Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Christianity Today: "Rethinking Paul"

The most recent edition of Christianity Today has an article by Simon Gathercole on the so called "new perspective" on Paul. We're in a phase right now of strong reaction to Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, as I've mentioned before. The Presbyterian Church of America is actually disciplining any of its ministers who are sympathetic to it, and thus the politics of religion are alive and well in the twenty-first century.

Gathercole is not as rabidly against the "new perspective" as some others. For a more detailed explanation of it, see the series that Scot McKnight is doing on his blog: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2688. To be honest, there is a good deal of variety even within the new perspective camp. I disagree with Dunn and Wright on a number of issues, but would generally be sympathetic to the trend.

Gathercole begins by saying what it is and what it isn't. It isn't a rethinking of everything about Paul. It basically has two parts: first, a rethinking of Judaism and then a rethinking of Paul in that light. The rethinking of Judaism is an acknowledgement that Luther interpreted the Judaism with which Paul sparred far too much in the light of the Roman Catholicism of his day, that Judaism was not a works religion.

Gathercole and others have pointed out that works were a significant element in Jewish religion in relation to ultimate acceptance before God. So we have this dialog:

1. Bultmann--the Jews believed they could earn their salvation by good works.
2. Sanders--the Jews did good works in response to the gracious election of God. It was about "staying in," not "getting in."
3. Gathercole--OK, Bultmann and friends completely missed that grace and election were important to the Jews, but Sanders also underestimates the role that works played in Judaism.
4. Schenck--Who cares? Judaism involved both election and works in the mix of salvation... Paul does too!

That brings us to the second part, the application of the new perspective on Judaism to Paul himself. Here we have significant diversity.

Sanders: Paul is arguing from solution to problem. He knows the Gentiles are in. His theology is his attempt to explain how that can be the case without denying God's faithfulness to His covenant with Israel. His arguments over justification by faith are all about showing that the Gentiles are in--it is not the centerpiece of his theology but a result of his arguments with opponents.
Dunn: When Paul talks about works, he is primarily talking about works of Jewish law. Not on justification by works in general. The "works of law" that do not justify are things like circumcision, sabbath observance, food laws, etc...
Wright: The problem was that Israel boasted in national righteousness and thus withheld God's grace from the Gentiles, a grace God always intended for everyone. So Paul is not talking about individual works but about national works of righteousness. Faith is a badge of covenant identity, not a means of justification. Faith shows you are in. It doesn't get you in.

Gathercole critiques six tendencies of the "new perspective":

1. Works were a part of final salvation for Judaism and Jews talked about them as if a person could do them on their own. Paul believes only the mighty acts of God make salvation possible.

Fair enough. The New Testament does exactly the same thing, Paul included. The empowerment of the Spirit for works is the unique element in Paul's theology, as Simon indicates elsewhere. But basically this is a big fuss because of the Pelagian controversy of Augustine and the Reformation arguments. Paul himself, on the other hand, doesn't care nearly as much about dotting these i's as everyone else does.

2. Gathercole disagrees with Dunn's assessment that "works of law" primarily refer to boundary issues like circumcision and so forth (Westerholm is also a significant contender here as well). He thinks works of law refers to works of the whole Jewish law. So when Paul tells the Romans they are not justified by works of law, he means they cannot be justified by doing those parts of the law that are particular to Jews.

I personally think Dunn comes closer to the right balance on this issue. Dunn has recently made it clear that he was not restricting the phrase just to Jewish boundary works like circumcision (in The New Perspective). But I agree with Dunn that this is primarily what Paul has in mind.

What did we find that Paul was thinking about in Galatians 5:3 when he was talking about being justified by the law? Circumcision! They are observing sabbaths and other festivals (4:10). And in Romans, what example does Paul focus on in regard to not being justified by works? It's circumcision again (Rom. 4:10).

So while Paul can and does broaden his argument to say that works of any kind cannot result in justification (e.g., Rom. 9:6), the boundary issues are clearly what he is picturing in his mind in all these cases.

3. Simon disagrees with the move to talk about corporate righteousness among new perspective advocates like Wright. Individual and corporate are not at odds with one another.

