|
Burk Parsons is the editor of Tabletalk, and he wrote a very brief introduction explaining why the magazine was tackling the subject of N.T. Wright at all. In that intro, he included a quote from John Piper designed to put all the critical assessment in context. That comment is worth quoting in full.
"Nicholas Thomas Wright is an English scholar and the Anglican bishop of Durham, England. He is a remarkable blend of weighty academic scholarship, ecclesiastical leadership, popular Christian advocacy, musical talent, and family commitment. As critical as the articles in this magazine are of Wright's understanding of the gospel and justification, the seriousness and scope of the issue is a testimony to the stature of his scholarship and the extent of his influence. I am thankful for his strong commitment to the authority of Scripture, his defense of the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ; his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct; and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God's universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham -- and more. My conviction concerning Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1, but that his portrayal of the gospel -- and of justification in particular -- is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful. In my judgment, what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners, or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God."
I agree with every word of this, and am happy to add my amen to it. But to leave it there is not quite enough.
Piper rightly mentioned the fact that Wright emphasizes "the big picture of God's universal purpose for all peoples." This is quite right, and unlike many of Wright's critics, Piper appreciates this emphasis of Wright's. I appreciate it too, and want to add one thing more. This emphasis of Wright's is a key aspect of the gospel. "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Gal. 3:8).
Put this another way. Wright understands the gospel rightly in ways that a number of the contributors to Tabletalk do not. Not only do some not understand it, some actively fight and oppose this aspect of the gospel. True, Wright has gummed up the gospel in some respects, making it blurry at the individual level. But others make it blurry for the nations, and we are living in a time when those nations are going to Hell -- aided and abetted by detached conservative evangelicals, who at least know how an individual sinner is put right with God. How a nation is put right with God they haven't a clue.
In North America, evangelical Christianity has been the predominant form of the faith, and has been for several centuries. During this time, our nation has walked away from Jesus Christ, and has been teaching the world to do the same. The false gospel of secularism is a false gospel. This happened on our watch., not on Wright's. Piper rightly cautions Wright about what certain blurry spots in his gospel will lead to. I agree with that. But the blurry spots in the gospel of contempory evangelicalism is not something that will lead to bad consequences, but is rather something that has led to them. We are neck deep in them.
Theologians divde up eschatology and soteriology, but at the end of the day it is all gospel and all Christ -- the Christ who died for Smith is the same Christ who, with His blood, purchased every nation under heaven.
Wright is like the contractor slinging around the rough cut lumber, laying out the plans of a really big house. He can really slap up a wall, but I don't want him doing the cabinets. But some of the theological miniaturists who criticize him think that the Church is supposed to live in a cabinet. A really little cabinet.
|
