In the 1970's, Bishop Wright (who is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England), was reading a commentary by C.E.P. Cranfield on Romans and was having trouble reconciling what Paul was saying (positively) about the Law in Romans with what Paul was saying about the Law (negatively) in Galatians. His conclusion was that something was wrong with his understanding of Paul's terminology and/or of Paul's perspective. He experimented with the idea of redefining terms a little and found a formulation which made sense to him. In this formulation, he redefined the term "justification" to mean "the forensic declaration by God that a person is a member of the covenant community". And he came to the conclusion that one of Paul's principal aims in Romans is to clarify the proper use of the Law in the context of a covenant community which included both ethnic Jews and Gentiles.
Over the years, he borrowed heavily (but eclectically) from the writings of people like E.P. Sanders and other proponents of the "New Perspective on Paul") in supporting his reinterpretation. His views are expressed in multiple books and articles, which can be found referenced at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/ and at http://www.ntwrightonline.com/.
Bishop Wright's ideas have caused a good bit of discomfort, especially to those Protestants of the Reformed persuasion. The particular aspects which have probably caused the most controversy are:
(1) The assertion that people are justified (according to Wright's definition above, not according to the classical definition) on the basis of the whole life they have lived. Some have understood this as saying that the basis for God's forensic (the term forensic means someone's -- in this case God's -- courtroom declaration that something is so) declaration of membership in the covenant community is whether one has evidenced one's faith by performing works of righteousness - and this appears to violate the Reformation principle of sola fide.
(2) The assertion that the Greek phrase dikaiosoune theou (the righteousness of God) refers solely to God's faithfulness and that it is not a quantity to be imputed to the people in the covenant.
In 2007, Dr. Piper responded to Bishop Wright in his book The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright, asserting that Wright's view of justification is an unjustified (pardon the pun) deviation from historical orthodoxy. Just this year, Bishop Wright published his response in a new book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.
I've just begun to consider the debate carefully -- and I plan to make updates here as I have further thoughts. But my my early sense is that Dr. Piper is correct to be highly concerned about some of the statements and emphases of Bishop Wright. I also do believe that some of Dr. Piper's concerns are a little overdone and exaggerate the differences between their points of view.
To be sure, I find N.T. Wright's definition of "the righteousness of God" as articulated in "On Becoming the Righteousness of God" to be highly idiosyncratic and unsupportable, which weakens that particular point as a pillar for Wright's central contention that Paul views salvation primarily through the lens of membership in the covenant community of the children of Abraham.
But I do also think that Bishop Wright is onto something with the centrality of the Jew/Gentile question in the thinking of Paul. I also applaud Bishop Wright for considering honestly how to reconcile those passages in Paul that seem to deal with final judgment on the basis of works with those which say that we are justified by grace through faith -- although I hasten to say that I'm not fully convinced by those of his arguments that I have seen.
However, the most important issue that I will be trying to clarify is Bishop Wright's view of the basis of God's forensic declaration of justification. I think that the only bases for God's declaration of someone as a member of the covenant community are his sovereign choice and the satisfactory propitiation of the death of Jesus; and that the evidence that someone is a member of the covenant community is faith which shows itself in obedience to God.
In short, if Wright is saying (and at this point I'm not sure he is) that good works are the basis of God's declaration instead of the fruit of God's declaration then I believe he's in serious error. But I'll have a better sense of it after I more fully evaluate what he's written.
I look forward to hearing your points of view.
Hi Tim:
ReplyDeleteI have read some on this in the past and my conclusion was that Wright was heading in the direction of Rome. He is very good at speaking in a way that does not allow him to be pinned down too easily, I think that is why so many postmoderns like his stuff.
I will be interested to see your thoughts on this.
I have never had an issue trying to reconcile the passages about works and salvation as scripture makes them purposefully hard to separate as one, works, flows out of the other, faith.
I am preaching through Genesis and have just finished Chapter 17 where God clarifies the covenant with Abraham. In doing this God gives obligations such as in verse 1 of walking before Him and being blameless. While theses obligations are real the passages is worded in such a way as to make the covenant assured so that the walking of Abraham and the act of God are hard to separate. But we know that the works are not what keeps the covenant as God continually reminds Abraham that it is He that keeps the covenant. Then in the section on circumcision God makes it hard to differentiate between the sign, circumcision, and the covenant itself. Thus for Abraham the covenant and circumcision were not to be separated. I think this idea translates to the New Covenant in that it is often hard to differentiate between the signs of belief, such as works and baptism, and the covenant itself since one naturally flows out of the other.
I hope that was vaguely clear, as the reason it is hard to differentiate between a sign of faith and faith itself is because they are so intimately intertwined and cannot be separated. So I have no need to try and reconcile passages about works and salvation since works are a natural flow out of salvific faith. I also think this is why many such as Calvin and others did not seem to struggle, from what I have read, with what Wright seems to struggle with.
Again I look forward to your thoughts on this and other subjects.
Hi Tony --
ReplyDeleteAlthough Bishop Wright writes well, I too have found him at times a little hard to understand. For the moment I've left open the possibility that the reason I'm having trouble understanding him is only that he is not using definitions and categories with which I am familiar, and that when I become familiar with his that I'll find him intelligible and clear. But I acknowledge the possibility that I'll not be able to find a coherent conceptual framework underlying his writing.
Your reading of Genesis 17 is consistent with how I see the nature of God's covenant-making and covenant-keeping.
And lastly, I also agree that making a division between true faith and obedience is very difficult in that obedience comes from faith.
Thanks for your comment. I'll post more as I read and think about it more.