Covenant of Love

Posts Tagged ‘N.T. Wright’

Be Ready To Share Your Thoughts…

The Discussion Begins… NOW!

• Do you believe “Myth” negates “Reality/Fact/History”?

• How does Wright’s Beethoven Symphony illustration play into an interpretive approach to Genesis 1-3?

• Does Wright’s approach to Genesis result in a distinguished understanding of eschatology, or can his eschatology be held even if his Genesis approach were rejected? (See Surprised by Hope)

• Wright says that “we need to lighten up about these words, and maybe find some other words”. What words would you suggest to replace ones like “myth” or “history” when discussion Genesis 1-3?

• How do you read Genesis for all it’s worth?

As is well known to casual readers of Covenant of Love, I am a fan of N.T. Wright and I do not appreciate John Piper very much. (I was a not a fan of John Piper long before these two came to clash.) At the Evangelical Theological Society’s 62nd Annual Meeting, the topic is Justification by Faith and both N.T. Wright and John Piper were invited to be plenary speakers for this event. Taking the position I do, the “dialogue” would have essentially amounted to Wright embarrising John Piper in my opinion. Even fans of Piper usually acknowledge that simply put, him and Wright are in completely separate leagues (Tom being in the Big Leagues and Piper in the Minors).

Still, I am amazed that some bloggers holdout underdog hopes with a great deal of misguided confidence that John Piper is more then up to the task, that he would somehow be able to sweep Wright aside, that it would somehow amount to little more than a walk in the park of Piper. I have no clever response to that, I simply stand in awe that someone could reasonably think such a thing.

But I saw Wright at the Wheaton Conferences. His respectability, his humility, his willingness to engage other perspectives, to think through reasonable critiques of his work by his opponents, and sometimes to consider their suggestions for further dialogue. I think the question of “who would win” or “who would lose” in a debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright is, from Wright’s perspective and probably from the perspective of Wrightians, irrelevant.

John Piper has written against Tom Wright (The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright), and Tom has written a response (Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision). I think it would have been beneficial, even crucial, for these two men to have met and to get to know each other’s personalities. Who knows, maybe an unlikely friendship is lurking right around the corner.

Alas we may never know. For reasons which are unclear to me, the ETS announced:

We had previously announced that Pastor John Piper would be one of our plenary speakers at the November meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta addressing the theme of “Justification By Faith.” Unfortunately, Pastor Piper has had to withdraw from his involvement in this meeting in conjunction with an eight-month leave of absence that he will be taking from his ministry assignments. (Here)

The last time I am aware that Piper took a leave of absence from his ministry responsibilities, it was to write a book against N.T. Wright (Future of Justification, p.10). Is it possible that he has chosen to forgo an opportunity to meet the good Bishop so that he might rather write another book against him? Nah, pure conjecture. I wish to attempt to give Piper the benefit of the doubt (however difficult that may be) and believe that he has not backed out of this engagement for fear of the humble Bishop or intimidation of the Bishops godly presence and vast knowledge.

In any case, Piper has been substituted by Thomas R. Schreiner, an expert in Pauline scholarship and (by all accounts) a better match with Tom Wright. Tom and Tom will share a discussion panel and engage each other on the subject of Justification by Faith. It is my hope that this discussion panel and lectures of Tom W and Tom S will be made available via on-line in the same way that the Wheaton Conference lectures were. The ETS meeting will be held in Atlanta GA on November 17-19, 2010. Praying for a good and fruitful engagement!

Here’s another controversal quote by N.T. Wright. Background: the subject of “the Rightousness of God” or “God’s Rightousness” must be seen as God the Judge who judges rightly. Therefore “God’s Rightousness” is his own, so to speak…

“it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Rightousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.” – What Saint Paul Really Said, p.98

I cannot see where the bible says that we have been “imputed” God’s rightousness. At least that is not the language which is used. I also don’t see anywhere where the bible says that everyone has been “imputed” Adam’s sin.

When it comes to God’s own Righteousness, he does not pass gas.

