Michael Horton on N. T. Wright on Justification

For folks interested in the debates about justification, two parts of Horton's critical analysis of Wright are available online here and here. Alongside these two soundings, Horton delivers some perceptive chapters on the topic in his book Covenant and Salvation.

Gerald Bray on Wright's Latest

Theologian Gerald Bray makes some jarring criticisms of Wright's Justification. See http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_123_2_Editorial.pdf and do post any thoughts if you've read the book.

N. T. Wright Writes on the Ordination of Those in Favor of Homosexuality

Visit http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece.

Reading for the Justification Debates

I've blogged a few times on the debates about the "new perspective on Paul," debates which have some bearing on our understanding of salvation in Christ. Strictly speaking, I'm inclined to think of the doctrine of the Trinity as the doctrine by which the church stands or falls, but Luther was right to devote considerable attention to the doctrine of justification. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but here are some key resources:

Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei. A standard work on the history of the doctrine.

James Dunn's The New Perspective on Paul. A compilation of essays written by the author as well as a new introductory essay.

N. T. Wright's What St. Paul Really Said. A good introduction to the author's reframing of Pauline soteriology.

Wright's Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Further work building on the previous volume.

Wright's Justification: God's Plan, Paul's Vision. A current analysis of the debates and an updating of Wright's exposition of Paul's doctrine of justification.

Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul. A thorough account of historic and recent perspectives on Paul along with the author's own response to the new perspectivists.

Simon Gathercole's Where Is Boasting? An analysis of Second Temple Judaism's understanding of justification, divine judgment, good works, and so on, combined with an exposition of Romans 1-5 centered around the theme of "boasting" as it relates to justification and the new perspective.

Michael Bird's The Saving Righteousness of God. An balanced evaluation of the debates. Packed with insightful commentary.

Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier (eds.) Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates. Various essays on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, historical perspectives, and so on.

Bruce McCormack (ed.) Justification in Perpsective. Various essays on historical perspectives, dogmatic challenges, and the new perspective.

D. A. Carson, Peter O'Brien, Mark Seifrid (eds.) Justification and Variegated Nomism, 2 vols. For the more ambitious, a large and crucial collection of essays unpacking the soteriologies of Second Temple Judaism and the apostle Paul. Designed to respond to the new perspective's rendition of Paul's doctrine of justification.

If I may lay my cards on the table, Westerholm, Gathercole, and Bird have been most persuasive for me when it comes to critically assessing the new perspective, acknowledging its insights, and addressing its problematic features.

Theological Commitment, Eclecticism, and the Soft Ecumenism of Denver Seminary

A recent blog post by R. Scott Clark of Westminster (see http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/gentle-rebuke-brother-john/) has prodded me to reflect on the ethos of Denver Seminary as a theological school that welcomes students of various traditions and denominations, urges students to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, promotes a measure of tolerance within the bounds of the NAE statement of faith, and encourages respectful discussion (probably more than "debate") among faculty and students of differing ecclesiastical viewpoints.

Clark's post ("A Gentle Rebuke to Brother John") expresses concern about John Piper's affirmation of Doug Wilson, who is set to speak at the Desiring God conference this year. Wilson's name has been affiliated with Federal Vision theology, which, Clark relates, has been repudiated by Reformed leadership on the whole. Because Piper believes Wilson doesn't preach "another gospel" (see Gal. 1:6), Clark's post considers the question of what, in Paul's theology, constitutes another gospel. In short, he concludes that both Federal Vision theology and the new perspective on Paul have earned the label heteron euangelion. In the course of these musings, Clark avers that it is unwise to allow Piper to speak on behalf of the Reformed tradition (particularly with respect to the theology of Wilson) because, despite being at the heart of the publicity of the "new Calvinism," Piper is a Baptist and thus can't genuinely bear the moniker "Reformed." In addition, in some of the responses to the post, the interaction is critical of the cut-and-paste spirit of some evangelical theology (I don't recall specific examples, but, say, holding a Reformed view of the perseverance of saints while holding a Wesleyan view of sanctification).

The gears have been turning in my mind and I find myself feeling a bit torn. I appreciate the insistence on reaching ecclesial-theological conclusions within denominational leadership structures. I'm also in agreement that at certain points N. T. Wright's work on justification is muddy and (dare I be so blunt?!) incorrect. I think we need people who will straightforwardly address any shortcomings in his work, but I wouldn't say that he advocates a heterdox gospel.

