Kevin Vanhoozer on Tom Wright

When I get the chance I'd like to listen to the rest of this lecture on What Paul Might Say Back to Tom on Justification given at Wheaton College, from the perspective of a systematic theologian. HT: Revd Dr Michael Jensen.

Dr Vanhoozer encourages peace talks between New Perspectives and Protestants. The legacy of the Reformation is at stake: is the Reformation something we must recover or something that we must recover from? Wright claims to be upholding the Reformation, of course.

John Piper on Doug Wilson (& N T Wright)

Here is John Piper on You Tube responding to a question about whether so-called The Federal Vision is "Another Gospel". Although he is concerned about some of the trajectory of Doug Wilson's theology and critical of some of his circle, Piper says very emphatically that Wilson does not teach a False Gospel or heresy. Wilson is careful and very bright, wrong on many things in the kind of ways you’d expect a Presbyterian [or peudobaptist] to be wrong. The Federal Vision is very complicated. It legitimately stresses some objective aspects of the covenant in a way that any Reformed person might want to do - there are objective sides to church membership that give real privileges. Don’t write Doug Wilson off very easily.

Piper also mentions that he does not think Wright preaches a false gospel, though he thinks he preaches a very confused gospel.

When is a "church" not a church?

I think we can say that The Episcopal "Church" (TEC, American anglicans) - or rather, denomination, as a denomination - is no longer a church. There may be churches among them, and Christians in those churches, but it seems to me that when a denomination deliberately, repeatedly and publicly declared its intention to blesses gross sin, disregarding the Word of God and the gospel it is no longer a church.

Rt Revd Tom Wright argues in the Times Online that the TEC has deliberately formalised schism, torn the Communion and walked apart. To my mind they can no longer be seen as authentically Anglican. Wright talks a lot of sense in that article, though I think he is wrong about the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Even if Anglicanism is already a confessional fellowship, it is no bad thing in such circumstances to have another confessing fellowship that fellowships more closely and confesses more loudly and soundly on the matters in dispute.

The New Perspective on Paul

Some of the comments I made below regarding the so-called Federal Vision (FV) could equally be made about the so-called New Perspective on Paul (NPP) with which FV has sometimes been associated.

We must distinguish between E. P. Sanders, Jimmy Dunn, Tom Wright and others, and them and FVers.

I hold firmly to, preach and regularly defend the Reformation and post-Reformation "sola"s of salvation in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone, to the glory of God alone and to sola Scriptura, but I think there are things to learn from NPP, not least a more corporate understanding of salvation.

Go for the corporate and you get the individual thrown in. Stick with the individual and you may never get the corporate.

We may also distinguish:

(1) What Paul meant

(2) What Luther said

And debate whether or not (2) necessarily follows from (1). I think it does! But Luther was not Paul.

There is some value in trying the read Paul as a Jew against the background of Second Temple Judaism with reference to Inter-testamental and 1st Century literarture. But in so doing, no one need sell out on the Reformation, go over to Rome or give up on the gospel.

New Moses, Better Jonah

Tom Wright points out that John 6 is all about the Exodus. Jesus provides manna in the desert. He is the New Moses (v14; cf. Dt 18:15) leading his people across the river to the promised land in vv16-25 (John For Everyone).

The incident of Jesus walking on the water is also something of the opposite of Jonah story. They throw Jonah overboard and the storm ends; they take Jesus into the boat and the storm ends. Jesus is the Greater Jonah, God’s obedient messenger.

The Meaning of the Resurrection of the Son of God

In his 800 page The Resurrection of the Son of God (London, SPCK, 2003), N. T. Wright concludes that for the New Testament writers, the resurrection of the Son of God means that he is the Messiah, the Lord of the World and God the Son.