The appropriate place to begin if one is interested in understanding what N.T. Wright believes regarding Justification is to properly distinguish between the “biblical concept” of Justification, and the later church doctrine of Justification (sola fide). To this effect, Wright quotes Alister McGrath who is said to be arguably the world’s foremost scholar on the subject of the history of the doctrine of Justification:

“The concept of justification and the doctrine of justification must be carefully distinguished. The concept of justification is one of many employed within the Old and New Testament, particularly the Pauline corpus, to describe God’s saving action toward his people. It cannot lay claim to exhaust, nor adequately characterize in itself, the richness of the biblical understanding of salvation in Christ.” – Quoted in Wrights Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision, p.79

I’ll break here as Wright does just to highlight the obvious of what McGrath is getting at. The idea (or notion or thought) of Justification in the scriptures is that it is one (and only one) aspect of the salvation process. Justification is not synonymous with salvation (Justification ≠ Soteriology). McGrath continues…

“The doctrine of justification has come to develop a meaning quite independent of its biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man’s relationship to God is established. The church has chosen to subsume its discussion of the reconciliation of man to God under the aegis of Justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent from the New Testament. The ‘doctrine of Justification’ has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins.” – ibid, p.80

What McGrath seems to be saying is that we have a case of mistaken identity of which I am as guilty as anyone for perpetuating. I thought: “Justified by Faith” = “Saved by Faith”. And I was not alone. This case of mistaken identity is perpetuated almost every time the subject comes up in conversation. In chart format, the doctrine of Justification – if I understand McGrath correctly – is usually thought of like this:

So that just as we are “justified” by “faith in Jesus Christ” and not by observing the law in Galatians, we are “saved through faith” and “not from yourself” (or, “by our works”) in Ephesians. The doctrine of sola fide is thought of in such a way that Galatians 2:16 and Ephesians 2:8 are two different ways of saying the same thing and the terms used are interchangeable.

So does this biblical support for sola fide (the doctrine of Justification) dislodge McGrath’s analyses? Does it support the view that the doctrine of sola fide accurately depicts the biblical concept of Justification despite McGrath? Well that depends on how Galatians 2:16 (and Romans 3:22) translates the phrase pistis Christou? (Yes, the old “pistis Christou” debate.) Here are your options:

The difference between the New International Version and the International Standard Version in translating this passage is not something which someone can simply shrug their shoulders at. The difference is drastic and the message could not be more different. The NIV is teaching that we are justified by BELIEVING in Jesus Christ whereas the ISV is teaching that we are justified because of Jesus’ own FAITHFULNESS (i.e. “obedience” or “works”). The first (NIV) is teaching that we are not justified by works but by faith. (There is a dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) The second (ISV) is teaching that we are not justified by our works but by Christ’ works. (There is no dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) You can already see that there is more at stake here then just “justification”. Regardless, N.T. Wright affirms the ISV’s rendering over the NIV here:

“This theme makes it very likely, in my view, that when Paul speaks in Galatians and Romans of pistis Christou, he normally intends to denote the faithfulness of the Messiah to the purposes of God rather than the faith by which Jew and Gentile alike believe the gospel and so are marked out as God’s renewed people.” – Wright, Paul: In Perspective, p.47

So now a paradigm shift has taken place. Rather than viewing Galatians 2:16 as simply another way of saying the same thing as Ephesians 2:8, the two are no longer a match. The one (Galatians) teaches that you are Justified because of what Christ did for you on the cross (i.e. his “faithfulness” or “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) whereas the other (Ephesians) is teaching that you are saved by grace through faith (or “believing the gospel”). The chart format reflecting this new paradigm which confirms McGrath’s analysis and Wright’s understanding of Justification is this:

So what is the point? The point is that church doctrine has raised Justification up to be the center of Paul’s theology. It’s a categorical mistake with important implications. As Wright says:

“We find that [Justification], though it is indeed related closely to the whole theme of human salvation by God’s mercy and grace through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, does not denote that entire sequences of thought—so that to force it to do that is necessarily to invent all kinds of extra bells and whistles of which Paul was innocent—but rather denotes one specific aspect of or moment within that sequence of thought.” – Justification, p.87

In other words, the biblical concept of Justification is not central to Paul’s theology (as the church doctrine of sola fide has made it) and it is not synonymous with salvation. Rather the biblical concept of Justification nestles itself nicely within the broader Pauline category we have termed “Participation” or “Union with Christ” or simply: “in Christ”.

