Many have lamented the seemingly endless takeovers of independent Christian bookstores by Koorong. Koorong is kind of like the Christian K-mart. Full of bargains, the occasional good buy, but mostly junk. I guess one should rightly resent all these takeovers. Because two Koorong's don't make a right.
The problem with Koorong has always been discernment. But it's one thing to sell books that will lead people astray. It's quite another to actively promote them. Consider this description from the latest Koorong catalogue describing a book from world-renowned distorter of justification by faith NT (Tom) Wright;
Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham and leading New Testament scholar, is one of today's foremost experts on the theology of the Apostle Paul. In this book, Wright draws on his extensive knowledge to provide a fresh presentation of Paul's teaching on justification. Surprising and inspiring! 192 pages. $29.95
This fresh presentation is essentially Roman Catholicism. Paul's justification which is really Jesus justification somehow freshly presented and redefined all of a sudden needs to be written in inverted commas. There is now Paul's justification as understood for 2000 years and then there's the fresh presentation of Paul's "justification". Freshly presented and redefined to rob you of salvation! (And available for sale today just $29.95).
Making up for my lame "two Koorongs" joke earlier is an even better one from Koorong themselves. Whether deliberate, ironically accidental or merely hilariously providential, found advertised directly below the NT Wright book in that same catalogue, is John Piper's similarly well recommended book "The Future of Justification" which could be subtitled "Why Tom Wright may be a nice bloke, but is also seriously wrong and undermining the very foundation of Jesus saving work on the cross".
For your viewing pleasure.
If everybody believed the same I think we'd a) get tired of talking to each other, and b) be in terrible danger of not recognising heresy.
ReplyDeleteI think the church is healthy where more than one interpretation is presented for discussion and debate.
I think Wright is right on many things. And brilliant, and erudite. But not on justification.
I think, conversely, that Piper is wrong on some things. And brilliant, and erudite. Especially on justification.
I won't refuse to engage with what Wright writes just because he is wrong. I currently refuse to engage with what he writes because I don't have the time.
I don't think the fact that Koorong carries both of these books is a problem. The fact that they carry "what would Jesus eat" is a problem.
I don't think it's the vendor's responsibility to show discernment either - how many people have bought Wright's work to understand his position to better argue against it... a discerning vendor is a form of censorship.
Granted, some of the books they carry are dangerous to the non-discerning. But kitchen knives are dangerous to the uncoordinated and psychotic.
Perhaps there should be some sort of curtained off section of Koorong for people with requisite qualifications.
Bummer, i was beaten to the punch.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nathan.
But not on the justification issue. I read all of Piper and most of the Wright's books on justification ("Justification", also "what saint paul really said"). After reading and rereading Piper along with Wright i found wright to be stronger in his argument and much more founded in what he was saying. I still have quams with what he said, but he is a highly regarded New Testament scholar for a reason, he knows what he is talking about.
So Izaac did you read these books or just go on hearsay?
On the matter of Koorong we need to know what people are reading to be able to engage with others. Otherwise you would have to go to hillsong or aquivalent to find out what other CHristians are reading. Koorong doesnt claim to hold the best theological books in the world. It claims to hold Christian books (which is loosely defined).
Fed up with Koorong, check Moore Books:
www.moorebooks.com.au
Look, it's even $5 cheaper - must be a better book for Christians!
ReplyDeleteI think the placement of these two books is possibly on purpose. I have heard the manager (owner?) of Koorong talk about Wright and Piper in terms of a 'long conversation' back and forth through each of their books.
ReplyDeleteThe appeal of a place like Koorong is that they carry a 'range'. Neither are so extreme as to be considered heresy.
Hi Izaac.
ReplyDeleteI hope you will take on board what Dan and Nathan have said. Tom Wright is not as extreme as some would make him out to be. I don't agree with him on a number of things, but it is not true to say that he is a closet Roman Catholic.
I also despair about some of the junk Koorong sells, but they do have a great range of great books, too, for those with discernment.
As you train for the ministry, make every effort to make accurate statements about the ministries of others and especially of those you disagree with.
Try to resist jumping on the bandwagons of those who very quickly knock.
Some general thoughts;
ReplyDeleteWow, people read my blog. Just give me a moment here. This is quite a revelation. Thanks for reading and especially for commenting.
Okay, I've been discovered as a fraud. I have not read either of these books. However, I didn't claim to either. But perhaps my strong language indicated I had done more investigation than I had. I do intend to look much more into the issues surrounding the New Perspective as I begin college. I have read a number of articles and listened to a number of sermons which analyse these new teachings. These have definitely helped form my views. And at a kind of philosophical level, in order for me to gain knowledge, at some point I need to trust the opinions of those I trust. Otherwise I would need to read every bibliography, every footnote, every original document myself. Those whom I trust the most, have spoken most negatively about NT Wright on the matter of justification.
I really just thought it was funny that two people in pretty much complete disagreement on what most would agree is a core biblical truth were advertised with the same degree high degree of recommendation directly below each other.
