Bart Ehrman’s story is one of the eeriest I have ever read, primarily because of some of the parallels between the two of us.  Not that I believe myself to be in imminent danger of becoming an agnostic.  It is more that Ehrman’s enthusiasm while studying at Moody and then his journey to Wheaton is a strange similarity to my own.  A recent interview with Outreach magazine provides some interesting thought regarding the death of faith and the evolution of agnosticism in an individual.  Erhman claims that he is “still profoundly stirred by the story of God coming into the world for the salvation of sinners.”  However, later he goes on to say, “I knew I didn’t really belong in church anymore when I was standing there reciting the Apostle’s Creed: ‘He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead and buried.’ That was it.  I realized I couldn’t say the rest.”  Ehrman also claims that, “I drink better wine and eat better food since becoming an agnostic.”  I find this slightly strange simply because I seem to remember something in the book of Acts that removed dietary prohibitions.  Perhaps Mr. Ehrman missed that part of the book, or maybe that was one of the parts he thought invalid.

But what is most interesting to me is the way that Ehrman in a twisted sense makes demands of God by claiming that, “If the Almighty appeared to me and explained things, then I would be like Job.  I would repent in dust and ashes.” This statement in a sort of underhand way seems to say that Ehrmans’ disbelief is really a result of God not revealing Himself clearly enough.  It is this unreasonable demand for proof that lies at the heart of agnostics like Ehrman, who although they have been given every opportunity find ways to explain away enough aspects of their faith that there is nothing left on which to stand.

Note:  Prof. Ehrman remains, by all accounts, a sincerely kind and good man.  He even states in his article that he hopes “we solve the problem of malaria and poverty, as well as find a cure of AIDS and some way of dealing with cancer.”  Also, Prof. Ehrman was extremely polite in answering the e-mail of one of my friends at the Moody Bible Institute (ironically this friend is also studying at Wheaton).  This article in no way was meant to belittle Prof. Ehrman despite the rather tongue in cheek comment found at the end of the first paragraph.

All quotes taken from Outreach Magazine May/June 2008 pg 126.

Since I am preparing to study there in the Fall I found the story surrounding Kent Gramm, an English professor at Wheaton College who resigned following his filing divorce because of the school’s community agreement. The following articles help give a flavor for the reaction of media members and others.

A First Things blog post by a former co-worker of Mr. Gramms.

A Wall Street Journal Editorial with some intriguing thoughts.

Christianity Today blog post with several helpful links listed for further reading.

A follow-up to the last post.  CT has come out with a fourth installment in the conversation between Tony Jones and Collin Hansen.  Jones makes a good point on the unwillingness of many radical reformed people to refuse to accept any answer from the emergent church as valid.  Having said this, however, I do think the emergent church needs to define its terms more carefully.

Another interesting conversation regarding a budding issue is the interview with Fuller Theological Seminary’s president regarding the the pope’s visit to the US and the Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative.

Although, I would like to think of myself as someone who does not jump for the latest fad, it would be foolish and even dishonest of me not to say that for almost two years now I have been intrigued by the coming out party so to speak of the emergent/emerging church movement.  Countless people, including authors and bloggers are more qualified to speak on the issue than me, so what I say here will be kept to generalities (at least for the time being).   However, let me quickly point out why I think the issue is important and why it is worth our time to discuss.

First, what is really happening in the emergent/emerging church movements (notice the plurals) is a reexamining of ecclesiology.  The question that must be answered by all those involved in the discussion is, “What is the church.”  The methodological problems and practices that separate people are at their heart differences in theological perspective.

Second, part of the problem I feel is that too many people fail to ask the right questions.  Rather than clearly defining their own position, evaluating their own position, then understanding the “other side’s” position, then evaluating the “other side”, they instead jump straight to the fourth step in the process.  The immediately look for problems in the other side.   If any fruitful discussion is to occur then
we must learn first what we believe, how to articulate that, third how to listen, and then how to critique.

