An Interview with N.T. Wright
21 comments | Permalink
Trevin Wax interviews N.T. Wright, asking him (among other things) about Surprised by Hope and how he would respond to various criticisms of his theology put forth by Mark Dever, Douglas Wilson, Richard John Neuhaus, and John Piper.
Update: Doug Wilson responds, and I think he's right.
Update: Doug Wilson responds, and I think he's right.
posted by JT at Thursday, April 24, 2008
21 Comments:
NT Wright:
"Piper’s criticism is very interesting. I warmed to him. He sent me a copy of it with a charming hand-written dedication, so on. He has clearly bent over backwards to try to understand where I and others are coming from. Sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn’t. He nearly gets to the point where he sees what I’m trying to say, and then the old worldview reasserts itself and he just can’t see through those lenses. I don’t want to say this patronizingly, but it is very frustrating."
Me:
I, too, am frustrated. If John Piper can't study for months and painstakingly write an irenic critique that involves careful correspondence and fact-checking and feedback, and still not understand what Wright is saying, how can most of the rest of us with lesser gifts hope to understand him?
I have tried to take a charitable stance towards Wright and have assumed that there are lots of things to learn from him, even when differing, but it's exasperating to be told again and again that we just can't get it. It's like you have to agree with him before you can understand him--not helpful.
What a great interview. I enjoy Wright's spirit. If he writes with the same clarity with which he speaks, I am surprised that his "new perspective" concepts are so hard to grasp. I confess that I have not delved into the controversy. I have the books on my shelf, but have not had a season to dive in. This interview makes me think that I have had this too low on my priority list.
Matt,
Good points. If your theology requires a Phd to understand something is wrong. If a brilliant man like Piper who poured over his writings intensely and still cannot understand Wright could we lesser mortals? Does this not undermine the perspiscuity of scripture? The wonderful thing about Luther's recovery of the gospel (i.e. Justification by faith) is that it is so easy to understand. My children understand it and yet its riches deliever new treasures each time you delve into it.
I was really moved by the fact that Wright and Piper treat each other so well. Considering their differing theological positions, the charity they show towards one another is beautiful, and a mark of the spirit.
I think the respect they show one another makes Christ very attractive.
-Mark
Thank for this-I enjoy the blog. You may be interested in who the world's public intellectuals are. Check out this months issue of Prospect (details on my blog or just go direct). I note there is no theologian such as N T Wright on the list.
He nearly gets to the point where he sees what I’m trying to say, and then the old worldview reasserts itself and he just can’t see through those lenses."
I'd guess I'd like to know a bit more about what Wright means by Piper's "old worldview" that keeps him from seeing through "those lenses". I know he said he didn't mean to seem patronizing when he said this, but it does seem a tad dismissive.
Kind of like, If you'd just adopt my way of seeing the bible, or my set of hermeneutical presuppositions, then you'd agree with my point of view (i.e. the whole old school dispensational vs. covenant debate - if you just saw things my way, you'd understand what Paul really means by "Israel")
Well of course that's true. If I adopt the worldview that your conclusions logically follow from, then naturally I'll see things your way. But maybe it's the worldview that I disagree with in the first place. And maybe I have good reasons for that. My guess (having not read yet read his book) is that Piper does.
So to me, if it is a worldview problem, then the questions are “Do we understand each others worldviews”, and if so “Which one of us has the best warrant for holding to the worldview they hold to”. The whole “You can’t understand me because you have a different worldview from me” doesn’t seem to fly.
My guess is that Piper understands Wright’s worldview just fine, and because of this he understands what Wright is saying and why he believes the way he does. But he still disagrees for well-informed and principled reasons. Perhaps someone out there (unlike me) who has actually read what both men have to say might be able to flesh out what those reasons are.
His building the kingdom/building for the kingdom distinction is really awesome. Very helpful way out of a thorny cul-de-sac.
Wright explains exactly where Piper sticks to the "old perspective"
"I’m intrigued that Piper has some positions about the righteousness of God, for instance, which are idiosyncratic. He thinks the word righteousness means “the righteousness of God is a concern for God’s glory.” Righteousness is God’s own concern for God’s glory, and then when God imputes righteousness to believers, he regards them as if they have a concern for God’s glory. He does some Old Testament work to back that up which I think just fails as exegesis of the passages.
