I’ve been reading N.T. Wright’s Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, and there are parts of his book that are causing me to raise my ears and my ’sensors,’ so to say.
Now if you are aware of anything related to “The New Perspective on Paul” you will know that N.T. Wright, James Dunn, and E.P. Sanders have different views on justification than John Piper and traditional reformation Christianity. The purpose of my post is not to get into that debate – if you are interested in the debate, then look at the 7-part interview that John Piper had dealing with N.T. Wright (see below for the links).
The purpose of this post is to get your thoughts on the following quote by N.T. Wright, in Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense (p.91-92)
Christianity isn’t about Jesus offering a wonderful moral example…
Nor is Christianity about Jesus offering, demonstrating, or even accomplishing a new route by which people can “go to heaven when they die.”…
Finally, Christianity isn’t about giving the world fresh teaching about God himself…
So what is Christianity about then?
Christianity is all about the belief that the living God, in fulfillment of his promises and as the climax of the story of Israel, has accomplished all this – the finding, the saving, the giving of new life – in Jesus. He has done it. With Jesus, God’s rescue operation has been put into effect once and for all. A great door has swung open in the cosmos which can never again be shut. It’s the door to the prison where we’ve been kept chained up. We are offered freedom: freedom to experience God’s rescue for ourselves, to go through the open door and explore the new world to which we now have access. In particular, we are all invited – summoned actually – to discover, through following Jesus, that this new world is indeed a place of justice, spirituality, relationship, and beauty, and that we are not only to enjoy it as such but to work at bringing it to birth on earth as in heaven. In listening to Jesus, we discover whose voice it is that has echoed around the hearts and minds of the human race all along.
Before I state my views, why don’t you examine this quote?
All John Piper “followers,” or individuals who agree with the many things that John Piper ” preaches,” Is there anything wrong or “off” about this quote?
Below are the links to an interview where John Piper discusses his views on N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul
- Part 1, Who is this book for?
- Part 2, Who is N. T. Wright?
- Part 3, What do you believe about justification?
- Part 4, How is Wright’s view of justification different than yours?
- Part 5, What’s the problem with Wright’s view of imputation?
- Part 6, What damage could Wright’s view cause to the church?
- Part 7, Where is it that you’re trying to preserve the doctrine of justification from moving?
Here is a link that contains N.T Wright’s response to John Piper’s View of Justification
And here is a link that summarizes both views by Christianity Today
6 Comments
October 13, 2009 at 7:02 am
Hi Sangi.
Being a person whose spiritual life has been deeply influenced by Anglicanism, I’d have to say that I think I can see both of what both Piper and N.T. Wright are saying, and I don’t think that they’re necessarily both in opposition to one another.
It is good that Wright is now going into details on how the New Perspective can/will affect the perceptions of the modern theological thought. That really is the question that must be answered.
October 14, 2009 at 11:22 pm
John,
I also don’t see any huge contradictions between what Wright is stating here and what Piper usually talks about. However, I do see a slight difference in nuance. In Simply Christian, the above quote is Wright’s definitive answer to what Christianity is all about – and what he says isn’t wrong. I agree completely with what he is stating. Christianity is definitely about God setting people free through Jesus Christ, which allows us to freely follow Jesus and work with him to usher in the kingdom of God onto this earth. Yes! That’s definitely right!
However, Wright fails to talk about the definitive work of justification in his definition of Christianity. His definition of Christianity seems to be more of a fluid statement – he’s kind of stating that God sent Jesus into the world to save the world, and then we can take part in that salvation through following Jesus and bringing the kingdom of God to earth.
In other words, this is what he’s saying.
Step 1: Cognitively realize that Christianity is about God fulfilling salvation history and bringing out a messiah from Israel to offer salvation, or “freedom” to the whole world.
Step 2: Partner with God by following Jesus Christ to bring “justice, spirituality, relationship, and beauty..to birth on earth as it is in heaven.”
The step that Wright is obviously missing is the step of justification – a step that Piper adamantly emphasizes, and rightly so! The definitive step of believing in Jesus Christ and becoming righteous, not by our works of bringing justice, spirituality, relationship, and beauty to earth, but because of Christ’s work of bringing justice, spirituality, relationship and beauty to earth through the cross. It is through Christ’s work that we are righteous and that we are justified. It is then and only then that we can actually effectively partner with God to usher in the kingdom of God.
Now in any statement that strives to define what Christianity is about, it’s not necessarily what is said, but it’s also important to be careful about what isn’t said. And what isn’t mentioned by Wright is the necessity of justification.
October 13, 2009 at 8:29 am
I have heard about this debate between the two before but have decided not to weigh in since I have read six (maybe seven?) of Wright’s books and feel I might be a little biased..
But reading the comparison from CT I find Piper’s definition of God’s righteousness off, at least from what I understand is being said.
“The essence of God’s righteousness is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name in all he does. ” – From CT, about Piper’s belief abour Righteousness.
It seems like Piper is saying God’s righteousness is defined not by his faithfulness but his faithfulness to his own name.
Hmm. This challenges me. Wright’s view seems to be rooted in the Abraham-Israel backstory to the Gospel, and God’s faithfulness to his people and then to the world. I see God being glorified in the scripture but I feel very uneasy defining God’s righteousness as God glorifying his name alone.
Maybe I’m wrong though.
October 14, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Isaiah,
I think your uneasiness to Piper’s stance on righteousness is rightly so – especially living in such a pluralistic context like Canada. After all, I felt the same way!
Let me explain: our culture and unfortunately many of our churches have developed this notion that Christianity is consumeristic and all about the satisfaction of the customer. As a result, many times we hear people preach a gospel that is all about God coming to serve humans and save humans; in other words, a gospel that proclaims that God NEEDS humans.
And you know what? God does love humans – he loves us and he doesn’t want any of us to perish! John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world…” But God doesn’t need humans! John 3:16 doesn’t say, “For God so needed the world.”
Piper has done an amazing service to the church to help us realize that God doesn’t need us, but that we need God! He has done an amazing job to uphold the supremacy of God in and above all things.
To fully quote from the CT article, this is what Piper and Wright say about God’s righteousness:
Piper: The essence of God’s righteousness is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name in all he does. No single action, like covenant keeping, is God’s righteousness. For all his acts are done in righteousness. The essence of human righteousness is the unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of God in all we do. The problem is that we all fall short of this glory; that is, no one is righteous.
Wright: God’s righteousness refers to his own faithfulness to the covenant he made with Abraham. Israel has been unfaithful to this commission. What is now required, if the world’s sin is to be dealt with and a worldwide family created for Abraham, is a faithful Israelite who can be faithful to the covenant in Israel’s stead.
When looking at both definitions, this is the main difference I notice:
- Piper is emphasizing the nature of God’s righteousness, which doesn’t need any human being or require God to save any human being.
- Whereas, Wright is emphasizing that God’s righteousness is dependent on his action towards humans.
I believe that God is righteous in and of himself, not based on what he does or does not do. The nature of God is righteousness, and out of that nature emanates righteous acts.
October 15, 2009 at 12:18 am
Interesting.
Perhaps my interpretation was wrong. I understood Piper to be saying God’s nature is completely sovereign first and then loving. To put it another way that God really has no morality, and even if he committed something which seems absolutely terrible, it would still be righteous because it was an action of God.
October 16, 2009 at 10:58 pm
hmm…I don’t think there can be a dichotomy between God’s nature being sovereign first and then loving. He is both sovereign and loving. He is also completely righteous. But there isn’t an order.