The link offered at the end of this post is to the third part of a discussion between an editor at Christianity Today and Collin Hansen, an emergent author.  They both do a decent job of evaluating their own positions and even better job at listening carefully to the other.  While not particularly stimulating it works as an introduction to some of the broader issues out there.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/mayweb-only/119-11.0.html

No other topic is as vital as the Gospel. If there is one thing which Christians must know, believe and live out it is the Gospel. In fact one of the greatest problems in the Church today is the fact that most believers do not know the Gospel and have no idea of what it means to live it out. This is precisely what makes N. T. Wright so interesting. For all his faults, Wright forces his readers to contemplate the definition of the gospel and consider its implications for living. My introduction to Wright has been limited to one of his works on Pauline theology. However, rapidly rising in my reading list is Wright’s most recent work “Surprised by Hope“.

On this side of the Atlantic Mark Dever at Captiol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D. C. gives a more conservative view of the gospel and offers an interesting counterpoint to Wright (or at least an interpretation of Wright) in his lecture available on-line here.

According to Christianity Today’s blog, Tim Keller provides a middle ground between Wright and Dever. However, due to my lack of spare reading time I can offer little on the difference between Keller and Dever. My hunch is that the analysis of CT is probably correct. Regardless, reading all three of these men, Wright, Keller and Dever, should provide thoughtful reflection for Christians who urgently need to understand in their own minds what the gospel is and how it affects their lives.

In a time of social upheaval the church is bound to follow suit at some point and perhaps that point is now.  For many evangelicals all across the nation the pattern of doing church exemplified by the business model of church is stifling and suffocating to an entire generation who demands the church be defined less in terms of what it does and more in terms of what it is.  Following are what I hope to be some thought provoking comments taken from an interview with Joshua Harris in Outreach Magazine in their Sept/Oct 2007 issue.  Enjoy.

“The Gospel is most clearly understood in community and in believers’ lives being joined together…To truly understand the Gospel’s power, you have to see it lived out-in the lives of Christians who are connected to one another.”

“Ultimately, a church only changes when people claim their role in the body of Christ and work hard to contribute and strengthen other members.”

“The Gospel advances when we care more about lost people than we do about protecting our rights and our own comforts.”

“I’d rather preach in front of 10,000 people than sit down across from one person and try to share the Gospel with her!”

“Essentially, we want the only stumbling block to be the message of Christ crucified-not politics, our religious lingo or religiosity that’s not a part of the central truth of Christ crucified.  If people are going to stumble, let them stumble over the message that they are sinners who need a Savior-let’s get the other stuff out of the way.”

“I think my church for years has been more event-driven.  We want people to encourage their friends to go to this event or show up for that special day.  And although these things aren’t bad, we’re trying to move away from that.  We’re saying, love people and get in their lives, care for them, know them, serve them and then bring them into the community in different ways.”

Below is an introductory issue to a theological controversy which is gaining publicity here at the beginning of the 21st century.   What is at stake in this debate is not merely tradition, academic pride, or denominational superiority, it is the gospel itself which lies on the line.  For this reason believers would do well to familiarize themselves with the issue and terminology.  As always, responses, comments and questions are welcome.

Introduction

Assaulting evangelicalism today is a dizzying array of voices in biblical studies and theology.  Ours is an age of plurality not just amidst a newly globalized society or even among the more affluent and self-proclaimed open-minded Western world, but also among Christianity broadly, Protestantism more specifically and most particularly among what has come to be known as evangelicalism.  Thus today more than ever clarity and precision is needed if the truth of God’s Word is to shine forth as light in the darkness.  True biblical teaching should be the water upon which the church quenches its thirst as it earnestly desires to grow in Christ and represent Him to the world.  However, today much of what passes for biblical teaching is in reality muddied water which has grown so murky and contaminated that is not fit to be drunk at all but only to settle in some low lying area becoming a cesspool. 

            Among those issues confronting evangelicalism today is the thorny subject of the New Perspective on Paul.  One of the primary reasons The New Perspective is so difficult is because there are in reality many “New Perspectives” on Paul and so great specificity is required in dealing with the subject.  Here we will encounter only part of this multifaceted issue by examining the contribution of N.T. Wright to this scattered movement.  As we examine Wright we will see that The New Perspective is an integral topic not simply because it affects church dogma, but because at its heart The New Perspective affects our understanding of the gospel, which is the very core of our faith. 