I also think that Wright goes overboard with some of his corporate stuff, particularly his signature "Christ=Israel" motif. I suspect Gathercole errs just a tad on the individualistic side, but not too much. The ancient world thought of individuals through the lens of the groups to which they belonged. I believe this is the appropriate language through which to read Paul as well.

4. Gathercole argues that some new perspective scholars confuse the consequences of justification with justification itself. In particular, justification becomes inclusion in the people of God to the exclusion of justification being about how believers can be considered righteous before God. Thus,

5. It can lead to a downplaying of the sin of Israel. Some extreme new perspective scholars see Paul as only added another house to the house of God, not modifying Israel's part of the house at all (Stendahl, Gager).

6. So Romans can become a politically correct commentary on mutual acceptance and ecumenism between Jew and Gentile.

On these last three points I substantially agree with Simon. I continue to understand justification to be about the legal acquittal of a person, whether Jew or Gentile. I remain unconvinced of Wright's sense of justification as a word referring to inclusion within God's people. It results in that, of course, but I remain unconvinced that the word itself means this.

13 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Ken, I just "begged" Wim to buy me the new Christianity Today this past week-end as it had this article (and I respect your scholarship and you as a person, and you'd mentioned it...:). I will probably have more to say on it later but it seems that "Christian Theology" (vs. biblical theology) has been made on the assumption that there was "linear history"...meaning that Israel, as God's chosen people, and Christ's advent presupposed a culmination of a "beginning and an end"...on the other hand, world history has shown that humanity's history tends to "run cyclical", meaning that men tend to "build", producing "power structures", and then need "reformation or correction"..."the cycle of sin", if you will..Wim just said yesterday that "academics" tend to be "settled" in their "knowledge" and quit having the attitude of "learning", that is not an "open ear". I'm listening to a seris on the development of "freedom" in early Greece and Rome...interesting, as to the individual and community aspects...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

And, with yesterday's post in mind, it is only when we "listen" to tradition and not throw it out altogether, that we are truly "wise"...Augustine did balance Pelagius in that way...as to "original sin"...but it is just what it has become...a "substance" that needs eradication...and not a "truth" to be remembered that we all tend toward the "sin of pride", disregarding of tradition. Because, sin was understood as a "substance", it had to be eradicated by a supernatural means. And some traditions would even "REPLACE" the very nature of man with the "supernatural", i.e. "grace"....I believe that Wesley taught that grace is given to man previeniently...and is much more prevasive than traditional Protestants understood...Education does give "freedom" from superstitions, and the "fears that superstition" breeds... That does not mean that reason is absolute, as only God is absolute...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Paul used Stoicism for the ones that were disempowered after the Empire had become "all powerful"...they only had control over their attitudes in mind, heart, which played out in their actions...and that was a way for there to be "peace" in an all powerful Empire that persecuted them!...But, in America where "freedom is not just for the aristocrat or "leader", everyone is equal before law, so equally free!!! That is the great thing about American "freedom of religion", no STATE church with its domineering hand in one's "faith affairs"...And as history has borne out, that has resulted in the "Protestant Principle"...diversity and understanding Christian faith in many ways...
With postmodernity, tradition is know within cultural history, which influences people within context...tradition includes relgion, as well as politics and one's family of origin...
Tradition gives a form of expression to faith. As faith is all important, the form is irrelavant. But, with the discussion on "works", the form become "all important"...that is the outward form of expression of faith...what one gives one's life to...and the "cross" is the "burden/joy" of reaching the goal. Hebrews give those who were being persecuted and had no power a "hope" in the future and it was a spiritual hope alone...I don't believe that that is true hope...it is a democratic form of government...

Alex said...

Thanks for the post! It was really informative. I have only one question/concern. You characterized Wright's view as "Faith shows you are in. It doesn't get you in." While I definitely hear him saying (I've read the Romans commentary, the 3 COQG books, and numerous articles) that faith shows you are in in his Romans commentary, I don't see him explicitly saying that it doesn't get you in. So the question is, what in Wright's view gets you in? I don't think Wright's answer would be as simple as election in the Calvinistic sense. But what would it be?

Ken Schenck said...

Alex, I would really like to know the answer to this question as well. It has been tempting to go the election route, but I don't know what Wright actually thinks here. One of us should write him!

