It’s an interesting relationship a community of faith has to its theologians. There is a fondness there that speaks to a very unique relationship. In many ways theologians have, historically anyway, served as a kind of rubber stamp of approval - from none other than God himself. In evangelical circles these theologians have, not at all surprisingly, also been biblical scholars. Because, in an evangelical's mind, even for progressive evangelicals, if the Bible doesn't teach it, it’s just not rubber-stamp(able).

For those who follow the emergent stream of thinking/being, there is one particular scholar who has stood above the pack. And the fact that this scholar/theologian doesn’t walk solely – or even primarily - in emergent circles, perhaps gives him even more objective credibility. I am of course speaking of N.T. Wright: the once New Testament teacher, now Anglican bishop of Durham. Tom Wright has had more influence, as a theologian, on emergent theology, than any other figure.

Speaking of the good bishop, a little dust-up has arisen rather recently in which Wright is front and center. The dust-up deals with the (in-house, Christian) concept of atonement/justification. And Wright's sparring partner has been Pastor John Piper. Now, here it gets even more interesting. For, as much as Wright is the unofficial theological guru for emergents, Piper is known rather notoriously, around those same circles, as an arch-nemesis. Piper hasn't pulled any punches in his sharp critique – or perhaps better put, outright rejection - of all things emergent. He's even refused to participate with emergent Christians in missional causes - claiming that doctrinal unity (might some say conformity?) must come before Christian outreach.

To Piper, the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory is front and center. It is the gospel. Everything else is window dressing. So, it’s not too surprising then that Piper (and others like him) stand up in objection when people such as the good bishop Wright start reframing some conceptions of the atonement/justification issue. Wright, in turn, has returned serve, claiming that his view of the atonement issue is fully biblical. It is Piper, according to Wright, who had skewed the perspective beyond the parameters of its biblical context.

Okay, so we're all caught up on history now. But where does all this lead? Well, it leads to a debate that has turned into a couple of books. First Piper wrote on the issue. And now its Wright's turn. The bishop has recently published a new book that speaks directly to this question. The title of the book is right on point: "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision". Wright is pretty succinct in his argument. By succinct I mean the book runs about 250 pages. That's a far cry from some of Wright's other mega-volumes - that can run over 800 pages or more. In this book, Wright stays on point, addressing the issue of justification/atonement specifically - all the while apologizing for not being able to head off on this or that tantalizing rabbit trail.

Well, let us get to the crux of it. Wright's perspective falls in line with what is commonly referred to as the new perspective on Paul. And the descriptive term "new" is rather tricky here. Because, in Wright's mind, this perspective is much older than other conceptions. Put simply, it is an approach to Paul from within the interpretive context of Paul's original, Jewish milieu. Wright, and others on the same "quest", have argued that we have missed much of what Paul was getting at because we failed to read him through this original lens.

Now, on this issue of justification specifically, Wright's argument goes something like this: Jesus, by dying on the cross, served as a representative, from the Israelites, through which Israel's original call from God was accomplished. In other words, God called Israel to image God to the nations; to be a representation of the "good news". The Israelites, rather notoriously, failed in this call. But, fear not, God stepped in, draped in human, Jewish flesh and weakness, to fulfill that call. All's well that ends well, one could say.

So, you see, just like Piper and others, Wright says, "Yes of course Jesus died for your/my sins". But what he means by that is something a little different. Piper's conception runs more like a legal argument. Jesus died as a sacrifice, in the place of the Christian, in order to satisfy the righteousness of God - which, by the way, Piper defines, rather awkwardly, as God's concern for God's own glory. Does that sound to anyone else like divine narcissism? Wright, on the other hand, places those very same biblical events within the original call of Israel. Wright proposes a rather seamless line of events tracing back to Abraham's initial call by God.

Now, what's ironic here is that Piper clings to a conception of justification that surfaced around the time of the Protestant Reformation. But what were these very reformers for? Well, among other things, they were for calling the Church back to a biblical anchoring. “If its not biblically grounded, it’s not sound” - was their argument. "Sola Scriptura!" all the way. And all Wright's doing really is taking up that call and following it through. He's taking some additional contextual cues we've discovered about the Biblical texts, and applying them, very much in the spirit of those early Protestants! And yet, ironically, Piper calls foul. Why? Well, it seems, for no other reason than because that leads Wright to some conclusions that cast doubt on some of Piper's precious doctrines.

Now, to conclude, it’s probably no surprise to any of you that I side with the good bishop here. But please note why. It’s not because Wright's vision of justification just sounds more all-embracing and politically correct. No, it’s because - while it certainly is more palatable to me – it also happens to be the one actually constructed from the arguments Paul is actually making - when read in their correct context. From my perspective, while Piper may try and squirm about - offering a quibble here and there - it seems that his protest amounts to not much more than defensiveness over a perceived threat to his own, previously conceived, previously inherited doctrine.

Surely, one must conclude that if those early Protestants that Piper clings to so dearly really meant what they said, then they'd be more inclined to land where Wright does on this issue. But not because his conclusion matches theirs. But because Wright's process follows in the spirit of biblical inquiry that they called for, that they revolted over. In that sense I guess we could say that this is a case where the student really did surpass the teacher(s). But, in my mind, those very teachers would have said "all the better". For it was not they who were authoritative, but rather the Bible to which their gaze was constantly, unwaveringly (even if less than perfectly) cast.