How do you come off the “high” of a blog like the one I just wrote, filled with so much energy and excitement that it actually became viral in some sense? It’s as if people are surrounded by traditional Reformers telling them what to believe in order to remain “orthodox” except that what they are being told to believe does not seem to make any scriptural sense. So I write a post showing where some of the traditional arguments break down and it’s like people are saying, “finally, a breath of fresh air”.

But not everyone was happy with what I wrote (though, oddly enough, few voiced it publically on the blog). They are confused and they think that we are playing fast and loose with semantics, “doesn’t the Gospel = Justification?” “N.T. Wright has muddled the crystal clear teachings of the bible, and now so are you.” “The gospel defined as ‘the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ’ sounds a whole lot like sola fide to me.”

So to get this straight: on the one hand are “Sproul’s folks” who see what the scriptures teach as “crystal clear” and accuse Wright of mucking things up. On the other hand are “Wright’s folks” who see what the scriptures teach as “crystal clear” and believe that it is the traditional position that has gotten into the habit of mucking things up.

But the roots go much deeper than this. The issues are not so clear cut. What is often seen as “crystal clear, it says it right here” is simply a way of choosing not to enter into critical conversation. Frankly, the response to that is: “I see what it says, but you are reading it wrong”. In other words, the deeper issues really revolve around interpretive methods and which tools are we using to uproot (or dig deeper) into the meaning or intent of the text.

I believe that N.T. Wright is closer to the truth on these matters than traditional Reformed dogma. I believe the evidence bares this out. I also believe that unless one is open to thinking these things through critically, rather than digging their heels deeper into the traditional position, on merit of its position being tradition, it is less likely that they will understand what it is this “New Perspective” believes and (more importantly) why.

But will you, please, think openly about what is being said? I am not asking that you agree or swallow everything hook, line, and sinker, but only that you seek to understand. I think good dialogue begins when we understand each other, because only then can we raise our concerns legitimately and ask our questions sincerely.

In what follows will be my honest assessment of what I believe to be some of the key issues (and areas of confusion) in this debate. I invite you to follow along as I attempt to untangle some of these issues and iron out some of the key themes. I invite you to listen and interact with my posts by asking your sincere questions (no doubt they will be tough ones) and allowing for my reasoned responses (which I don’t always promise will satisfy you, but I will do my best).

And for everyone who got behind my last post: God Bless You! It’s nice to be reminded that I am not alone on an island wrestling with coconuts.

A Word on the New Perspective[s]

It’s really important to keep in mind that there is no such thing as the New Perspective on Paul. After a short survey of the positions of E.P. Sanders and Jimmy Dunn, N.T. Wright writes:

“I say all this to make it clear that there are probably almost as many ‘New Perspective’ positions as there are writers espousing it – and that I disagree with most of them. Where I agree is as follows…” (Here)

He goes on to explain that the common feature which defines the so-called “New Perspective” is the desire of NP scholars to locate and interpret Paul within his Jewish context. As this relates to Justification, Wright states that “It is blindingly obvious when you read Romans and Galatians… that virtually whenever Paul talks about justification he does so in the context of a critique of Judaism and of the coming together of Jew and Gentile in Christ.” In order to understand Paul’s critique of Judaism you first need to understand first century Judaism which – according to NP proponents and thanks largely to the work of E.P. Sanders – was not a “works-righteousness” system similar to 16th century Catholicism.

This is all that NP proponents have in common: the interpretation of Paul in his Jewish context. But this has called for a re-evaluation of how Paul has traditionally been interpreted and has resulted in many new interpretations. Thus there is wide diversity within the “New Perspective” camp as each scholar wrestles with overcoming his traditional presuppositions in a effort to reinterpret Paul within his Jewish context.

I find N.T. Wright’s interpretation of Paul to be the most fruitful, well argued, and best articulated of both “old” and “new” perspectives. So in the posts to follow (at least the ones in keeping with this theme), I rely almost exclusively on the theology of Wright with a “tweak” here or there of my own.

Wright: "Aren't we on the same team?" Sproul: "It depends, define 'sola fide' and then define 'Gospel'."