@ Nathan
Discussion is great. I'm all for it. I also do not agree with everything everyone says, and say we are better off for the discussion. I was not lamenting Christian disagreement.
My standard position is to be extremely wary of any fresh teachings that want to redefine justification. I disagree with John Piper sometimes on his use of the Bible as everything is filtered through a 'joy' lense. However if you're going to get something right, you'd want it to be justification.
The number of times you've criticised me for "balance" it is interesting that the one time I go all "extreme" on you I am criticised for that. It's okay, I still love you. And someone also told me to read Wright on the bodily resurrection. That he's pretty much the best on it. So I will. And if I read it, would I then go to my Bible study and say "make sure you read anything this guy has written?" Probably not.
But I wouldn't encourage anyone to not read him. But I wouldn't not give a glowing all-encompassing endorsement of someone who (I think from what I know) wishes to redefine many passages of scripture.
My problem with Koorong remains not just with these books in my post, which most average joe's won't read, nor that they sell 'What Would Jesus Eat', but more that they actively endorse false teaching. It's more than selling it, it's accompanied with a seal of approval. Everyone draws a line in the sand at some point as to what they think is Christian. Koorong's is just very faint.
Nathan, you also say it's a problem that they sell 'What Would Jesus Eat' but that they shouldn't show discernment. That doesn't make sense. Everyone has a limit. Would you be happy for them to encourage Christian's to read Dawkins for the purpose of reimagining their trust in Christ. We all make a distinction somewhere....
@ Dan
ReplyDeleteThanks for defrauding me (if that's the right word for showing up someone as a fraud.) I'll just have to agree to disagree with you until God-willing we talk next year. My base position remaining I being wary towards fresh perspectives on justification.
To sound like a broken record, my problem is not with selling, but active recommendation.
@ Anonymous #1
I agree, it has to have been deliberate. But that either view isn't extreme enough to be considered heresy by some, it is often the subtle teaching we are warned about in Scripture.
But to remove the New Perspective debate out of the picture I would still say there is lots of their range that is heresy and as equally well endorsed.
@ David
NT Wright is not as extreme as my few words would make him out to be. Even in my relatively under-formed view. He appears to be fighting a lot of battles within even the Church of England on which I would want him on my side. In fact, that would never happen, I would want to be on his side.
Though I have heard it said Wright's views are closer to a Roman Catholic view of justification than the traditionally understood Reformed view, my language was loose at best. I must watch this.
I'm interested to hear if you have further comments on my reflections above to the others, but without being arrogant, I remain concerned about anything that would radically (or even subtly in many cases) wish to redefine the work of Jesus on the Cross and it's effectiveness for the believer.
@ Everyone
As this blog externalises my inner thoughts my sin and prejudices will no doubt be revealed. Many of these no doubt unfounded. But at the moment I stand by my views expressed in the original post and expanded on in the comments, but repent of careless expression. Dissatisfied? Keep commenting.
Izaac,
ReplyDeleteI'm all for extremes - they are however, an invitation to be disagreed with.
I agree we all have lines. I would draw the line after Wright but before What Would Jesus Eat.
How much of your position on Wright comes from Gordo who has publically denounced him as a heretic?
I would actively recommend that you read Wright. Like I said, I haven't yet. I would actively recommend that you read as many serious missives discussing the topic of justification as you can.
Where have I criticised you for balance? I have found most of what you've said to be suitably opinionated.
I think the fact that he's the best on "bodilly resurrection" and by all accounts a faithful and serious biblical scholar means we should give him some room to be incorrect on other things.
I don't know anybody who has everything sorted out on all elements of the faith. Justification is a biggy, but he's by no means the most extreme person in the room on that doctrine. From what I can tell - the actual implications of his different understanding aren't hugely different in application. But I might be wrong.
Moore Books stocks alot of Wright's work. The blurbs on their website are fairly complimentary too.
ReplyDeleteThe default position of blurbs is to be complimentary, even when the blurb writer thinks the writer is a dill (but you don't get to be a blurb writer by thinking that the person you're blurbing about is a dill).
ReplyDeleteBut no-one who deals professionally with the claims Wright uses to buttress his grand scheme seems to take him all that seriously.
The problem with Wright is two-fold, then. One is that he doesn't really help us understand the Bible better. The other is that he is not going to be a lot of help in serious intellectual discussion.
Hmm...looks like you need to ignore the comment in the next post, apart from the bit that says "Blog on!"
Hey Izaac, I think it's totally fine to say you don't agree with NT Wright. You're allowed to do that! Even if you were a bit over the top, that's cool, after all this is a blog, not a journal article.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I think you're right to be critical of NT Wright's theology.
I may not agree with everything Gordo says or the way he says it, but I do agree with him on most things and you must not be ashamed of listening to your mentor in the faith.
Thanks all for your comments. Funnily enough, I had no idea that Gordo had ever spoken publicly on NT Wright and to the best of my knowledge we've never chatted about it privately either. But that will no doubt change as a result of these discussions. Further thought on these matters is clearly needed.
ReplyDeleteI have updated the post on my threat to leave the blogosphere with some more thoughts.