Blurbs for Wright's New Book
77 comments | Permalink
Denny Burk points out that the blurbs for Wright's response to his critics on justification are now online at the IVP (US) site.
The most interesting blurb is from Scot McKnight:
Update:
A few more thoughts:
(1) I like Scot too, and appreciate a lot of what he does and is trying to do.
(2) He gets rightly frustrating at lumping diverse folks into one camp and label, especially when that label is "Emergent."
(3) He makes no distinctions whatsoever in this blurb--it's just one group, the "neo-Reformed."
(4) He is right that such a group exists--folks who tend to return to tradition more than Scripture and functionally elevate the former above the latter.
(5) If he is thinking of certain bloggers rather than people like Carson, Piper, Seifrid, then the blurb doesn't do a good job of conveying his intentions. Wright's book is a response (I presume) to written arguments by specific individuals (the aforementioned). To blurb it by saying that Wright's response reveals something about the "neo-Reformed," the standard rules of discerning authorial intent would suggest he is including said scholars in that category.
JT
The most interesting blurb is from Scot McKnight:
Tom Wright has out-Reformed America's newest religious zealots--the neo-Reformed--by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.So D. A. Carson, Mark Seifrid, John Piper and others are "religious zealots" "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text"? Even if one grants that Carson, Seifrid, Piper, et al are exegetically wrong, I have a hard time seeing how this name-calling and accusation is fair, charitable, or appropriate. The other blurbs, fortunately, are more irenic.
Update:
A few more thoughts:
(1) I like Scot too, and appreciate a lot of what he does and is trying to do.
(2) He gets rightly frustrating at lumping diverse folks into one camp and label, especially when that label is "Emergent."
(3) He makes no distinctions whatsoever in this blurb--it's just one group, the "neo-Reformed."
(4) He is right that such a group exists--folks who tend to return to tradition more than Scripture and functionally elevate the former above the latter.
(5) If he is thinking of certain bloggers rather than people like Carson, Piper, Seifrid, then the blurb doesn't do a good job of conveying his intentions. Wright's book is a response (I presume) to written arguments by specific individuals (the aforementioned). To blurb it by saying that Wright's response reveals something about the "neo-Reformed," the standard rules of discerning authorial intent would suggest he is including said scholars in that category.
JT
posted by JT at Tuesday, January 06, 2009
77 Comments:
That's really annoying of McKnight!
What was that whole emerging/ent idea about being able to talk about ideas without name-calling? I thought I remembered something about that. Stay classy, guys.
Let me get this straight. McKnight says:
(1) The Reformers were committed to scripture.
(2). Piper, Carson, Keller, et al agree with the Reformers.
(3) Therefore, Piper/Carson/Keller/et al don't care about scripture but only upholding tradition.
To put it another way:
(1) Because my mom was safety-conscious, she told me to look both ways before crossing the street.
(2) I agree with her.
(3) Therefore, I do not care about safety but only upholding a family tradition.
Great logic.
Point taken JT. But I've certainly seen lot of name calling and uncharitableness on this blog...especially toward NT Wright.
Josh,
I think the logic at least makes sense if you distinguish between commitments and conclusions. McKnight would say that the Reformed commitment to Scripture over tradition is right, but the Reformed conclusions are wrong. Wright has a greater adherence to to the principle in practice than do the Reformers or the "neo-Reformed zealots." At least that's what I think he's trying to say.
JT
I do not know exactly who Dr. McKnight was talking about, it could have been Carson, Piper and Seifrid, but he could also be referring to other lesser known people, including other bloggers who have shown to be more committed to their own brand Reformed theology than the text. I would give Dr. McKnight the benefit of the doubt here. I have seen a number of positive statements about Piper on jesuscreed.com and he used to teach with Carson at TEDS. So while I'm not sure and I would guess he does not think that of them, but maybe other anti-Wright people online.
I'll bet Dr. McKnight has never read Justification and Variegated Nomism. It's sorta hard to call the view Carson et al. send out there "more committed to tradition" unless we define "tradition" as "agrees with what most dead guys have said".
I love the high bar of charity that is set for Piper and Carson and those who might agree with them. But when it comes to McKnight and Wright stereotyping and name calling are okay, because after all the are wrong and are more committed to their reformed suppositions then the Bible.
Also, saying "well some people on blogs have not been nice to Wright" is not equal to leaders of the conversation demonstrating double standards in theological civility.
JT,
How so? Simply because Wright disagrees with Reformed conclusions? Are the "reformed-zealots" (an unfair term) any less committed to scripture because they happen to side with the Reformers?
Isn't the logic simply this:
1. I want to be biblical.
2. I disagree with the Reformers
3. You agree with the Reformers
4. Therefore, you do not (really, or at least chiefly) want to be biblical.
I don't see how that makes sense.
Daniel,
You make a VERY good point. I don't think there is any denying that neo-reformed zealots exist. There is also a harsh institutional form of reformed thought that might be guilty of McKnight's criticism. I don't see this as "new". It seems to exist more in the old OPC-type movements (though some are trying to keep it alive).
But in terms of the new movers and shakers of Reformed thought, I can't think who would fit neatly into McKnight's critique.
