Help me get NT Wright

(This has got buried as a comment on this post, so I'm moving it to a post of its own in the hope that it might get a response.)

I wonder if anyone reading this bit of the blog can help me out? I haven't read a great deal of Wright first hand on this topic, but what I have read leaves me confused as to what he is saying that is genuinely new and what he is suggesting is wrong about the Reformation understanding of justification.

I have been going back over Alister McGrath's account in his Iustitia Dei - something made difficult by swathes of untranslated Latin - and the first thing I would say is that as far as I can see the mainstream Reformers conceived of the Christian's righteousness as 'declarative' in 'courtroom' terms.

Now my impression is that this is what Wright is saying - that the 'courtroom' is a key concept in Paul, and that God's 'righteousness' is the declaration that we are 'righteous' members of the covenant community. If that is the case, however, he and the Reformers are singing from very similar hymn sheets at this point. Am I right in this, or am I missing something?

Secondly, from McGrath, the mainstream Reformers distinguished between 'imputed' and 'imparted' righteousness. The righteousness of Christ, according to this view, remained an 'alien', 'external' righteousness, located in Christ, not the believer. This was contrary to Augustine, who looked for a righteousness in the believer.

Now it seems as if Wright is supposed to be saying that the mainstream Reformers believed in a kind of 'transferred' righteousness, from Christ to the believer, which according to McGrath they did not.

Yet at the same time, it seems as if Wright is saying that, according to his understanding of Paul, justification is based on something intrinsic to the believer - which looks, at first glance, like Bucer's system of 'double justification' (by Christ and by 'regeneration' - for want of a better word). In that case, it would seem Wright has, by whatever route, gone back to a 'mid-Reformation' view - rather than discovering something new.

Certainly what I'm hearing about Wright (and what I've read) doesn't look like Luther or Calvin's ordo salutis - but I'm also wondering if Wright's account of Luther and Calvin is accurate.

Can anyone enlighten?

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Paul Helm on Tom Wright's "Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision"

There are four articles providing an extensive review of Tom Wright's new book on justification (which is bound to be important to Evangelicals) at Helm's Deep, the blog written by Paul Helm, Professor of Theology, Highland Theological College.

This gives a flavour of Helm's approach to Wright:

[According to Wright] Are believers justified now? Or are they only justified at the last, on the basis of a whole life? In the new book he writes that the 'future judgment.... corresponds to the present verdict which... is issued simply and solely on the basis of faith’ (165) See also 179, 207-12, 223. But it has to be admitted that Wright wobbles on this, as in 166-7 ‘the verdict on the last day will truly reflect what people have actually done’. The vagueness of the language irritates: 'corresponds to', 'anticipate', 'reflect'. How corresponds to, anticipates, reflects?, one vainly asks.

Nevertheless, despite the wobbles in stating his position, wobbles that could be given a good and a bad sense, this is a change from his Edinburgh paper on justification in which he was clearly striking a different note. There justification was reserved for the final judgement, giving his account a moralistic flavour, which invited one to draw a comparison with Richard Baxter. (See here) [And see also my own post here and the internal links] But this has to be said: the relation of faith to actions badly needs a clarificatory word from the Bishop’s cathedra to settle this vital question: are Spirit-imbued virtues a sign of faith (à la Epistle of James)? Or do they complete faith, supplement it, fulfil it? These questions cry out for an answer, but answer is there none. A clear sentence of two would have done it. It is this sort of gap that holds up the discussion and the meeting of minds. So where, according to the Bishop, (one is left to wonder) does Paul stand on this issue? And where does the Bishop himself stand?

The four articles are at these links:

Wright in General
Why Covenant Faithfulness is not Divine Righteousness (and cannot be)
Wright and Righteousness
Wright and the Reformation

Here is a quote from Helm's conclusion:

While holding to a law-court view of justification Wright has at the same time failed to recognize that the Reformed view of Christ’s alien righteousness is also a law-court view. Because of this his historical analysis, such as it is, is flawed, and his exegetical tour de force of Paul’s view of justification is largely beside the point, for the Reformed outlook expresses its main claims: the law-court point, the central position of the Abrahamic covenant, and the counting of the believer as righteous for Christ’s sake.

This is where Wright’s competitiveness, his insistence of always having the last word, and his failure to provide a clear theological framework, or even to write clearly, saying what he means and what he does not mean by certain terms such as ‘moral righteousness’, and ‘legalistic’ and ‘impart’ and ‘infuse’, prove to be so frustrating.

Ouch! But then his last words are these:

Were Wright to follow through the logic of his position then, I believe, it would approach even more closely to the classical Reformed view than it has already.

So there is hope of reconciliation! There's some heavy reading here, but (given the Evangelical divisions of the present) it is important to try to understand the issues involved.

