Showing posts with label NPP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NPP. Show all posts

Monday, September 27, 2010

The White Horse Inn does it again, and again, and again

I love to hear the White Horse Inn, don't get me wrong, but sometimes their zeal becomes mere denunciations of things that they don't agree with, regardless if they understand them or not.

Take their blatant misrepresentation of the New Perspective on Paul. According to Ken Jones and Kim Riddlebarger, the New Perspective teaches that one must do good works in order to be saved. If you want to hear it, listen to this week's podcast, at minute 31:45.

I would admit that the NPP is very broad, but to teach that, I am more amazed that they seem to know more than the people who uphold and promote the NPP.

Take for example N. T. Wright. He is the best NPP proponent, and what he proposes, is not that our salvation is based on our works, rather, that we will be rewarded by the quality of life lived after knowing Christ. Our salvation is secured, but the rewards are one thing that God gives us out of his goodness. Let's see two passages that you never hear at the White Horse Inn:

Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version)

6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

2 Corinthians 5:1-10 (New International Version)

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Paul and the writer of Hebrews are not talking about earning salvation, but the rewards the believer receives from being faithful to the God of the Covenant.

To me, the God that the Bible shows is even greater than the one that these guys, even though well intentioned, show. This God not only saves us without any merits necessary, but gives us his Holy Spirit so that through Him we can do good works, and to top it off, he rewards us for those good works!!

How good a God is that???!!!!!!

Luis A. Jovel

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

The NPP's contribution to Chinese Christianity from the Lutheran Captivity of the Church


On my Twitter feed, I got a link that discusses what the New Perspective on Paul, NPP, contributes and shares with the Chinese culture. These are only abstracts of the articles, but they are very helpful to understand the Chinese Perspective, or the beginnings of it, of the NPP.

Of special interest to me was the abstract by Lung-kwong LO, where he gives us three points of interest as to contribution of the NPP to Chinese Christianity.
Based on this new perspective of Judaism, James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright have advocated a New Perspective on Paul (NPP hereafter), which has been very influential in Pauline studies in the last three decades. Nevertheless, Chinese scholars have paid very little attention to NPP. In this paper, NPP, its criticism and defense, as well as its contributions to Pauline studies are introduced. Its significance for Chinese Christians can be summarized in three points: (1) the old perspective on Paul's gospel of justification by faith was introduced to China by western missionaries and the acceptance of this gospel owed much to Chinese culture, which mainly emphasized individual morality rather than social justice. Studies of NPP could correct the imbalance by leading Chinese Christians to interpret Paul's gospel in terms of social and cultural contexts; (2) the old perspective on Paul dichotomizes faith and works, which not only makes good works incompatible with faith on the issue of salvation but also plays down the importance of good works in eschatological judgment. This stands in sharp contrast to Chinese traditions and aroused strong reactions among Chinese in an incident that happened in Taiwan in 1997. NPP corrects this imbalance and affirms the importance of both faith and good works; (3) one of the most important emphases of NPP is to highlight the fact that Paul's gospel was for both Jews and Gentiles, that Gentiles could become a people of God by faith, without having to become Jews. This understanding is essential for Chinese who are pressurized by the teachings of missionaries to denounce Chinese cultures and customs, the identity markers of being Chinese, in order to become Christians. NPP provides a new understanding on this important issue.
I think that similar contributions can be applied to a Latin American Perspective of the NPP, and as in the case with the Chinese theological community, little has been written from a truly academic position, although even when it comes criticism, they fall short and ultimately misrepresent it.

This really encourages me to continue in my quest to study the NPP, and to apply to a Latin American view of Scripture.

The Protestant church has been held captive by the Lutheran way of reading Scripture and understanding christianity. This has not been limited to doctrine, but also to ethical practice, as well as the christian worship that takes place in lands where the European heritage must take precedence from the indigenous representations of christian worship, which are ultimately considered unchristian and inappropriate to worship God. Hymns, as it looks for some, are the only way to worship God.

Christianity is not dying, but thriving in other lands. Let's hope that the errors that took place during the Reformation, both doctrinal as well as ethical, can be learned by this new generation of Christians.