N.T. Wright has many sympathetic listeners in Reformed and Presbyterian circles. If he really wanted to win them over, why would he seek endorsements from Rob Bell and Brian Maclaren? There must be something wrong with his theology if these false teachers love it.
Much better would have been a blurb by Piper or Carson along the lines of, "Many, like myself, will disagree with Wright, but no serious student can ignore his argument."
Good point Josh. Like I said, I do not know for sure who Dr. McKnight is talking about. I do not know him too well on a personal level, but when I have interacted with him (as well as jesuscreed), he has always been very considerate and kind. Check out this post from last month in this vein http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2008/12/fundamentalists-flopflipping.html#more
Bart,
Wright probably did not seek endorsements from Bell or McLaren. I also wish they had left off those blurbs, but that is IVP trying to sell books, not Wright. Put the scholars on their and the academics will buy it, put the Emergent guys on it and the Emergent people will buy it. That just seems like marketing to me.
JT:
Shop Talk -- who solicits and ultimately secures/chooses the blurbs for the book jacket?
It may be painful to read McKnight's blurb, if one assumes that he has in mind the same individuals that some of us might have in mind.
I wonder outloud, however, if it is not possible to sort through the matter to receive correctly McKnight's words. If the shoe fits, should we not wear it? If the shoe doesn't seem to fit but pinches, don't put it on to wear it. Leave it for someone else for whom it may better fit.
Frank,
I can't speak for all publishers, but usually it's a collaborative process in terms of who gets asked and by whom.
JT
McLaren's blurb isn't much better, implying that Piper is among those who "cling to their cherished old wineskins of conventional thought."
Daniel,
McKnight is truly a very kind man. In my 3 or 4 personal conversations with him I was delighted. He once even spent about 35 minutes in a seminary bookstore with me all by ourselves talking through which New Testament commentaries he found the best(though if I recall, he did warn that I shouldn't get too many commentaries that held a Reformed perspective). I also recall him taking great issue with Piper when I brought that name up, though he wasn't mean about it (though he did insist that Piper was wrong....dead wrong, and potentially dangerous...in his views).
I have not followed his blog in a long time---I stopped when I walked away from the emergent mess. I sense he is trying to be truly evangelical while living within the emergent world. Therefore, he shares the typically-emergent belief that neo-fundamentalism and reformed confessionalism are enemies of vibrant faith.
As is typical of many in the emergent church, he hails from a fundamentalist upbringing and, I sense, is somewhat reactionary.
What's wrong with taking exception to NT Wright and Scot McKnight's arguments?
Their arguments and the presuppositions for their arguments are not above constructive criticism.
JT and folk,
I'm good friends with Scot and he's big enough to defend himself. But let me say a few things here:
1. Neo-Reformed zealots do exist and they say nasty things about Wright on blogs and Amazon.com reviews etc. A couple of years ago a friend of mine was at a big pastoral leaders conference in the US (not DG or T4G!) where he met a group of pastors who believed that N.T. Wright is the biggest threat to evangelicalism today. A guy from the States inquired about doctoral studies at my own institution and asked what our official position was regarding the NPP. I replied that we have no official position and we simply hold to the Westminster Confession. He sent me a three page response detailing why we MUST take an official position on the issue or risk becoming liberal. This anecdotal evidence I hope makes a point.
2. Who does Scot have in mind here? I don't know, that's for him to say. But I do know that he has spoken respectfully of Piper and Carson in the past.
3. Dan Wallace's endorsement of John Piper's book included the statement that Wright's view of justification is "hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome". I like Wallace, but such a comment is hardly accurate and even less charitable (unless of course you're Catholic). Tim Chester has a good Themelios article where he concurs that Wright's soteriological scheme is different from that of Trent.
4. Let's make sure that this doesn't become a matter of "Theological Idol" where we divide over "I am of Piper" or "I am of Wright". Our loyalties should belong to neither one, even if we prefer the conclusions of one over the other. Helpful thoughts come from 1 Thess. 5.21 and Rom. 14.19.
Solum evangelium!
"I have a hard time seeing how this name-calling and accusation is fair, charitable, or appropriate"
I agree with your accessment Justin, therefore you may want to monitor your comment section a bit closer as this type of inappropriate speech is common place here unfortunately.
Frankly, I find fawning blurbs supremely annoying--whether those by McKnight and others on Tom Wright in the IVP site, or those on by any author on any book ever featured on this blog. I try to altogether avoid them, since my annoyance over such back-patting would prevent me from actually buying the books.
Frankly speaking, although I do greatly respect and appreciate both Scot McKnight and NT Wright for confronting the Jesus Seminar scholars back in the day, my respect for them has since diminished somewhat because:
(1) McKnight is an enabler and an apologist for the Emerg*** Movement which is neo-no-good-liberal theology and practice.
(2) Wright is an enabler and an apologist for the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his atrocious leadership of the fracturing Church of England and Anglican Communion.
Another commonality between these two which I shall point out is that both of them are staunch egalitarians.
Now I know that what I've wrote above does not address the substance of Wright's new book and that his book should be evaluated purely upon its own substantive merits. I get that.
