EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
The setting of the piece is Lent and Easter and the theme is hope - in fact the conclusion said that "it's all about hope...[the] surprising hope of the gospel, the hope for life after life after death." While I think that, of any worldview, Christianity springs forth hope, I think that the picture painted by Wright (via McCracken) is hope-limiting, if not diminishing. First of all, I think it's a crude caricature to say that often "we Christians...come across as dour, judgmental, 'get me out of this earth and take me to heaven' downers" who believe "in a religion that forsakes this world and looks forward to its demise and an otherworldly heaven". Do most Christians really think that way? I've come across very few. If anything, Christians come across as TOO this-worldly, lacking any kind eternal perspective, and looking no different from the rest of the world. I think that's a more urgent matter than oddly imagining us as pessimistic pilots ready to yank the eject lever. Wright's proponents seem to think that the solution for this minority group, and us as well, is to tell us to get to work. Get to work helping God reclaim His creation and 'setting the world to rights'. The problem with this redirection is, I think, twofold and significant. First, where is the cross? Where is the sin we need to be saved from? When Jesus came, He did say, "The Kingdom is near you" but He also said, "Repent". John the Baptist, Paul, and Peter all preached similar messages. "Repent and be reconciled to God." The hope that God offers is given after those two things. In any sermons or conference messages I've listened to, in any conversations I've had with friends who had a similar view to Brett and Wright, there is very little mention of sin or the cross. Hope isn't hope until you see that you were hopeless without Christ. Paul himself said that if Christ didn't rise from the dead, our faith is futile, we are still in our sins, and we are to be pitied above all men. (1 Cor. 15: 17,19) The resurrection is at the center of God's redemptive plan but it can't be separated from the cross, something I often hear and see from those who hold this kind of theology. Secondly, and most importantly, in a dialogue where the completed and all-sufficient work of Jesus on the cross shows up less and less and the urgent work that we must do shows up more and more, the attention naturally shifts from what Christ has done to what we must do. We must get to work helping God right all of the wrongs in the world. We must be busy bringing heaven to earth. Don't get me wrong, Christians should live lives of grateful obedience and love. (1 John 5:2, Eph. 2:10) But the problem with shifting the focus from what Christ has done for us to what we need to do for Him is that it naturally results in what comes along with this kind of theology: a works-based justification. When you finally stand before God, you are saved by what you have done rather than what God in Jesus has done for you. Now, we can let the intellectual and Biblical heavyweights duke out the doctrine of justification but we can't fail to see how Wright's belief in an initial justification and a final justification underlie his views. Traditionally, Protestants believe that when God calls you to faith in Him you are justified before Him. At that point, you are made right/reconciled to Him because when you stand before God, Christ's life and death will cover your sin. Wright's view is that there is a final justification where your deeds will play into whether you are saved or not. But, though most people may not understand the finer points of justification, I'm reminded of something Tim Keller said once in talking about the tricky doctrine of election. He said, "When in doubt, side with Grace." To me, there is little hope in those views. How can I have hope in my own deeds knowing the depth of sin in my heart and life? How can I have assurance and security if my salvation rests at all on me instead of entirely on Christ? Hope is built on the foundation that, as Luther said, we are beggars. What we hope for is unfathomably out of our ability. Hope is directed forward by God's faithfulness in the past. The hope of eternal life only comes to us by way of a cross and an empty tomb. In one of the most hope-laden passages in Scripture Paul explains that because, through Jesus, we have peace with God we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Rom 5) It's strange; I live in a place where a theology of a new heaven and new earth isn't close to being realized or articulated. The Christians here have hope in the most basic truths of the faith. Brett mentioned that Wright has contributed something revolutionary to him as a Baptist-bred man. I wonder if, as Western Christians, we assume that we have the Gospel nailed down because we've heard it so many times, when in fact, we don't. (I'm definitely guilty of that.) Instead of returning to the core truths, we look for something new, even something novel, that will inspire or motivate us. I would bet that's a majority of what the Christian publishing industry is based on. But it's the simplicity of the Gospel that ratcheted around the lives of the early church, that put steel in the spine of the martyrs, and that does the same today in remote parts of the world. To illustrate my point, I'll close with an anecdote and two quotes. The last I checked, Mongolia's economy was ranked #136 in the world by the World Bank; between Laos and Tajikistan. Even though their entire lives will be lived in worse economic conditions than Americans would call our recession, nearly every single Mongolian in church gives money during offering. It is the radical generosity and thankfulness that flows from truly grasping the simplicity of the Gospel. When John Newton, the writer of "Amazing Grace" came to the end of his life and was losing his memory he said to a friend, "My memory is nearly gone, but I remember two things: That I am a great sinner and that Christ is a great Savior." I owe this last quote to a friend. Thomas Hooker was an acclaimed and successful Puritan pastor, and one of the original settlers of Connecticut. As he lay dying, someone said to him, "Sir, you are going to receive the reward of all your labours." Thomas looked at him and replied, "Brother, I am going to receive mercy." If we are talking about hope and perspective, I wonder if there are better places to be reminded of them than in the faiths of the poor and of the saints who have gone from hope anticipated to hope realized. . |
Comments
Thank you for sorting out these issues in smaller pieces. A careful, biblical look is both broader and narrower than essays and blogs and books can offer. It is always important to shine the whole of an argument under the biblical blacklight and see what shows up. You've got me thinking--and prompted me to study a little more. That's what blogs should do, I think.