(1) Messiah

“The first level of a ‘son of god’ understanding of Jesus’ resurrection can therefore be summarized as follows. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. In him, the creator’s covenant plan, to deal with sin and death that has so radically infected his world, has reached its long-awaited and decisive fulfilment.” (p728)

(2) Lord

“This then is the second level of meaning. The resurrection constitutes Jesus as the world’s true sovereign, the ‘son of god’ who claims absolute allegiance from everyone and everything within creation. He is the start of the creator’s new world: its pilot project, indeed its pilot.” (p731)

(3) God

“… the fact that this Jesus had been raised by this god… drew from the early Christians the breathtaking belief that Jesus was the ‘son of god’, the unique ‘Son’ of this God, as opposed to any other… … he was the personal embodiment and revelation of the one true god.” (p731)

“The resurrection … declares that Jesus really is God’s Son… in the sense that he is the one in whom the living God, Israel’s God, has become personally present in the world, has become one of the human creatures that were made from the beginning in the image of the same God.” (p733)

“… this resurrection [of this ‘son of God’] … was the public announcement, by the one true God, that this Jesus really was, and had always been, his son in this full, self-revealing, self-embodying sense.” (p734)

Rt Revd Dr N T Wright

It was great to be with Bishop Tom at Oak Hill College last week. He preached an excellent sermon in the packed-out chapel on “If they will not believe Moses and the Prophets they will not believe even though someone rise from the dead” from the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke. I’d be delighted to be able to preach like that. The sermon was clear, faithful and well applied. The saying was placed in the context of Luke and of a Biblical worldview and understanding of the history of salvation. Not sure Dr Wright and I would agree on what Fair Trade and ecology should look like but that is a questionable quibble about half a sentence. The sermon was wonderfully world affirming and showed a full orbed understanding of God saving individuals from his judgement but also transforming communities and putting the whole world to rights. We were called to get on board with what God is doing, and invited to help out in the Diocese of Durham, I think.

Dr Wright then gave a lecture on an overview of a few thoughts on Acts. His new book, Acts For Everyone, may or may not be ready for Christmas stockings. Surprised by Hope, on eschatology and something or other (ethics, was it?) sounds good.

In his lecture, Wright could have been James Jordan! Paul’s Shipwreck is his cross but he is saved through it. He expects to be justified / vindicated before Caesar.

The Purpose of Acts

Wright tentatively suggested that Acts was prepared for Paul’s trial before the Emperor. Wright said this was something of an old theory. Though I wrote an essay on the purpose of Luke-Acts in 1999, that was partly a new view on me, I think. Certainly others say that Acts is an apologia to the Romans or a defence of Paul, but Wright’s theory seems nicely to explain the very specific cliff-hanger ending and give the document a realistic situation in life. I don’t remember reading that it was prepared particularly for Paul’s trial before the Emperor, but I’m probably mistaken. Much of the material might seem pretty irrelevant to the Emperor.

Obviously Luke-Acts has other bigger purposes too and seeing Luke-Acts as a literary whole might be one problem for an exclusive form of this theory since Luke’s gospel preface suggests another (not necessarily unrelated) aim.

How Do They Do It?

A. Mictchell Hunter said of Calvin: “Like Augustine, he wrote more than another can well read.” (The Teaching of Calvin, p3, cited in Reid).

And one could add others: Tom Wright, perhaps.

What is more remarkable is that its good stuff that people wanted to publish and keep in print.

The Spurgeon (and in part, of course, Augustine, Calvin and Wright) way, preaching it and then publishing it, is certainly one way to do it.

Blogging obviously doesn’t count!

Wright on Chalke & Pierced (updated links)

The Rt Revd Dr N. T. Wright’s The Cross and the Caricatures: a response to Robert Jenson, Jeffrey John, and a new volume entitled Pierced for Our Transgressions (Eastertide, 2007), on the Fulcrum website, seems to me extremely ill-judged in its comments on PfOT.

I sympathise with Revd John Richardson’s reflections.

There seems to be a very charitable reading of Revd Steve Chalke’s position in Wright’s article and a lumping together of Drs Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach with a lot of other bad stuff Wright has come across.