A few years back I must have been the only person oblivious to the horrendous massacre of the Munich Olympics of 1972. When in conversation a friend mentioned the movie, Munich (2006), I asked what it was about, and in shock he said “Don’t you know? It’s when Muslim terrorists murdered Jewish athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.”  But we were both caught off guard when another friend my mine, a Muslim, overheard our conversation and roared out through clenched teeth the way a father might chastise his children: “THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS! IT WAS WAR! THOSE JEWISH ATHLETES WERE SOLDIERS WHO WOULD HAVE KILLED MUSLIMS AFTER THE OLYMPICS!” Then, as if nothing happened, he just walked away, leaving us staring at each other in perplexed silence.

The Olympics are supposed to be a time of peace. Everyone knows that. But for those Muslim terrorists, there is no such thing as “truce”. The context never changes. Time never goes by. “Kill the infidel!”

If this short-sighted mentality frustrates you as much as it does me, then you may be able to glimpse the frustration I have when leaders who are hailed as defenders of Reformed orthodoxy write and lecture as though the volatile age of the 16^th century were alive and well. (“Anathema the Catholic!”) It is a mentality which needs to be crushed under the full weight of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the glory of Christ and the union of his Body: the Church invisible and visible.

These men – I believe – need to undergo a “gestalt switch”, nothing less then a complete paradigm shift.

In the book Justification in Perspective, N.T. Wright was invited to contribute to the last essay-chapter titled “New Perspectives” where he makes this comment which some have called “The King Kong of straw man fallacies”. Here’s what Wright wrote which “defenders of Reformed orthodoxy” find so offensive:

“We are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself – in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.” Wright, “New Perspectives” (Under the heading “5: Justification” in the essay.)

I cheer Wright for this bold statement. It was about time someone called the Reformers out on the carpet and exposed much of their rhetoric for what it is. What Wright is saying is that Catholic and Orthodox believers are as much a member of the family of God, the living Church, as are Protestants if (and the “if” goes for Protestants as well) they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ: “that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead”.

Well of course the charge is an offensive one. In one fell swoop N.T. Wright has accused the Reformation Tradition (of which he is a part of, it is important to note) of raising 16^th century “doctrine” above scripture, above the faith and above the Gospel. This is a deadly blow to the Reformers ego, and like any blow dealt to an ego, there was a backlash reaction. And so R.C. Sproul (who one blogger refers to as being “at the top end of the heavyweights” when it comes to Reformed theology) pushes back:

“To intimate that Protestant orthodoxy believes that we are justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith is the king of all straw men. It is the Goliath of scarecrow, the King Kong of straw man fallacies. In other words, it is a whopper. I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformation tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith. This is a pure and simple distortion of the Reformed tradition.” (Here)

But is that true? We have to look no further for our answer then to Mr. Heavyweight himself (in case you missed it, that’s a reference to R.C. Sproul) in a little tract called Justification by Faith Alone. In it he writes this:

“Since the Reformation the doctrine of sola fide has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. It has functioned as a normative doctrine because it has been understood as essential to the gospel itself. Without [the doctrine] sola fide one does not have the gospel; and without the gospel one does not have the Christian faith. When an ecclesiastical communion rejects [the doctrine] sola fide, as Rome did at the Council of Trent, it ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters.” – Justification by Faith Alone, p.12 (2010)

There is so much to say and so little time.

1) The doctrine of sola fide has NOT “been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity”. The defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity is sola scriptura (it is a sad day when we have to remind any Protestant of this fact). Pick up any book on Evangelical Christianity and you will not find a treaty there on sola fide (at least not in any central or defining way). You will find other points such as “missional” or “conversionism”, and centrally always “sola scriptura” (no matter how it is defined) but not sola fide:

“[Francis] Schaeffer said that an orthodox view of the Bible is the ‘Watershed of the Evangelical World’. In other words, it is a defining position, such that our view of Scripture determines whether or not we are truly evangelical. It seems to me that he was correct in this assessment.” A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage, p. 11

2) It is NOT true that without the doctrine of sola fide one does not have the Gospel. Nowhere in scripture is the Gospel defined as “sola fide”. But Paul explicitly defines the Gospel as believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) – as N.T. Wright correctly points out in his quote above. (This constitutes one of the fundamental areas of confusion among the traditionalists: confusing the terms “gospel” “justification” and “soteriology“.)