I should have read more carefully before making a comment (the first comment at that). I was under the impression that McKnight was speaking directly to Piper and Carson. So it isn't really that annoying after all. Just as there are very neo-liberal-emergent types there are those who are neo-reformed zealots who just affirm stuff because they read it is the latest reformed book and if you disagree with it you are labeled a heretic. However, I would not put Carson nor Piper in that category. I am thankful for both those men.
The question is simple: who are the "neo-Reformed?" If he is talking about Carson/Gathercole/Seifrid/Piper, then he's harsh no matter how nice of a guy he probably is.
Further, what does it take to be actually "Reformed" if those folks are "neo-Reformed"?
Andrew
My guess is that "Neo-Reformed" refers to the militant Reformed types who attack everything that doesn't fit with the Westminster Standards. These reformed types should be contrasted with what I call the "Geo-Reformed," who are more down to earth.
Since he has written a comment above I would be interested in knowing who Michael Bird considers "neo-Reformed." Is anyone who says nasty things about N.T. Wright (or perhaps simply about his theology of justification) to be so considered? Since he has agreed that McKnight should define who he means by that nomenclature, perhaps the same should be expected of Dr. Bird.
So, Dr. Bird, could you be more specific than telling us that some guys at a US conference saying nasty things about Wright characterize the definition of neo-Reformed?
Someone once said, ambiguity is the cousin of heresy. It is at least the cousin of relativism.
McKnight might not be talking about Carson, but if he is, he has his story wrong. I have seen/read Carson take great pains to say that the Neo-Reformed movement is encouraging not just because it drinks from the wells of Luther and Calvin and Edwards, but because it is a return to a robust biblical theology.
But I wonder if some of the angry comments proponents of the NPP lob at Carson are the result of him saying that the NPP is dying and (something to the effect) that only a few institutions are steadfastly behind it.
Dr. Bird,
So if we think Wright's views on Justification are wrong, unbiblical, and dangerous to Evangelicalism...
....then we must be neo-Reformed zealots who care more about tradition than scripture?
It looks like nobody has pointed this out yet, but just a couple days ago, Scot wrote a post on his Jesus Creed blog titled, "On Blurbing Books":
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/01/on-blurbing-books.html#preview
I posted his blurb in discussion here, and asked for his reflections on his blurb based on his post offering criteria for blurbs in general (that seems contrary to this blurb).
-Aaron
Dr. Bird,
Since when does an appeal to what Tim Chester says about Wright disprove Wallace's arguments? One of Chester's first criticisms of the proponents of the historic Reformed doctrine of justification is that they "frequently resort to a simple restatement of the traditional view without directly interacting with the arguments of the New Perspective."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/30.2_Chester.pdf
Shouldn't you be dealing with the specific arguments Wallace proposes instead of simply appealing to Chester?
In fairness to the good bishop, he has made the claim that the church took a wrong turning on justification from the time of Augustine. That places the neo-Reformed, Reformed, RCs and Eastern Orthodox, and all their traditional interpretations on the wrong track.
As a paelo-Reformed confessionalist and unapologetic zealot for justification sola gratia et sola fide I would like to know just who it is who has managed to escape time, space, and history to read the bible without a tradition?
Who is it who has elevated their tradition over Scripture? Examples?
rsc
Heidelblog
WSC
Nick and Josh,
Whoa fellas, put the 9mm glock down, we're all friends here!
1. You may not know this but I've actually written a monograph length evaluation of the NPP which is largely critical of it in many respects (Tom Wright and Jimmy Dunn both know that I'm a critic of several aspects of their work). At the same time, I can give credit where credit is due.
2. There is a difference between criticism and ad hominem remarks. For example, one author I know of calls Wright a "trojan horse for the church". Others on the net have called him a "heresiarch". I think it is easy to find problems in Wright's work and quite arguably these problems have consequences for matters of discipleship. But if you think Wright is a heretic or dangerous, then (a) He's in good company because I can find precursors to his beliefs in the Reformed tradition (Zwingli, Cranmer, Baxter and more), (b) your hereticometre is broken, and (c) you need to leave Alabama for once in your life, visit the godless north east, and meet some real heretics (Harvard and Brown would be good places to start looking). [Note: I say this with a smile on my face].
3. Who are the neo-Reformed zealots? By the fruits you will know them. But I will say one thing, they are those who claim to believe so passionately in the doctrines of grace but never like showing any grace to those whom they disagree with.
That'll be it from me fellas!
My final, final comment (why did I even start?).
1. Nick, Wallace didn't make any arguments, it was a blurb. But if you think Wright is Tridentine then either you don't understand Trent or you don't understand Wright. I'll even go so far as to say that Schreiner, Gathercole, Thielman and others will back me on that one!
2. Scott Clark, genuine point, no one reads Scripture in a vacuum and Wright is a little guilty of a kind of post tenebras lux perspective on the NPP (Yes, I complimented Scott Clark, let the record show). In fact, much NPP stuff can be found in Church History from Ambrosiaster to Erasmus to John Locke to F.C. Baur! However, I've noticed that some Reformed chappies treat the Confession the same way that Rabbi's treat the Mishnah: as a body of codified oral tradition that is effectively an extension of the Bible itself, rather than as a summary of what Scripture says. We read with tradition but we should also test our tradition (1 Thess. 5.21). Sadly, our tradition has focused rather narrowly on an ordo salutis rather than on a historia salutis (though I hear that J.V. Fesko is trying to remedy this in a recent book). We need integrate Rom. 3.28 and 3.29 in our theology of justification and also read Eph. 2.11ff with 2.1-10!!!
