Still More Thoughts on Piper's Critique of N.T. Wright in "The Future of Justification"
I guess we interupt this series on Wright's theological vision to bring you yet another fascinating installment on my take of Piper's The Future of Justification.
OK, so I've gotten up to Chapter 5 in Piper's book. I think Piper felt that this was one of the main thrusts of his argument, judging from the number of foreshadowings to it earlier on. The main argument in the chapter is this: Wright says that, for Paul, "the gospel" is the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah of Israel, is the one, true and only Lord of the world. Justification by faith, salvation, and all the rest, naturally and mysteriously results from hearing this gospel, but it is not "the gospel" itself. Piper's main problem with Wright's definition is this: "Why should a guilty sinner who has committed treason against Jesus consider it good news when he hears the announcement that this Jesus has been raised from the dead with absolute sovereign rights over all human beings?" His argument is that such a sinner would not consider the gospel, as Wright defines it, "good news" unless the proclamation that such a sinner is justified by faith in that message, that his sins are thereby forgiven, is also part of the proclamation, i.e., part of "the gospel."
Two things struck me as I considered Piper's argument. First, is this whole issue simply an exercise in splitting hairs? I mean, I'm pretty sure Paul didn't go around shouting one-liners in the streets, exclaiming at some times "Jesus is Lord!," a prclamation he titled "the gospel," and at other times "Your sins are forgiven in that you are justified by faith through grace!" I think his message was much more holistic and much more detailed in its original telling, and that we get the condensed version at many points in Scripture. But then I thought, no, defining precisely "the gospel" is important inasmuch as it brings to the fore the scope of the message. Piper touches upon this point in the Chapter, but treats it somewhat dismissively. If we define the gospel as Wright does, then we are compelled to realize and appreciate the breadth and scope of Jesus' Lordship, and to see our individual salvation within that big picture. While I won't get into it here, this vision will have a massive effect on the nature of each believer's individual discipleship. Piper's definition, one that has dominated Protestant Christianity for centuries, has led to much more individual, spiritual, "me-an-my-salvation" views of the message of Jesus, and I don't think I have to expound too much on the effect of that vision on the discipleship of individual Christians.
Second, and more specifically as to the question raised by Piper himself, when we ask ourselves why an individual sinner would ever hear the message that "Jesus is Lord" as euangelion, "good news," the answer, I believes, lies in where you place the emphasis of the proclamation. If you hear the proclamation, as I believe Piper is stating it, as "Jesus is Lord" then you would rightfully see how a sinner would be terrified rather than elated. But look at it like this: "Jesus is Lord." Given that the early Christian pronouncement of the gospel would have certainly contained a detailed description of the nature, the character, the vision, the vocation of this person whom it was proclaiming as Lord, I think that proclamation, with that emphasis, would lead even the most egregious sinner to indeed say: Euangelion!!
I know it did for this sinner.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Thanks for linking your blog to my discussion. You're a little further in the book, I see, than I am. My hunch is that Piper has depravity and God's attitude toward humanity so catywompas in relation to Paul that he can't imagine that the good news would be anything but the crossing of this immense divide...