I understand some things much more now.

This: “I think the problem that we have had comes from the wrong conception of heaven. Once you start to think of heaven, not as a place miles up in the sky, but as God’s dimension of reality which intersects with ours (but in a strange way that is to us unpredictable and uncontrollable), certainly then you realize that for Jesus to go into the heavenly dimension, is not for him to go up as a spaceman miles up into space somewhere, and not for him to be distant or absent now. It is for him to be present, but in the mode in which heaven is present to us. That is, it’s just through an invisible screen, but present and real.”…

is something I have been trying to help some to see for a while now…ever since the thought hit me ”how far up do we go?” LOL
I just get mocked, usually…or the point is not thought on…

What I loved, also, was N.T. Wright’s genuine care over being in right relationship with others in the Body…with John Piper and the person who he had lunch with the day before - who he had spoken to face to face before sending the refutation.

If only, if only….all would approach matters of dispute like that :(

If you get to talk with him again, I’d love to hear him expand on his ideas related to epistemology. He packs a bunch ideas into just a handful of pages on ideas related to knowing. While he references Lonergan, I’d love to hear him expand his thoughts on knowing. I sensed (but he didn’t say it) there is a connection between the way he uses epistemology of faith, epistemology of hope, and epistemology of love and the way the Old Testament speaks of understanding and wisdom in relation to meditating and acting upon the 10 Commandments. Thus knowing is not limited to mind but encompasses the whole of the person.

FWIW, I have read a vast amount of Piper(and those who agree with him), as well as Wright. IMO the idea of “always reforming” have been lost among Piper and Dever.

I’m especially excited to hear that he is not going to focus on the NPP in his book on Paul which will be coming out. I really would like to see him explore other avenues. I think we’re all kind of tired of hearing about the same old debate, and I certainly hope he keeps to what he said here and explores other issues instead.

Of course one of his other impressive abilities is in being able to draw out the implications of what, for instance, the New Testament says for us today - and at both an academic and popular level. I would encourage us not to base our response to him (or any other scholar for that matter) solely on others views of him. That’s like deciding on a job or a house or a relationship without first hand knowledge - madness! If time is a challenge begin with the shorter works, and go from there to the larger ones. Keep thinking and asking and re-reading if necessary. I think as a result we’ll be better placed to assess his position, including his views on things like justification, heaven, building for the kingdom, modern day empires, and third world debt. For my part -which will come as no surprise - I warm hugely to his understanding and communication of the Faith (even when it stretches my mind and challenges my current thinking).

The discussion on the “New Perspective on Paul” reminds me of a story I wrote a few years back when the NPP was a hot topic in our churches (is it still?). This is certainly *not intended* as a summary of the theological issues. Take it — apart from “with a grain of salt” — more as a look at a few of ethical issues. It’s for people who enjoy Tolkien:

http://prismmagazine.com/articles/npsam.php

(Interestingly, I recently read that Bishop Spong said more or less what I predicted he might about Wright. :-)

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5368

Thanks for the post.

In the interview is one example of the substantive differences in the perspectives that are not amenable to mere assertion of the opposite perspective. The bit where Wright begins “I’m intrigued that Piper has some positions about the righteousness of God, for instance, which are idiosyncratic.”

I’ve recently been poking around in my copy of Wright’s Acts for Everyone, Part II commentary while perusing Piper. Piper hammers (mostly rightly) Wright’s claim about “the gospel” denoting the message of Christ’s Lordship without denoting “a narrative about how you get saved”.

This brought me to ask “What is Wright’s understanding of “being saved” that keeps it out of his denotation of the term ‘gospel’”.

Aside: I could imagine several ways in which the “being saved” part was already included by implication: if a new Emperor was in town, the gospel goes out as good news to the putative loyal subjects. For Piper though, his key question is what about the disloyal subjects? I think that might be resolved by reconfiguring what it mean to present the message as “gospel” in the first place instead of “neutral news”. Could Piper not equally ask what was “true” about someone saying “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” if the listener hated God? But what if the listener was deceived into thinking God didn’t love him? And had a horrible plan for him?

In his Everyone commentaries, Wright has a glossary of terms. Helpfully “salvation” was an entry. In it, he references some examples of “salvation” meaning something other than salvation from wrath for sin, like when it means healing.

Intriguingly, He references the Phillipian Jailer as an example where it doesn’t mean saving from sin.

He cites (? name forgotten) as having taught him that the Jailer KNOWS NOTHING of God, wrath against sin, or future judgment in hell. He cries out, not so much “What must I do to avoid the condemnation God’s law is bringing me” but “What can I do to get out of this mess I’m in”.

And Paul’s answer is turn to the world’s true Lord.

Now I have no idea if that works out in an ultimate sense. One might, for instance, question whether or not the Jailer did have more understanding, having perhaps heard about the days of commotion caused by Paul’s preaching, and having heard the Psalms sung by Paul and Silas in prison.

But it offers an intriguing answer for Wright to give to Piper’s questions about the Gospel necessarily including a narrative of how to get “saved” if the Jailer can accept the good news of the world’s new Lord without even understanding what he’s being saved from.