It seems from Wright’s discussion that The Lost Message of Jesus wasn’t as “clear” as Wright’s initial endorsement suggested. However, from Chalke’s subsequent writings and from the Evangelical Alliance symposium at London School of Theology, it seemed clear to me that Chalke was repudiating any doctrine of penal substitution, not just a caricature of it.

If Steve Chalke really believes in (the well-defined, carefully stated, classic, orthodox, biblical doctrine of) Penal Substitution, why doesn’t he just say so in print in clear unambiguous terms?

I have heard Tom Wright complain that people often criticize him for what he is not saying, which is exactly what he does to J, O and S.

Some of Wright’s discussion has the feel of “I wouldn’t have written the book this way and their book should be more like my books (like Chalke’s is).”

Pierced for Our Transgressions is already a long book and criticisms which suggest that it should amount to a commentary on Romans, Galatians and the Gospels, or which treat it as if it claimed to be a comprehensive statement of everything one might want to say about Jesus, the gospel or even the cross are obviously unfair.

It is patronising and, I’m sure just plain wrong, to say that “the authors have scarcely begun to grasp” the foundational fact that “the cross means what it means as the climax of the entire story of Jesus – and that the story of Jesus means what it means as the climax of the entire narrative to which the gospels offer themselves as the climactic and decisive moment, namely, the story of Israel from Abraham to Jesus… , and thus the story of Israel seen as the divine answer to the problem of Adam.” – an account which I’m sure J O and S would endorse.

I’m sad to say I thought that Wright fell into what he laments: “political labelling and dismissal of people on the basis of either flimsy evidence or ‘guilt by association’” in his characterization of “the new right-wing (so-called ‘conservative’) evangelicals.”

Links:

Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach's reponse to Tom Wright seems spot on to me.

See also comments by Revd Dr David Field, Revd Matthew Mason, Ros Clarke, Revd Doug Wilson.

Let’s pray for love and unity in the truth, repentance where it is due and the confounding of error.

New Creation in John

N.T. Wright suggests some new creation motifs in John’s gospel:

The opening words, “In the beginning…”, echo Genesis 1:1.

The 7 signs in John might correspond to the 7 days in creation.

The climax of John’s signs and the days of creation is focus on a man: Adam and Christ. Pilate’s words encourage us to “Behold the man!” (John 19:5). Mary is not so wrong when she mistakes the New Adam for the gardener (John 20:15).

As God’s work of creation was completed (Genesis 2:1-3), so “it is finished” on the cross (John 19:30).

The rivers of living water that flow out of the hearts of those who believe in Jesus (John 7:38) recall the rivers that flow out of Eden (Genesis 2:10-14)

As God breathed the spirit of life into man, so Jesus breathes his Spirit onto the disciples (John 20:21).

Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (London, SPCK, 1994) p32f

Frame on Wright on Scripture

John Frame’s Review of N. T. Wright, The Last Word (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005) [US; = UK: Scripture and the Authority of God] is available online.

Here are some of my favourate bits and the guts of John Frame's evaluation, which seems fair enough to me. Frame's review ammounts to a devistating critique if this is Wright's statement on the authority of the Bible, though of course Wright has rightly pointed out that one could always be criticised for not saying everything. As I may have said before, if Wright said on p1, "I total 'yes' to infallibility and inerrancy and all that and..." conservatives would find it much easier to hear him. And I guess libos would not...

Frame says:

The book is full of insight, but there are many questions that it omits—questions many readers will consider important.

those who are wrestling with issues like inerrancy and infallibility will find it [this book] unsatisfying. Wright may hope that his approach will keep people from raising these issues, but I think that hope is unrealistic.