Thesis

            N.T. Wright admittedly desires that we learn to “study Paul in his own terms”[1] and Wright claims that to do this we ought “to stand back from the ways we have read Paul and to explore a bit more about how Paul himself suggests we read him.”[2]  What I will argue in this paper is that Wright although perhaps well intentioned in his effort fails to provide a compelling explanation of Paul’s teaching and in fact actually distorts Paul’s teaching on such subjects as the meaning of the gospel, the definition of the “righteousness of God”, and the meaning of justification.  In arguing for this position I will first allow Wright to speak on his own terms providing only brief commentary and explanation as needed.  Then in the second part of the paper I will address some of the major concerns with Wright’s work. 

What Saint Paul Really Said

            One of Wright’s primary works on Pauline theology is his book, “What Saint Paul Really Said.”  In the book Wright lays out his argument for a new, fresh reading of Paul and a reevaluation of our Pauline theology.  This is Wright’s aim in writing, to elucidate a rationale for a new perspective on Paul.  If a new perspective is his aim, then his conclusion or synthesis is that Paul, who wrote from a distinctly Jewish background, taught that:

 ‘The gospel’ itself is neither a system of thought, nor a set of techniques for making people Christians; it is the personal announcement of the person of Jesus.  That is why it creates the church, the people who believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.  ‘Justification’ is the then the doctrine which declares that whoever believes that gospel, and wherever and whenever the believe it those people are truly members of his family, no matter where they came from, what color their skin may be, whatever else might distinguish them from each other.[3]

            Wright only reaches this conclusion after constructing a carefully crafted argument.  He opens by examining the landscape of Pauline studies over the past 100 years raising two questions.  First, from what background does Paul write?  And second, what is the center of Paul’s theology?  Wright’s arguments and conclusions in the rest of the book all flow from his answers to these two questions. 

            Wright answers these questions by arguing that Paul writes from a distinctly Jewish background and that the center of Paul’s theology is the gospel.  It is within this broad framework that we must place Wright’s more specific arguments.  In Wright’s specific arguments there seem to be a number of lynchpins which must be in place if his teaching is to be accepted.  Here will examine four of them.

Four Key Issues

                        1.   Definition of Gospel

            We have already seen in brief Wright’s definition of the gospel above.  However, here we want to examine more carefully how exactly Wright comes to this conclusion in his argument.  Wright opens his chapter on defining the gospel by examining the popular background sources for euangelion.  Wright argues that the disjunction between a Jew and pagan background for euangelion is a false dichotomy.   This is because a Jewish euangelion is a release from exile and a pagan euangelion is the proclamation of the birth or inauguration of a king.  Not surprisingly these two events are closely related in God’s salvation history as Israel’s release from exile is made possible through the inauguration of a Messianic king.  Thus, Wright’s definition of the gospel relies upon this understanding of euangelion, an understanding of the word which is based primarily upon its use in the Septuagint and in extra-biblical sources. 

            Sadly Wright never becomes more precise than to say that the gospel is “an announcement about Jesus”[4]  or that it is “an announcement about the true God as opposed to the false gods.”[5]   

            Wright’s greatest specificity concerning the gospel comes when he claims that this “announcement about Jesus” has four components: Jesus crucified,[6] Jesus resurrected,[7] Jesus as King,[8] and Jesus as Lord.[9]  Each of these components deals closely with Israel’s expectation to be released from exile.  The Messiah is seen as the answer to the expectation of release from exile which was widespread in 1^st century Judaism.  The images then which Wright believes explain the gospel all have in some way to do with Christ redeeming Israel from exile, but not just Israel, all humanity and indeed all of creation. 

            What is equally important for Wright is what the gospel is not.  Wright clearly states that while the gospel is not “a description of how people get saved; of the theological mechanism whereby, in some people’s language, Christ takes our sin and we his righteousness.”[10]  By defining the gospel primarily in terms that are Christological rather than soteriological Wright allows for a gospel which focuses on Christ’s work in relation to the covenants and to Israel’s expectation for release from exile.  This then allows for and necessitates a different framework regarding the need for the gospel and the definition of justification because the gospel no longer primarily deals with a solution to man’s sin problem. 