I thank God daily for his mercy and his grace. I see it at work in my own life and all around me. Because of that grace there is hope for this world and hope for the herafter.
doc
Hey Nick,
A few comments:
>>Wright's proponents seem to think that the solution for this minority group, and us as well, is to tell us to get to work. Get to work helping God reclaim His creation and 'setting the world to rights'. The problem with this redirection is, I think, twofold and significant. First, where is the cross? Where is the sin we need to be saved from?>>
I take it their view is that the cross is behind us, so to speak: we've *already* been saved from our sins. Our task is no longer to repent and receive the merit that Christ earned. We've already done that. Our job now is to do the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:10). This all seems perfectly biblical, so I'm wondering if you really disagree.
>>In any sermons or conference messages I've listened to, in any conversations I've had with friends who had a similar view to Brett and Wright, there is very little mention of sin or the cross.>>
Maybe that's because they're already preaching to the converted? People who have received Jesus don't need a sermon telling them to receive Jesus. People who have already accepted Christ's work on the cross don't need to be told to accept Christ's work on the cross. No, these Christians need to be told to DO SOMETHING, to do the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do.
>>But the problem with shifting the focus from what Christ has done for us to what we need to do for Him is that it naturally results in what comes along with this kind of theology: a works-based justification.>>
I don't see why that transition is inevitable. Surely someone can (and should) consistently believe that Christ has done us an immeasurable service, while also desiring to live well, be sanctified, and do Christ's good works here on Earth. That's what Paul taught. NT Wright isn't into works-based justification in the sense you mean it. I think it's pretty unfair to accuse him of that.
It's true that some people might confuse the injunction to do Christ's good works with the claim that we must do good works to have our sins forgiven. But the fact that people might confuse Wright's message is no fault of Wright. Similarly, people might confuse Calvin's view of election with the claim that we don't need to do any evangelism or good works, since God will necessarily save all and only the elect, and we don't have free will. But the fact that people may confuse Calvin's teachings isn't a fault of Calvin.
And in fact, as I've pointed out to you several times, the Bible clearly teaches that we will be rewarded or punished on judgment day ON THE BASIS OF OUR WORKS. Here's just one example: 2 Corinthians 5:10 tells us that before the judgment seat of Christ we will receive *what is due to us* for what we have DONE.
You characterize Wright's view as leading to the following conclusion:
>>When you finally stand before God, you are saved by what you have done rather than what God in Jesus has done for you.>>
Later, you say:
>>Wright's view is that there is a final justification where your deeds will play into whether you are saved or not.>>
But isn't that exactly what the Bible teaches?
-- Revelation 20:12-15 tells us the dead will be judged according to what they had DONE.
-- Matthew 25:31-46 tells us Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats on the basis of what they have DONE.
-- Romans 2:6 tells us "God will give to each person according to what he has DONE."
-- Romans 2:8-11 tells us eternal life will be given to those who DO good.
-- Romans 8:13 says that if we put to death the misDEEDS of the body, we will live.
-- Galatians 6:7-9 says that a man reaps as he sows, i.e. according to what he DOES.
Your view seems to be at variance with the Bible, while Wright's view seems to be in concordance with the Bible. Given your commitment to the Bible, I think you should adopt Wright's view.
>>But, though most people may not understand the finer points of justification, I'm reminded of something Tim Keller said once in talking about the tricky doctrine of election. He said, "When in doubt, side with Grace.">>
But why is there any doubt here? The Bible clearly teaches that we will be judged on the basis of what we have DONE. Doesn't it?
>>To me, there is little hope in those views. How can I have hope in my own deeds knowing the depth of sin in my heart and life?>>
In Philippians 1, Paul tells us that he is "confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." God glorifies all those he sanctifies, and sanctifies all those he justifies. If you were justified, you'll eventually be glorified. You can rest assured in that, while still believing that sanctification (and therefore glorification) requires that you do good works (not works of the Law, "works of love").
>>How can I have assurance and security if my salvation rests at all on me instead of entirely on Christ?>>
That's a false dichotomy. It may be that your sanctification (and therefore your glorification) rests BOTH on you AND on the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. And it may be that God created the world with the knowledge of who would freely and cooperatively complete the sanctification process if they were justified. And you may be just such a person. If so, then your salvation doesn't rest all on you, but neither does it rest entirely on God. It will be a cooperative effort between you and God, and you can rest assured that it will be completed.
Hi TAMB,
I responded to your comment here:
http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/the-crowning-of-his-own-grac...
Nick
I think the greater point of the book of James is simply this - stop arguing theology and get busy doing the work that you have been called to do!
If our faith-based justification doesn't result in sanctified works, it is utterly useless. I don't think either of you (Nick and TAMB) wants to try to argue that we should stand before God proclaiming our faith in Christ's all-sufficient sacrifice with no evidence for this faith showing up in our subsequent actions.
I wonder where arguing theology will be placed by God when meting out rewards for our works done?
Hey Scott,
In theory that sounds great, but it neglects the fact that right belief was something strongly exhorted by Jesus, Paul, and throughout the New Testament. All of Paul's letters, Peter's letters, and John's letters have to do with correcting false teachings and misbehavior; not simply telling people to 'get busy'.
What we (me and TAMB) are talking about here is at the very core of the Gospel; are we saved by faith or do our good works play into whether or not we are saved?
As to your closing, rhetorical question; for those called to be teachers and pastors, I think arguing right belief for the good of the church - and in a way that glorifies God and leads people to Him rather than ourselves - will be something commended by God. And, more importantly, to get rewarded for those good works you've done, you first need to have right belief; without it, you won't see the Kingdom.
Perhaps this description of Diedrich Bonhoeffer's theology is a good summary of what I'm talking about: "For him, Christianity could never be mere intellectual theory; doctrine divorced from life, or mystical emotion, but always must be responsible, obedient action, the discipleship of Christ in every situation of concrete every day life. For Bonhoeffer, doctrine and the Christian life were one and the same."
Nick