N.T. Wright’s Redeemer Prebyterian Church Lecture
Kenneth Kang-Hui, a ruling elder in the PCA in New York City, has given us a very helpful analysis of N.T. Wright’s recent lecture at Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s Center for Faith and Work. Here is the full review:
“N.T. Wright made a splash Tuesday night in New York City as the guest lecturer at an event sponsored by the Center for Faith and Work (CFW), the marketplace ministry of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (RPC). Speaking to a packed house of over 500 New Yorkers, most of them young Christian professionals, Bishop Wright spoke engagingly on the topic of Christian character.
Bishop Wright’s appearance has been the subject of both great anticipation and great consternation on the part of many in the Reformed camp. In particular, the blogosphere has been buzzing with questions on the propriety of a well respected Presbyterian church sponsoring a lecture by one of the leading proponent of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP).
Having attended the event, I want to share my notes on the lecture itself and my own thoughts on the appropriateness of having one of RPC’s ministries invite N.T. Wright to speak at their event. I will start with the easy part- summarizing Wright’s talk; then I will address the more complex issue regarding his invitation to speak Tuesday night.
The lecture was part of a book tour that Wright has been conducting to promote his latest book, “After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters.†He came to this topic of Christian character while writing about the idea of the New Heavens and the new Earth in his earlier book, “Surprised by Hope.†During that process, Wright realized that few New Testament scholars were writing about Christian character and believed that it was a topic that should be addressed in light of the New Creation.
Referencing C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce,†Wright contrasts the “solidness†of the bodies that we will have in the new heavens and the new Earth with the “etherealness†of the bodies of those who are in Hell. With this promise of future glory in view, Christians are to live substantive and virtuous lives that anticipate our full embodiment in the new creation. We are to demonstrate, with our lives, what it means to be fully human in Christ.
Developing Christian character, also know as sanctification, requires a conscious decision to be virtuous in the little things until being virtuous in the big things becomes second nature to the believer. It is hard work that requires discipline on our part and a commitment to cultivate the fruit of the Spirit. We do that by availing ourselves of the support of the Christian community and the work of the Holy Spirit via the ordinary means of grace.
Due to time constraints, Bishop Wright’s talk was engaging but brief. In many ways, the talk served primarily as a “trailer†for his new book and provided inspiration but little details. However, it was effective in challenging those in attendance to consider the importance and eternal significance of Christian character. My one critique would be that reliance upon the grace of God to accomplish our sanctification is assumed by Wright but not discussed prominently; at one point in the lecture, Wright parenthetically reminds us that “of course, all this is to be done by [God’s] grace alone through faith [in Christ] alone.†I suspect this oversight is due to deficiencies in Wright’s understanding of Union with Christ and to his convictions regarding the role of good works in the future justification of believers.
Now to the stickier issue of Wright’s invitation to speak by a ministry of Redeemer Presbyterian Church… as had been promised by a spokesman for the Center for Faith and Work, Bishop Wright focused specifically on the topic of Christian character and did not venture into any discussions, either in the lecture or in the Q&A, regarding his views on Justification or the New Perspective on Paul. Anyone who is unfamiliar with Wright’s controversial views, and that would include the overwhelming majority of the audience, probably did not hear anything that would have raised any red flags. In fact, judging from the applause in the auditorium and the long book signing line afterwards, Bishop Wright was very well received.
However, I found myself uneasy with what I could only view as implicit and uncritical endorsement of N.T. Wright’s views. This included the following:
1. The location for the lecture was at the Ethical Culture Society, which is one of the sites that Redeemer Presbyterian Church uses for one of their stated Sunday services. Since this is known to be the case by the majority of the audience, who themselves are Redeemer attendees, this may reinforce the impression that the lecture was a RPC sponsored event, despite pleadings to the contrary by the CFW.
2. Wright was introduced to the audience by one of the directors for the CFW, who also happens to be a Teaching Elder (TE) in the PCA. While he is not officially on the pastoral staff at RPC, he is employed by them and is a member of the New York Presbytery. I believe his introduction of Bishop Wright may be seen as an implicit endorsement that RPC supports the views of Bishop Wright and acknowledges him to be a full partner in Gospel work, without qualification.