3. Who are the neo-Reformed zealots? Well folks, I just emailed Scot McKnight. He is not pointing the finger at anyone in particular. He means an ethos of rabidly defending the Reformers without looking at the Bible in its context.
So we can disperse the crowd, put down the stones, go back to our Ephesian dwellings, and sleep well knowing that Artemis is still great :-)
Blessings to all, I'm going to bed.
Michael, you quoted me as saying, "3. Dan Wallace's endorsement of John Piper's book included the statement that Wright's view of justification is 'hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome'. I like Wallace, but such a comment is hardly accurate and even less charitable (unless of course you're Catholic)."
Actually, what I said was, "Wright’s version of the New Perspective is, in some respects, hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome." Not only did I not mention justification in that statement, I also added the very important qualifier 'in some respects.' I stand by my words; I think in some respects Wright's version of the New Perspective is hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome. Is that necessarily wrong? No, although one would be justified in reading my words as critical of Wright's position. But I go on in the next paragraph (which is also the next sentence) by noting that not all will agree with Piper on every point. I do not agree with Piper on every point. I feel it is necessary to add such third person caveats in my endorsements because it puts a little distance between me and the book/author I am endorsing while at the same time allowing me to commend it/him/her.
In any event, thanks for your comment and for the opportunity to clarify what I was saying.
Dan,
Thanks for weighing in. Your response got me thinking. There are three options:
1) Wright's theology is like Trent's in all respects.
2) Wright's theology is like Trent's in some respects.
3) Wright's theology is like Trent's in no respect.
To refute (1) and (3), all you need to do is come up with one counterexample and the statements fail. But in order to refute (2), you'd have to do a lot of work to refute it. It seems pretty clear to me that you were claiming (2), but Mike misquoted you to be saying (1).
On a broader note, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but follow a thought experiment with me: Carson writes a book responding to guys critiquing him on Emergent--say, McLaren, Jones, and Smith. Piper writes a blurb for Carson's response:
"Don Carson has outdone America's newest religious zealots--the neo-Liberals--by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Carson reveals that the neo-Liberals are more committed to culture than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study."
Would anyone conclude that Piper was referring to (a) other Emergent folks but not McLaren, Jones, Smith? (b) to a prevailing ethos out there?
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the argument against my plain reading just seems odd!
JT
Right JT. For McKight to criticize "no one in particular but rather a general ethos" seems disingenuous. Last time I checked, an ethos didn't write books or post on blogs, so what's to criticize. It seems a straightforward reading of his endorsement would most naturally lead one to conclude he was referring to those in the Reformed camp who have formally come out in opposition of Wright's views on justification.
Glad to know he didn't mean that. Hopefully next time he will not be so unguarded with his comments.
To Dr. Bird,
You references to 9mm and stone-throwing indicate you are inserting emotional baggage into my posts that I don't feel are present. I am not yelling at you or accusing you. I am simply asking you to clarify, and perhaps pressing your logic. Your dismissive reference to Alabamian ignorance, while perhaps intended humorously, struck this former New Englander as unhelpful rhetoric.
I do note that you seem to lump my statement that Wright's teaching on justification is "dangerous" with the word "heresy"--a word I did not use, and the meaning of which is NOT the same as heresy. I think altar calls are "dangerous" to the concept of salvation, but I would never call them heretical.
But more to the point, it seems you are saying that if you believe Wright's teachings are dangerous, you are a neo-Reformed zealot. In fact, your exact statement was: "Neo-Reformed zealots do exist and they say nasty things about Wright...etc...a group of pastors who believed that N.T. Wright is the biggest threat to evangelicalism today."
I simply asked that if you consider me a bible-ignoring, tradition-worshipping, neo-reformed zealot because I also believe Wright's teachings on justification are dangerous?
Quoting from an article by Tim Chester:
"Assurance is grounded in
justification as the divine declaration of acquittal on the basis of the finished work of Christ. Wright is more ambiguous on this than some of his critics recognise. Although he avoids the term ‘imputed’, he does talk of righteousness being ‘reckoned’ to us. He strongly refutes the charge of making justification a process like that in traditional Catholicism. ‘I do not “interpose”
extraneous elements between the effectual call and God’s declaration “righteous”. I never have, never would, never (please God) will’. Yet he also says: ‘present justification declares on the basis of faith, what future
justification will affirm publicly on the basis of the entire life.’"
Wright certainly has separated his view of justification in some respects from that of Roman Catholicism, but he has said a number of things that come dangerously close to that of Rome. So I agree with Wallace.
JT, I see where you are coming from, but I don't think Carson has aligned himself with the Neo-Reformed movement as closely as McLaren and Jones have with the emergent movement. Carson seems to align himself with the evangelicalism more closely (and he breaks with scholars like Bebbington because he sees the foundation of evangelicalism not in Bebbington's 5 points but in traditional orthodoxy).
