N.T. 'n Me on Piper: Worship, Big Pictures and Geocentricity
"It is one of the great laws of spirituality that you become like what you worship."This is one of N.T. Wright's favorite sayings. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say I worship Bishop Wright, well, you'll soon see where I'm gong with this.
So I got my pirate copy of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision from Amazon UK a few days back. The book is to be released in the U.S. this May, but I'm not one to blindly play along with international/corporate power plays.
For those unaware of the background story, John Piper wrote a book, released in late 2007, called The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. It purported to be a defense of the Reformed view of the Doctrine of Justification against the "New Perspective" being espoused by Wright and his brethren.
"Justification" is Wright's response to that book.
I don't have a precise definition of "worship." But I would assume it has something to do with purposely fixing one's being to align itself with the ways of the thing/person being worshiped.
Like I said, I don't worship N.T. Wright. But after accidentally stumbling across one of his books, within a few years I had devoured pretty much everything the good Bishop had written. I wrote a book in which I re-placed my story within the global theological/biblical narrative that Wright illuminated. I try to take every opportunity to evangelize Wright's vision to my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I was not altogether surprised, therefore, when I broke open "Justification" and began poring through Chapter 1.
During the fledgling first months of this blog, back in late 2007, I posted a piece or two on Piper's book, not as much reviews as overarching thoughts. If you're interested, they're here, here, here and here. In one of the pieces, I said this:
"[Y]ou simply cannot appreciate Wright's conclusions unless you go through the entire process of how he arrives at them, from his eschatological "big picture" on down, if you will. Before I've even gotten through Piper's Introduction, I can clearly tell that he hasn't grasped this "big picture," that it is so far removed from his tradition of understanding the gospel as being about "God and me," or "How individual sinners get saved," that he doesn't even recognize Wright's vision...
In some ways, I guess, I'm glad for Piper's book, because it seems to be highlighting the fundamental, category-level misunderstandings of the modern western Church, misunderstandings that Wright has been trying to point out and remedy for the last few decades. But I fear that, unless his readers are familiar with Wright's work, they will gloss over those category mistakes and get swept up in an act of kicking the shadow's ass."
So, like said, I was not altogether surprised when I cracked open Chapter 1 of "Justification," which begins with the following parable:
"Imagine a friend coming to stay who, through some accident of education, had never been told that the earth goes round the sun. As part of a happy evening's conversation, you take it upon yourself to explain how the planetary system works. Yes, from where we stand it does of course seem that the sun circles around us. But this is merely the effect of our perspective. All we now know about astronomy confirms that the earth on which we live, in company with a few other similar planets, is in fact revolving around the sun. You get out books, charts and diagrams, and even rearrange objects on the coffee table to make the point. Your friend alternates between incredulity, fascination, momentary alarm, and puzzlement. Eventually you smile, have another drink, and head for bed.
Very early in the morning, while it is still dark, there is a tap at the bedroom door. He is up and dressed and invites you to come for an early walk. He takes you up the hill to a point where the whole countryside is spread out before you, and, as the sky begins to lighten up, you can just see, far
For those who haven't yet caught the point, he goes on...
"I have been writing about St. Paul now, on and off, for thirty-five years. I have prayed, preached and lectured my way through his letters. I have written popular-level commentaries on all of them, a full-length commentary on his most important one, and several other books and articles, at various levels, on particular Pauline topics. And the problem is not that people disagree with me. That is what one expects and wants. Let's have the discussion!
...But my problem is that that's not how things are working out. I have thought about writing this book for some time, but have finally been prodded into doing it because one of my critics -- John Piper -- has gone one better than the rest and devoted an entire book to explaining why I'm wrong about Paul, and why we should stick with the tried and trusted theology of the Reformers and their successors.
...And the problem is not that he, like many others, is disagreeing with me. The problem is that he hasn't really listened to what I'm saying. He has watched with growing alarm as I moved the pieces around the coffee table. It has given him a sleepless night. And now he has led me up the hill to show me the glorious sight of another sunrise.
...My friend has simply not allowed the main things I have been trying to say to get anywhere near his conscious mind. He has picked off bits of my analysis and argument, worried away at them, shaken his head, and gone back to the all-powerful story he already knew.
...The theological equivalent of supposing that the earth goes round the sun is the belief that the whole of Christian truth is all about me and my salvation...
Now, do not misunderstand me...Salvation is hugely important...
