I just got my published version of John Piper’s new book The Future of Justification this last week. I had seen an earlier incarnation of the book in manuscript form, but according to the acknowledgments, this book is now twice the size it was when I saw it last.
I really appreciate how careful John Piper has sought to be in the process of writing this book. I was asked to give feedback on the earlier draft as someone who likes a lot of what Wright is doing, but also as a sometime critic of Wright’s. In the acknowledgments, I am listed as one of eleven people who were asked to give their feedback, which I was glad to do. N.T. Wright was also asked to respond, which he did in 11,000 words. Piper says, “The book is twice the size it was before all that criticism arrived. If it is not a better book now, it is my fault, not theirs” (p. 10).
I provided a blurb for the earlier version in part because I was so struck by how honest the process was — a process we could afford to have a lot more of these days. Another reason is that I believe that Piper is articulating an important concern for evangelicals which is, in my mind, the sine qua non of evangelicalism. We have many great theological minds in our ranks today who are capable of distinguishing the various shades of gray in the bathwater, and they make many good points, but at the same time we ought never to resent those who are guardians of the baby.
A quick word about my use of evangelicalism here. Speaking as an evangelical, I do not hold that the boundaries of evangelicalism are co-terminous with faithful orthodoxy. At the same time, I believe that historic evangelicals have articulated and defended certain truths which are our great contribution to the health of the broader Church — they are evangelicalism’s gift to the Church. We of course have our pathologies, just as other wings of the Church do, and we also have our gifts. This issue of “the Lord our righteousness” is one of those gifts. And by “gift” I do not mean we give the righteousness — I mean that we have testified faithfully to this aspect of the gospel as recorded in Scripture.
There are two approaches to this kind of issue. If evangelicals say that affirmation of our distinctives mark the boundaries of who is going to heaven and who to hell, this is simply sectarianism. But if we say that this is a glorious truth of Scripture, and we are going to continue to press the point because we want to exercise our gifts for the sake of the larger body, this is catholic. It is body life on a larger scale.
John Piper writes as a catholic evangelical, not a sectarian evangelical. He notes his fathers in the faith, those who have shaped his doctrine of justification. “Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Daniel Fuller, George Ladd, John Murray, Leon Morris — not so much that I have agreed with them all on every point, but I have learned so much from them” (p. 11). If you were to draw a circle around all these men — and note especially the presence of Daniel Fuller and John Murray — such a circle could not be used to justify the cannibalism that is currently going on in Reformed circles.
As I read through this book again, I intend to blog on it chapter by chapter, as I have done with other books. If the final product is anything like the draft, I am sure I am going to have my differences, and I will note them as we go. But I am also confident that there will be much to appreciate and applaud.