I would also like to thank Dr. Bird for his recent monograph. I thought it was a good read and entirely helpful.
Dr. Bird,
I actually don;t like shooting Glocks. They are not as good for accuracy. I prefer a STG 556!
McKnight's blub is perfect for a N.T. Wright book: create a new label, without defining it, and then tear it down. Much of Wright's writings reflect this approach. The student has learned well.
JT,
You do realize you used an example of Piper doing the same exact thing you are offended about, right? It almost read's identical to McKnight's blurb, but with neo-Reformed in place of neo-liberal. Wouldn't be surprised if McKnight did that on purpose.
I have read books and articles from both sides of the aisle on this and it seems to me that it is part of the game to push each other's buttons. It comes across like theologians must possess the spiritual gift of name-calling/without really name calling.
And then, we all run to the blog and say, "I can't believe he called us that!" It's just a common theme that runs through the academic dialogue. I've learned to kind of get over it and realize it's just what it is.
Jason
:o)
I'm a little creeped out by all the gun imagery dude.
Note to self: don't ever disagree with Nick, don't ever disagree with Nick, don't ever disagree with Nick!
LOL
In the update:
"(2) He gets rightly frustrating at lumping diverse folks into one camp and label, especially when that label is "Emergent."
(3) He makes no distinctions whatsoever in this blurb--it's just one group, the "neo-Reformed."
(4) He is right that such a group exists--folks who tend to return to tradition more than Scripture and functionally elevate the former above the latter."
Wait a minute. This doesn't seem right.
McKnight gets to be rightly frustrated when people are lumped into the label "Emergent", but yet he gets a pass for making no distinctions when he labels some unspecified group as "neo-reformed"?
And isn't it right to notice that such a group as Emerg*** exists--folks who tend to return to secular culture more than Scripture and functionally elevate the former above the latter.?
Jason,
That's because JT's example was satire. He took McKnight's blurb and changed it to prove a point.
Thanks,
Didn't catch the satire. I don't know if that proves my point or makes me an idiot.
I have still seen a lot of name-calling without name calling go on in the academic dialogue.
Jason
Jason,
Piper was highly irenic towards Wright. I suspect Wright will be the same way towards Piper. I saw an interview where he noted Piper's book. He wasn't necessarily complimentary of John, but he certainly was civil.
It's the followers of these men who tend to get nasty (oh crap, that's me and you).
Christopher,
Realizing I have posted WAY too much already, I must ask: are you sure that criticism is valid of Wright?
I haven't seen him engage in the shoddy rhetoric common in the major Emergent authors. McClaren, Jones, and Bell are masters at attacking strawmen, but I have not found this tendency in Wright.
I think I saw Piper said something like (but not exactly) "well, I don't think Tom Wright's going to hell, he's just wrong."
That's pretty funny!
Irenic - : favoring, conducive to, or operating toward peace, moderation, or conciliation
Irenic might not be the best description for how all these folks relate to one another.
They think they are right! God bless'em. I mean they have a calling. They feel like God has revealed something worthy of publication to them, and so they go for it.
But taking one stance against another is a part of the job description. It is what it is. Piper and Wright are not going to miraculously wake up tomorrow and say, "oh my gosh, their right, i must recant."
I'm just saying, I'm actually okay with that. It used to get under my craw, but the further away I get from the debate (i.e. seminary), the less the name calling bothers me.
"McClaren, Jones, and Bell are masters at attacking strawmen, but I have not found this tendency in Wright."
Well, it may not be a tendency in Wright, per se, but he does do so.
Look at this old "Between Two Worlds" post.
And look at what Adrian Warnock has to say about NT Wright's critique:
"sadly Wright is by no means finished . . . I will just give you some of the headlines. You may want to go and read the whole post yourself.
“. . . hopelessly sub-biblical.”
“My heart sinks when I read what the great contemporary heroes of conservative Christianity have said inside the front cover.”
“. . . it seems to me that it is the authors of this book who are not paying proper attention to Scripture itself.”
“I have this unhappy sense that a large swathe of contemporary evangelicalism has (accidentally and unintentionally, of course) stopped its ears to the Bible, and hence to the God of the Bible, and is determinedly pursuing a course dictated by evangelical tradition rather than by Scripture itself.”
"There is no evidence that [Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach] have actually listened to what other people are saying."
It is striking and sad that Wright is so scathing about a book that has ten pages of endorsements by some of the greatest teachers of the Church."
I think the best reaction to either side of the debate is exegetical discussion with the key texts. So far in the blog comments none of that has been put forward, but I expect some to be discussed in Wright's book as was also discussed in Piper's.
Luke,
Is there a biblical text you would like to discuss? Considering the blog comments are regarding McKnight's blurb, such a lack of biblical exegesis would be expected.
We have not been discussing the merits of Piper or Wright's particular positions on justification, but rather the wording of McKnight's blurb.
Josh,
Thanks for keeping me honest. Pick up your copy of "What St. Paul Really Said" and you'll find this quote on pages 40 & 41:
"The word 'gospel' and the phrase 'the gospel' have come to denote, especially in certain circles within the church, something that in older theology would be called an ordo salutis, and order of salvation."