                        2.  The Law Court Metaphor                   

            Before arguing for his specific definition for what “righteousness of God” means, Wright establishes a connection between covenant language and the action of God.  That connection is the Law court metaphor.  Wright claims that the Old Testament covenants worked under this format wherein God functioned as judge and Israel as the defendant asking God to deliver them from the pagan oppressors (I suppose in this case such an argument would make the pagans the accusers).[11]  This is the framework within which Wright attempts to define the “righteousness of God.”  Furthermore this is also the framework within which Wright understands the nature of justification.  Thus any problem with the Law Court metaphor poses a large problem for Wright’s argument as a whole.  But we will look at that later. 

                        3.  Definition of “Righteousness of God”

            The third key area for Wright is his definition of the phrase dikaiosune theou.  Wright, arguing within the framework of the law court metaphor, claims that the righteousness of God is not a moral category but rather denotes “God’s own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant.”[12]  The righteousness which the defendant receives then is not the judges own righteousness since that would be a “category mistake”[13] but is rather “the status they have when the court rules in their favour.”[14]  Thus for Wright imputation is an absurdity because he defines “righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness, particularly as seen in his role as judge. 

                        4.  Definition of Justification

            For Wright justification in no way forms the center of Paul’s theology, for that spot is taken by the proclamation of the gospel.[15]  In fact for Wright justification has nothing to do with how people become saved, or even how they enter the covenant community (initially) it is rather how “you tell who belongs to that community.”[16]  Thus, justification is not merely something which happens at the beginning of my relationship within the community, it is something which happening all throughout is ultimately fulfilled only in an eschatological sense.[17]

Responses

            Having looked at some of Wright’s major arguments and definitions it is necessary now to respond to them.  Before addressing the four lynchpins looked at above, I want to touch briefly on some methodology issues which help to explain how a view such as Wright’s can come about.

Hermeneutical Issues

            Much of theological debate is really a debate over whose interpretation of a certain passage is correct.  However, when discussing whose interpretation is correct it becomes necessary to divine the hermeneutical rules which govern interpretation.  Sadly, this is where controversy becomes much more difficult because there is no infallible guide for how to interpret Scripture.[18]  However, there are hermeneutical principles which conservative evangelicals have long upheld and there are simply broader philosophical issues which bear weight on the issue. 

            Culture and Scripture

            First, is the issue of the relationship between culture and Scripture.  This relationship includes both the lens through which the reader understands Scripture and also the use of extra biblical sources in understanding the Bible. 

            Regarding the first it is important to keep in mind that N. T. Wright reads the Scripture through a lens which is every bit as tinted and colored as other people in this generation (although his tint may be a different shade).  It is intriguing, and perhaps no coincidence, that the New Perspective on Paul surfaced in the fifty or so years following the Holocaust.  A knee jerk reaction against the Holocaust, which was an awful travesty, made it uncouth to say anything negative at all about either the Jewish people group or the Jewish faith, even if it was commentary on 1^st century Judaism.  Thus a major shift in thinking occurs during which 1^st century Judaism is suddenly seen to be very Western in its understanding of grace and inclusion (covenantal nomism[19]). 

            The second point regarding culture and Scripture has to do with allowing extra-biblical literature to dictate our understanding of biblical texts.  Piper says “there seems to be overweening confidence in the way some scholars bring their assured interpretations of extra-biblical texts to illumine their less sure reading of biblical texts.”[20]  Wright certainly seems to do this in two major ways.  First, in his word studies he relies on extra-biblical sources not just for a semantic range but almost for an exact equivalent (see particularly his definition of gospel).  Second, he allows his extra-biblical understanding of 2^nd temple Judaism and 1^st century Palestine in general to be the starting point for all his Pauline studies.  In doing so all of his exegesis of Paul is really an attempt to make Pauline teaching fit into Wright’s understanding of 1^st century culture.

