Justification? N.T. Wright and John Piper

The Christian doctrine of “Justification” is one that I feel is less understood by Christians in America.  Ask a Christian about salvation and they will likely be able to give you a relatively accurate description (depending on their Christian tradition).  However, it seems that this justification thing is much more confusing and difficult to understand.  What exactly do the NT writer, specifically Paul, mean by justification? How has the Church historically interpreted it? And what does the Church (and contemporary theologians) think of it now? N.T. Wright and John Piper are two very popular voices in Christian communities today, however they have very different perspectives on some issues.

John Piper is a more conservative Reformed Calvinist and caters to many protestants in the US.  He has written many books, including Desiring God, along with a ministry of the same name.  He is a pastor at a very popular church in Minnesota.

N.T. Wright has a moderate evangelical perspective, and is the Bishop of Durham in the Anglican church.  He is one of the premier NT scholars, especially on Paul and Pauline letters.  While he is involved with the New Perspective on Paul, a wave on new interpretations of Paul which has developed in the past few decades, he has a more traditional and conservative perspective than many of the liberal theologians involved in the New Perspective.  He has become very popular with younger, more moderate Christians and theologians, particularly the emerging church (although he doesn’t agree with many emerging ideas). 

So, whats the big deal about these guys – and what do they have to do with the doctrine of justification? Well, they both have very differing interpretations of what justification is and means for us today.  N.T. Wright has written considerably on justification, with a perspective that is different from post-reformation and modern thinking (a la John Piper), but (as Wright thinks) much closer to the 1st Century Judaism Paul was writing from.  In response, Piper has been very critical of N.T. Wright’s views (as have other US conservative Reformed theologians) and is writing an upcoming book adressing Wright’s view of justification specifically, titled The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. So, how do their perspectives differ – and what does it hold for the Church?

N.T. Wright – You can find an overview of his perspective here.  Basically, he argues that justification is based on the Jewish understanding of the law court.  God, based on Christ’s past accomplishment, rightly finds favor in those who believe in Christ in the present, in expectation of the future resurrection.  Justification is the declaration by God that someone is righteous and a part of the covenant community.  Justification isn’t about how someone becomes part of the covenant community (those to be resurrected in the future), but that they are a part of the covenant community.  Wright argues that “the Gospel” is the good news that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, has been crucified and rose from the dead, and is Lord; its not a formula for how people get saved.  Salvation, the gospel, and justification are all intertwined, but they are not the same thing or the same event.

Piper disagrees with pretty much all of this, arguing that God’s righteousness is imputed to people (not a declaration as Wright thinks). Piper thinks “the Gospel” is primarily how people get saved, and salvation and justification occur at the same moment – when God turns from being against the person to being totally for the person.

It will be interesting to see what Piper has to say in his book.  He has been very respectful of N.T. Wright, although he claims that his perspective on justification is not inline with post-reformation thinking, and is detrimental to the doctrine of justification.  But really, what is more important: hanging on to the tradition of reformation thinking, or genuinely trying to understand what justification meant in a 1st Century Jewish setting? I’m not saying the reformation thinking is wrong – but just because it has been around for 400 years, does that make it right? Couldn’t Wright’s view possibly be good for the Church? It surely is “fresh”.

Although I may be partial to Wright’s view, both Piper and Wright have said that their view makes more sense of Paul’s intent and the 1st Century Jewish setting.  Who is right – or is either right?

More on N.T. Wright.

More on John Piper’s critique of N.T. Wright.