Well a quick update. Melissa and I are back in Vancouver. We traveled to KY and saw some friends, but in both our opinions, not enough. We did however spend good quality time with my parents which why of course was why we made the expensive trip. I loved being back home, and I will miss it much.
We came back to WA, and celebrated more Christmases than ever before. We first opened a couple presents before going to KY from her mom. Then we did Christmas with my family. Then we came back and did Christmas with her dad. Then her mom again. And then when her mom found a few misplaced items a couple days later, we had it one more time. I finally took down their tree, and put a stop to the insanity once and for all. I came away with some clothes from my parents, a really nice pocket knife from my brother, a couple seasons of King of the Hill and some Transformers from her mom, then some presents for both me and Melissa (Monopoly, a couple DVD's, and some cash). Oh, and a DS and a few games for trips and general fun play (courtesy her mom).
We got back to Vancouver on Sunday, and haven't really done much since. Well, except realize how much we miss America. But alas, that's life. The plan actually is for Melissa to find work in Seattle, get an apartment, and then we can move down in the summer. I can commute if need be in the fall and maybe spring if I need to. Overall she would find better, more permanent work down there that would pay her what she deserves to be paid (twice what she would be paid up here). Also Canadian employers are not as honest as we would like for them to be (you know, hiring her for a "permanent" job even though they knew they would lay her off come winter when there was not to be much work, or places offering to pay her underneath the table which of course could get us throw out of the country). So we're looking to come home to the states, and for my to just commute up here.
Besides that, we've just started Xenosaga III, hoping to end that series soon. I'm of course doing a critique of Piper's new book which will be posted here of course. Oh, and my classes for this semester are Intermediate Greek II, Acts, and 2 Corinthians. It'll be hard, but I expect it be a fun semester too.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Future of Justification: Introduction
It is pretty well known among my friends and colleagues that I am a supporter of both the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and particularly N. T. Wright's version of it. What draws my fascination is firstly the scholarship that has been poured into the New Testament texts. I am committed to the statement that 'All truth is God's truth' and therefore acknowledge that what Wright and other NPP scholars have found is indeed true in many areas of New Testament contextual and content study.
John Piper has recently published a book responding to Wright's version of the NPP. This work has been long-awaited by many North American Evangelicals. The timing is wonderful as Wright has essentially flooded academia and theological world with many articles and books describing his position. But he is not done. Wright hopes to completely cover the topic of Pauline studies in his next volume of his “Christian Origins and the People of God” series within the next few years. Piper’s response should help Wright clarify his position, and for that John Piper is to be commended. Hopefully I may engage in his critique as advantageously as he engaged Wright. And so I shall go through it over the next few posts, chapter by chapter.
Piper begins with a short section on the issue of controversy. The reason why Piper takes issue with Wright instead of other NPP positions is because "none of my parishioners has ever brought me a thick copy of a book by Dunn or Sanders, wondering what I thought about them. Wright is a popular and compelling writer as well as a rigorous scholar." (27) Piper goes on to say that disagreements about the meaning of the Bible should be handled “biblically.” (28) But Piper sees peace and unity as derivative from “hearty agreement in truth.” (30) “Truth serves love, the bond perfection… Truth sanctifies, and so yields the righteousness whose fruit is peace..” (31) Whereas Christian peace and unity is desirable, it is to be found for Piper only after truth of the Word of God has been attained.
Here I would like to offer a critique of Piper on two counts. The first is his approach to scholarship. He sees this book as a product of his “pastoral responsibilities” to his congregation. (27) But part of the responsibility for all of God’s people as a pastor is to also be a scholar. Truth is something that should unite Biblically minded pastors and scholars alike. A response to when truth is in danger should never be motivation, and instead we as Christians should be constantly driven to be apart of the scholarly conversations especially if we have the time and resources. Piper has been aware of N. T. Wright and the NPP for some time now, and a full response now seems like reaction instead of proaction. Certainly if Piper is serious now about seeking and following the “fullness of truth and beauty of God’s word,” (32) then he should also be encouraged to join in on the larger conversations within the academic world.