            Word Studies

            Another methodological issue which needs to be addressed is Wright’s method of word study.  He claims that in conducting word studies what matters is “actually not so much where an idea has come from, important though that is, as where it is going to.”[21]  However, minimizing the etymology of a word and allowing a projected development of a word to determine its current meaning are both dangerous exegetical mistakes.  Piper reminds us that a biblical author  “may also intend to go precisely beyond the common use of any term and expand its meaning in light of the fuller revelation of God in Christ Jesus.”[22]  This is a simple remind that the most important definition of a word is one which actually fits the context in which it is found.   

            Theological Themes and Detailed Exegesis

            The third and final hermeneutical issue which we will look at it is the relationship between larger theological themes and detailed exegesis.  While this at first sight may seem a bizarre topic, it is relevant here because Wright allows what he sees as large theological themes govern his interpretation of individual passages in a number of places.  For example, because of Wright’s covenantal view of God’s working (a large theological framework), he interprets most of Paul’s passages dealing with the atonement or Christ’s death in a specific way.  This is different than examining each of those passages on their own merit and then from that detailed exegesis forming a larger theological framework.  Certainly both work together to provide sound, biblical understanding of the text but at lest in Wright’s case, he seems to often to err on the side of allowing large ideas or frames to control the meanings of individual passages.  Such a practice can be dangerous because it changes our question as we approach a text from, “What does this text say?” to “How does this text fit into this system?” 

The Future of Justification

                        Definition of Gospel

            As we saw earlier Wright’s definition departs from the normal interpretation of euangelion by making it simply a proclamation of Jesus as Lord.  However, simply proclaiming Jesus as Lord makes the gospel incomplete for a number of reasons. 

            First of all, this definition will not work for many of the gospel presentations in the book of Acts where Paul’s preaching deals specifically with salvation.  Piper uses Acts 13:16-48 to show clearly that at the focal point of the gospel (v.38-39) lies those very terms which if Wright’s definition of the gospel is to be accepted should not be present.  For there in the very climax of Paul’s proclamation about Jesus we see forgiveness of sin and justification by faith.[23] 

            Another reason Wright’s definition of the gospel will not stand is that if the gospel is simply the proclamation of Jesus as Lord then the concept of salvation, which carries with it the implicit problem of sin, should not weigh as heavily as it does in the New Testament writings.  In fact in one key passage in Ephesians 1:13 gospel and salvation are placed next to one another.  Even more disconcerting for Wright should be the question in what sense does the message that Jesus is Lord offer salvation and what exactly would this salvation entail anyway?  A proclamation of the gospel which stops with Jesus as Lord should cause mankind to be terrified because it is sinful mankind who crucified the perfect Son of God.  Furthermore, for the concept of salvation to be fleshed out there must be a clear saving from something and a saving to something.  Wright simply never makes this clear but only serves to muddy the waters. 

            Finally, we see in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that Paul himself, defines the gospel differently than Wright.  Here Paul directly contradicts Wright when he says that the Corinthians are saved through the gospel (v.2) and then also says that “Christ died for (or on behalf of) our sins” (v.3).  Piper writes, “This is at the heart of what makes the gospel gospel, and not just an effect of the gospel.”[24]

            In conclusion then we can see clearly that Wright’s own definition of the gospel will not fit every use of the term gospel in the New Testament and that in fact it directly contradicts Paul’s clearest statement of the gospel found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.  

                        Law Court Metaphor

            Wright relies heavily on the idea of the Law Court metaphor, which we examined briefly above.  It thus within this covenantal and eschatological setting that Wright defines the righteousness of God and the righteousness of man.  Furthermore, within this setting Wright separates God’s righteousness from our righteousness with the result that he makes imputation an absurdity. 