I'm don't want to comment about what Wright is arguing for in this passage, but I that little phrase, "especially in certain circles within the church," is the type of thing I find over and over in his writing. It really bothers me. I could swim through this and all the other books of his on my shelf and document this more thoroughly, but I'm not a student anymore and I find I don't have time.
I will say this, it wouldn't surprise me at all if McKnight didn't actually just pick up the label 'neo-Reformed' directly from Wright's manuscript. I'm not saying he did, but it really isn't that far from how Wright himself writes.
Thanks again for keeping me honest.
Dr. Bird has said that McKnight "is not pointing the finger at anyone in particular. He means an ethos of rabidly defending the Reformers without looking at the Bible in its context."
McKnight's blurb says that the "irony" of Neo-Reformed zealots being "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text" is "palpable on every page" of Wright's book.
Unless every page of Wright's book is responding only to the ethos McKnight is addressing, and not to anyone in particular, wouldn't the irony that is "palpable on every page" apply to those particular people cited by Wright on those particular pages?
On the subject of who is seeking the endorsements, I get the impression that Wright is about as hands-off as can be imagined with this - largely due to his schedule. He's complained multiple times about how his book "Scripture and the Authority of God" got named "The Last Word" in the American version - implying that he found out about it a good deal after the fact (he said imagine claiming to write "the last word" on a book on scripture!) It seems pretty clear that he's often not involved in decisions like blurbs and titles and such - all of these are handled by the publisher.
"In fairness to the good bishop, he has made the claim that the church took a wrong turning on justification from the time of Augustine. That places the neo-Reformed, Reformed, RCs and Eastern Orthodox, and all their traditional interpretations on the wrong track."
This would only be true if the areas where Wright disagrees with Augustine are areas where the entire church agrees with Augustine. It's like saying that, because I don't believe unbaptized infants necessarily go to Hell, that this places the neo-Reformed, Reformed, RCs and Eastern Orthodox, and all their traditional interpretations on the wrong track.
Dan,
I'm grateful for your response and clarification. I should have quotated the entire sentence of your blurb to give it context. Still I have to ask:
1. Why mention Roman Catholicism at all if the connections are only partial? I ask that because there are two varieties of ad hominem argumentation: aggressive and circumstantial. I get the feeling that your reference to Roman Catholicism appealed to the special circumstances of your implied audience who would abhor a connection with Roman Catholicism of any kind.
2. Exactly where is Wright similar in some respects to Roman Catholicism? He does not share their view of grace as substance, their ecclesiology, their view of the sacraments, or their view of merit and reward. I know a bit about RC theology (pre- and post-Vatican II), but I'm at a loss how he can likened to them except in the most vague and general sense.
Now if you want to make reference to his view of works and the final judgment in relation to RC views of final justification (which I'm guessing at) then I can appreciate where you're coming from, but even then there are major tectonic differences between Wright and Trent and Wright shares more in common with the magisterial reformers like Zwingli and Bucer on that topic.
3. Could you say that the works of Calvin, Piper, Schreiner, Seifrid, Bock, and others are "in some respects, hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome"? You can find analogies anywhere if pushed.
BTW, outstanding lecture at ETS. It was one of the conference highlights for me!
This post has been removed by the author.
Wonders for Oyarsa,
I think that the point where Wright suggests that Augustine went wrong actually is a position shared among the "neo-Reformed, Reformed, RCs and Eastern Orthodox." If I have read him rightly, his objection is that all of these groups understand the referent of "righteousness" language in Paul's letters to be something other than covenantal status or covenant faithfulness. He follows McGrath's suggestion (from McGrath's history of the doctrine of justification) that "righteousness" language came to be understood as referring to general moral activity/obedience to God in all of the major traditions due to the word used to translate dikaiosune (Greek for "righteousness") in Latin. I could be wrong, but I think that each of the groups you named does understand "righteousness" in such a manner. Thus, I'm not sure that your concern about the fairness of his grouping together of the major traditions is warranted. Of course, this does not mean that his proposal is inherently correct (that must be judged on other grounds), but he ought not to be criticized where he has done no wrong.
Andrew
This is totally cool. Hey Mike, I received two of your books for Christmas! Hooray. Everyone! Read A Bird's Eye View of Paul. It rocks hard....boo ya...
This post has been removed by the author.
As a young pastor the current state of evangelicalism is most depressing.
I look forward to reading Wright's response. I hope he explains what exactly he thinks 2 Cor. 5:21 means.
Wright's interpretation of that passage make's me go "Ewwwwww." I still love him though!
Fair enough, Andrew - though the original comment was a bit broader than that. Saying "the church has gotten justification wrong since Augustine" seems to be attributing a great deal more to Wright than he himself says.
Stephen Ley,
If you want to know what Wright thinks about 2 Corinthians 5:21, you need not wait for the new book. There is a pdf article about that verse on his website; see http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_Righteousness.pdf
Andrew
Wonders for Oyarsa,
That's what Wright himself says. I'll post the exact wording tomorrow if you like.