More interesting to me are the questions all of this highlights concerning the theological posture of evangelicalism in general and my own theological school, Denver Seminary, in particular. What does it mean to be committed to a church tradition and one of its denominations? Does a school like Denver Seminary render someone non-committal and deprived of the breadth of a thick ecclesial-theological framework? What issues must we confront if we do imbibe some of the cut-and-paste or minimalist mentality of contemporary evangelicalism? (Cf. esp. Richard Lints' The Fabric of Theology wherein he calls out the evangelical tendency toward a theological minimalism that cares for just those doctrines deemed necessary for experiencing salvation.)

I wrestle with this concretely as someone influenced by the Reformed tradition but, for exegetical reasons, tied to post-conversion baptism. What Reformed theologians have written on the knowledge of God, theology proper, the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and a host of other issues has elicited my allegiance. Yet I'm not a paedobaptist and I prefer historic premillennialism to amillennialism. Should I consider myself Reformed or do these two items disqualify me? Should I consider myself a Baptist because of my beliefs about one or two dogmatic loci?

And what of the (occasional or epidemic, depending on whom you ask!) eclecticism and minimalism of evangelical theology? How can we balance the truth in eclecticism (all doctrine is subject to the scrutiny of Scripture and sometimes this requires adjustments to theological systems and fresh incorporation of insights from other traditions) and the importance of broad, integrative, systematic accounts of sacra doctrina within the fold of a given tradition? As far as theological minimalism goes, one Denver Seminary grad told me that when he and his friends were preparing to write and defend their doctrinal papers for MDiv oral exams some felt that they almost didn't know how to take a position on certain issues. I've heard others confess that they didn't really care to choose between, say, a Calvinistic conception of salvation and an Arminian conception of salvation. Many, however, have escaped the snares of theological apathy and been enriched in various ways by the push clearly to differentiate between essentials and non-essentials.

After a barrage of questions and little substantive reflection, a few brief thoughts:

1) Theological commitment is necessary even if (or partially because?) it often threatens our desire to appear nuanced to the point of intellectual elusiveness. Simplicistic attitudes and naive dogmatism should be confronted during the process of theological growth, but, after times of fine-tuning and/or jettisoning some old beliefs, we plant ourselves in the soil of particular exegetical conclusions and doctrinal frameworks. The significance of the truth of the gospel and the needs of people will allow for nothing less.

2) In the midst of wrestling with my sense of ecclesial identity, I've come to believe that it's a good thing to land in a particular church tradition and to be willing to live and move in one of its denominations. No church tradition is perfect, no denomination is perfect, and no local church is perfect. But we do well to situate ourselves in the richness of that strand of Christianity with which we most resonate and then move forward in our participation in the local church. For those of us (not least seminary students [me in particular!] in a strange time of life struggling to put down roots at a church) who need a reminder: the activity of the Father, Son, and Spirit in and through the local church, not the parachurch, remains the hope of the world.

3) Not only is a minimalist approach to theology impractical, it's also a hindrance to the formation of Christian minds and lives. On the impracticality, take the example of one friend in an Anglican church leading a small group whose members were conflicted about the use of tongues during prayer times. While differences on the charismata shouldn't preclude all Christian fellowship, not to know what he believed would have been painfully pastorally impractical for my friend. On the hindrance to forming Christian minds and lives, I take a cue from Matthew Levering (see his Scripture and Metaphysics) who says that theological contemplation is instrumental in the removal of idolatry and the generation of spiritual service.

4) I think we need to remind ourselves to think in concentric circles. There are some circles, or spheres, of the Christian life and Christian leadership in which (I think) we should adopt a soft ecumenism. (By "soft ecumenism" I mean a cooperative attitude inclusive of those committed to historic Christian orthodoxy, which, of course, has its various expressions.) In other spheres (e.g., whom do you want preaching at your church and influencing the people on a hotly debated doctrinal topic?) we do well to exercise more caution.

Time is fleeting, so I stop here! What do you think?

Justification and N. T. Wright Pt. 2: Thoughts on Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

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?

Justification and N. T. Wright Pt. 1

With the release of N. T. Wright's new book Justification: God's Plan, Paul's Vision, the topic of justification and the new perspective is capturing attention and making a plethora blog appearances. Having just completed a paper on the subject, I'm interested and excited to see it being explored carefully from a variety of angles.

