"The [New Perspective] view of the first-century Jew...."

Some time back, I read Piper's The Future of Justification, on N. T. Wright's revisioning of the Gospel, Justification, and All That

Early in the book, Piper established some excellent points of caution. Given our several laments (here and at Pyro) over the increasing meaninglessness of a particular term, I thought this worth excerpting and emphasizing:

A second reason why an external first-century idea may distort or silence what the New Testament teaches is that while it may accurately reflect certain first-century documents, nevertheless it may reflect only one among many first-century views. Whether a New Testament writer embraced the particular way of thinking that a scholar has found in the first century is not obvious from the mere existence of that way of thinking.

As an analogy, one may only think about all that flies under the banner “evangelical” in our own day—and hope that no historian in a thousand years will assign any of those meanings to us simply because we bore that label. Therefore, one must be cautious in saying on the basis of one’s interpretation of extra-biblical texts that this is “how first-century Jews understood the world.” Sweeping statements about worldviews in first-century Judaism are precarious (pp. 35-36)

My, that sparks some scary thoughts. Like....

The writer who used the name "Dan Phillips" identified himself as an "evangelical." Research has now revealed that the twenty-first century "evangelical" believed that the Gospel guaranteed health and prosperity, that walking with God necessarily involved a sporadic flow of low-octane semi-revelation, that truth was in the eye of the beholder, that God did not completely know the future nor control the present, that the notion of penal, substitutionary atonement was a form of "cosmic child-abuse," that Mormons and Roman Catholics were Christian brothers, that abortion was a peripheral issue, that knowledge of actual Biblical teachings was optional, that Adam might be a mythical figure like Paul Bunyan,  and that engagement with the culture was more important than pursuit of the eternal. This gives a completely New Perspective on Phillips' writings. For instance, in spite of first-impressions, what he really believed was.....

AIIEEEEEEEE!

Dialogue with a composite N. T. Wrightophile

I just posted what could be construed (correctly!) as a critical piece on N. T. Wright. Now, I've done this before, and I know how it goes. I still get a trickle of outraged vitriol over this nearly four-year-old post. I've had it at Pyro, I had a silly go-around with a couple of dainty souls over at Doug Wilson's blog who wanted to engage me in a bracing round of "He Who Is Offended First Wins."

So I know how it goes.

Therefore, unless they miss it altogether, or read this post first, or have already come athwart my responses in the past, here's how at least some cries of outrage will run — along with my responses.

You haven't read all of Wright's writings!

True.

Then you can't criticize him!

Well. Did you read all of my online writings before criticizing me?

Er, no... but you're nobody!

True enough. But in that case, why are you bothering to argue with me? Why do you care how I criticize Wright?

And besides, let's be fair:

• If I can't criticize anything Wright says without knowing everything Wright says...
• ...then Wright should be required to say everything any time he says anything — or he should say nothing at all.

Unless it's your argument that Wright is really such a wretched failure of a communicator that nothing he says can be understood?

No no, of course not. But you should give him credit. At least he believes in some kind of Hell. That's very conservative for his milieu.

Well now, as a Christian, is that my standard of judgment? It seems to me that this would be playing the game Wright himself is playing: considering men's judgment as paramount. My goal isn't to be more conservative than... well, anyone; nor more liberal. My goal is to please God. To do that, I must fear God (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10, etc.). If I do that, I will not fear man (Proverbs 29:25), and will not be swayed by trying to be well-thought-of by the world (James 4:4).

But he's an international scholar, and you're nothing!

Not quite true. I am a child of God, part of a kingdom of priests, and no man's slave. I have no Pope, just a great high priest before whom both Wright and I are naked and vulnerable, and by whose word we are both judged (Hebrews 4:11-13). I have to test everything by that standard (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Even N. T. Wright.

Besides, since when did an academic degree constitute a "Get-Out-of-Criticism-for-Life" card? Doesn't that actually raise the standard of judgment for Wright (James 3;1)?

But that's the problem. Your lack of advanced education enslaves you to a Western mindset that blinds you to your own biases, and leaves you unable to appreciate the subtle nuances of Wright's position.

Yeah, about that. See, I don't think you need a PhD in Second Temple Judaism to get the imagery of fire and judgment and all. I think people sometimes use that to come up with dodges and covers that make them feel more respectable in the eyes of people who hate God. I think they sometimes use it to change the message, and be better-liked.

When I was a very young Christian, a coworker asked if I really believed in a literal Hell. I said I really did. He responded that Eskimoes would not see a Hell of fire as a bad thing.

I thought, even at the time, that if I took my hand, and an Eskimo's hand, and stuck them both in a blazing fire, we'd have pretty much the same experience, and come away with pretty much the same impression.

I don't think it's rocket science.

In this way, Wright strikes me as Emerg***'s do. They throw around words like "Western" and "Platonic" as code-words for "I know that what the Bible teaches is offensive, and I think I've found a way to say I'm a Christian, but look smarter and more sophisticated than other Christians, and be thought well of by the world."

Which is really not a healthy Christian goal — and isn't my goal (Galatians 1:10).

But Wright is reaching people you could never reach!

Absolutely right.

But I think the question, "Reaching them with what?", is inescapable, unavoidable, and central.

We need to reach people with the Gospel. And I remain unconvinced that that is what Wright clearly, accurately, and urgently is concerned to do.