raise a good point. I think Paul, rightly or wrongly, assumed much of his mainly Gentile readers. See how often he uses scriptural citations or allusions.
Hi Mark,
I think you re right about the glory aspect. I must addmit that I haven't really purseud that point, but you are certainly right to press it. It is a thought that has crossed my mind too every now and then
Hi Nick!
Thanks! "I wonder why Lord Tilling doesn't just use Unicode like the rest of us???"
I, um, don't know how. :-(
Hi Craig, thanks for stopping by. "I think if Piper wants to convert Wrightians, he'll need to frame the traditional readings in fresh light showing that they have the explanatory power to begin to address not only the individual, but also politics and policies, communal life, and so on."
Yes, absolutely, and an explanitory power for the shape of the scriptural narrative
This is superb. Thanks!.
Good post.
But I must confess that I'm still trying to figure out why Piper is considered relevant on this in the first place. Yes, I know his 'credentials' but does that give him a pass on his narrow and overly dogmatic theological viewpoints?
"But I must confess that I'm still trying to figure out why Piper is considered relevant on this in the first place."
Me too!
"I think if Piper wants to convert Wrightians..."
I don't think that's his aim at all... I think he just wants to allay his target audience's concern over the issue... in other words, he's preaching to the choir and telling them why these new-fangled interpretations can't be right because they dare to challenge the status quo of the age old traditions that they have always held to.
Chris,
What books would you recommend that best express right on the topic of justification?
Nick,
At the risk of stepping on Chris' toes I suggest you may wish to check out the Wrightsaid group on google, a similar question was asked there and a few responded. I think the general consensus was "What Saint Paul Really Said" and "Paul in Fresh Perspective" are the best introductory reads, then if you're interested in some of the detail exegetical work "Climax of the Covenant" is another great read. There are also a lot of great articles on justification over at ntwrightpage.com in the paul section.
Craig,
Thanks!
Chris
I am new to your blog, I am not a theologan or academic but 'something is in the air' that has caused me to follow this and other threads on what are basic truths. I am in awe of people like NTW and Piper I couldn't possibly think of challenging what they say, without a guide, i.e someone who understands these matters and has the scholarship and breadth of knowledge. I have taken a pretty well standard view of Scripture that would fall in line most probably with Piper - the fundamental truths are just that and what has been said for x number of years can't be challenged in case it rocks the boat too much. I am however intrigued by Wright and what he says because it seems to answer many of the unanswered questions that I carry. I too have not read Piper's book but I have downloaded it and read the intro where he lists his argument.
I find what you say to be very helpful, you appear to me to be someone who can act as that link in understanding the scholarly arguments and I appreciate that - meanwhile I will try and plough through Piper, whilst reading Wright on Galations!
James
Anglican
UK
I think what Nick said is exactly right about Piper preaching to the choir (although even on this point he fails I think). If he was truly trying to convert "wrightians" he
1. Wouldn't use personal stories at the beginning about how this is what his father preached and how his father just died (this is a big one-its pretty much a straight up appeal to EMOTIONS not argument and isn't appropriate IMO in any sort of academic work-page 9)
2. Wouldn't use "we" when describing what HE believes (page 19 second para. 1 sentence)
3. Wouldn't say things like "...his paradigm for justification does not fit well with the ordinary reading of many texts and leaves many ordinary
folk not with the rewarding “ah-ha” experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity." (p. 24) especially since this is EXACTLY the reason that people LIKE Wright.
Michael (wrightsaid lurker)
I think Wring does a better job than Dunn and Sanders, that's for sure, but I'm still a little cautious. I find myself more closely aligning myself with Douglas Moo's "Modified Lutheran" view more than Wright or Piper.
Chris, have you read Stott's criticisms of NPP in his Romans commentary?
Also, did you know that according to the American Amazon page, Max Turner's book on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was published in 1969:
http://tinyurl.com/2o8jy3
Sadly the BIG questions aren't being dealt with like for instance, the way the N.T. authors ransacked the O.T. to try and pluck out "prophecies" of Jesus's first coming, and wound up citing half verses out of context, such nonsense dubbed "holy writ." Just visit some of the many Jewish websites that deal with such first century pesher, midrash and other hoakum by the Gospel authors and Paul.
I think Paul's embarrassing predictions regarding the soon return of Christ (ditto with the same failed predictions found in Hebrews and John's letters, even in James and Revelation), sum up the kind of cult-like enthusiasm that lay at the beginning of Christianity.