3) It is NOT true that by rejecting the doctrine of sola fide an ecclesial commune “ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters”. This last point is a very dangerous move on Sproul’s part because now he has explicitly raised up the Reformed doctrine of sola fide above the core belief of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! He subjugates this core orthodox belief (the True Gospel) to the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide. Was there no “true church” before Luther? Sproul places the true Gosple of Jesus Christ (by which he “is being saved” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) under the subcategory of “other matters” (as if you could tuck the Gospel away somewhere under the rubric of “other matters“?). God help him!:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gosple – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7, emphasis mine)

Sproul has distorted the Gosple by confusing the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide with the Gosple Paul preaches in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and which he declares to be the true Gospel being distorted here in Galatians 1:6-9. A blogger named Cameron whom I have been in dialogue with states that God is not the author of confusion, “but maybe N.T. Wright is a good candidate“. N.T. Wright has offensively reminded the Reformers what the true Gospel is: belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this truth has confused my friend Cameron, this should not reflect either God who wrote the Word or Wright who has been dragging the Reformers (kicking and screaming) back to the Word. I am not surprised that my friend Cameron has been confused by Wrights comment. If he has always believed an error, and someone writes to correct his error, before he capitulates to the truth his mind will be confused. This only reflects that he is either resisting the truth or about to overcome the presuppositions of his mind!

In any case this entire quote from R.C. Sproul, an influential leader in the Protestant church and author of such books as “Defending the Faith” and “The Consequences of Ideas”, is very scary. In the quote above Sproul writes: “I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformed tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith.” Perhaps he should have a good look in the mirror.

If N.T. Wright’s argument is a straw man, then R.C. Sproul is the scarecrow who is caught up in the time loop of 16^th century polemics. Even the Catholic Church has moved on since then, acknowledging that other forms of orthodox Christianity are a part of the true church, while Sproul (like my Muslim friend) vehemently contends that because Trent (1559-1563) rejected the Reformed doctrine of sola fide, our Catholic brothers and sisters who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. the Gospel, are not “a true church”.

But of course we now know that Wright’s comment is nothing at all like a “straw man argument”. It is verified right here in Sproul’s own words as the “heavyweight” speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I was discussing Justification with a friend of mine not long ago as we were wrestling through some of N.T. Wrights ideas about the subject. As we did my friend chuckled a bit (he’s a jolly young fellow) and said to me, “Man, you give Wright lots of passes don’t you”. I thought about it for a moment and said, “Yah, I think I do”. In trying to think Wright’s thoughts after him, to use his own terminology, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and answer questions posed by a critical reflection of his system as he might answer them. When I do that I tend to give him “lots of passes”.

True enough. But I am not – as some might charge – a “Wrightian Drone”. For instance, Wright is an Anglican Bishop. I can only assume by that fact that he believes and endorses the doctrine of infant baptism. I do not. But nothing I have read of N.T. Wright so much as brings up the subject of “infant” verses “believers” baptism, so I have had no reason to bring this up either. In general, both his critics and his fans cheer the fact that Wright has done a great service for the Church by drawing out the big picture of the scriptures, and I am personally grateful for his insistence on returning to the scriptures as the guiding authority over and above all traditions – even the Great Reformed Tradition.

But there is something Wright teaches in Surprised by Hope which I would like to contend with. In doing so, I hope to avoid the charge of having “Gnostic tendencies” on the one hand, or of being inconsiderate of the environment on the other. I agree with N.T. Wrights conclusions and I also agree with his premise, I just don’t think his premise reach his conclusions (at least not the way he arrives to them). His argument in Surprised by Hope goes something like this:

Premise: the Earth we inhabit now will be the same Earth we will inhabit in Eternity.

Conclusion 1: therefore what we do to the Earth now will have Eternal consequences.

Conclusion 2: therefore take care of the Earth.