            Two texts from Corinthians both cast doubts on this conclusion and thus also bring doubts as to the entire Law Court metaphor.  The first is 1 Corinthians 1:30.  Barrett writes,

“The root of the thought is forensic: man is arraigned in God’s court, and is unable to satisfy the judge unless righteousness, which he cannot himself produce is given to him.  In these circumstances his faith is counted to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6, both quoting Gen 15:6), Christ himself becomes righteousness for him (2 Cor 5:21), and God the judge views him not as he is in himself but in Christ.[25]

Barrett makes the argument even stronger when he writes:

Man can draw near to the holy God only if he himself is holy (cf. Heb 12:14); this he is not in himself, but Christ becomes for him the holiness which otherwise he does not possess and though in a moral sense he is neither righteous nor holy in Christ he has the righteousness and holiness which allow him to approach God, and will in the end effect moral purification too.[26]

            The second text which was already referenced above is 2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (NIV).”  Paul, attempting to summarize the work of Christ in terms of the language of reconciliation,[27] clearly “develops the thought in terms of an exchange: Christ was made sin, that we might become God’s righteousness.[28]  Piper and Barrett both would agree that the parallelism seen in the first and second half of the verses is the key to understanding it correctly[29].  Wright attempts to reinterpret this verse by can only do so by badly obscuring the context surrounding verse 21 and even then he must find a way to clearly reinterpret the phrase “righteousness of God.”  It is this definition of God’s righteousness to which we now turn our attention. 

                        Definition of Righteousness of God

            Piper points out a glaring weakness in Wright’s definition of God’s righteousness when he writes that, “Wright’s definition of the righteousness of God does not go to the heart of the matter, but stays at the level of what divine righteousness does rather than what it is.”[30]  Piper goes on to say, “God’s righteousness impels him to be faithful to his covenant promises, to judge without partiality, to deal with sin “properly,” and to stand up for those who are unjustly oppressed.”[31]  Thus, what Wright has done in defining God’s righteousness is to confuse an outworking of an attribute with the attribute itself.  God’s righteousness is “his unswerving commitment to do what is right”[32] and it this commitment to do what is right which moves to God act in ways which are faithful to his covenant.  Furthermore, this definition of God’s righteousness allows for the contrast set up in Romans between God’s righteousness and man’s unrighteousness.  For Paul the problem which the gospel addresses, if we are to take his argument in Romans seriously, is that God is righteous, man is unrighteousness and thus man is in need of justification which comes about through faith in the gospel, which is the message concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in place of sinners. 

                        Definition of Justification

            All of these arguments ultimately find their end in Wright’s dealing with justification.  If the definitions of ‘the gospel’ and the righteousness of God which he proposes are accepted than his definition of justification can and should be accepted.  But if as we have argued Wright’s definition of ‘the gospel’ and the righteousness of God are both flawed and incomplete, and if we have proved in so doing that his law court imagery is also flawed then on what basis does Wright’s view of justification stand?  Already, it should seem to the reader that Wright’s house of cards has fallen but to be absolutely sure we will look at a few glaring problems in Wright’s definition of justification. 

            First and most importantly, Wright’s definition of justification completely divorces it from its etymological roots and its word family.  Wright’s definition of justification has nothing to do with either justice or righteousness regardless of whose interpretation of those terms we use.[33]  This alone should set off tremendous warning alarms for careful exegetes who interact with Wright.  Of course Wright can do this exegetically because of his flawed exegetical method and view of word studies (see above) but even so his definition must be seen as such a quantum leap as to be impossible. 

            Second, Wright places justification at the end of our Christian experience rather than at the beginning where Paul places it.[34]  It can be assumed that he does so based upon his interpretation of Pauline literature and thought within a sweeping 2^nd Temple Judaism framework which emphasized strongly eschatological judgment and hope for Israel.  However, this future fulfillment is possible only if one accepts Wright’s definition of the righteousness of God and also accepts his metaphor the Law Court to color that definition.[35]  Since we have already discarded both Wright’s definition of God’s righteousness and his Law Court metaphor then it would seem that we are free to disagree also with this aspect of God’s justification as well. 

            Third, Wright attempts to deal with justification without ever dealing with humanities primary problem, sin.  Even if ethnic pride is presented as Israel’s shortcoming, the question must be asked, what causes this sense of pride?  The answer must be sin.  Furthermore, Israel’s covenant hope was not simply that they would be delivered from the pagan nations but that they would be restored back to a more intimate relationship with God himself (see Jer 31, Ezekiel 37).  In fact, in many places in the Old Testament, God is seen as the one brining the accusations against Israel for her unfaithfulness. This is completely contrary, not only to Wright’s law court metaphor but also to his expression of the fundamental problem of mankind which he apparently believes to be either ethnic self pride for the Jew or paganism for the Gentile. 