Of course, the righteousness of God and the glory of God are intimately connected, but righteousness does have a very specific meaning related to the law-court and the covenant and this meaning can be monitored through Scripture again and again and again and not least in the post-biblical literature. Very interesting that he has a bit saying, “Let’s try leaving the post biblical literature out of it.” In other words, let’s read the New Testament in a vacuum historically. I just don’t think you can do that with any scholarly integrity."
So what's the response?
Agreed with all posters. . . .
I'm wondering if anyone would like to interact with Wilson's critique of "Suprised by Hope".
While I agreed with Wilson that 3rd world debt is not "the" moral issue of our time. . . I think it is an important issue, no doubt.
So, it seemed that Wilson's beef was over the word "the" :) . I thought he overreacted a bit in criticizing that passion of Wright's.
Aaron,
I read Wilson's critique regarding the 3rd world debt thing. And I agree mostly.
I would say that while 3rd world debt may be an issue...I'm not sure it even qualifies as an important issue, much less THE important issue. I'm sure it's important to some people (world level financiers for instance) for the believer I think it falls safely under "irrelevant distractions".
Yeah a bit of overreaction. But abortion has been on Conservative Christians radar since even before the 1970s, is clearer, and 3rd world debt only started in the 70s (which means it HASN't even been 50 years, so if you want to apply jubilee principles, how about waiting 20 more years)
I would say that while 3rd world debt may be an issue...I'm not sure it even qualifies as an important issue, much less THE important issue. I'm sure it's important to some people (world level financiers for instance) for the believer I think it falls safely under "irrelevant distractions".
Daryl,
As a Christian, how can third world debt and the impact it can have on the masses living in 3rd world countries not be an issue? Essentially, third world leaders have borrowed and spent money, and then have left it to their people to pay them off. This effects very concrete things, like building roads, safe water systems, etc.
So while people are dieing from water born illness, can you say the issue is irrelevant? It might not be the sole cause of these problems, but it's certainly partially responsible.
God wants us to have soft hearts, and I think that while Wright may exaggerate the importance by using superlatives, who can say it isn't important?
Mark,
What I'd say to that, is just this:
When personal corruption of the leaders involved is no longer an issue, then the issue of debt will become more important. Perhaps I am wrong but my understanding is that 3rd world debt and living conditions are a result of corruption and tyranny, both of which are far greater concerns.
Perhaps I'm speaking out of ignorance (wouldn't be the first time) but 3rd world (and any other world) issues seem to me to too easily hide the real issues of the sin and damnation of the lost, so perhaps I'm more reacting to that.
Wilson and others on this blog should probably read up on the work that the ONE campaign is currently doing in Africa.
It really isn't helpful to appeal to old problems (corrupt dictators, wasted aid) at a time when new solutions and new accountability is present.
In Bush's most recent aid package, there were strict performance benchmarks for benefiting countries. This has been the norm lately. It's not the 80's anymore.
To be sure, there are examples of corruption, but I read Wilson's points as leading to tentative non-action on the issue, which would be worse than Wright's over-elevation of it.
I take issue with the "nuisance" characterization of this problem.
I see it as below abortion in importance, but definitely high enough for someone like Wright to be passionate about it.
pduggie said:
"Wright explains exactly where Piper sticks to the "old perspective"
I see what you're saying there. Wright goes into some detail about why he disagrees with Piper's view of righteousness, why he thinks his OT exegesis is off, and how Piper should be more willing to consider the Post-Biblical literature in his interpretive decisions.
But I wonder in what ways Wright thinks these differences in opinion have kept from Piper from understanding and fairly critiquing what Wright is actually saying. It seems to me that just because I may disagree with a person’s conclusions or with some of the methods that led him to those conclusions, it doesn't mean I don't understand what he's saying.
But Wright says that "Piper’s book isn’t always a critique of what I’m actually saying." and that "He nearly gets to the point where he sees what I’m trying to say".
I don’t know exactly what he means here, but it seems like the main idea is “There’s something in about Piper’s worldview that is keeping him from understanding what I’ve written with the clarity he needs in order to make a fair criticism of what I’m actually saying”.
I just don’t think this is the case. Piper’s has done his homework, and I think he’s capable of understanding what Wright is trying to say. I could be wrong, because Piper is fallible, just like everyone else. But it could also be the case that Wright hasn’t been clear enough in communicating what he wants to say.
I’d be interested in hearing any thoughts you had on this. Glad for the chance to dialogue.