The idea that Scripture “points away from itself” reminds us of the theologies of Barth and Brunner. For their followers, this implies that we should look at the Bible only as a human text, erring as humans do. But inerrantists also believe that Scripture “points away:” to the God who saves and who speaks to us the word of Scripture. This is to say that the metaphor of “pointing away from itself” is a truism that theologians of very different views appeal to.

He [Wright] poses the question: “Which is the bottom line: “proving the Bible to be true” (often with the effect of saying, “so we can go on thinking what we’ve always thought”), or taking it so seriously that we allow it to tell us things we’d never heard before and didn’t particularly want to hear? (95)”. This question challenges the complacent Christian, but it does pose an apples/oranges alternative. Cannot we take an interest in proving the Bible true without curbing its freedom to challenge us?

By way of evaluation: So far as I am aware, there is no statement in the book that I simply disagree with. And the book contains some excellent insights about Scripture, on its kingdom context, the canon, and Scripture’s relations with tradition, reason, and experience. Wright also has valuable things to say here about biblical interpretation: on how the New Testament fulfills the Old, and on what a “literal” interpretation ought to mean.

But there is a major problem of omission. If one is to deal seriously with the “Bible wars,” even somehow to transcend them, one must ask whether and how inspiration affects the text of Scripture. Wright defines inspiration by saying that “by his Spirit God guided the very different writers and editors, so that the books they produced were the books God intended his people to have” (37). But the same can be said about the books in my library: that God moved writers, editors, publishers, et al., so that the books in my library are the ones God wants me to have. Nevertheless, there are some horrible books in my library (which I keep for various good reasons). So it is important to ask whether inspiration is simply divine providence, or whether it carries God’s endorsement. Is God, in any sense, the author of inspired books?

Wright doesn’t discuss this question, but Scripture itself does. The Decalogue was the writing of God’s finger (Ex. 31:18). The prophets identified the source of their preaching by the phrase “thus says the Lord.” Jesus attributes David’s words to the Spirit (Matt. 22:43). Paul says that the Old Testament Scriptures were God-breathed, i.e., spoken by God (2 Tim. 3:16). And Paul connects this God-breathed quality with the authority of Scripture, indicating that biblical authority is not only the authority of divine power, but also of divine speech.

Or look at it this way: “Word of God” in Scripture, is not merely “a strange personal presence, creating, judging, healing, recreating” (38).” It is all of these things, but it is also, obviously, divine speech (as Wright himself recognizes on 34). When God creates, for example, he creates by speech, by commanding the world to exist. Prophecy and Scripture are “word of God,” not only in their power, but also as speech and language: not only power, but also meaning.

Wright is right to say that God’s word, and specifically Scripture, is more than doctrines and commands. But if inspiration confers divine authorship, and if God’s word is true speech, then it becomes very important, within the context of the kingdom narrative, to believe God’s doctrines and to obey God’s commands. Indeed, as Wright notes, the very nature of narrative poses the question of whether the events described “really happened:” that is, what should we believe about them, and how should we act in response. But then narrative itself implies doctrines to be believed and commandments to obey.

That is what the Bible wars are about. One can believe everything Wright says about the narrative context of biblical authority and still ask responsibly whether the words of Scripture are God’s words to us. Wright’s book does not speak helpfully to this question, nor does it succeed (if this was Wright’s purpose) in persuading us not to ask it…. The Last Word does not discuss what is most relevant to the controversy. It proposes a context, but a context is not enough. Two people who accept Wright’s proposal may nevertheless differ radically on the question of whether the Bible is the word of God.

Many of us would like to get away from the debates of the liberal/fundamentalist controversy. But if Scripture is God’s very word, then we cannot be indifferent to its doctrinal and ethical authority, or silent against attacks on that authority. Wright has done some great work in defending the truth of Scripture, and it is evident in the present volume that he has scant regard for the scholarship of enlightenment skeptics like those of the Jesus Seminar. So he has himself entered into the Bible wars. But are these wars merely contests to see who is the better scholar, or is the word of God itself at issue? If the latter, much more must be said and done.