Each one of those points is true in their own right. But I believe what is being implied by N.T. Wright’s argument is not correct when taken together and when his terms are defined. What I believe Wright means by this argument is that because this earth will be the earth which heaven meets in the future when the two become one, we need to take care of this world and not pollute it. If we pollute it now, it will have consequences in the age to come which seems to suggest that when heaven comes to earth the pollution will simply remain and (presumably) in eternity we will have some eco-cleaning up to do. So let’s take a closer look at his argument point by point.

Same Earth or Renewed Earth?

In order for Wright’s argument to stand as it is, the belief that it is the same Earth needs to be qualified. When Heaven and Earth come together the imagery is not so much that a “new Earth” apart from this one will be created, but rather Heaven will come down to this Earth. Yet even the phrase “this Earth” needs to be qualified. It seems to me that in order for his argument to stand, “this Earth” must be understood as “this polluted Earth”; the Earth as it is when Christ returns will remain as it is. This is the only way that it can be said that how we treat the Earth now (as far as the environment is concerned) will have direct consequences in Eternity.

If this is how N.T. Wright’s argument is formulated (and I believe it is), then I take issue. I do not believe that, for example, if I litter a styrofoam cup today, and if Christ comes back tomorrow, that my Styrofoam cup will remain on the Earth in eternity until (or if) it finally decomposes. 2 Peter 3:5-10 highlights this point:

“By the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the Day of Judgment and destruction of the godless… But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be [burned up].”

Notice how the phrase “the world of that time was deluged with water and perished” is juxtaposed with the phrase “the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire”. Peter is comparing the Flood which he believed was global (a point we’ll take for granted) and which caused the world at that time to “perish”, with a future fire which will also “burn up” everything that is “done on” the earth.

But notice something else of interest here: before the Flood and after the Flood the same Earth is used. God just cleaned it up. Similarly the present Earth and the Earth in the age to come will be the same ball, the same rock, the same planet, but cleaned up. As Peter says, “everything that is done on it will be burned up”, which means that any toxins from vehicles, any litter on the ground, and all the eco-disasters which are ruining our present Earth will not have any consequences on the New Earth.

Eternal Consequences Affirmed

This does not mean that what we do now has no consequences in Eternity. As I affirmed Wright’s first premise, that the present Earth and the New Earth are the same Earth, so now I affirm his second point, that how we handle the Earth now will have Eternal consequences. But the consequences will not be of the Earth but of those who mishandle it. Paul writes in Romans 8:19-23:

“For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.”

Creation itself has been subject to the consequences of the fall and has been “groaning” to be redeemed. It is interesting that Paul here (like Peter above) juxtaposes creations groaning to be “set from free its bondage to decay” with children of God who have been groaning “inwardly while we wait… the redemption of our bodies”. For the redemption of our bodies they must first died like a seed planted in the ground before we can obtain an imperishable body (1 Cor 15:42); likewise the earth which is also awaiting redemption according to this text in Romans 8, it too must first be purified by fire (2 Peter 3:10).

The point is that the Earth after God’s barbeque will not suffer the consequences of the present worlds’ pollution. Rather, the consequences bare more on the present and on the Children of God which will reverberate throughout Eternity as it translates into lost souls who may have otherwise been redeemed. This is because how we steward Gods creation will testify of God either for the good or for the bad. If Christians who worship the Creator God won’t take care of God’s creation, what will that do for our testimony to a world that worships the creation and not the Creator? When non-Christians lead the way in Earthly care and environmental concerns they perpetuate the worship of their god (Gaia – Greek goddess of creation, New Age philosophies and so on, see G.K. Beale’s book, We Become What We Worship, Romans 1:24-25). But when Christians become global leaders in Earth care the ball falls in our court to testify or perpetuate the worship of our God the Creator (Romans 1:20) of planet earth and the universe!

Stewardship or Kingdom Living?

This leads us, naturally, to the concept of stewardship. We are to care for the earth, not for the reason which N.T. Wright puts forth – care for the earth because if we pollute it now we have to live in it for eternity – but for a different reason all together which I’ll now explain.

In the original creation God commanded the first humans to “till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). We know that creation suffered decay as a result of Adam’s rebellion (Romans 8:20) but now we need to add another dimension to the equation: The “already” aspect of the New Creation! The long awaited for redemption is here now – in the Spirit and by the Spirit, through Christ and for Christ – but not yet in full (i.e., Already/Not Yet). Paul writes in Colossians 1:15-20:

“For in Him all things in heaven and on earth were created… all things have been created through him and for him… and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.”

