I'm not sure that I plan on making the doctrine of justification a long-term focal point for theological study, but for now I'm glad to be interacting with the current debates. Having just finished Wright's new book, Justification, I'm impressed by certain of its features and find myself wanting more clarification and adjustments with respect to others.
A Few Positive Features:
1) Wright aims to move beyond the old/new perspective divide and incorporate insights of both camps; this he does with Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians.
2) He notes that some of the new perspectivists, in their eagerness to underscore Jew-Gentile dynamics in Paul's writings, have run the risk of downplaying viable Reformation commitments (p. 196).
3) He remains to the last a big picture thinker, constantly reminding readers of the scope of God's plans.
A Few Hang-Ups:
1) Wright certainly respects the Christian tradition, but sometimes one still gets the sense that, to him, those who disagree with his views do so only because their commitment to tradition renders them resistant to a fresh reading of Scripture. I don't believe he intends for this to be an easy way to win an argument, but it may sound that way to those who uphold a more traditional perspective on Paul for traditional and, more importantly, exegetical reasons.
2) While Wright's work rightly keeps in view the big picture of redemptive history, Justification can give the impression that his is the only exegetical tack committed to this.
3) Wright spends plenty of time upholding the covenantal contours of "righteousness" languge, but I'm still convinced by Deut. 6:25 (and Simon Gathercole) that when we receive a righteous status from God it is a matter of being counted as one who has done what God requires of people (not least in the covenant treaty), not merely one who just is a member of his people.
4) This last "hang-up" actually has to do with a blurb on the back cover recommending the book. Scot McKnight unfortunately calls some of the "old" perspective adherents "religious zealots." In my view, that is uncharitable and, at the risk of sounding uncharitable myself, a cheapshot. I'm not interested in following along with everything John Piper or others have to say, but the fact remains that the comment is out of place.
Any thoughts?
I appreciate your take on comment #4 under 'hang ups.' I like a lot of what McKnight has to say, but you were not uncharitable in calling him to task in his 'cheapshotting.'
ReplyDelete