Add Bookmark
Let me say some things on the tone of ‘The Future of Justification’. First of all, it is not an easy read. While it is only 190 pages long, Piper d... (show more)
Let me say some things on the tone of ‘The Future of Justification’. First of all, it is not an easy read. While it is only 190 pages long, Piper does not take much time to explain terms and concepts. He uses Greek frequently. Bottom line is, if you aren’t up with the play or haven’t read any Wright, this is going to be tough going. Piper’s writing style can tend towards being quite stiff and technical, too. In that regard, N.T. Wright’s response, ‘Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision’ (of which I’ve only read the introduction so far) is an easier read on a more popular level.
One thing which was a pleasant surprise to me was the consistent respectfulness that Piper employed. He is very clear: he doesn’t think Wright is under the curse Paul talks of in Galatians 1, for those who preach a different gospel. He is very thankful for Wright’s work in a number of areas. He is thankful that Wright affirms substitutionary atonement. His problem is more one of emphasis. Piper believes that evangelism and preaching that grows out of Wright’s telling of justification will be disempowered. To use an illustration, instant coffee is still coffee, but it’s not fresh ground espresso. This even-handedness was encouraging to me, and took some of the sting out of what can be a heated debate. As Piper says, ‘The final judgement feels too close for me to care much about scoring points in debate.’
This – and this is something that truly surprised me – seems to contrast somewhat with Wright’s book, complete as it is with endorsements about how Wright has, ‘Out-Reformed America’s newest religious zealots’, and Wrights own, what I can only call patronising, illustration about a man who thinks the sun revolves around the earth and cannot grasp modern scientific knowledge. Piper, he says, ‘Hasn’t listened to what I am saying.’
But, I will get to that in my review of Wright’s book, when I finish it.
A Few Good Points
I’ll be honest: certain chapters of Piper’s book grabbed me, and others were a chore. But, there were still many great light-bulb moments. I’ll mention a few…
Piper writes about N.T. Wright’s use of language, particularly when it can sound like he is promoting works-based justification. On Wright’s provocative statements that the gospel is not an account of how people get saved, Piper says, “But be careful. Perhaps he only means that salvation results from believing the gospel, not that the gospel message tells us how to get saved. Perhaps.”
And then later, commenting on how Wright’s views on justification can seem confusing, “I do not see his vision as a compelling retelling of what Saint Paul really said. And I think, as it stands now, it will bring great confusion to the church at a point where she desperately needs clarity… If I read the situation correctly, the confusion is owing to the ambiguities of Wright’s own expressions.”
On how, if justification is not about how one is saved, the announcement that Jesus is King, and Israel’s Messiah is a terrifying one, “One wonders how the death and resurrection of Jesus could be heard as good news is one has spent his life committing treason against the risen King. It seems as though one would have to be told how the death and resurrection of Christ actually saves sinners, if sinners are to hear them as good news and not as a death sentence.”
There are plenty of other quotes I liked, but this is already a monster of a post.
Particularly, I thought Piper did a good job in highlighting the implications of Wright’s view that Christians had “got off on the wrong foot” in their thinking of justification, certainly “since Augustine.” That’s 1600 years, people.
And finally, I’ve posted before about how I am sometimes surprised at the confidence with which some people talk about what the “first century Jews believed”. Wright argues that the first century Jews were not works-righteousness people, and so Paul (in letters like Galatians), wasn’t so much writing against people who thought they could earn their salvation, but rather people who saw their Jewishness as a sort of “badge” of God’s grace. That has big implications for the doctrine of justification through grace, by faith alone, if it is true. But, I thought Piper convincingly showed that the historical assumptions Wright makes are being challenged, and are not incredibly solid. He also provides much biblical evidence. It left me with the question, “Should we really damn 1600 years of church history for this?”.
Some Final Thoughts
I found this book helpful. I’m now reading Wright’s response. I’m going to do my best to give it a fair go. I enjoy Wright, particularly on eschatology. His work on the resurrection is roundly praised.
However, at this stage I agree with Piper that his views on justification, while not outright heresy, will certainly result in a disempowered preaching and evangelism. I know that is not a popular thought; in fact, in New Zealand I’d be guessing it is a very small minority who would find John Piper helpful in anything at all. He certainly has his weaknesses. In some regards I think he relies a bit too much on his tradition, and this can play into Wright’s hands because Wright is such a fantastic exegete in general.
I do wish this book had been written by a Bill Hybells or a Rick Warren; someone respected across the board, who might get more of a hearing. Because, while I do wish anyone who was buying into Wright’s views on justification would read Piper’s book, I’m not sure it will change many minds. Perhaps I’m just cynical. But, it would be a bit like expecting that a Brian McLaren book was going to make me enthusiastic about Emergent Village. It’s not going to happen.
Still, at the end of the day, it wasn’t reading Piper that changed my mind on justification. It was reading Galatians and 1 Corinthians, and later Romans.
So I’d recommend this book to anyone with a decent grasp on the issues at stake. I think it’s particularly useful as a preacher. And I look forward to reviewing N.T. Wright’s response in the near future. (show less)