Luis A. Jovel


Thursday, May 6, 2010

N. T. Wright: Is He the Most Dangerous Theologian of Our Time?

by John H. Armstrong

From the first moment I heard the name of N. T. Wright, about twenty years ago I think, I was told to avoid him like the plague. Why? He was a dangerous man with a theology that would undermine the entire Protestant Reformation. Dutifully I avoided him because those I respected told me to do so. I limited my reading of Tom Wright to a few articles and to only one book about him (not by him). I was told that he embraced a position called "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP). This position was a damaging (some say, quite literally, a damning) stance on Paul's corpus of New Testament material because it directly attacked the most important truths of the Reformation. Thankfully a very good friend, who had taken the time to begin to read Tom Wright for himself, challenged me bluntly and forcefully to my face. In effect he told me to keep my mouth shut about Tom Wright until I had really bothered to read him for myself. In the mid-1990s I began to read Tom Wright and have appreciated his work profoundly ever since.

Shortly after I began to study Wright's work I decided to conduct an interview (a friend did it for our journal) with Bishop Wright. (He is the Anglican Bishop of Durham today.) We published this interview in our quarterly journal. Later on we did an entire issue of our journal on the theology of N. T. Wright. Time and again I heard stories of people saying that John Armstrong had given up the gospel and embraced the NPP. (Oddly, I heard all of this second-hand and in books and articles after the fact.) In almost every case the people who made these statements didn't seem to realize that Wright actually did not promote the NPP at all. He is admittedly appreciative of certain aspects of the NPP and openly writes of which parts he agrees with and why. But it made no difference to his critics. A label was found and a great scholar, who was and still is doing some remarkable biblical work, was deemed dangerous. The only problem with all of this hype was that it all only made Wright more interesting to a horde of younger readers, some inquiring pastors who would still read beyond what they were told to read, and a lot of us who just wanted to know what the hullabaloo was really all about. The end result is that Tom Wright is now one of the most widely read biblical theologians of our time.

I remember the first time I heard Tom Wright preach. I thought to myself, "If this man doesn't preach Christ and the gospel then who does?" He warmly commended the grace of God and the sufficiency of Christ alone to save those who believed the good news. He spoke with spiritual fervor and human warmth. I knew heresy when I hear it and see it and this did not seem like heresy to me. I was not alone in this response. A growing number of people made this same discovery by meeting and listening to Wright and over time they too found Wright compelling in so many ways.

Some years ago, before John Piper decided to write his book against Tom Wright's teaching on justification, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, several friends joined me for an evening of discussion with John about Paul's teaching on the nature of saving faith. It was a spirited and revealing dialogue. We clearly disagreed about some aspects of faith and the doctrine of imputation but parted peacefully. I had no idea, at least at that time, that John would eventually devote an entire book to this subject, seeking to show why Tom Wright's views compromised the gospel at several serious points. Wright then answered John Piper in his 2009 book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.

I have longed argued that the vast majority of ordinary folks, and many pastors must also be included here, criticize Tom Wright without paying careful attention to what he has actually written or spoken. I often begin a conversation about Wright with one simple question: "What books of Tom Wright's have you read in whole and what did you learn? Tell me what he actually says about such and such and tell me what did you object to and (very specifically) why?" The silence is often staggering. One critic, according to a source who knows this author personally and informed me of this fact recently, has read one small book by Tom Wright, What St. Paul Really Said. Based upon his reading of this little popular primer (with its one offensive chapter about imputation and 2 Corinthians 5:21) this man has written a rather large book that can very easily be construed as one of the more anti-Tom Wright books available to ordinary readers. (There are some excellent scholars who do disagree with Wright in a serious and engaging way and have done a wonderful job of expressing disagreement in a rigorous and proper academic way!) So hearing Wright critiqued in a context where he would personally interact with critics has always been a personal hope of mine. This is precisely what happened at the annual Wheaton College Theology conference on April 16-17. I was pleased to attend the entire event and enjoyed it immensely. I was not surprised, however, that I could not find a serious critic of Wright's in the entire crowd as I mingled and engaged scores of people one-on-one. (I am sure there had to be a few in a crowd of 1,100 plus registrants! ) The serious academic critics who disagree with Wright will tell you why. Some of this came out at the Wheaton Conference as you can see for yourself. He doesn't pretend to have everything figured out and admits he is still thinking through the implications of his own paradigm.