3. At the reception that was held after the lecture, a large book table was setup that displayed and sold all of Wright’s books, including his books on Justification and the NPP; these books were on display with no caveats or warning and actively promoted by the book sellers. Again, I fear that the presence of these books may be construed as an endorsement, and even a recommendation to read all of Wright’s works.
Full disclosure at this point… I was a member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church and a Ruling Elder at one of their church plants; currently I am a member in good standing at another one of RPC’s church plant in New York City. I know Dr. Tim Keller and RPC well enough to say without reservation that he and his church are NOT advocates of the NPP. My intent here is not to call into question RPC’s full commitment to a Reformed understanding of Justification by faith, as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In fact, my family and I will be forever indebted to the ministry of Dr. Keller and RPC; they were instrumental in helping us understand rightly the glorious Gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the preciousness of Justification by faith only.
Having said that, I believe the law of unintended consequences may be at work here. By not only inviting Bishop Wright to speak, but having him introduced by a TE and selling his books which promote the NPP, the CFW may have unintentionally but implicitly endorsed Wright and his views. And given the fact that CFW is a ministry of RPC and that the event was held at a site that RPC uses for Sunday worship, attendees at the event can hardly be blamed if they assumed that RPC endorses Bishop Wright and his views, even if that is not true. Perhaps RPC will come out with a public statement or privately let its attendees know that they do not endorse all of Bishop Wright’s views, particularly those that are out of accord with our Reformed confessions. My concern is that in attempting to expose the Body of Christ to Wright’s helpful teachings on Christian character, they may have unwisely exposed that Body to questionable teachings that would undermine its assurance of salvation and proper understanding of Justification by faith alone, the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls.”
About Post Author
Nick,
Why don’t you call in to the program (currenly live) at the bottom of the hour 1:30pm to talk about NT Wright speaking at this conference. 1.888.660.9535
Pingback : N. T. Wright to Speak at Redeemer NYC (Updated) « Heidelblog
True Christian character comes only after God’s Truth!
“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” -God’s Holy True Word
While I share some of the same concerns about Bishop Wright’s books there is one aspect of this debate that troubles me: The conservatives in the PCA are starting to sound like Bob Jones in his debate with John R. Rice, Billy Graham and others who were not “second-line” separationists. Maybe Carl McIntyre is a better parallel. It has moved beyond substantive criticisms and is not guilt by association.
It does seem that as RPC tries to defend this choice they do so on the basis of being somehow able to section off Wright’s aberrant views on justification etc from his ethics. This seems very questionable to me.
First, do we really think that Paul (especially in the pastoral epistles) would encourage us to advocate a man’s ministry as long as we can section off the bits of his theology that are seriously misguided while touching on the core of the gospel and
second, do we really want to encourage ministries or Christians who don’t think that our ethics should flow seamlessly from our understanding of justification and the nature of salvation found in the gospel. Whatever happened to the imperative flowing from the indicative. Get the nature of the indicative wrong and if one is being consistent (and the thing that worries me about NTW is that he generally is) how can one have confidence in his account of the Christian’s ethical life?
Following up on…”our ethics should flow seamlessly from our understanding of justification and the nature of salvation found in the gospel…”
That runs counter to all of Paul’s exhortation to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, run the race as to win it, move from taking in milk to eating meat, refuse to settle to for being mere men and the rest of it. The very word “imperative” implies work.
NT Wright’s comment the other night that if you see someone claiming to be a believer, but don’t see them pursuing all of the fruit of the Spirit, then you have to wonder if you’re looking at “the genuine article” seems to ring true. How can one have confidence in his salvation if he’s not walking it and repenting from your sins? Jesus said, “Repent, for the kingdom is at hand,” he did not say, “Believe in me and wait for my Spirit to change you,” but commanded us to believe and repent in one breath. Yes, by grace alone we are called to faith, not of ourselves. But in that same moment, we are called to act–to repent.