I also disagree with Piper about the very concept of truth that he seems to be presenting here. All truth is God’s truth. One might also add here that if something that claims to be true leads to God’s ends, then the ends then are the logical proof for the truth. If unity and peace come from the NPP, then it should be expected to be true, at least in some ways. Truth is more than agreement, which Piper alludes to here. Certainly if we all agreed with each other, there would be peace and unity. But then there is no deeper levels of truth to be explored. The one hope that we should have is that we never know all of God who is truth. As we explore truth, certainly we should expect disagreement for some time. But this disagreement is not a sign of untruth or falseness. It is instead a sign of humans constantly learning and perceiving different aspects of the same truth through different lenses.
Take for example the color of the night sky. Some might say it is black. Others might say that it is dark blue. Still others might perceive several different color combinations at work. But what unites all true humans perceptions is that the sky is first and foremost beautiful. No doubt there is truth is calling it both black, dark blue, or something else; each being different from the others. But the fullest level of truth is in the description which is not reducible to a known quality. In that regard the fullest levels of truth are always going to be personal. But because it is indeed truth, it must come from God. The question of truth here is not “what do we know it is” but rather “what is possible for it to be.” The latter opens up possibilities from God, while the former only endorses one perception of the larger truth. I believe that Piper is trying to align his position closer to the second option than the first.
John Piper has recently published a book responding to Wright's version of the NPP. This work has been long-awaited by many North American Evangelicals. The timing is wonderful as Wright has essentially flooded academia and theological world with many articles and books describing his position. But he is not done. Wright hopes to completely cover the topic of Pauline studies in his next volume of his “Christian Origins and the People of God” series within the next few years. Piper’s response should help Wright clarify his position, and for that John Piper is to be commended. Hopefully I may engage in his critique as advantageously as he engaged Wright. And so I shall go through it over the next few posts, chapter by chapter.
Piper begins with a short section on the issue of controversy. The reason why Piper takes issue with Wright instead of other NPP positions is because "none of my parishioners has ever brought me a thick copy of a book by Dunn or Sanders, wondering what I thought about them. Wright is a popular and compelling writer as well as a rigorous scholar." (27) Piper goes on to say that disagreements about the meaning of the Bible should be handled “biblically.” (28) But Piper sees peace and unity as derivative from “hearty agreement in truth.” (30) “Truth serves love, the bond perfection… Truth sanctifies, and so yields the righteousness whose fruit is peace..” (31) Whereas Christian peace and unity is desirable, it is to be found for Piper only after truth of the Word of God has been attained.
Here I would like to offer a critique of Piper on two counts. The first is his approach to scholarship. He sees this book as a product of his “pastoral responsibilities” to his congregation. (27) But part of the responsibility for all of God’s people as a pastor is to also be a scholar. Truth is something that should unite Biblically minded pastors and scholars alike. A response to when truth is in danger should never be motivation, and instead we as Christians should be constantly driven to be apart of the scholarly conversations especially if we have the time and resources. Piper has been aware of N. T. Wright and the NPP for some time now, and a full response now seems like reaction instead of proaction. Certainly if Piper is serious now about seeking and following the “fullness of truth and beauty of God’s word,” (32) then he should also be encouraged to join in on the larger conversations within the academic world.
I also disagree with Piper about the very concept of truth that he seems to be presenting here. All truth is God’s truth. One might also add here that if something that claims to be true leads to God’s ends, then the ends then are the logical proof for the truth. If unity and peace come from the NPP, then it should be expected to be true, at least in some ways. Truth is more than agreement, which Piper alludes to here. Certainly if we all agreed with each other, there would be peace and unity. But then there is no deeper levels of truth to be explored. The one hope that we should have is that we never know all of God who is truth. As we explore truth, certainly we should expect disagreement for some time. But this disagreement is not a sign of untruth or falseness. It is instead a sign of humans constantly learning and perceiving different aspects of the same truth through different lenses.
Take for example the color of the night sky. Some might say it is black. Others might say that it is dark blue. Still others might perceive several different color combinations at work. But what unites all true humans perceptions is that the sky is first and foremost beautiful. No doubt there is truth is calling it both black, dark blue, or something else; each being different from the others. But the fullest level of truth is in the description which is not reducible to a known quality. In that regard the fullest levels of truth are always going to be personal. But because it is indeed truth, it must come from God. The question of truth here is not “what do we know it is” but rather “what is possible for it to be.” The latter opens up possibilities from God, while the former only endorses one perception of the larger truth. I believe that Piper is trying to align his position closer to the second option than the first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
