It is becoming clear that, as least as far as those in the New Perspective camp are concerned, the opinion of those who are Reformed is that their theology is too narrow. Too much about Justification by faith, too much about Imputation. There is, they say, a bigger picture that the Reformed camp misses entirely (the trees for the forest, as it were). Craig Blomberg wrote recently:
Fixate on the Reformer's (understandable) preoccupation with how an individual becomes right with God (crucial in its day against medieval Catholicism) and one may miss the bigger picture, in which the fulfillment of God's covenant with Abraham through the children of Israel as progenitor of the Messiah looms even larger.Well...Doug Wilson, in response to Blomberg:
Notice what is being juxtaposed here. The Reformers had a individualistic fixation on getting individuals into heaven when they die. But we, upon whom the new perspective has shone, now understand that there is a "bigger picture." I see. And what did the Reformers do with their narrow vision? Well, they toppled kings, transformed laws, overhauled cultures, settled a continent, built nations, founded schools and colleges, inspired musicians and painters, and we could continue in this vein for quite a while. And what do we do, entranced as we are by the new perspective? We write academic papers, download podcasts of academic lectures that we can listen to in the privacy of our ear buds, and we go white in the face if conservative Christians suggest that Jesus might have an opinion about the ongoing slaughter of the unborn. John Piper, with his preaching on the pro-life issue, challenges the principalities and powers. The soft statism that goes with trendy theology these days does nothing of the kind -- it simply suggests (but not too loudly) that we need kinder, gentler principalities and powers.
Posts
2 comments:
Just for the record, I was summarizing N. T. Wright's views in a review of his most recent book more than giving my own. And Wright's role as Anglican bishop of Durham has brought more theological and social activism to that position than anyone in living memory has, while Wright's ministry worldwide, especially in the Anglican communion, including at the Lambeth conferences, certainly qualifies as challenging principalities and powers. Your points, however, about the social influence of the Reformation are very well taken and doubtless not adequately acknowledged by Tom. Having read almost all of his book-length works, though, I take him to be more concerned with the average evangelical Protestant today, from whichever Reformation movement (not just the Reformed, nor even primarily the Reformed), who doesn't think nearly as big picture as Calvin did or conceive of anything as ambitious as his Geneva project. I think, for example, of countless sermons I've heard by otherwise good preachers in good churches, which have as their sole aim to prepare people for Judgment Day before God, so that they can "get into heaven," with nary a side glance at the difference we might be meant to make in our society here and now. One of the frustrating things about reading Wright and Piper is that each seems largely to be talking past each other and not really hearing or grasping the real burden of the other's position.
Thanks for your comment, Dr. Blomberg. My blog is surely too puny for your presence, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
1. In truth, my main point in posting you was to post Mr. Wilson. I thought his argument from history quite a clever way to argue his position.
2. I understand that you were only summarizing Wright. I do recall you agreeing with Wright, with respect to his views at least on imputation, in a Zondervan piece.
3. You are quite correct that the broader evangelical movement has become quite narrow, or "man-centered" shall we say. A recent White Horse Inn production played some "man on the street" interviews with people answering the question, "When evangelizing, what is more important to share, your story or God's?" Most everyone said that what is important is "my personal testimony," as if "we" are part of the gospel at all.
I struggle to agree with Wright, however, insofar as he believes the original ideas of the reformers (namely, "justification by faith alone" and "imputation") have directly caused this move toward an experience based, man-centered gospel. What Calvin would say, hopefully, is that evangelicals today are not reformed enough.
4. I must admit that I have yet to read Wright's latest, but from what I can tell, your final comment is quite accurate. Now it would seem the case that Piper has at least tried to interact with Wright (even if his own theological burdens kept him from understanding Wright entirely), whereas Wright didn't even try to interact with Piper. Now I suppose he would say that a reiteration of his views on justification and imputation are fine as a proper rejoinder. To me, however, it would have helped tremendously had he stooped to answer even a few questions some of us have.
Post a Comment