For those who are I remind you the same is true of great theologians of the past like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. Scholars speak, for example, of the early-Luther, the middle-Luther, and the late-Luther. Why will we give him a pass and if a living teacher like Tom Wright admits he is growing this is a sign that he is dangerous? Like I tell friends, fall in love with the work of a theologian who is dead and things will be tidier and a great deal safer for you.

This theology conference was filled with hordes of ordinary people, local church pastors and bible professors who have read Tom and wanted to hear him speak. Like me they wanted to hear various academics respond to his work in a gracious, critical and helpful way. You can be the judge of all of this for yourself since the entire conference is now available on video at Wheaton College. I hope you will take the time to watch and listen. I think you will find Tom Wright to be one of the truly great Christian thinkers of our time. And I also think you will be impressed by his gracious, humble and winsome manner throughout. If you are going to call this man dangerous then make absolutely sure that you know why before you repeat such a warning. If you are wrong then you may well be keeping yourself, and a lot of others, from the very theological truths that need recovery in our time so that we will discover the unity in the church that Jesus and Paul worked and prayed for in their own ministries.

Personally, I think Bishop Tom Wright is very dangerous. I think he is dangerous precisely because he winsomely and powerfully challenges some esteemed (and I think incorrect) ideas that need to be challenged by a fresh and faithful biblical theology. He seeks a theology that focuses upon the Jesus who is revealed to us in the New Testament. He wants a theology that lines up with the central emphasis of the Apostle Paul upon our unity in Christ in the church. (He refers to this as covenantal inclusion!) Two presentations by Wright were the very best in this conference if you do not have time to watch them all. First, watch the short chapel address that he gave the Wheaton student body on Ephesians. Second, watch his Saturday night presentation on the theology of Paul. I was moved deeply by both messages and gladly commend them to you. Meanwhile, be forewarned. Tom Wright may well be a dangerous theologian in your life. I believe he is so dangerous that his work will very likely change your thinking in ways that call for repentance and real faith. He will make you see the Jesus of the Bible and long for the unity of the Spirit that Paul labored for throughout his entire ministry. I have grown to love Christ more by reading and listening to this highly esteemed teacher of the gospel of Christ. I believe this is a danger that we can afford to take on board when the church is in desperate need of a new biblical reformation.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

The Demise of the New Perspective on Paul. Wishful Thinking?


Mark Siefried, roughly a decade ago, in an article published in
Themelios (I can't quite remember it, and thought that I had it at home, any help would be appreciated) said that the NPP, like communism, would die down with time. It would look lke Siefried is going back to the fifties, comparing the NPP with communism. Sounds like a witch hunt was on order.

In the latest Trinity Journal, G. K. Beale, in his review of
Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, writes in the last paragrah of his review: "The New Perspective is now thirty years old. There have been so many qualifications of it over theyears it should now be seen to be outdated as the primary default lens through which to understand Judaism or Paul." I don't get it. So outdated, then why write two volumes to try to knock it down? It would
seem to me that Beale, who I admire a lot, has shot himself on the foot by saying what he is saying.

Finally, what sparked me from lurking to writing, was what Don Carson
said at the latest CLARUS Conference, where he said at the end that the
NPP has lost interest among theologians. What? Why write so much
against it then?

Today I was reading part of the article by Wright, "Redemption from the
New Perspective? Towards a Multi-Layered Pauline Theology of the Cross
", where Wright mentions that there are many grave diggers, wanting to
bury the NPP, and along with it him as well.

It would seem to me that by not being able to knock down the NPP by
writing and scholarly exchange, the new tactic is to down play the NPP.

At least, this is my take on this issue.

You can follow this conversation on the Wright Yahoo List

Luis A. Jovel.