John Richardson

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Why Open Evangelicals are hyper-Protestants and REFORM is moving to the centre

This is a comment I have posted in a thread on the Stand Firm website, where they are discussing an earlier article on this blog. I am hoping to develop some of the ideas here in an address I am giving to a Forward in Faith gathering in Lincoln Diocese in a few days time:  

If I may add a couple of comments myself, as author of the piece, divisions within Evangelicalism are, of course, only a reflection of divisions within Protestantism generally. I have just been reading Alister McGrath’s Protestantism - Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, which is a powerful reminder of this, and it was, I think, Jim Packer who referred to the “fissiparous nature” of Evangelicalism.

As long ago as the first NEAC, at Keele University in 1967, Evangelical Anglicans were discussing their commitment to the Church of England and their ‘division’ from the wider Evangelical community.

Later (in my own time as a Christian), the divisions in the 1970s and early 80s were between ‘old guard’ and ‘new radicals’ who wanted to experiment with liturgy and explore the application of Christianity to the arts, politics and social involvement.

Unfortunately, two things happened. First, the new radicals turned out to lack Evangelical roots and drifted from a recognizably Evangelical theology. To see this in microcosm, look at the theological development of the Greenbelt Arts Festival. Secondly, the ordination of women in 1993 created a ‘fact on the ground’ which embodied theological divisions not only about biblical interpretation but ministry, gender, marriage, church, society, sexuality and, ultimately, the Holy Trinity.

What is happening now amongst Open Evangelicals is a tendency to react almost automatically against Conservative Evangelicalism, and to cheer for anyone, such as Bishop Tom Wright, who attacks it.

Two key areas are the ordination of women (and thus anything which smacks of ‘headship’ theology or subordination within the Trinity), and penal substitution, where the key argument is over the ‘penal’ aspect and the wrath of God - hell and judgement being also matters for reconsideration in the development of theology.

The latter is somewhat ironic, given Bp Wright’s clear personal endorsement of penal substitutionary theology. But his own assault on the work of Oak Hill theologians, Pierced for our Transgressions, and his endorsement of the popular theologian and pastor Steve Chalke, despite the latter’s total rejection of penal substitution (something which Wright simply misunderstands) has opened the door for a more radical stance amongst Wright’s own followers.

Ironically, therefore, I would argue that Open Evangelicals are, in fact, hyper-Protestants when compared with Reform. The approach of Reform is that there are doctrines we ought to receive - such as those expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles - as authoritative and, thus, binding interpretations of Scripture, if we are to remain within the tradition of the Church.

The most ‘open’ Open Evangelical is willing not only to question everything (as were the Radical Reformers in the sixteenth century) but, in the end, to be an extreme advocate of ‘private judgement’. For an Open Evangelical, the Faith is ultimately what “I” can believe, and thus the Opens, who claim the Evangelical Centre (pace Fulcrum) turn out not to belong [not] at the centre of the Reformation, but on its radical wing!

As evidence of this, we now see Reform beginning to consider co-belligerency with Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, who of course lie much nearer to Rome - something which the extreme Open Evangelical would, I suspect, find very hard.

John Richardson

22 October 2008

Update: There are also responses to this in a thread on the Fulcrum website.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Wright's 'whole of life' judgement - the old order revived?

I have been trying for some time now to understand the Bishop of Durham’s theology and its implications. It seems (from reading John Piper’s book), that I am not the only person who finds this difficult. I thought, therefore, I’d take the opportunity to sketch out what I think Tom Wright is saying about the gospel and then to make a couple of observations. This is not meant to be an analysis of his entire approach, but simply to clarify, and to seek clarification on, some issues.

As I understand it, there are two points at which Wright differs from classical Evangelicalism. The first is in saying that justification is not the means by which we are saved but is the result of our initial salvation. That salvation consists of our inclusion in the people of God and occurs when we acknowledge Jesus, as distinct from the worldly authorities, as Lord.

The second point is that the declarative judgement of our final justification is based on a ‘whole of life’ assessment which takes into account our works in the light of our response to Christ’s Lordship.

The ‘whole of life’ thing in Wright’s theology is something I am sure about, and here is where I have my biggest problem.

It seems to me that Tom Wright’s via salutis (path of salvation) takes us back to something very much like the pre-Reformation understanding, represented by the via moderna. I do not claim to be an expert in medieval theology, but I seem to detect distinct parallels, which is why I’m looking for help.

My understanding of the via moderna, the most respected view amongst theologians in Luther’s day, is that at the outset God’s grace for forgiveness is available to all who turn to him. God’s response to that is grace de congruo — grace given not because the action of turning to him is enough in itself to ‘deserve’ forgiveness but rather because God is ‘disproportionately’ gracious to all who do this.

Following this, however, the viator — the pilgrim Christian — is empowered, especially by the helps given through the mediation of the Church, to live a life worthy of grace de condigno: grace which is still grace, but which is merited by the pilgrim’s manner of life.