Notice the tense: God was (pass tense) pleased to reconcile heaven and earth to himself through Christ’s atoning working on the cross. When Christ said, “it is finished”, that was it. It was finished! So while creation waits for redemption from decay (Romans 8:19-21) in the sense that the end has not yet come, still in another sense creation is experiencing its redemption even now, already! But here is the cool part which ties this whole discussion together: creation experiences redemption now by the blood of Christ through his body, the Church, who are already a new creation even now. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says:

“So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!”

As a new creation we are to live now, in this world, as Christ is now in heaven: “as he is (NOW), so are we (NOW) in this world” (1 John 4:17). So then we must ask ourselves, what is the heart of God towards creation? I think Jesus spells it out nicely in what has come to be known as The Lord’s Prayer:

“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.

Your Kingdome come.

Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:9-10)

Gods Kingdom comes wherever and whenever God is reigning. As King, wherever Gods will is being done, that is where he is reigning. If his will is being done through you and I and on “earth as it is in heaven” then that is how God is reigning in this world, on this earth now! That is how creation is experiencing redemption even while it is fallen, because we who are now a part of the new creation while living in the fallen world are living in a way that brings in the new creation when we bring in the Kingdom. We do this when we let God reign in our lives and through our actions!

It is not about following a command or even about being good stewards. I think when the church teaches Earth care this way (similar to how they teach church giving as the command to tithe and stewardship), we miss the point and produce no fruit. There are commands and we are called to be stewards, but those are mere byproducts of the big picture: KINGDOM LIVING!

Conclusion: Why I Take Issue With Wright

So what’s the point? In this overview I have attempted to reach the same conclusions which N.T. Wright has reached but by taking another route. I am going out on a limb here and suggesting that N.T. Wright’s view of “End Times” is Postmillennial whereas my view is Amillennial. He has reached his conclusions about Earth care by taking the Postmillennial byway, which teaches that the earth will get better and better until one day the whole earth will be just about converted, and Christ will finally return to a Kingdom which has already been established by his Church through the Spirit. Contrary to this road I have taken the Amillennial highway which teaches that things are going to get worse and worse (especially in the church) until one day Christ will return to judge, cleanse and re-create.

So while this post may have seemed to be about how Christians ought to take care of creation in light of eternity, it was really (minutely) about a contrast between Postmillennialism and Amillennialism. I affirm all of Wright’s conclusions, but I do not need to be an Postmillennialist to get there. This earth will burn, but that does not negate our responsibility to be leading stewards in this world as we live out the Kingdom on earth in a way that reflects how Christ lived and is living now in Heaven. And one day when Heaven and Earth are married together, we will be called to account for how we cared for this world and the consequences for those who witnessed our testimony as the Creator’s stewards, when the earth is redeemed and as we live bodily forever on it. Amen.

It is this bloggers opinion that Kevin Vanhoozer was the most entertaining and illuminating lecturer at the Wheaton Conference (aside, perhaps, from Wright himself). It is for this reason, and also because I have received complaints about the lag time it takes to load and watch the videos, that I decided to directly re-post them here.

If you have read Wright at all you will find this video enjoyable and also challenging as Vanhoozer attempts suggest a way for Wright to improve his paradigm and find a middle road between “new perspectives” and “old reformers”.

Kevin Vanhoozer: Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation from Derek Ouellette on Vimeo.

(I was given permission via email from Wheaton College to re-post this video here so long as I link back to Wheaton’s site. To watch the original postings click here. Because of the volume of people watching from Wheaton’s site the lag time to download and watch this may be great.)

For those who wished they could have been there but for whatever reason were unable to attend, and for those who did attend but wish to watch their favorite sessions a second time – I have linked to the lectures on video here.

Just click on the face of the scholar you wish to listen to.

DAY 1: Jesus and the People of God

Richard Hays, Knowing Jesus and the Question of Truth

Richards father-in-law passed-away shortly before the conference and as a result was unable to stick around for the discussion panel. Its too bad, his essay was one of my favorites.