On NTW, his “new” perspectives are really not that new and almost 50 years old. I don’t see him as positioning himself as a new Luther or Calvin, but rather someone who is kind enough to let the whole Church into the conversation instead of continuing to allow this argument to go on within academia or in the world of seminaries. And most certainly as someone who is pointing us back to Scripture and calling believers to be Bereans, instead of pointing us to a cacophony of men who are interpreting interpreters. And RPC is wise to step back from this theological turf war and allow believers into the conversation as well.
I agree – I was there, these is a pretty accurate account of what was said. I did appreciate that Wright went out of his way to confirm that all the ethics stuff was reformed and under “by grace through faith.” – I guess, He didn’t give anyone any reasons to think otherwise – but he was sensitive to the “paranoid reformed types” 🙂
Samuel,
Would you agree with the criticism raised by Kenneth at the end of the review? Would you suggest that Wright is categorically “Reformed” (in the ‘solas of the Reformation’ use of the word)? If someone disagreed with Wright should we write them off as being one of those “paranoid reformed types?”
Actually, if by “paranoid reformed type,” you mean someone who is concerned to protect God’s people from false or erroneous teaching, then consider myself guilty as charged. 🙂
Of course, that doesn’t mean I think anyone that I have doctrinal differences with has nothing to say that is worth hearing. As a matter of fact, I praised Dr. Wright for calling all believers to pursue their sanctification and to live virtuously. If the purpose of his lecture was to stir believers to love and good works, I believe he achieved his mission.
My concerns had more to do what Wright did NOT say at his lecture – his views on Justification by Faith, which I believe undermines much of the good things he had to say. After all, if justification does NOT mean that we have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, as Wright argues against, then Wright’s call to virtuous living is really just a call to legalism. For if his views are correct, than ultimately we do not, as our membership vows in the PCA affirm, rest on Christ only for our salvation; instead, our salvation is based on our faithfulness to believe God’s promises AND our sincere efforts at obedience. At that point, I would much prefer relying on naked sacerdotalism then my own sincerity in trying to obey God’s laws.
Thankfully, that’s not an option we have to consider since the PCA, as well as other Reformed bodies, have been clear in denouncing the teachings of the NPP and affirming the confessional reformed teaching that we are saved by faith alone, apart from works.
All this brings us back to my original criticism of RPC… if you read it carefully, my concern was not to say that someone like N.T. Wright has nothing valuable to say to us. My criticism was that RPC did not seem to do enough to put up the fences necessary to protect her flock from false teachings. Instead, she allowed the sheep to roam without supervision, exposing them to potential danger.
Kenneth,
Your review was objective, charitable and wise. If men and women will not give you the same objective reading that they give Wright and others that Reformed men raise criticisms of, then it shows their lack of the biblical charity for which they say they stand. Bullying, name-calling and raising ad hominem arguments is disrespectful and ineffective. May God grant men the humility to respectfully engage in debate. Thank you for demonstrating this kind of pastoral approach with your review.
@N.T. Batzig I think that the ‘law of unintended consequences’ is always a bit speculative and hard to be consistent on. I’m attesting to my experience of hearing nothing that raised any Reformed red flags.
Wright is a bit like C.S. Lewis I suppose in that I love what he says… but I worry a little when I hear what he thinks on certain issues. (Actually, I wonder if Wright might be a bit more conservative than Lewis) At any rate, the Church has been served well by both and I’m thankful for that. And I’m guilty of quoting Lewis from time to time – maybe there will be unintended consequences… i donno.
@Kenneth – that is a fair question that I can’t answer except to suggest that perhaps the flock is not easily lead astray by false ideas. The flock in NY is pretty good at discerning arguments through the cross, and their leadership is not afraid to dialog with ideas or people that they disagree with. From what I can tell, quoting from pagan is a fairly regular part of the preaching diet at redeemer.
and @Kenneth – i think by “paranoid reformed types” – i hope I have the quote right – he is referring to the type who still wants to cut the book of James out of the Bible… i hope you’re not that type.