The end result is a pilgrim who is actually fit for heaven (I know Wright objects to the ‘heaven’ concept as represented here, and I share the objection, but I am referring to the older understanding, not his). The pilgrim is intrinsically ‘righteous’ — actually righteous in themselves, as a result of the transformation wrought by grace.

The final reward of heaven is therefore by grace ‘de condigno’: it is ‘of grace’, but it is in accordance with the state attained by the Christian pilgrim, rather like a child who receives a present from their parents after getting ‘straight A’s’ in their exams. The present is ‘of grace’ — there is nothing which says parents must buy a gift or what gift they should buy. Nevertheless, the present is a direct and appropriate response to what the child has achieved (appropriate in that the parents don’t give them ‘a snake or a scorpion’).

The medieval scheme against which Luther reacted was not, therefore, a scheme of works as opposed to grace. In fact, it is ‘grace all the way through’. But it is grace which depends on a ‘synergy’ between God and the individual pilgrim. Grace is given to live the Christian life and grace is given in response to the life so lived. But the pilgrim must actually live that life, beginning with the first turning towards God.

And at this point — the first turning — the medieval scheme relied on a well-established principle: “Facienti quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam”, “To whoever does what lies in them, God will not deny grace.”

It was this whole scheme which Luther’s understanding overthrew, not by putting grace in the place of works, but by denying in the first instance that anyone could turn to God on the basis of ‘what lay in them’ and secondly that salvation was a reward for intrinsic righteousness. Instead of their own righteousness, achieved by grace effective through the pilgrim’s moral cooperation, Luther substituted the external righteousness of Christ, which becomes the sinner’s own through grace alone, to which the Christian responds with faith — faith alone.

Now, my question to Wright’s scheme is not whether he was right about Luther (or whether Luther was wrong about salvation — please don’t post long comments on either of these because I just won’t have time to reply). Rather my question is, what are we left with under the scheme Wright proposes: the ‘whole of life’-based judgement?

The question may be focussed, it seems to me, by asking, “What happens if someone, who has been a complete reprobate until that point, dies just after they become a Christian?” Supposing they are run over by a bus as they come away from the evangelistic meeting (or perhaps they are a thief on a cross). What is the ‘whole of life’ assessment?

The whole of their life until that point has been, we will say for the sake of argument, a series of acts worthy, by any reckoning, of judgement and condemnation (fill in the details as you will). Then they ‘got converted’. To take Wright’s position at face value, we will say that the Lordship of Christ was clearly presented to them, and they declared, “Jesus, and not Gordon Brown (presumably the modern equivalent of Caesar), is Lord. That is what I believe.”

My understanding of Wright is that they are from that point a member of the Covenant people of God. Then, wham! The bus arrives, the person dies, they enter the state between death and resurrection, and then, finally, they are raised from the dead and stand before Christ at the judgement. (All this is what I understand Wright holds.)

How is their ‘whole of life’ judgement arrived at?

If we take their life ‘on balance’, they must be judged guilty, since it consists almost entirely of sinfulness lived outside the Covenant.

But of course the death of Jesus atones for their sin. So we could say that their sin is not counted against them, and on that basis they are granted eternal life. But in that case, what has the ‘whole of life’ got to do with it?

We might say, “Yes, they only lived a short while after declaring Jesus to be Lord, but even in that short while they submitted their life to him, and God graciously takes that into account.” But aren’t we now back precisely in the old via moderna, with God granting grace de condigno to the sinner who ‘does his best with what lies in him’? Have we not only overturned the Reformation understanding, but returned to the medieval view, with its accompanying problems that the Reformation addressed (specifically, that God justifies the godly)?

And what if, to complicate the scenario, the cause for the person going under the bus was a child cycling on the pavement, and what if our convert, falling over the child, forgot for a moment — as we have all surely done — all their good intentions, and tried to clip the child round the ear, whilst swearing furiously at the same time? In other words, what if their brief Christian life had ended in an outburst of sin? What, now, is their ‘whole of life’ judgement?

We could say, once again, that God will remit their post-conversion sins on the basis of Christ’s death. But how is this, then, a ‘whole of life’ judgement? What has their life got to do with it? We could argue that it is a ‘whole of life’ judgement because God takes into account their intention, expressed in their conversion. But once again, isn’t this back to the old facere quod in se est — the pilgrim justified by moral cooperation with grace?

The weakness of Wright’s scheme, it seems to me, is that he separates initial from final justification on the assumption that there will always be ‘time in between’ to give significance to the concept of a ‘whole of life’ judgement. But if we eliminate the ‘time in between’, we find the scheme is either incoherent or, simply, pre-Reformed.

Comments and clarifications would be very welcome!

John Richardson
15 August 2008

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.