            What is most intriguing is that in the most detailed passage on justification in the New Testament, Romans 3:21-31, Wright would seem to agree with a more conservative reading when he says that the passage “is all about God’s dealing with sin in the cross and resurrection of Jesus, because that was what the covenant was intended to do in the first place.”[36]       Here in this most blatant of all passage Wright is forced to admit that the central issue is sin but he attempts to do so acting as if this is simply nothing to be wondered at and fits perfectly with everything else he has written.  But it cannot!  Wright’s definition of justification, the badge of membership in God’s covenant community, does not address the fundamental issue present in these verses as it seems Wright himself admits when he suddenly tries to say that this passage teaches Christ’s payment for sin.  Schreiner’s comments on these verses help to provide a consistent meaning for the text which fits well with the whole of Pauline theology:

Indeed, both the saving and judging righteousness of God meet at the cross of Christ.  His saving righteousness is revealed because believers are now vindicated through the death of the Messiah.  His judging righteousness is manifested because Jesus took upon himself the wrath of God that the whole world deserved.[37]    

Conclusion

            In summary then we have argued that in arguing for a fresh reading of Paul what N. T. Wright has done is distort the heart of Christianity itself shifting the entire focus of the gospel away from man’s justification, which is his being declared morally righteous, on the basis of faith in Christ’s work.  Such teaching is dangerous because it uses elements of the truth and what appear at first to be persuasive argumentation.   What is needed today more than ever is men, such as John Piper, who contend earnestly and honestly for the truth of the gospel. 

Mark Noll’s The Civil War as a Theological Crisis draws attention to two questions which were being forced to the top during the Civil War and in many ways still float on top of our theological waters today, that is the issue of interpreting God’s Word, hermeneutics, and interpreting His work, or attempting to understand His sovereignty or providence.  These were essentially the two biggest theological crisis that the Civil War evoked but what I would argue briefly here, is that these issues lie at the heart of what any sociological, theological, philosophical, historical or scientific crisis.  In short for those who take seriously the authority of Scripture and the authority of its Author, a crisis which leads people to begin to question character of either of those things will become a theological crisis.  The question for us today is have we learned to handle hermeneutical issues any better, or are we any better at claiming God’s sovereignty while allowing Him to work out that sovereignty in the world without seeking to explain it down to the very last detail?

     This story actually broke over two months ago, but I was reminded of it last weekend while on a weekend retreat.  A number of people, even within the Moody community, remain unaware of this story and I can only assume that the awareness of those within the church at large is even smaller.  The document in question is an apology written from Christian leaders in the United States and Britain.  Furthermore the signers include everyone from more liberal theologians at Ivy league schools to evangelical giants, Bill Hybells, Rick Warren and even John Stott.  A number of conservative evangelical scholars from Fuller and Wheaton also signed the document.  The entire text of the letter can be read here.  The list of signers is mentioned at the bottom.

A couple of comments is all I have time for here.  First, of all the letter claims that the center of our faith is, “love of God and love of neighbor.”  Now while I understand the centrality of this to Christian faith and practice I would contend that the center of our faith as Christians is the gospel, narrowly defined.  That is the center of our Christian faith is the good news that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, became man and died on a cross to make atonement for the sins of mankind.  That He was raised three days later and because of His death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and life with God is made available to all who receive Him in faith as Savior.  Only after this new is imparted is it possible to love God and neighbor rightly.  This is largely what the apostle John is pointing to in his letter.  The apostle John is marking out right belief, right love and right action as the signs of true believers.  The signers of this letter seem to have missed John’s point and confuse the effect (love of God and neighbor) with the cause (faith in Jesus Christ and new life in Him).