Tmiller, perhaps my expression was infelicitous and lead to something of a misunderstanding. What I meant was our Ethics (ie our conception of what it is to be a Christian and the understanding our of sanctification) flows out of our understanding of justification. However I do think your response is rather odd/interesting. Are you claiming that our justification doesn’t drive our sanctification? I have no problem with the fact that imperatives really are imperative and are part of the way God drives our obedience, but note that when we work out our salvation we really do work out the salvation we have in Christ which begins with our justification coram Deo. I think the danger of at least what you seem to be hinting at and the way you quote NTW in support is that sanctification basically becomes a kind of stand alone acid test of one’s salvation, at which point one’s moral transformation becomes the hinge on which one’s religion turns (apologies if I’ve misread you, the web is no friend to good interpretation). Again, how does this fit with the indicative-imperative. Paul challenges the immoral Corinthians to be who they are, and yes he can warn them that those who live immorally will not inherit the kingdom but he reminds them that they are not in this category (and such were some of you) and so should cease to live this way.
So I’m still left asking how do we expect a man who misunderstands the nature of justification to explain the nature of sanctification. As far as he is inconsistent then yes we can learn, but NTW is a clever man who tends to work his theology through.
Kenneth, excellent post. I wrote to the head of the Center of Faith & Work before Wright spoke and sent her a few of his disturbing quotes and asked why they would have someone with those beliefs speak at a Redeemer function.
She wrote back with part of an email from Tim — where Tim basically said that since the General Assembly had adopted a statement on Wright saying there are helpful insights in much of his work “by noting potential problem areas in his observations on Paul’s theology, we do not mean to suggest that we have nothing to learn from Wright.” Tim then said that since our own General Assembly warns us *against* think that since there are problems with Wright that there is therefore nothing to learn from him, that we should let him come and speak.
She assured me he would not be allowed to speak on any of the “problem areas”. So your report that they were selling ALL of his books is rather disturbing.
And by the way, the church is doing many, many things like this. And each time they’re asked about it they always say the same thing. They say we’re not endorsing their errant teachings. BUT, as you have observed, just putting it out there exposes people to their bad teachings and makes them think the bad teachings are indeed endorsed by Redeemer.
And this isn’t just a theoretical worry. I’ve been a Redeemer member for almost 20 years now and I can attest that the people in the church have very confused views on the authority of scripture, the exclusivity of Christ and the doctrine of justification.
Kenneth, excellent post. I wrote to the head of the Center of Faith & Work before Wright spoke and sent her a few of his disturbing quotes and asked why they would have someone with those beliefs speak at a Redeemer function.
She wrote back with part of an email from Tim — where Tim basically said that since the General Assembly had adopted a statement on Wright saying there are helpful insights in much of his work “by noting potential problem areas in his observations on Paul’s theology, we do not mean to suggest that we have nothing to learn from Wright.” Tim then said that since our own General Assembly warns us *against* thinking that since there are problems with Wright that there is therefore nothing to learn from him, that we should let him come and speak.
She assured me he would not be allowed to speak on any of the “problem areas”. So your report that they were selling ALL of his books is rather disturbing.
And by the way, the church is doing many, many things like this. And each time they’re asked about it they always say the same thing. They say we’re not endorsing their errant teachings. BUT, as you have observed, just putting it out there exposes people to the wrong teachings and makes them think they are indeed endorsed by Redeemer.
And this isn’t just a theoretical worry. I’ve been a Redeemer attender/member for almost 20 years now and I can attest that the people in the church have very confused views on the authority of scripture, the exclusivity of Christ and the doctrine of justification.
If you’d like me to send you more details on some of the other things the church is involved in please email me at web7@lazylizard.net. (don’t worry, it’s a throw-away email address).
As much as I admire Rev. Keller and his ministry/life, I have to question his logic here (in defending Wright.) There’s almost something positive to learn from others. Pelagius has some good critiques of what it would be like if we emphasized all of grace (one can say he foresee the dangers of Antinomianism), but that doesn’t mean churches should invite Pelagius to speak and openly sell his works and books.
