A New Perspective

I want to take a detour from my “ethos” series for this post and talk about a controversy that is brewing in North American evangelicalism. Recently there has been a flurry of discussion regarding the “New Perspective on Paul,” which is the name given to a line of historical and literary thought which is asking some interesting questions about the focus of Paul’s theology. In a very brief nutshell, this perspective calls into question that Paul was primarily concerned with doctrines such as justification by faith or themes like the apocalypse and was more preoccupied with calling into being a renewed People of God. Scot McKnight has a very good discussion of the origins of this perspective here.

So why should anyone I know bother continuing to read this post? (Most of the people I know do their theology a majority of the time rather than argue about it). Primarily because I think the new perspective has some interesting – and I think very valuable – pastoral (verb) concerns. Naturally, hard-core Calvinists have their knickers twisted over this, and there are loads and loads of books, articles, and blogs flooding the evangelical landscape. The main argument against the new perspective is that it diminishes the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and to some renders what has been typically thought of the Gospel in protestant circles unintelligible. From what I’ve read and studied so far, I actually think the complete opposite is true, from a Gospel and pastoral point of view.

Naturally, one of favorite writers / scholars / elder statesman of the kingdom, N.T. Wright, is in the middle of the fray. I’ve been reading his little book, Paul, In Fresh Perspective, and as usual come away refreshed by his ability to communicate and his thorough scholarship. Wright has a way of making these arguments come alive that you typically envision happening between seminarians with their heads stuck in the sand. On page 121 of the book, he has a great summary quote regarding justification, and how the new perspective encapsulates some of Paul’s most familiar passages from Romans:

“The point of justification by faith is that, as he insists in [Romans] 3:26, it takes place in the present time as opposed to on the last day. It has to do with the questions, ‘Who now belongs to God’s people?’, and ‘How can you tell?’ The answer is: all who believe in the gospel belong, and that is the only way you can tell – not by who their parents were, or how well they have obeyed the Torah (or any other moral code), or whether they have been circumcised. Justification, for Paul, is a subset of election, that is, it belongs as part of his doctrine of the people of God.

And of course this does not mean, despite many efforts to push the conclusion this way, that it has nothing to do with sinners being saved from sin and death by the love and grace of God. The point of election always was that humans were sinful, that the world was lapsing back into chaos, and that God was going to mount a rescue operation. That is what the covenant was designed to do, and that is why ‘belonging to the covenant’ means, among other things, ‘forgiven sinner’. The point is that the word ‘justification’ does not itself denote the process whereby, or the event in which, a person is brought by grace from unbelief, idolatry and sin into faith, true worship and renewal of life. Paul, clearly and unambiguously, uses a different word for that, the word ‘call’. The word ‘justification’, despite centuries of Christian misuse, is used by Paul to denote that which happens immediately after the ‘call’: ‘those God called, he also justified.’ (Romans 8:30) In other words, those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his people, his elect, ‘the circumcision’, ‘the Jews’, ‘the Israel of God’. They are give the status dikaios, ‘righteous’, ‘within the covenant’.”

The pastoral implications might not be obvious at first glance. However, if your preaching and ministry are structured around getting people to assent to doctrine, declare a profession of faith, be baptized, and then become a member in good standing of your religious organization awaiting your heavenly reward…then yeah, there’s some implications to all this. In my upbringing as a Christian, the “New Covenant” was basically “All that law and earning favor with God garbage is gone. Now you believe in Jesus, be forgiven for your sins so you can go to heaven.” It was, as some have likened, a cosmic transaction – Jesus’ blood for my sins, end of story.

But for Paul, that wasn’t end of the story. Again, contrary to what is becoming popular opinion, I don’t think this in any way diminishes the cross, the blood of Jesus, the atonement, or however you want to describe what Jesus did for us on Calvary. It simply roots it within a larger story which began with Adam - the minute human beings first decided that they might try to be their own gods. This perhaps is an overused metaphor, but we do not come to the cross as consumers, looking for blood, but as children who have been called by their Father to partake in the new world he is making possible through his Son by the Holy Spirit. That new world consists of forgiven people to be sure, but it also means that we are a People – a renewed, kingdom People – right now.

So, for these People on the Way, all of this means that we can’t just sit on our justified laurels and become fat, happy consumers of truth. We are, by our nature, a People on the move, and Jesus and the apostles are leading the way. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read through Romans in the past with the point trying to “get it right”. But the “Romans Road” doesn’t just lead to some talking points for an evangelistic message – it is a road we are traveling on right now. We are living that story, day in and day out, moving from our pagan roots to a new humanity, bathed in grace and light. That truly is good news. As we get familiar with this story – living as justified people – new possibilities open up for how we should continue to press forward as communities of faith. Wright later concludes the chapter after the quote above with this thought:

“Paul’s whole ministry is shaped by this reworking: he is constantly laboring to produce and maintain cells of Jews and Gentiles loyal to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, living in the power of the Spirit, under the nose of Caesar and in some of the key cities of the empire. That might lead us to wonder what sort of agendas, not only in ecclesiology [the nature of church] but also in politics, Paul would want to urge on us today.”

This is where the pastoral implications get really interesting. The “ecclesiological” implications are obvious, again, if you assume a faith community such as ours. But when Wright wonders about what sort of “political” agenda Paul would urge on us, he is not speaking about reviving the religious right (or left) or something of that sort. He means, how would Paul urge us as followers of Jesus, as God’s people, to live as God’s kingdom ambassadors to the world? An interesting, and forever relevant, question indeed.