Google:
"The Lowdown on God's Showdown"
As for the resurrection, and the bodily ascension into heaven, what tall tales. No one on this blog wonders why the so-called speeches and encounters with the resurrected Jesus either had to be invented (last chapter of Mark), or merely assumed without giving any of their words (such as Luke's mention of a so-called speech the raised Jesus gave on the way to Emmaus in which he pointed himself out in "all" the Scriptures to two disciples, but a speech whose words were lost. Even worse, there's the so-called resurrection teachings of Jesus mentioned in Acts that took place over a period of many days that again were either not recalled nor preserved by either the interest of the disciples nor by God's power to preserve them. Matthew, an early Gospel, only recalls a few sentences of the raised Jesus, enough to spout what was church dogma at the time Matthew was written, i.e., to go and baptize.
I guess the disciples and those they taught all found it much easier to recall the words of the pre-resurrection Jesus, while the words of the post-resurrection Jesus were lost down the memory hole. But it would seem to me that the words of the post-resurrection Jesus should have been the most memorable, since they came last, and he'd gotten their attention by then. Instead we see N.T. authors having to make up whole chapters of such words such as the last chapter in Mark. Or having to allude to so-called discourses of the raised Jesus over a period of many days according to Acts, but all of whose words having been left out of Acts. Not a sentence preserved! These tall tales like the "ascension into heaven" which was seen only by the apostles, sound like fables.
I'll try and comment later to responses. I'v egotta dash now to a dinner date with one of the finest cooks I have ever known. Woo hoooo!!!
Hi there,
I’ve just stumbled over your blog and I thought… Christ Tilling… somehow, I know that name. Then I rembered that Rainer Riesner has mentioned you in an article I’ve read quite recently. (Back To the Historical Jesus Through Paul and His School. In: Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus1/2, ( 2003), 171-199; on page 171.)
But for being on your blog for the first time, I think I should introduce myself. My name is Andreas Gerstacker and I am no theologian or biblical scholar. (So I’m not really into that stuff!) At the moment I’m working on my M.A.-Thesis in ancient history about Cicero. But as an ancient historian-to-be and a Christian, I can’t help being interested in biblical studies (and in some theology as well).
Concerning the issue of the Righteousness of God and Covenant Faithfulness, have you ever read the little book by Hermann Cremer, Die christliche Lehre von den Eigenschaften Gottes, unveränd. Nachdruck der Augabe von 1897, hrsg. Von Helmut Burkhadt, Gießen/basel 1983? (There should be a more current edition available…) Cremer, a friend of Adolf Schlatter, as a staunch Lutheran defined the Righteousness of God in highly relational terms as closely connected to his Holiness. Even though the chapter in Cremer is not on Paul’s view in particular but it is a sytematic attempt to give a biblical synthesis, I still wonder how far away this is from Covenant Faithfulness as at least one (important) aspect of the Righteousness of God. Or am I completely off track? I thought you might perhaps be interested so allow me to give you some of his thoughts on this issue. (The orthography is his, late nineteenth century, not mine!)
„Wo Gott als der Heilige sich offenbart, da wird er auch als Richter erkannt und darum verbindet sich mit dem Gedanken an seine Heiligkeit unabweisbar der Gedanke an seine Gerechtigkeit. Der ist der Richter aller Welt, der sie erleben läßt, dass es Rettung nur für die gibt, die er in freier Liebe sich erwählt, also Rettung nur aus Gnaden durch den, der, statt uns auf ewig von sich auszuschließen und sich uns zu versagen, sich selbst uns darbietet in erwählender und erlösender Liebe. […] Niemand kann einen solchen Begriff vom Gericht Gottes haben, wie der, dem `Barmherzigkeit widerfahren ist´ oder der mit Paulus zu sprechen sich genötigt sieht: `so liegt es nun nicht an jemandes Wollen oder Laufen, sondern an Gottes erbarmen.´“ (S. 46)
„Wo aber Gott als Richter erlebt wird, da wird seine richtende Gerechtigkeit erlebt, denn sein Richten ist ein Richten in Gerechtigkeit, also auch da, wo er Gnade erweist, wo er Sünde vergiebt. Ja gerade das wird als die höchste Erweisung seiner richtenden Gerechtigkeit angesehen werden müssen und nicht, wie wir gewohnt sind, als das Gegenteil von Gerechtigkeit, denn entschiedener kann er es nicht bethätigen, daß er Richter ist, als indem er beweist, daß er die Macht hat, Sünde zu vergeben, und dass es keine andere Rettung giebt, als die er bewirkt durch Vergebung – nicht Rettung von seiner Hand, sondern Rettung durch seine Hand.“ (S. 47)