I'd like to post some ruminations, beginning with a few comments on my appreciation of Wright's scholarship. First, his Christian Origins and the Question of God project is very ambitious and helpful in several ways. It's intriguing to me that in the first volume (The New Testament and the People of God) he spends a good amount of time and energy outlining his epistemological commitments that will undergird the content of the project. His account of critical epistemic realism vis-a-vis biblical studies is definitely worth reading. Second, his book The Last Word (the title in its American printing) is a useful piece of work on the nature and function of the Bible's authority. He contends that when we speak of the Bible's authority we are in fact speaking of the authority of God himself and then he rolls out some thought-provoking ideas centering around that thesis. Third, his commitment to Christian orthodoxy and serving the church (he serves as a bishop in the Anglican church) is very encouraging. Among other things, he has vigorously defended the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Now, as for the debates about justification in Pauline theology, I think there's a bit of a mixed bag. For this post, I'll focus on what I perceive to be one strength and one weakness. On the one hand, Wright and others have rightly prodded us to recognize the Jew-Gentile interactions and tensions that pervaded Paul's ministry and epistles. In Antioch and Galatia certain Jewish Christians were acting in such a way that Gentile Christians were pushed to behave like Jews. In the Roman context certain Jewish Christians held the presumption that their obedience to God was quite superior to that of Gentiles. Paul's teaching on human sin and justification by faith is meant to level the playing field. In the latter section of Ephesians 2 Paul carefully articulates how the action of God in Christ unites Jew and Gentile. In Philippians 3 we read about some Jews (Judaizers, I think) whose delight in Jewish distinctives posed a potential threat to the Gentile Christians in Philippi (I take the Greek verb blepete to mean "look out for" rather than just "consider").

On the other hand, the emphasis on Jew-Gentile relations can be used to downplay that Paul resists Jewish nationalism as a kind of merit theology. In other words, we need to make sure we do some integrative work. In Galatians, for example, Paul is pressed to deal with the imposition of Jewish emblems (e. g., dietary laws) on Gentile Christians but ends up rejecting this imposition precisely because it amounts to an attempt to merit acceptance with God.

In the next post, I'll talk about the underscoring of the covenant motif. But, for now, any thoughts?

Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: Six Theses

This semester I've been working on a paper dealing with justification and the new perspective on Paul under the supervision of Dr. Craig Blomberg. It's been a taxing but rewarding endeavor and, though I'm nearly finished with the paper, I sense that I've only scratched the surface. In order to guide my exploration of the topic, I developed six theses for the traditional perspective and then six theses for the new perspective that I believe sum up the emphases of both camps. (That I arrived at six theses instead of that holy number seven probably calls attention to the incompleteness of the paper.)



The Traditional Perspective

1) The Pauline teaching on justification by faith was designed to combat Jewish (or, more precisely, Jewish Christian) legalism threatening the health of early Christian churches.

2) By “works of the law,” Paul means deeds done in response to the composite of God’s moral requirements, which are embedded in the OT law and known in at least a rudimentary way by Gentiles.

3) It follows from human depravity that human beings cannot perform the works of the law and so cannot be justified by them.

4) We are justified by the grace of God in Christ, which must be received simply through faith.

5) To be justified is to be declared righteous in the sight of God, who acts as judge in the divine courtroom.

6) This act of justification is what enables one to join in the people of God.



The New Perspective

1) Paul’s teaching on justification by faith is not designed to combat Jewish legalism penetrating Christian communities. In short, the problem is not works-righteousness but lingering covenantal nomism and nationalism.

2) By “works of the law” Paul means conformity to certain commandments especially conducive to marking off the Jewish people as God’s elect.

3) While recognizing the impossibility of human beings earning salvation, the new perspectivists stress that the problem of the “works of the law” lies not in their championing human achievement. Rather, the problem lies in imposing these Jewish boundary markers on Gentile Christians, a problem borne of the Judaizers’ failure to keep in step with the flow of redemptive history.

4) As more traditional interpreters argue, human beings are justified by the grace of God in Christ, which must be received simply through faith.

5) To be justified is to be declared righteous, but this is primarily a matter of being declared a member of the covenant.

6) The event of justification is not what enables one to join the people of God; it is a declaration of which persons truly are part of the covenant people.

Any reactions to the developments represented here?