http://opensourcetheology.net/node/1855 ,
in review of Piper's book:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... ification/
One of my friends responded that she thought the article unfairly characterized Piper's book (at least the relevant chapter). This is my response, which I haven't sent yet -- I'd appreciate feedback...
I tend to agree with Scott here -- I don't believe that Paul's conversion is even relevant to the question of "what is the gospel." They really are two separate issues. Piper tends to conflate things (too much) and Wright tends to delineate concepts (maybe too much), but for whatever reason, since Piper brought Paul's conversion in as an example to illustrate a point that's what the author was responding to.
First, though, does this issue matter? I think it does -- I agree with the author of the piece where he says elsewhere, "a wrong view of the terms actually used and understood by Paul will result in: i) a diminished understanding of scripture; and ii) and greatly restricted approach to mission." I do think it's important to consider the "big story" of the bible and regularly re-evaluate our worldview and question the foundations of our traditions, not as shifting sand, but to ensure that what we think is firm is, in fact, bedrock. Consider this comment to one of Wright's other works:
...At this point Wright briefly introduces structuralist analyses of narrative (Propp, Greimas), arguing that such approaches force us to attend more carefully to the story that is being told (69-77). He suggests that the basic charge that the early church levelled against Judaism was a failure to listen to the story of the Old Testament. More importantly: ‘It might also be suggested that a similar failure on the part of contemporary Christians is widespread, and is moreover at the root of a great deal of misunderstanding of the Christian tradition in general and the gospels in particular’ (70). To address the question of Christian origins, in Wright’s view, is fundamentally to engage in the discernment and analysis of first-century stories and of their relation to the larger stories and worldviews of which they form a part (78-79)....
So, yes I do think it's a worthy exercise to consider this debate further -- Piper seems intent to quash what he views as error -- but he seems less interested in actually understanding where Wright is coming from -- so, that is the purpose of Wright's new book, "Justification," which I have not read but which is a direct response to this book by Piper and similar critics not to convince them but to help them understand his terminology. One of the key things we have lost in our loose use of terms like salvation and gospel and justification and grace is the delineation between salvation from eternal destruction and salvation from the present bondage of sin. These and other notions are really important to consider as these terms are used in Scripture and I think they can really affect both one's doctrine and their praxis. So, these are good exercises, I think, among mature believers (especially those who would teach) so that we can bear the warning of James 3.
I went back and read the chapter from Piper’s book and the article – I don't think the article was unfair to Piper by focusing on the Paul example. Yes, Piper uses Paul only as an “example” but he does actually use it “as an example.” The author is suggesting it is a flawed response to Wright's argument, and Piper does return to that basic notion throughout the book. Besides, from hearing many hours of Piper's lectures and sermons, I do think the point Piper tries to make from Paul's conversion is fairly representative of his actual position.
The main point Piper makes which bothers me the most (and which is so oft repeated in some Reformed circles) is the notion that there is no good news to the proclamation of Christ because there is no "content" to the proclamation without the accompanying message of personal salvation -- I think this represents a very self-centered approach to God's story common to evangelism today.
Piper suggests that the sinner who responds to the gospel as Wright portrays it would then be left to ask "but what's in it for me?" I think the point is that if someone responds rightly to the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah from the inworking of the Holy Spirit, that this would not be their response -- they would instead ask "I want to follow you -- what do you want me to do?" Doing so, they would be clearly given the next step -- "repent and follow me" -- "yes, Lord" would be their response, and a person responding with that heart would be given the peace and joy and fruits of the spirit and the eternal life of the Spirit to guide them and would at the end be declared righteous and live and reign with Christ forever. Someone responding "what's in it for me" has not yet responded correctly to Christ, I don't believe. Understanding Him rightly may or may not result in their right response, and that saddened Paul.
It is not the subjective perception of the gospel that makes it "good news." It is objectively "good" because Christ is objectively good. In fact, even the gospel "loaded by content" as Piper would load it is not subjectively considered "good" to someone who would prefer to live in their sin and who would prefer to serve the interests of the world that gives them superficial enjoyment. Just listen to an honest pagan -- they don't see even the message of salvation as "good" or desirable. It is simply not the self-interest of the hearer that determines whether the message is "good" in this context; more than that, though, Piper assumes (presumably from the English translation) that there is something qualitative out of a word we have learned was fairly neutral. Wright wants to point out that the "evangelion" was a well-understood proclamation of a victorious king, and it is our "tradition" which has now given it its qualitative aspect. Whether one associates "joy" or "terror" on it's hearing depends on the intentions of the hearer and the allegiances intended by them after hearing it.