Second, I question strongly any view of history that claims that the future of the world rests in the ability of two religions to live and let live.  This claim points to a decidedly post-millennial and liberal theology that supposedly reached its peak just prior to World War I when humanistic optimism soared.  Apparently, today religious leaders either believe that we are living in another great era of peace, like that experienced at the turn of the previous century, or they see an impending cultural conflict and seek to avoid it through reviving again the belief that human beings control the destiny of history.  This is not to say that human beings do not act in history and have a responsibility to weigh their actions with sober judgment but it also should free Christians from the need to usher in God’s kingdom on earth today.  The historic consensus of the Christian faith has always been that the kingdom and world peace will be established when Christ reigns on His throne and that it is His might which will establish that throne.  Although, this may seem like a naive apocalyptic hope to some I would still contend that this hope is biblical and in any case would much rather have my future rest in the hands of God than in the ability of Christians and Muslims to “get along.”

Third, the letter should open the eyes of Christians in America to the need for love and witness to be extended to Muslims on a personal and relational level.  Believers are commanded to love our neighbors, to pray for those who persecute us and to share the gospel with all people.  Thus, ethnic or national conflicts are no excuse for the church, or for individual Christians to share the gospel in word and deed with their Muslim neighbors.  In fact, I believe that it is this faithful proclamation of the Gospel in word and deed which will do more good to relations between Muslims and Christians than any institutional attempts at inter-religious ecumenical dialog, for such dialog fits better under the pluralistic efforts of liberal protestantism.

     I looked down at my chicken that was about the color of my favorite pair of khaki shorts I had as a kid growing up.  I then proceeded to carefully remove the toothpick which held a single pineapple tidbit and a maraschino cherry.  Finally, still puzzling over what maraschino cherries and chicken teriyaki have to do with each other I pulled some meat off the chicken quarter and watched as the limp pieces of meat designed for the retirement centers octogenarians made its way towards my mouth.

Looking around the room didn’t really help much either.  Gathered around the room were about 25 people all sitting at tables.  Two tables ran parallel down the length of the room and a third one sat across the top connecting them, forming an open space in the middle.  A sort of three sided square.  My position in this whole meeting bothered me too.  Through some ill stroke of fate I had managed to end up sitting in the middle chair at the head table.  If some knight from A.D. 1154  had walked into the room he probably would have addressed me first, and even now pretty much everyone that walked into the room did a double take when they walked in.  Perhaps even worse than my physical position in the room however, was my relative age.  I was by far the youngest person in the room.  The average age of most people in the room was somewhere around 45-50 and here I was having started shaving last week.

And then there was the conversation.  It was supposedly a ministerial association luncheon, but most of the people there were either social workers, city workers or leaders in parachurch charities and ministries.  All told there were really only 4 “pastors.”  The meeting itself was a perfect illustration of ecumenism on a local level.  There were a number of Catholics, a Methodist, a Lutheran, city officials, counselors, humanitarians, a baptist (whom I work with), and then myself (I’ll write another post later on why I don’t label myself a baptist).  Oh, and I forgot the Christian Science lady.  Throughout the meeting vague hints were dropped at things like prayer being a good thing, and the need for us to develop greater spiritual unity.  All very nice ecumenical thoughts.

Then of course there were the agendas of the meeting.  Discussing the homeless problem, being alerted to services to troubled youth, housing for those in the gay community suffering from AIDS, a center for victims of domestic violence, a city organization trying to provide groceries to shut ins in the community.  All of them viable needs, all of them places where hurting and broken people could come for help.  But that was it.  It was just a social issue.  Fix societies problems by working together.  Now I understand the need for each of these services and appreciate that I live in a country where these helps exist for people.  But what troubles me is that too many churches drift off mission.  They become more interested in social work than in discipleship.  Why, because of liberal and ecumenical presuppositions and beliefs which lead the church to attempt to establish utopia here and now.  The need for all social activity is certainly great.  But it should be motivated not by an ecumenical desire but by a gospel driven love for people.  Helping people become better people is a fine goal for a state.  But for the church our desire should be greater than just better people, it should be Christ-followers.  Our ministry to those suffering from domestic violence should always include the healing that comes through the gospel and a relationship with Jesus Christ.  Our ministry to the homeless should be fueled by and include the gospel.  And the list could go and on.  But there was no mention of the gospel and only a few veiled mentions to someone’s son but who he was I could never figure out.  Social work done by the church without the gospel just does not make sense.  And what do maraschino cherries and chicken teriyaki have to do with one another?