(2) He gets rightly frustrating at lumping diverse folks into one camp and label, especially when that label is "Emergent."
I thought Kevin DeYoung told us definitively that it was OK (and even fitting and proper) to lump all "emergents" together. ;-)
Mike, you have me at a disadvantage: I'm at LAX right now, on my way to Australia to photograph some NT MSS there. (Yes, there are some in Australia!) I don't have my books in front of me and I hesitate to make a more specific comparison between Wright's take on the NPP and Roman Catholic soteriology without looking at the details of his writings (although I will make a fool of myself anyway and do that very thing!). I'm afraid that I'll be traveling all over the world from now through July or August, though with a couple of weeks at home during that time. But by the time I get back, this discussion will have died down.
However, I would like to address a couple of questions your way (keep in mind that I won't even get to look at email for another 30 hours, and I rather doubt that I'll want to after such a long 'day'):
1. Are you saying that I used an ad hominem argument? You seemed to assume so because you said that there were two kinds of ad hominem, as though that's the only category that my description of Wright could belong to. Isn't that like saying, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
2. Any detailed comments on your point 2 will have to wait until I get back to my books, but I would say that my critique of Wright was in the general discussion of soteriology, and more specifically on justification by faith alone. Are you saying that Wright would hold to that? If so, I'm relieved but also confused, because I have not read Wright that way. At least, he's not as clear on this as one would like him to be. Now, if he doesn't embrace justification by faith alone, then what does he embrace? It seems to me that the only viable alternative is that his views would have to move closer to the Roman Catholic view of things. But I am happy to be corrected on this point.
3. Yes, I could indeed say that "the works of Calvin, Piper, Schreiner, Seifrid, Bock, and others are "in some respects, hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome." I could add "Wallace" to that list too! But none of these with reference to soteriology. And since Piper's book was about soteriology, it seems to me that my endorsement would have to be read in that light. So, your comment seems to broaden the context more than what I obviously meant, as did your original comment which left out my 'in some respects.'
Thanks for the encouraging note on my plenary address.
"hereticometre"!!!
That's great, Dr. Bird. Did you make that up? Can I use it?
Neo-Reformers?
See:
"Hall of Contemporary Reformers" over at Monergism.com?
T4G?
Desiring God?
Not picking a fight, but isn't Between Two Worlds pretty reformed?
Resurgence?
CT's frontpage focus on the new reformed?
A book called Young Restless and Reformed?
Ref21 blogspot?
Team Pyro?
Timmy Brister?
More? Of course, but I digress. I like Caneday's prescription:
"If the shoe fits, should we not wear it? If the shoe doesn't seem to fit but pinches, don't put it on to wear it. Leave it for someone else for whom it may better fit."
72 responses? Hot button issue or what? With the likes of Bird and Wallace to boot? Wow.
Remember the Pace Picant commercials? What'd you say? New York City? Get a rope.
What'd you say? N.T. Wright is reformed? Get a rope.
grace and peace,
Kelly Bridenstine (not Tridentine)
Not that anyone cares what this "neo-Reformer" thinks but I have to agree with Dan Wallace on his second and third point.
We are not post-modern Michael Bird! We cannot simply say, 'Well, I agree with some things and disagree with others," without actually outlining what it is we agree with and what it is we disagree with.
I also have to note that Paul was less than gracious--according to your definition of grace--when he told the Judaizers that he wished they would circumcise themselves. Was Paul gracious when he says, at the beginning of the epistle to the Galatians, that whoever preached a different Jesus should be cursed to the deepest part of hell? I am a bit confused by your arguments.
Wallace is also correct when he says that Wright teaches something other than "justification by faith alone" as understood by the Reformers. Isn't this the case, at least as it occurs in Wright's 2003 Rutherford House address and in "What Saint Paul Really Said?" Wright is highly critical of the Reformers on their understanding of Paul's doctrine of justification.
Lets not play semantic games. N.T. Wright has redefined the doctrine of justification. If a man is not justified by faith alone, apart from anything he does, what does that mean? It means he is justified by something he brings to the table, even if N.T. Wright says its all by grace. It doesn't matter how eloquent or self-contradictory Wright may be, his writings speak for themselves. Why not side with him completely like most proponents of the NPP.
Had I not stumbled across the work of McLaren and of Wright some 25 months ago, I would not be a Christian today.
God bless both men.
Dr. Wallace (“Dan Wallace” above, for any who might not know whom I am addressing),
I apologize for offering comments on a question addressed to Dr. Bird, but I would like to try to say something about your point #2. I would like to do this because I think that it expresses the heart of the issue where Wright is most misunderstood by American Evangelicals, especially Reformed groups.
Your claim, as I understand it, is that Wright’s understanding of justification by faith results in his soteriology being closer to that of Rome than that of the Reformation. I would guess that you assert this because of three points: 1) Wright denies that it is proper to speak of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (although he seems to think that the same substance is covered by his concept of union with Christ); 2) Wright strongly affirms a final justification based on Spirit-inspired works; 3) Wright claims that present justification by faith is an anticipation of that final verdict. Thus, putting these strands together in a certain way, one might claim that Wright reduces present justification to an affirmation of one’s future justification by works, which is not too far from Catholic soteriology.
