The Road less Traveled

Justification Debate

Piper and NT Wright are to big wigs in theology and they had a disagreement i few years ago. After reading them I want to comment on the main point of their disagreement. I realize I am like three years late on this debate , I feel like a guy going to the prom for the first time at age 23, always the thinker never the theologian.. ho hum..


First we will look at some things this debate is not. It is not a liberal vs. conservative debate, both men are far from Bultmannian in their thinking. They agree on many things, like “Theo-centrality of everything”, “God’s passion for his glory” are ideas central to the thinking of both men. Further, they agree on personal acquisition of salvation by individuals, along on things like the importance of church covenant, and the second coming, they all matter to both men.

Between them there seems to be some confusion over what the other believes.

There are some cultural differences like the way Wright Implying Piper is man centered, Wright could not be more wrong and a bit silly. But I am sure that Tom was just going on cultural assumptions about American’s doing theology. To understand Piper’s thought on justification as a doctrine that just answers the question am I righteous enough for God? It is clear he has not read much of piper. His works such as “Let the nations be glad” speak to the big picture of justification.

The debate circles around two points of contention the first is the defining of righteousness and role of Christ’s Obednace. The other is answering the question “what is reckoned to the believer in justification?”

For Wright the righteousness of God’ mean, essentially, ‘God’s covenant faithfulness’, For Piper it is ‘God’s commitment to act in accordance with his character and glory’. Piper understands the righteousness of God as ultimately grounded in God’s commitment to uphold his glory. (See first chapter of “Let the nations be glad” for a good explanation) Wright sees righteousness as God’s commitment to keep his promises in line with the covenant to Abraham. The shorthand way of understanding Wright’s view is God’s righteousness = God’s ‘covenant faithfulness’.

The two men give different answers to the question, “what is reckoned to the believer in justification?” Piper says the death, resurrection and righteousness of Jesus and Wright says just the death and resurrection of Jesus. In short, Wright does not believe in imputation. Now before you gather a lynch mob to go heretic hunting. Wright does affirm part of Jesus’ mission was to offer the obedience Israel could not, and that union with Jesus means we have what he has, and that a positional righteousness is given to all who belong to Jesus. (“Justification” pages 83, 82, 180) This is not far from Piper’s description of imputed righteousness.

Why does Wright drop imputation from his definition of justification? Wright understands imputed righteousness to be a confusion of categories. It only answers the question. “Am I righteous enough for God?” (Pipers) Without answering what he thinks is the question Paul was dealing with in teaching justification “am I a Christian? And am I a part of the church?” So he drops it from justification as not part of Paul’s thinking on the matter.

A clear difference in Wright and Piper is the role of Christ’s obedience plays in justification. Wright sees it as obedience of the cross and resurrection but not obedience to the law. As for Piper obedience covers Jesus’ entire life. I think Piper wins this one for Jesus did the Father’s will moment by moment, all you need do is read the gospel of john (not john piper but john the dude who hung with THE BIG DUDE JESUS). Further, Romans 5:10 says,” For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” A life lived fully in the moral will of God, it is not law keeping but life rhythms, worldview vision, and the love pull of heaven; you know the stuff “faith” is made of!! (yes my two cents, below is a little more change for ya)

Let me begin (to end) with some Rhetorical questions:

If Jesus has perfectly obeyed the Father’s will, and if what is true of him is true of us because we are united with him … don’t we receive his righteousness? And the answer is YES!

Don’t we have his obedience, faithfulness and righteousness, and death and resurrection, given to us on the basis of faith? … Wait for it.. bam.. YES!

the unsaid elephant in the room

The real issue is not as much their differences in justification significant as they are? Three real debate is over prolegomena and perspectives the men bring with them. It is a debate as old as Methuselah and as circular as, “who came first the chicken or the egg?” I am speaking of systematic theology vs. Biblical theology. In academic circles, the two schools are often at odds over who is better, that is first.