Its an excellent question. I need to go home and look at Piper more closely, but what may be happening is Piper is noticing, say, Wright has a different understanding of the righteousness of God.
But Piper seems to go on to just say "when we go back and plug in *my* definition of righteousness, we see how Wright's system falls apart". Well, yes, it would, because Righteousness is functioning differently.
This is something I mused on my own blog as to why Wright's system is hard for others to get into.
--------------
Someone said: "In this judgment, all persons would be brought before the divine law-court and judged - either condemning them to eternal death or finding them to be "in the right" before the court, rendering a verdict of "not guilty."
According to Wright, this justifying verdict was promised to God's people throughout the Old Testament as part of the covenant he made with them."
That's interesting: I think we commonly have a conception of the final judgment as a purely God-ward phenomenon, in the sense that God arranges for it merely to satisfy his own personal justice.
Conceiving of God's judgment more along the lines of what a human judge's office is, the judge has a necessary responsibility to deliver those who are oppressed. In Psalm 82 and 58, God judges "gods" for wickedness in their god-task, that of delivering the oppressed.
Thus, the last judgment, rather than so much being an evaluation of how everyone met or did not meet a standard of law, is a time for God to deliver those who are suffering oppression by adversaries.
Final Judgment is a covenant promise that God condescends to make with his creatures, not some "more basic" expression of God's aseity.
Does that make sense? Is that what Wright is getting at? I think many have a hard time (I do/did) getting our heads around the idea that God promises to Judge AND DELIVER his people in that judgment, from their oppressors, "sin and death". We rather have a tendency of seeing judgment as a "pure" expression of God rendering that which is due to the wicked. Legal science rather than legal salvation.
Well, after reading Wilson's response, I'm even more convinced that he hasn't looked at the issue recently.
President Bush's most recent aid package to Africa called for solid benchmarks and accountability for governments that receive aid. The DATA organization monitors how all monies are used and can/will pull funding.
If he and others don't trust those giving aid or the government's wisdom in doing so. . . .that is their prerogative and freedom to do so. But, let's at least give them the benefit of the doubt that measures are in place to see that abuses are eliminated.
Again, I think Wilson's philosphy leads to a tentative in-action which is worse than an over-emphasis on 3rd-world-debt by Wright.
Also, his rhetorical question of "where does the money come from?" for debt relief is a bit deceptive(unintentionally) because some of these countries aren't able to pay us currently (pre-debt relief). They aren't able to pay the interest on the loans given to them by corrupt dictators.
I doubt the U.S. ecomony would be hurt at all (this is the true "nuisance" here) with the elimination of some of those debts. Since when is our government worried about debt repayment? (couldn't resist :) )
"Again, I think Wilson's philosphy leads to a tentative in-action which is worse than an over-emphasis on 3rd-world-debt by Wright."
The one thing is that Bush and Blair went ahead and did debt relief even though Wilson was inactive. I think that justifies inaction to a minor extent.
JT:
Why do you think Wilson is right?
I think I'm pretty sure what you're saying there. The "classic" view is that the final judgment happens as a result of God satisfying his personal sense of Justice. There is a need to judge who is guilty and not-guilty based on a standard of law keeping. Everyone at the judgment is a law-breaker. But the law-breakers who are “in Christ” through faith are pardoned- declared "Not-Guilty"- by virtue of his imputed law keeping, or righteousness. Those law breakers who do not have faith are guilty.
The "Wright" view (no pun intended) is that the final judgment happens as a result of God’s covenant keeping on behalf of his people . He’s “putting things right”, or performing the final saving act for his people by delivering them from the oppressors "Sin" and "Death". These people are law breakers too, but because they are God’s covenant people by virtue of their faith in Christ, they're delivered from evil: the evil in their corrupted hearts, and all the other effects of the fall (death, etc).
So that’s my best guess. I haven't read that deeply into either view, so I don't really know what's going on. I definitely know more about the “classic view”, because Piper was my first exposure to any kind of decent theology.
The one thing I wonder, and it takes us back to the original topic, is “What is Wright’s conception of righteousness?” I think I understand how he views the reason for the final judgment, but what is righteousness of Christ, how does one receive it, and why does God see a person as being righteous? Is he imputing the law-keeping of Christ? Or is he declaring a person to be in Christ, as part of the Covenant of people. Or do I just not know what I’m talking about at all?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home