The latest volume of Themelios is out which contains a review of N.T Wright’s Justification:Paul’s Vision and God’s Plan by a man called David Mathis from a place called Bethlehem Baptist Church. I thought that sounded familiar so I googled his name and discovered that he is the executive pastoral assistant to John Piper.
That is pretty weird….
Given the seriousness of this interchange between Wright and Piper you might have thought that they may have asked a reviewer who didn’t work for Piper. As it turns out, and there is no surprise here, it is quite a negative review. I do wonder if Piper may have had a hand in it….
[...] against Tom Wright I’d like to thank Jon Swales for drawing attention to this. He is surprised that Themelios asked John Piper’s executive assistant to review Tom [...]
How is the review? Clearly he will disagree given his vocational position but it may still be a very helpful review as far as pointing out strengths and weaknesses…
you can access the review through my post. The review makes some valid points which will hopefully be addressed by Wright in the next volume of his Christian Origins series.
I’ll be honest. I was expecting big stuff from Wright and was quite disappointed with his book. In the preface/introduction he said that he a)didn’t pass the manuscript on to ohers like they did to him, and/because b) he was pressed for time. The book read to me like a book by Wright written as he was pressed for time.
I found the content interesting as a popular level book, but NOT adequate in its form as a serious and comprehensive response to a very well articulated book by Piper. I would have been happier if he didn’t write a response at all instead of writing the kind of response he did. (In spite of what people like McKnight and others say in praise of the ‘demolition of the neo-reformed view’, etc, etc).
Quite honestly the ‘do I have to say it again so that they will finally understand me’ schtick is a little frustrating for those of us sitting on the fence on these issues. Just freaking respond.
That is how I feel at the moment, anyways. Maybe I’m just missing the point…just like all the calvinists (that wasn’t a jab, that was a serious wondering).
In an ideal world Piper and Wright with some of their buddies would sit down and discuss this issue at length, being able to discover in dialogue exactly what the other is intending to communicate. I sometimes don’t think that each group is really listening to each other.
I am intrigued by your last comment, what do we mean by calvinist….. I actually think that those from a Calvinist camp should have more time for Wright’s position given our view of covenant and stress on grace in OT.
The debate, at the textual level, is incredibly intense and nuanced and it is very diffiuclt for a non-specialist to fully understand a;; of the twists and turns of this debate. The problem is that some neo-reformed types give the impression that is a simple open and shut case. Given the complexity of this issue a bit of epistemological humility is needed on both sides….
I agree. We just need one gigantic night at the pub to figure all this out.
Wright probably pisses off much of american fundamentalism, but I only ever hear about Calvinists debating his material (likely because that’s simply where I come from). And the frustrating thing is that I have only experienced a handful of people who disagree with him on justification/imputation/etc but still affirm his great insights elsewhere (and actually put that into practice). See Michael Horton, Tim Keller.
So although he is actually closer to the Calvinist camp then maybe any other tradition, it seems that the Calvinists (and I guess the “liberal” scholars) are the ones who he finds to be his biggest and most outspoken opponents – and this because they see the aforementioned doctrines as being at the heart of Christian faith. These are the people that Wright says “just don’t get it”. They just can’t seem to get out of their own terminology and begin to understand what he is saying on his own terms – which is why he just keeps repeating himself hoping that they will all of a sudden believe him, or he critiques nameless reformed people with no footnotes that leaves everybody boggled.
It is so frustrating to the non-specialist that the specialists sit around arguing about what the gospel is, what justification means, whether anything is imputed/reckoned, while the rest of us who haven’t read all of the second-temple references to dikaiosune simply fight the urge to become Eastern Orthodox so we can simply worship and live with the ‘unchanging theology of the church since Christ’ (maybe that’s just me…).
I do find the debate very interesting and with much potential, but at this point I am only frustrated.
I gave that review a quick read and was actually fairly impressed with its critique (…of Wright’s approach/style, not necessarily content). It might be good for Wright to read that review and then come out with a second edition of his book.
Jon, thanks for highlighting the review – it got me thinking. It seems to me that there is a core contradiction in Wright’s argument, which is that he wants to understand the ‘righteousness of God’ in relation to the covenant narrative but does not want to accept the full historical implications of that insight. That may be why he appears to have steered himself into something of a dead-end. I’ve tried to explain what I mean here: http://www.postost.net/2009/11/review-proxy-review-response-critique-argument-wright-righteousness-god
I am glad you have the time to read and interact in detail with Wright and his reviewers. I must admit that sometimes the technicalities of the debate can pass be by as i don’t have enough time to to get into the various nuances.
Yes, and you have to wonder sometimes whether it’s really worth it. I guess we’re still searching for the key that will unlock the whole debate and make justification suddenly appear wonderfully simple.