Update on John Piper/N.T. Wright and Justification

John Piper’s new book, The Future of Justification, is now available to purchase or download.

Flipping through the pdf for a couple minutes, its pretty obvious that Piper disagrees quite a bit with Wright, but seems to still be respectful of him, which is good to see. Basically, Piper argues that God’s righteousness is imputed to believers through Christ’s sacrifice, and Paul’s understanding of the gospel is primarily how people get saved (i.e., through justification). Wright argues differently on both points here, which is why Piper wrote the book.

It seems the primary reason Piper wrote this book is because he thinks Wright’s ideas are bad for the Church. Since I haven’t read the entire book, I can’t comment on his full perspective. But, I wonder, how detrimental could Wright’s perspective be? Piper seems to have a very individualistic perspective on the Christian life – couldn’t Wright’s view, which may lead to more community, actually be a good thing? Wright’s view leans toward a community and covenantal understanding of our relationships with God, where as Piper’s tend to be more spiritually individualistic. Which one is actually more detrimental?

As I read Piper’s perspectives on multiple issues, it seems a lot of his theology stems from a judgmental “Father” of the trinity. In Piper’s view, the “Father” God is totally against us – until Jesus comes along and saves us. And unless you are a part of God’s chosen people, the “Father” will be totally against you, you will be predestined to hell. There seems to be a division between the Father and Son in Piper’s view. It’s actually quite confusing. In Wright’s perspective, there is no predestination – God’s entire interaction with people (through Israel, through Christ) can be understood in covenantal terms. Taking the two side by side, Wright’s perspective tells of a trinity that is harmony with one another – the Son carrying out the works of the Father. In Piper’s view, the Father and the Son are separated and seem to have different motives. Perhaps this is not the best interpretation of Piper’s words (especially with the relatively limited amount of Piper’s writing I have read), but when it really comes down to it, which perspective is more detrimental? I would argue that in fact, it’s Piper’s views that are more detrimental – not Wright’s. I’ll continue to read Piper’s book and his other writings in order to understand it better – but I hope people don’t just through Wright out the window because the big name of Piper doesn’t like his non-Reformed perspectives.

On an entirely different note, and not to resort to Piper bashing (because he has reached many people for Christ through his ministry in Minnesota), but what is up with Piper’s views of men and women? It seems that in his view, men are suppose to do all of the important stuff, while women need to know their place. All of his views of manhood and womanhood are more societal than they are scriptural. He constantly reads his own view into scripture to make it seem that the Bible supports his views. But seriously, what does the Church have to gain from suppressing 50% of the Church from being full sisters in Christ? In his perspective, the entire definition of womanhood is in relation to manhood; Whatever he thinks “manhood” is – courageous, leaders/pastors, etc, women cannot be that – they just need to support men. Obviously, he is against women preaching – but he even goes as far to suggest that female preaching is “simply casual and conversational” while male preaching is strong and forceful. How is this not detrimental to the Church? Why do Christian leaders continue to oppress women and use the Bible to justify it? Can the Holy Spirit not work through women to give spiritual insight in the same way as men? Yes, men and women are different. But if we look at pre-fall humanity, the way God created humanity and intended it to be, we see not a complementarian relationship, but an equal partnership. Read more on Piper’s so called “Biblical Manhood” here.