„Die Thatsache, daß die Propheten die Erlösung Israels als eine That der Gerechtigkeit Gottes verkündigen, und daß dieselbe seitens Israels als eine solche That der Gerechtigkeit Gottes ersehnt und erbeten wurde, daß alles Vertrauen auf Gott ein Vertrauen auf seine richtende und dadurch rettende Gerechtigkeit war […]. Es sei hier nur erinnert an die bekannte Verbindung von Gerechtigkeit Gottes und Heil Gottes: Jes. 56,1; 45,8.21; 46,13, 51,5.5.8; 59,17; Ps. 65,6; 51,16; 112,4; 116,5; 31,2; 36,11; 98,2.3; 103,17.18. […] Überall, wo die Gerechtigkeit Gottes als heilbringend erscheint, ist sie als richtende Gerechtigkeit gedacht, welche dem bedrängten Israel Recht schafft und so seiner Bedrängnis ein Ende macht; vgl. Micha 9,7: […] Denn […] der Zweck des Gerichts und der Gerechtigkeitsübung im Gericht ist der, denen, die es bedürfen, zum Rechte zu verhelfen.“ (S. 56)
„Nur Gottes Gerechtigkeit, und zwar sein gerechtes Gericht, kann die Zuflucht derer sein, die Unrecht leiden, und weil das Unrecht die ganze Welt füllt, die Zuflucht derer, die unter dem Druck des Weltlebens leiden. Aber – an Gottes gerechtes Gericht appellieren kann nur der , der Recht hat, und Recht hat niemand dazu, als wen Gott sich erwählt hat […]. Der kann glauben. Nur der Glaube hat Recht, nur an ihm wird Gottes richtende und rettende Gerechtigkeit offenbar.“ (S. 62)
„Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes aber – das ist nun die Definition, die sich uns ergibt, - ist die Bethätigung seiner Macht im Gericht in Gemäßheit seiner Heiligkeit zu Gunsten derer, die er erwählt hat, `daß sie an ihm glauben sollen zu Leben´ und die mit diesem Glauben Recht haben inmmitten einer Welt, welche an ihrem Unrecht, an dem in ihr waltenden Gesetz der Sünde und des Todes zu Grunde gehen muß.“ (S. 66)
God bless you,
Gerschi
Thanks so much for your comment, Gerschi!
I'll try to repond when I return from SBL. I'm a bit busy tonight!
God bless you too!
Particularly troubling is his lack of significant exegesis on 2 Cor 5:21, the cornerstone text for double imputation and the Reformed view of justification.
I interact with that here: http://theological.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/following-up-the-future-of-justification/
and here: http://creationproject.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/the-forgettable-future-of-justification/
I come to this belatedly and I haven't time to read the comments so I'll just stick in my two cents. I'm barely educated on these issues so I'm not sure what they're worth ...
1) My impression of 'righteousness' in the OT is that it denotates a commitment to fairness, or justice. In the context of a convenant relationship, it heavily connotates covenant faithfulness. As such, it would seem that Wright's definition is derivative of something more fundamental and is not the exhaustive definition, as found in scripture.
2) The 'covenant faithfulness' twist may well be present in Paul, and he may well get this from the broader 'Scriptural Narrative'. However, it is important to add that this scriptural narrative is an abstraction from an otherwise very complex text, which is not reducible to this particular narrative re-presentation. Paul's narrative would be a first century Jewish one, but I'm not sure whether first century Jewish hermeneutics should provide the ulitmate horizon for doing biblical theology. Christian faith is an abstraction from the total witness of both testaments in all their particularity, and not the particular narrative construal of one strand in the new testament (or even the whole NT). It should be remembered that N.T. Wright is a 1st Century historian, not a biblical theologian. Having read his books, it is would seem that his 'scriptural narrative' is more based on 1st C. Jewish interpretation rather than on the OT itself (and when he does draw on the OT itself, it is to buffer an argument about what could plausibly have been believed in the 1st. C.).
If all this is valid, my conclusion is that a Wrightian interpretation of Paul, whether valid or not, needs to be placed within a larger theological context, one which tackles the Bible in all its diversity and not just its narrative.
I hope that makes sense ...
Thanks for these useful links, Jonathan. I too disagree with his take on 2 Cor 5:21. I think Wright is more or less spot on, though not necessarily for the reasons he provides.
Phil,
I have much to learn from you. I hope we can pick this conversation up when you come for AfeT?
Not sure I follow you in the reasoning ending: "it would seem that Wright's definition is derivative of something more fundamental and is not the exhaustive definition, as found in scripture."
Well, I feel I have a lot to learn from you too, so I'm looking forward to Tübingen!
I just meant that I'm not sure one can say 'righteousness' literally means 'covenant faithfulness'. Covenant faithfulness would appear to be the context in which it is worked out, rather than the thing in itself. I'm just wondering what this means when we talk of the 'scriptural narrative'. Is there one narrative that controls the meaning of everything else? I dunno, just thinking out loud. I'm just suspicious of claims that Paul's construal of the narrative is the scriptural one. I think it's one way, but not necessarily the way. I remember that the NT Wright that I read based pretty much all of his evidence on 1st C Jewish material. But I think there is an extra jump to be made, going from Paul, or New Testament, to dogmatics. I'm not sure Wright's use of narrative is the only way ... I don't know. I need to read more systematics!