Anonymous said...

Ken, I am not a lawyer, but isn't an acquittal of someone the dismisal of charges because of lack of evidence or failure of the prosecution to get a conviction or a jury to convict? I never use the word when teaching about justification. It sounds to O.J. I like pardon better because it means that the person is guilty, but the convening ruling authority has declared the person pardoned of the crimes and penalty. What is your understanding of these terms and the proper use of them?

Ken Schenck said...

Craig, I'm not a lawyer either, and assuming you're right, pardon would seems more appropriate to describe what we're literally talking about here. My sense of the words Paul is using here (fully acknowledging that I'm learning all the time) is though that the word is closer to being found "righteous." I don't have a problem with Luther's legal fiction--I just think it is only half the story...

Scott D. Hendricks said...

Thanks for this article review in post, as it is helpful after just finishing Jesus and the Victory of God and some other Wright texts (you know how authors tend to say the same things along the same lines in different books). This helps to remind me that I as an individual reader/interpreter have the responsibility to see whether someone's thesis proves to be true, or helps me to read/understand the text better. I read Matthew today, and found myself mesmerized.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Ken, I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to you, when I said that academians need to "keep learning". What I mean is, all of this objectivity, to get to the "root" of Paul's meaning for today, seems a little skewed...Before "walls" go up, as I am reading more about the New Perspective, it seems to me that imagery in Scripture can be "taken" different ways...Luther's understanding of freedom from the psychological tread-mill is no less "true". If "salvation" is understanding how man is to be fully or wholly made into God's image, that part of man IS just as important.
Could it be that applying objective measures to specific "problems" breeds more problems than it solves? Man, in that sense is not an object to be scruntanized and judged, but understood, loved and accepted. In this sense, academics misses the mark with man made in God's image. (I told Judy I had reservations about empirical studies on "man", as all men are unique in some individual way, that science may "miss") Paul, being a "father of the faith" was concerned about a specific church and specific teachers that had come in to inhibit the freedom they had found in Christ. What does it matter whether it was a psychological freedom or some other kind? If psychological freedom is granted to someone oppressed, I believe that person would be indebted with gratitude to the one who'd set them free (that was Paul's whole point in Romans 1-8, before he calls for Romans 12. And I believe a "living" sacrifice means that He desires for us to volitionally give our lives to him, not for that life to be determined by community.)Sometimes in understanding the "real" meaning of the text and becoming fervent in applying it to "real" life, we become implementers of "law" without even realizing it. That is why the Holy Spirit is gentle, as He knows all about us. The way in which He speaks and the timing of His speech is undeniably timely and appropriate.) That is why I believe in a personal faith for it cannot in this sense be "judged" (as long as there are no obvious "sins" that are hindering the community.)

Ken Schenck said...

Angie, I certainly agree that the same text and imagery can be taken in multiple ways...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I don't want to monopolize your blog-site, but I know you, therefore (too bad for you, but your patience is showing :))The first question is one regarding the issue of identity markers being of national ethnicity...Identity markers have to be "national" in nature because that is reality...we are cultural beings...so what is the "identity marker" besides faith? You have mentioned sexual purity... But, I see it as a pure heart for God (1st Commandment)...and then love of neighbor (2nd Commandment).
If the NP is talking about the issue of "national Rt" then, wouldn't the Puritan American "ideal" also be wrong-headed? And how do we (I, at least) understand "covenant" membership in Wesleyan circles when it seems to put national (identity markers) boundaries around community? As I just heard today about Augustus using Constitutional law to get and maintain "control" over the empire...it was all "legal", but he was empowered to disempower others that he thought were a detriment to his power...That is what happened to Jesus in a religious sense...
The "moral models" are many and are representative of certain attributes of God..

dave said...

Great conversation.

Angie, by the way, no need to buy the hard copy of the magazine anymore.

Ct puts most articles online. Here is the article being discussed:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html

dave said...

PS, I overlapped at Asbury Sem w/you Ken. I am no pastoring at www.3dff.com and adjunct at Frestecahing for no Pacific U. in Bible, as well as Latin American Bible Institute.

At the latter, I am teaching Paul.

Keep up the good work