.

Marianne Meye Thompson, The Gospel of John meets Jesus and the Victory of God

.

.

N.T. Wright, Chapel Message

N.T. Wright delivered a powerful message from Ephesians. Anyone interested in sampling Wright, this is a good place to start.

.

Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat, ‘Outside of a Small Circle of Friends’: Jesus and the Justice of God

.

.

Nicholas Perrin, Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet

.

.

Wright, Walsh, Keesmaat, Thompson, and Perrin, Panel Discussion

I am seated to the right of the cue ball (Flint) in the bottom left corner of your screen when the video begins.

.

N.T. Wright, Jesus and the People of God: Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies and the Life of the Church

Keynote lecture on Jesus by Wright to conclude day one of the conference.

Day 2: Paul and the People of God

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and in Protestant Soteriology

Kevin’s lecture was probably my favorite overall aside from Wright himself. He was humorous and also offered some very compelling thoughts, particularly what he has to say about “adoption”.

Jeremy Begbie, The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies

.

.

.

Edith Humphrey, Glimpsing the Glory—Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright

.

.

N.T. Wright, Paul and the People of God: Whence and Whither Pauline Studies and the Life of the Church

Keynote lecture on Paul by Wright to conclude day two of the conference.

It is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, the video for the discussion panel on day two has not been released. I feel that this second discussion panel challenged N.T. Wright more then the first.

I purchased a copy of What Saint Paul Really Said? so that N.T. Wright could autograph it since it was the first book on Paul by him I read.

If memory serves it was Edith Humphrey who brought up and challenged Wright’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21.

For N.T. Wright, if you are discussing Justification using the law-court metaphor (which has been the case since Calvin or before) it makes no sense at all to say that God’s righteousness is “imputed” on the believer. God as judge simply judges justly thus making him a “righteous Judge”. But when putting the subject of the believers Justification aside and asking the question on its own – giving full weight to the Old Testament use of “righteousness” – N.T. Wright believes that the phrase, “Gods Righteousness” is actually short hand for “the covenant faithfulness of God”. In both cases God’s righteousness is his own, it is not something he gives to anyone else.

If his interpretation is correct then what about 2 Corinthians 5:21 in which the text explicitly reads that “we have become the righteousness of God”?

N.T. Wright believes (as he says very clearly in both What Saint Paul Really Said? and in Justification) that this passage is so contextualized that we must read it as Paul talking about his own Apostolic Ministry and not about believers everywhere being imputed God’s righteousness.

Keep in mind that God’s righteousness is a reference to his faithfulness to his covenant, a faithfulness which came to fruition in the “faithful obedience of Jesus Christ on the cross” (Galatians 2:16, Philippians 2:5-11). So if the message of the Gospel – the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) is the message of God’s covenant faithfulness then, says Wright, when Paul and the Apostles preached that message they actually embodied that message. In that sense they literally became “the righteousness of God”. This, says Wright, is the whole context of 5:11-20 and even going back to chapter 3 and 4.

But I was not satisfied with this interpretation because it seemed to limit the scope of the biblical text. I tried to dance – ever so delicately – the line between the “old” view and the “new” (i.e. Wright’s) view believing that this passage does teach that believers “take on” God’s righteousness as it were, but through the Union With Christ (“In Him” it says) rather than “imputation”. In short, I leaned toward Edith’s understanding of this passage.

In Wright’s response to Edith Humphrey my anxieties were relieved. Wright, in explaining this text at the conference, seemed to go further with it then I think he does in his books. Keeping all of his premises in tact he expanded his interpretation of this passage to include all believers and their mission.

The righteousness of God does in fact refer to God’s faithfulness to his covenant expressed fully in the life, death and resurrection of Christ (i.e. the Gospel). Furthermore, Paul in 2 Corinthians is talking – in context – specifically about his own ministry and that of the other Apostles. But – and this I think is the touch Wright adds which he does not make clear in his previous writings – we believers have a job to do in proclaiming the Kingdom Message of the Gospel to the world and when we do that then we too become, i.e. embody, the Righteousness of God.

And that is how N.T. Wright interprets 2 Corinthians 5:21, it is an interpretation I can live with though I myself need to tease it out a bit more.