Well I know this is basically a year after this piece is written but I must say that it is articulate and well thought out. We love our lenses, because they make us feel safe...
Wright is no more infallible than the next guy but I do appreciate the way he illuminates things and challenges me from the text.
It is sad that evangelicals may be to be spending a little too much more time disputing nuances in interpretation standing in agreement and lifting up Christ.
Seems you have to have at least one website discrediting you as a heretic before you know you are making an impact these days.. I read a website that accused CS Lewis of being a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' the other day. Sigh.
Lest the body of Christ self-harm...
God bless and thank you for this insightful post.
Lisa
I realize that this post was some time ago and perhaps my response to it and to any other comment may not be read by the authors.
I am a person who has become aware of previous personal lenses and appreciate the awareness and concern expressed by this post. I seek objectivity and an openness to input from honest truth seekers.
I do not know the arguments well from either Piper or Wright. This is a discussion I am just delving into now. However, I find something very disconcerting. Chris, your conclusion, based upon merely skimming, states:
"I read the passage in Piper's book cited above and smelt the wrong interpretive lens all over it. I hope this is not actually the case, and I need to read the book, but if Piper's work generally simply decorates a pre-given understanding of faith with bible verses, he will be doing none of us a favour. The trick is, these erroneous lenses many read scripture with sound so scriptural. But they are only so in a superficial way."
My concerns:
You state strongly the appearance (more accurately the smell) of a wrong lens, without having read the work. You have merely skimmed.
You hypothetically suggest that Piper is simply proof-texting, without having read Piper's work. And you state how wrong that would be. However, you state clearly you need to read the book.
I find your conclusion based on a big if (that is, if my assumptions are correct while not having actually read the work), and being rather negative to Piper. Would you want such comments made against Wright based upon a skimming? I find it also disconcerting how many critically agree with you about something you are merely wondering about. It "smells" something of a straw man in this presentation. I am not implying that that was your intent. But, is it really of value to suggest something may be a sort of way, without getting at the facts, and then entertain a discussion, when the suggestion itself was made with full awareness that an actual reading is warranted before having a true understanding of the arguments and intent of the author? Isn't a significant part of the argument you are discussing in NPP about accurately understanding the meaning and intent of the author? If your main point was to speak of lenses, I think another example would have been better- one in which you had actually read the author being cited (or indicted). If your point was to speak about Piper and Wright it seems it would have been better to wait until you actually read Piper carefully.
My second point is concerning the criticism that when Piper speaks about his father it is an appeal to emotions and has no place in scholarship. I am sorry this comment was made. I appreciate being made aware of fallacies, but see no validity in this situation. I went to the book and read the part about Piper's father. It was in the acknowledgements only. Truly, one can not consider this an appeal to emotions. I am shaking my head on this one. Piper also expresses appreciation of the church fathers as well. To express gratitude to those who have impacted your life and specifically in a specific area of doctrine in the acknowledgements seems congruous with the intent and purpose of that portion of a book. Had this been in a scholarly journal one would have a different perspective. However, that is not a concern as it is not part of his argument, and truly, scholarly journals I have seen do not have a place for acknowledgements.
These are my belated concerns. However, I want to express an appreciation for the comment that one must be aware of a lens one brings to interpretation and that others bring to their works and comments. Thanks also for the link to the free online text of Piper's.
Grace to you!
Kelly
Maybe this is just my bias speaking, but I think you both misunderstood what I meant and took it out of context. My basic point was not that Piper thanked his dad, but rather that he used the section about his dad as a means of presenting how awesome his views on justification are and at the same time, tied it to an emotional story like his dad dying. Secondly, it was in context of convincing those who do not already agree with Piper. If he really wishes to convince those who are predisposed to not agree with him (and he specifically says that he would like to do so), then putting a section about how awesome imputation is in the acknowledgments is quite the turn-off and should be avoided.
As to this not being a scholarly book-I think you're right, but at the same time, his whole intent was for this to be a response to scholarly work (p. 27) so I'm not really sure where that falls....
Michael
-----------------------------------
My second point is concerning the criticism that when Piper speaks about his father it is an appeal to emotions and has no place in scholarship. I am sorry this comment was made. I appreciate being made aware of fallacies, but see no validity in this situation. I went to the book and read the part about Piper's father. It was in the acknowledgments only. Truly, one can not consider this an appeal to emotions. I am shaking my head on this one. Piper also expresses appreciation of the church fathers as well. To express gratitude to those who have impacted your life and specifically in a specific area of doctrine in the acknowledgments seems congruous with the intent and purpose of that portion of a book. Had this been in a scholarly journal one would have a different perspective. However, that is not a concern as it is not part of his argument, and truly, scholarly journals I have seen do not have a place for acknowledgments.
Post a Comment
<< Home