One theologian has defined biblical theology as "that discipline which sets forth the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting. Biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipline. It is not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology. Biblical theology has the task of expounding the theology found in the Bible in its own historical setting, and its own terms, categories, and thought forms. It is the obvious intent of the Bible to tell a story about God and his acts in history for humanity’s salvation." (1)

In academic theology today you can get an education in one camp and never realize the dynamic interaction the two forms give each other. A biblical studies department (biblical theology) focus’ on the text’s meaning and exegesis with proper hermeneutics this includes reading the text in light of its historical setting to get at the authors intent. The stress on historic clarity is paramount. Its definitions are often textual and flatly within the text. A Systematic theology department seeks to teach a set of doctrines and formulate and articulate a comprehensive worldview. They often begin from a creed or confession or Christian idea that is off the page but formulated by scripture. In the case of Wright vs. Piper we have a hung jury (lol – little justification joke). Behind each man is a different school of theology, biblical (Wright) - Systematic (piper). There definitions of righteousness clearly show this to be true. Piper begins with God’s nature (a systematic concept) and Wright dogmatically holds to the text (more precisely, the covenant narrative). The difference in starting points makes all the difference and as the logic plays out the implication grow till imputation is a footnote of medieval anxiety.

You could say one wants to read their Bible's historically and “the others” (yes it is a ‘LOST’ reference) wants to read the Bible theologically but that is a little simplistic a summary of both. If your still a little fuzzy, here is a dose of “DA” CLARITY. D. A. Carson writes on the distinction between systematic and biblical theology so you can get a better idea:

“Although both are text based, the ordering principles of the former are topical, logical, hierarchical, and as synchronic as possible; the ordering principles of the latter trace out the history of redemption, and are (ideally) profoundly inductive, comparative and as diachronic as possible. Systematic theology seeks to rearticulate what the Bible says in self-conscious engagement with (including confrontation with) the culture; biblical theology, though it cannot escape cultural influences, aims to be first and foremost inductive and descriptive, earning its normative power by the credibility of its results. Thus systematic theology tends to be a little further removed from the biblical text than does biblical theology, but a little closer to cultural engagement. Biblical theology tends to seek out the rationality and communicative genius of each literary genre; systematic theology tends to integrate the diverse rationalities in its pursuit of a large-scale, worldview-forming synthesis. In this sense, systematic theology tends to be a culminating discipline; biblical theology, though it is a worthy end in itself, tends to be a bridge discipline.” (2) (3)

Imagine if you will, two men stand before a ordination committee they are both asked one question? What is your authority for faith and practices? One answers “my authority is Scripture and I am willing to affirm a Confession in so far as it coheres and comports with Scripture, as I see it". The other responds “my authority is Scripture as understood by the Confession (insert denomination of choice)". Both men are ordained. Both go on to fruitful ministry. But this is not a comedy it is a tragedy, for after a season of fruitfulness both end up walking off the narrow way. One in the Wright ditch and to the opposite side, in a ditch deep and dogmatic. Both blindly following and forgetting a needed remedy. The first one to the Wright said “ as I see it.” He had forgotten the gravity and trepidation of saying something new and the humility of second guessing ideas in light of opposition. Such remembrance can go a long way in keeping you in the way. The other? Although oh so dogmatic he is neck deep in dirt. Yet even in the ditch he still treats his Creed and Confession like a Mishnah of the Rabbis or a Magisterium hot from Roman. All narrow roads have two dangers, two ditches - we all need humble orthodoxy. (4)

In no way, should this be a denouement of either man. I think both men are brilliant theologians. Yet I do believe there is a little something to learn about Moral formation. Israel was known for fighting among itself during peace time but when there was an enemy from without it battled as one army. In theology there is a difference between reordering categories and heresy. The new perspective on Paul (Wrights’ Camp) plays at this line but I believe (among the more faithful branch is within orthodoxy).


Sinners like me and you have a tendency to draw lines where there is no line. We make enemies out of sparing partners, much like the tribes of Israel. We must remember our identity comes from who we believe in not the tribe we follow. We are Jesus people first and foremost. Pride is like a virus it gets in everything especially a desire for the truth. So protect yourself, know your place and the dynamics of theology in all its dimensions or know pride and the ditches it leads people too.

Balance is the holding of two valid extremes

 
End Notes
________________________________________________
 
1.) George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, revised ed. (Eerdmans, 1993), p. 20.


2.) Systematic theology and biblical theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, p. 102-103)

3.) For futher study on the dynamic interaction of systimatic ans biblical theology see, http://www.upper-register.com/papers/bt_st.html
 
4.) In case you missed it the story gets at the pride that infects both dogmatic conviction and deep independant thought.