But, putting aside the “self-interest” criticism, and assuming for the moment that the evangelion is actually intended to be qualitatively "good news" .............. [begin Piper/Sproul style rant]... Excuse me, Mr. Piper!?! No good news ?!!? That defies an understanding of who Christ is and what He overcame! Isaiah et al. were looking forward to justice and freedom from tyranny and from persecution and doom from the overcoming empires and from exile. The first century Jewish remnant was also hoping to resolve a seemingly lost covenant (even when those empires brought wealth and prosperity like Rome). All of this was and is now present in the Christ – Hallelujah! Jesus Himself is the content of the gospel that makes the proclamation "good" – Christ Himself, and all that He did in eternity and the present and what He will do and how He does and will rule with justice and mercy in the eschaton is the good news. His righteousness, the Father’s faithfulness – Hosanna! -- no good news in that!? Come on, Piper! Let go of your enslavement to seeing everything through "Reformation glasses" and reform yourself – the content of the “evangelion” is Jesus Himself (“the very evangel”) -- He was the Seed they were awaiting -- He was the evidence of God’s faithfulness and His right to reign they were looking for and the reality of that reign is good news to all of Creation whether seen that way by a rebel or not. Finally, that "Day of the Lord" had come – for those who believe that and who want to live in covenant relationship with the Father and trade in the ways of the world and the service to the world’s leaders to follow this Messiah and participate in the ushering in of God’s plan for redemption and rescue of all creation to a world of Justice and righteousness and love – this is GOOD NEWS! (regardless of the eternal state of His followers). Yes, there is individual reconciliation and eternal life and a bodily resurrection for those who follow Christ, and it comes with liberty and a shrugging off of the law that kills and a putting on of a law of liberty and love but the eternal state is a bonus – a reward – a wonderful and joyous result from following Christ and enduring in Him to the end. ...[end Piper/Sproul style rant]
I know what Piper is concerned about. But, I think he needs to trust the Holy Spirit a bit more here, and depart from what he calls "simple fixed points of preaching so as not to confuse" (a strangely anti-reformation thought) in favor of teaching the full counsel of God. For Wright and others to say merely that the concept of the“gospel” as understood in the first century includes the benefit of but is not centrally concerned with personal salvation does not in any way negate or cheapen "personal salvation" except to the most myopic of folks who need every theological term to engage their own favorite doctrinal nuance of soteriology (which, ironically, Wright shares). The truth of personal salvation is abundantly clear and affirmed by Wright every chance he gets, but His point is that this notion is of second order to the actual gospel message as that term is used by Paul, and that it's important to try and understand Paul the way he intended to be understood. Even if it's not "second order" for us today in our evangelism, though, all he's asking is to be true to Paul's words and the teachings that result from them. Yes, the epistles speak of personal salvation where it’s pertinent to the subject at hand (and often), but that is not the main focus of the Gospel accounts – Jesus and our acceptance of Him is.
I recently watched segments of an interview between Carson, Piper, and Keller (The Gospel Coalition), where they spoke at length against an emphasis towards the so-called "mercy ministries" and they all agreed as to the risk of encouraging such a thing and how "hard" caring for the poor, etc. was (Piper professed he gets confused and doesn't quite know how to do that -- see attached video snippet), and for that reason and because the eternal was just so much more important than the temporary (in connection with suffering), they just had to turn to what they knew was solid -- saving souls from burning in hell for eternity. I was surprised not to hear the name "Jesus" in that particular discussion, and thus I would ask them if given the chance -- if we're looking for a proper balance there, then why shouldn't we look at the balance in the teachings of Jesus, Himself, and what He focused on in His ministry -- did he spend more time telling us how to treat others, show love towards them, reflect His nature to them, feed the poor, care for widows, etc., or how to escape burning in hellfire? Keller, at least, seemed to understand the call/need to love your neighbor even if he's not likely to be converted from your love (perhaps from his inner city experience), but Carson and Piper seemed to disagree and indicated they would turn their service ministries away if people weren't being saved from them. I would ask them also how the church is doing in reflecting the love of Jesus today? Are people drawn to the body of Christ because of the face of Jesus seen in its "members?" Or are they repelled by organizations full of professing believers who aren't expressing the love of Christ? I think I know how they would respond -- I wonder how they would explain it...
Returning to the “example” of Paul – yes, Paul frequently reflected and commented on his humility and amazement that God would show mercy to such a sinner and persecutor, but where does the bible suggest that he recoiled in terror from the awareness of Christ? It does seem it took that dramatic personal encounter with Christ for the truth of His resurrection and His rightful status as God-man and the awaited Messiah to be understood by Paul, and that alone seemed to turn his heart and mind. How would we assume that Paul was terrified in response to the understanding of Jesus being the Messiah? (he seemed terrified before even knowing who He was -- there's no indication of continued terror after learning His identity). As I read the account of Damascus, I find Paul (naturally) in shock and awe as a first response to the awesome display of God's light (as no doubt were his counterparts), but he actually seems rather matter of fact after Jesus tells him who He was (as matter of fact as you can be when you've been blinded by the light of Jesus, anyway). Where in Scripture do we learn that the Lord comes to the repentant in terror? The Lord brings terror to those who reject Him, but for those who Love Him, that very thing that will one day be terrifying to the one who’d prefer to live their own way and serve the world is joy and peace to those who want to live for Him in the Way. This is one of the caricatures of God's relationship with man that I don’t like in some Reformed circles (that of a tyrannical God that will overcome His people and bring terror to them and force them to follow Him – only then will He allow them to love Him). Paul needed convincing that Jesus was the Messiah, and after conversion he clearly reflected with sadness on what he had done and with humility as to the mercy he was shown, but I don’t see him responding to the truth in terror – yes, I believe he needed to see the living God in person to realize it but once he did he fell to his knees in awe and reverence and stayed there the rest of his life. This seems to have been a fear of reverence (which encouraged him), and not a terror of judgment (which would have paralyzed him). I must say that there "is" something that seems to terrify Paul after his conversion, and that is not the memory that he persecuted Christians but instead that a believer might depart and cease doing what Christ commanded. For Paul, to live was gain, but I believe he would have followed Christ whether or not there was an eternal consequence to him, personally. And so should we – I think that is Wright’s point.
