I know this is ancient history in web time, but I want to say that Mark Driscoll’s comments on Tom (N. T.) Wright, Marcus Borg, and the resurrection are quite wise and wholesome. In fact, his entire attitude is exemplary.

But I’m not sure what to say about his three bullet points:

1. Wright is one of many many Bible scholars who (wrongly) hold that the Scriptures present an egalitarian position with regard to women in ministry. I guess I neede to see some kind of arguments that emergents would not like Wright if he held a more traditional position. Or that emergents would follow Wright if he taught a complementarian position. I doubt either is the case. I don’t see how Wright’s ripple is worth noticing among the waves pounding on the Biblical position. Wright is wrong and he’ll change his mind at some point in the future–at the resurrection at the very latest.

   (Incidentally, the obviously gleeful attempt to use Wright’s error here as a way to dismiss him having anything worth saying is not helping the cause of complementarianism. It just functions as a big sign to egalitarians that we are anti-intellectuals who can’t be trusted to read.)

2. Driscoll’s view of Wright is standard fare among a certain school of thought in the Reformed Evangelical culture, but simply does not hold up to scrutiny. I’ve run into all sorts of strange uses for Wright, but that hardly constitutes a good case for his own unorthodoxy. Furthermore, John Piper’s book is a response to Robert Gundry, a man who is quite dismissive of “the New Perspective” as far as I can tell. If Piper wants to reply to Wright, showing the same respect for him as he showed for Gundry by interacting with him privately and getting his own responses before writing a critique, I would be quite interested in reading that. But his few footnotes on Wright hardly make it right to claim that the book is written against his views.

   I love John Piper. His The Pleasures of God is perhaps my favorite devotional of any. And his Future Grace was a superb work. But his reply to Gundry, Counted Righteous in Christ was simply not up to his usual standards. Gundry needs to be countered. Piper’s book does not do it effectively.

3. I am gratified that Driscoll held himself somewhat aloof of the accusation that Wright undermines justification by faith alone, since it is a baseless claim. Well, perhaps not entirely baseless. If you think it was right to accuse John MacArthur of compromising justification by faith alone when his book, The Gospel According to Jesus came out, then perhaps you will be able to pin Wright with the same charge. Or if you think Saint Augustine and C. S. Lewis are dangerous influences then perhaps Wright’s far better view of the atonement and justification can also be labeled as dangerous. But outside such idiosyncratic misreading it is clear that Wright’s and the Evangelical appropiation of “the New Perspective on Paul” in general do not deny the traditional Protestant doctrine but enrich it in helpful, Biblical, and even needful ways.

While Mark is praying for Wright, I’m praying for Mark as well. Mark is making great strides to spread important Reformed truths in the North American post-modern Evangelical scene. That is wonderful. But I pray he continues to show the same sort of judicious and Christian discernment in the face of a lot of unnecessary polarization and active pressuring for polarization that is present in our particular micro-subculture.