(This is a response to the previous post regarding yesterday’s panel discussion at SBTS concerning Wright’s views of justification.)
This week the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary held a faculty panel discussion about Bishop N. T. Wright’s views on the doctrine of justification. The panel featured Denny Burk, Tom Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, and Brian Vickers, with President Al Mohler moderating.
After watching the almost hour long video I have come to a few conclusions regarding not only the panel, but the New/Old Perspective debate in general.
First, concerning the panel discussion, I will always think it to be unfair for any academic institution to not have direct dialogue with someone who can carefully articulate the opponents view, that person being the opponent or someone who holds to a similar view. However, I can understand that many times this is impossible. That being said, while SBTS did not have Wright come to the discussion, I am understanding to reasons why.
Second, I have been blessed by a friendship with Denny Burk. He taught me New Testament Survey at Criswell College and shared several intimate conversations about my sin, frustrations in ministry, and times of blessing in my Christian life. Also, Tom Schreiner (probably the most prolific biblical scholar at SBTS) has unknowingly been influential in my biblical interpretation through his works on Romans (BECNT), his Pauline theology, and his New Testament theology. I haven’t engaged Seifrid’s or Vickers’ major texts, but have read some journal articles they have published.
Third, I thought the panel asked honest questions that need to be answered by Wright and those who advocate the NPP. The panel is thinking in a primarily pastoral way (which is not lacking in Wright, but is fleshed out in a different direction), which I think should be commended.
Fourth, and my most important objection to the form of the discussion, the panel does not engage Wright on any text (with maybe the exception of Dr. Seifrid on Galatians 2 and Dr. Burk on 2 Cor 5.21) but only engages him on a Reformational level. Burk says as much: “This [Wright's view on justification] is not what our traditional has held.” Seifrid makes my point for me, saying that we can no longer engage Wright on a traditional level but that “someone is going to have to engage Wright on the Bible itself.” This is really the heart of the matter for me. Opponents of the NPP, including Guy Waters andJohn Piper (definitely not as much as Waters), have continued to draw their conclusions from Reformed doctrinal tradition, even if they engage in texts.
The differences in the SBTS faculty and Dr. Wright are fundamental. SBTS is known for being a solidly systematic-theological school. It seems that exegetical theology will always be submissive to a Reformed systematic theology. This is why these men (and others like them, i.e. Gerald Bray) throw up the traditional red flag everytime something within the reformational framework is questioned. ‘Why shouldn’t you believe in the doctrine of justification as articulated by Wright and others like him?’ you might ask. ‘Because it steps outside our doctrinal tradition’ would be their reply. It is rare to hear someone from the Neo-Reformed community engage questions on a purely exegetical level. This is the best explanation to the reason why in an entire hour of discussion on Wright, not one time was their a serious exegetical discussion. Instead, nearly 20 minutes was dedicated to the systematic doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer.
In closing, if someone is going to genuinely take on Wright in a public, academic forum like this, they will have to follow Dr. Seifrid’s advice and engage him on an exclusively textual level. Let’s put aside the theo-babble, open our Greek text and have good-hearted, passionate, edifying discussion. If this doesn’t happen we’ll still only be speaking into the air.
News came from Zondervan yesterday that they will be stopping production of the TNIV (Today’s New International Version), my translation of choice. But, that’s not all; they also announced that in doing so they will be making revisions to the overwhelmingly popular NIV (New International Version) in order “to refresh the text by going back to the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew and translate God’s unchanging word using today’s most contemporary English.”
Along with the announcement came a sort of apology for the production of the TNIV. Moe Girkins, president of Zondervan, called the TNIV “divisive” and claiming the responsibility to “undo the damage” the TNIV has caused. The aim now is to revise the 1984 updated version of the NIV and publish the 2011 version (NIVBible2011.com).
This affects me, personally, as I have just become comfortable with the TNIV in my daily bible reading and scholarly work (the TNIV is the only version to translate Mark 1.41 correctly). I do, however, have faith in the Committee on Bible Translation that they will produce an even better version than the TNIV.
The bad news today is that the division between egalitarians and complementarians will be even more deep. With the praise of Zondervan’s apology from the likes of Ligon Duncan, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, I’m sure the egalitarian blood will begin to boil and we won’t be rid of controversy, but will see more to come.
I just finished reading N. T. Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. It is a must read for anyone who is studying either the book of Romans or Paul’s letters in general. I have been entrenched in this debate in my reading time over the last year or two. Last year I read several books and even more articles trying to figure out my view on the New Perspective on Paul. As I waded through some, definitely not all, of the material published recently in books and scholarly journals, I came across John Piper’s book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. I read through it shortly after I read Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said and was convinced of neither side’s views. I struggled with Wright’s redefinition of diakaisyne theou and also struggled with the Reformed doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
It wasn’t until I listened to a set of three lectures delivered by Wright at Calvin College in January 2003 that things began to click. (You can find the lectures here.) Wright took Romans 1-11 and divided it into three sections and lectured for an hour over each part and then took questions over the material. It was the most informative time I had spent in regard to my study of the New Perspective. The pieces of the narrative framework began to take shape.
Fastfoward to August 2009 when I read Justification. This book has reinforced the key features of Paul’s letters. It’s not only about “how I am justified,” but seeing Paul’s theology in light of the bigger picture of Israel’s history and its climax in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
The point of this post is that no matter what the critics may say, give Wright a chance. Justification will show that Wright is right on justification.