There are, however, major problems with this final formulation and conclusion: it does not take sufficient account of Wright’s understanding of the trial to which justification is the verdict and his consequent understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language in Paul. The two points go hand in hand. Wright does not think that the trial to which justification is the verdict is one asking questions about a person’s moral record in order to determine if one has the appropriate moral credentials to be redeemed by God. He rejects the notion that justification is a verdict about one’s moral status which determines whether or not one has fulfilled (or had fulfilled on their behalf) the obedience requisite for salvation. Determining whether or not God will save a person is not the point of the trial in Wright’s view. As he asserts in a number of his works, justification is not about soteriology.
Instead, Wright claims that justification is about ecclesiology. What he means by this is that he thinks the trial is asking the question, “Are you a member of the people of God?” The declaration of justification, in Wright’s view, does not cause one to be a member of God’s people; it declares which people are already covenant members. Thus, since the trial is not about soteriology, the basis for the verdict is not the basis of one’s salvation; it is the evidence that one is already saved and a member of God’s covenant people.
The way this works out, Wright claims, is that justification can occur in the present on the basis of faith alone. That is because faith is the first and definitive symptom of being brought into the family of God’s people by the Spirit. Also, because the Spirit continues with the believer throughout life, inspiring good works, it is these that are looked to on the last day as evidence that one is truly a participant in God’s covenant. They are, for Wright as for Piper, the evidence that one truly is a believer (although Wright is happier saying “a covenant member”).
Once one grasps Wright’s understanding of the trial, his understanding of “righteousness” language as referring to “the status of covenant membership” makes a great deal of sense. This language, according to Wright, is not used to describe the state of one’s moral bank account, but rather to describe whether or not one is related to God through the covenant. Thus, he would not claim that the believer’s works are the obedience by which one is made right with God, and he would not think it appropriate to refer to a believer’s works in the final judgment as “righteousness.” He would rather claim that these good deeds are the evidence that one has already been made right with God. “Righteousness,” on the other hand, is the status one possesses as a member of God’s people.
With this in mind, I think that Dr. Bird objects to your lumping Wright in with Trent because those who make this move are typically misreading Wright’s formulation of justification as if he understood the trial and “righteousness” language in a more traditional manner. Since he does not, his claims about the basis of justification (present or future) say nothing about what he would claim is the basis of salvation. Discussions about justification, however, have served as a smokescreen preventing people from listening to his actual statements about soteriology. On salvation, for example, he states (commenting on Ephesians 2), “We aren't saved BY good works but we are saved FOR good works -- for the rich, wise, mature human life which reflects God's glory into the world” (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/nicholas_t_wright/2007/06/start_by_understanding_salvati.html). In the end, Wright attaches no more salvific value to works than any American Evangelical. His statements about justification are not intended to be read as soteriology. It is this misreading that has caused him so much trouble with the Reformed camp. I am fairly confident that even if he were well understood, he would nonetheless be vehemently disagreed with, but I don’t think that he would be accused of Catholic soteriology. Hopefully he will clear this up in the new book. I’m looking forward to reading it.
G'day Dan,
I am deeply envious of your trip to Australia, although I do not envy the 15 hours of flying that you'll have to do in order to get there! If I had known you were going I could have lined you up with some colleges that would love to host you (maybe you already have them planned).
1. Keep in mind that I wrote an endorsement of Piper's book too which I stand by. I think he catches Wright on some points and the book has several commendable features. And though many will think me schizophrenic, I also endorsed Wright's new book for similar reasons. I thought your blurb had a bit of rhetorical bite that was not particularly kind to Wright. (Of course some will say the same of my good friend Scot McKnight!).
2. On Wright and Rome we may have to agree to disagree. But let me point out: (i) there is often a tacit assumption than there is a single and monolithic Reformed view of justification which is simply not true. While WCF and Calvin won the day for the most part, there was a diversity of opinion among the magisterial reformers about how justification relates to regeneration, imputation, works, and faith, etc. (ii) Wright clearly thinks of justification as forensic (as Mark Seifrid and Guy Waters acknowledge). It is conceptually impossible to hold to a forensic view of justification and a Tridentine conception of justificaton (any more than one could simultaneously hold to the Textus Receptus theory and CBGM). In other words, Wright's views are a variation on themes indebted to the Reformers and he maintains a view that is irreconcilible with Catholic tradition. Let me say also that Calvin and Trent are not the only two games playing in town in regards to the Christian tradition!
If you get a chance to read this once you are in Australia feel free to contact me re: looking for places to visit or perhaps finding some colleges that might like to host you for a day or too (though it is perhaps a bit late to change itineraries). Make sure you also try vegemite on toast for breakfast, put it on real thick just like peanut butter!
You may have the last word!
The above post from Andrew Cowan states well my own understanding of Wright. I don't agree with Wright on many points, but I think much of the confusion surrounding his soteriology arises from the fact that he doesn't use the main soteriological terms (justification, righteousness) in the classic Reformed sense. He frequently states what he means by such terms, but I've found that many from the Reformed side have a hard time reading him in light of his own definitions. I think Piper did this some in his response to Wright, (though not terribly).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home