As pastors we have a duty to guard the sheep from the dangers of the world, this is why God give the gifts of teachers to help the congregation trust them in their teachings and guidance. While I will have no problem with trained leaders/teachers of the church to be exposed to Wright, to see the benefits and dangers of his teachings, it is irresponsible to expose the flock, without warning, to his works without any warnings or pre-teachings on why Wright is not embraced by PCA and even warned against, that didn’t seem to happen here.
Mr. Hui is correct in the law of unintended consequences. Now we have a group of people that have been impressed by Wright, and will no doubt think, as any lay-people should think, that because Wright is great in one area, he is great in all areas. And unfortunately, reading the NPP and other books of Wright will not help.
Overall, I believe Rev. Keller and Redeemer open a can of worms that needlessly shouldn’t be open. Are there not good Reformed speakers that can speak on Faith and Works? Do we have to invite someone with such controversy?
By the way, earlier I posted, “I can attest that the people in the church have very confused views on the authority of scripture, the exclusivity of Christ and the doctrine of justification.”
It was pointed out to me that that was an unqualified statement that made it sound like I believe everyone at Redeemer, including the leadership is confused. And that’s not true, nor is it what I meant to say.
I should have said “some” people at Redeemer are confused. It’s certainly not all! I’m not even sure I’d say it’s a majority. But it is more than you would hope (which is probably always the case).
I think the leadership of the church is for the most part solid doctrinally speaking. When I point out these errant views, they always agree that they’re errant, but they say that since they’re not endorsing that particular view that it’s okay to recommend the other teachings or writings of the person. I just think they’re not seeing how these errant teachings somehow do ultimately seem to get through and trickle down where they are absorbed by more people than most of us would like to see.
This is a little late for a post that was made last April, nonetheless…
I was troubled to discover that some of N.T. Wright’s books are being sold at the RPC book table every Sunday after service. I do not remember which titles, and in any case, I am very familiar with his titles. Also, Mr. Wright’s name continues to be promoted by RPC in other ways, specifically be their continued distribution of the Center for Faith & Works announcement of their “Gospel & Culture Lectures.â€
I attended RPC last Sunday and opened the church bulletin to find a Center for Faith & Works insert. And why shouldn’t I? It is, after all, a RPC ministry. So I opened it and saw a list of the speakers that have been invited to participate in the speaker series. Here is the schedule:
04/20/2010 …….N.T. Wright
10/24/2010 …….Jeff Van Duzer
11/21/2010 …….Andy Crouch
01/30/2011 …….Tim Keller
02/27/2011 …….Adrienne Chaplin (a woman)
03/20/2011 …….Robert George
04/17/2011 …….Os Guinness
05/22/2011 …….James K.A. Smith
From the foregoing schedule, we see that from October 2010 there is approximately one speaker every month (with a break from the program during the busy Christmas season) with the program ending in May 2011. Thus, it seems odd that there is a six month gap between Mr. Wright’s presentation and the next one by Mr. Duzer.
Perhaps all of this merely amounts to un-wisdom, but I was not surprised by these things because before trying RPC (I’m new in NYC—been here four weeks now—and looking to get plugged into a local church ASAP) I tried one of their church plants (also a member of the PCA; and located in Greenwich Village) two Sundays in a row. The first time I heard their pastor preach (on my second visit – Sunday, September 5, 2010) I was shocked to hear him teach that King Josiah “furthered the meaning of the scriptures.†This was a sermon on II Kings 22:1-13, 23:1-15 and 19-25 (I still have the bulletin and scripture handout). [Is anyone else bothered at all when pastor’s think they know where to insert ellipses? I digress.]
What did he mean by “further the meaning of the scripturesâ€? It was very unclear and the pastor did not fix the lack of clarity. Despite not explaining what that meant in the charge to the congregation at the end of the sermon, he told us to “Go forth to further the meaning of the Bible.â€
So, when I saw N.T. Wright literature being sold at the RPC book table. I was not surprised. It appears that the apple does not fall far from the tree.
I am concerned.
Joseph Hansen
The second sentence in my post above, should read as follows (changes in ALL CAPS):
“I do not remember which titles, and in any case, I am NOT very familiar with his titles.”
Joseph Hansen
Pingback : N. T. Wright to Speak at Redeemer NYC (Updated) | Heidelblog