But we are not the center of the universe. God is not circling around us....We are in orbit around God and His purposes."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
...And I think I feel a bald-spot coming on.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Thanks for posting this, I'm at a pretty similer point when it comes to your feelings on Wright. I eat up everything he writes and he has dramatically influenced my faith, in a very positive way I believe.
The quotes and commentary you give here resonated with how I felt reading Pipers book when it came out, that he was missing the big picture moves, and so on the smaller details he was arguing past what Wright actaully is getting at.
Did Wright really write, "fart off to the east?" If so...no way I would take that early morning walk with that guy.
Hope things are going well!
By His Grace,
Daniel
Oops. Freudian slip, I guess.
Thanks, buddy.
I can't tell you how many times I've had that same conversation with so many people.
For people like Piper, who have staked their claim on Calvin's view, turning away (dare I say repent) is impossible.
like you, i tend to read wright's books all the way through and i dont seem to underline anything - more a stream of thinking than key points. its worth reading this one to the end for the carson/piper critiques on the last few pages that are sharper than usual.
I just wanted to say that I do enjoy N.T. Wright in many area's but the New Perspective on Paul is simply, in its most rudimentary form, unbiblical. I stand by Pipers cause to create a better awareness of the true teachings of Justification and righteousness. I simply cannot and will not stomache the idea that any righteousness whatsoever comes from me because of me.
I do appreciate N.T. Wright very much on a great many points and he has influenced my spiritual life, however, that doesnt mean he's perfect and I do believe that he has gotten this horribly wrong.
I say this through a heart of love and respect with honesty.
God Bless!
I appreciate your thoughts, Eric. Just one thing, though. Where do hear Wright suggesting that righteousness "comes from me because of me"?
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Raffi,
Somehow I stumbled across your blog and I found your comments dead on.
I read Piper's book along with Wright's Paul and What Saint Paul really said last fall. Throughout Piper's book I kept thinking, "He just doesn't get it. He doesn't even have the framework to process Wright, as Wright isn't reformed." Also, I was shocked how a smart guy like Piper would take Wright completely out of context.
If you enjoy reading takes on Paul and justification read Gathercole's Where is Boasting or Campbell's The Quest for Paul's Gospel. Gathercole is a mediating position between Wright and Piper, while Campbell is thought-provoking but probably ultimately wrong.
Jonathan,
Thanks for stumbling by. Hope you stick around.
Thanks also for the book recommendations; I hadn't heard of either; I'll try to pick them up.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
For a long time I had a growing suspicion that the 'imputed righteousness' view didn't give a satisfactory account for the fullness of the biblical explanation of the problem. I went to Bible college knowing there was something that I was missing, that most of us were missing. I felt reluctant to think this as I don't ascribe to 'esoteric' knowledge out there for a special few. But, my observation of significant anomalies in the classic modern view of Jesus, the atonement, etc forced me to ask hard questions. To give others the place from where I started I will mention some of these questions and most readers, no doubt will see my point.
1) Why does the OT never really talk about Heaven, or going there when you die? (Interestingly, the book of ACTS never mentions anything like going to Heaven)
2) If Hell is so terrible as to be the absolute thing to be avoided, then why doesn't the OT even mention 'Hell'?
3)If Jesus had to die to satisfy God's demand for justice, then rising from the dead undoes this, surely? That is, if our eternal punishment for turning away from God is justice, then Jesus should have received the same - to be just. He didn't.
There are other's but that's a taste. My searching for logical answers led me to see that a big part of the problem is that the modern world view is completely at odds with the OT Hebrew way of thinking. As with most world-views, they operate largely at a sub-conscious level that never get questioned. This, in my opinion, is why most people find it hard to understand NT Wright. He systematically goes about trying to correct misunderstandings about perspectives, and frameworks that the NT fits in.
This is making increasing sense to me as I read more of NT Wright and re-reading the NT (many times). I find myself saying, "That fits so much better".
When the reformers went about 're-aligning' theology they did so, not from an unbiased position, they did so on the back of two big movements. Firstly, the implementation of Roman Jurisprudence throughout all of Europe (Just look up wikipedia). Secondly, on the back of the Renaissance. The renaissance (1300s onwards)was the rediscovery of the old Greek classics (Aristotle, Socrates, etc). Medieval Europe was largely illiterate until this time and so had no capacity to carry the Hebrew world view through to the reformation period.
There is overlap with concepts, and this is where the problems begin. But enough of that.
I had a passion for a lot of John Piper's writings (and still do), Desiring God, Future Grace, etc. However, without likewise worshipping the creation rather than the creator, NT Wright has helped my joy to increase manifold in Christ.