Couldn't Help Noticing

The Wright stuff

I have always been told that Bishop N. T. (Tom) Wright of New Perspective fame is a very gifted speaker. Judging by his performance on a recent Aussie sojourn, one can only agree. Not only does he communicate his ideas clearly and winsomely, he is also a very clever Christian polemicist—by which I mean that he is highly skilled in the kind of debating that we Christians find appealing: polite, disarming, and slightly self-deprecating, with plenty of Bible quotes thrown in.

A case in point was Bishop Wright's seminar/debate with Bishop Paul Barnett on ‘Fresh Perspectives in Paul’. At one point in the discussion, the two men were asked about their views of the place of Christian behaviour or good works in justification at the last judgement.

Bishop Wright's response was as follows:

My view of the place of good works in justification at the last judgement is I hope exactly that of Paul in Romans 2:1-16, and in Romans 14 and in 2 Corinthians 5, where it is quite clear that the things that Christians do in the power of the Spirit in obedience to Christ in the present will be part of the evidence submitted on the last day. That has nothing to do with works-righteousness in the usually fashionable sense?nothing to contribute to justification by faith in the present, as the thing which constitutes the Christian in the present as dikaios (righteous).

Interestingly we had a big discussion about this at Rutherford House a few years ago [2003]; the papers of that conference are in the process of being published, edited by Bruce McCormack from Princeton, and anyone interested in that topic might well be interested to see how that discussion played out. Because there is a fear among many in the evangelical tradition that to say there is anything to do with works in relation to anything to do with justification is to creep back into synergism.

By the way the first word of 2 Corinthians 6 is sunergountes—being synergistic with God—in exactly this context, working together with God. It is not that we earn our salvation—in Romans 2, Paul says very clearly: “those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory, honour and immortality, to those he will give eternal life”. So I am simply pinning my statement there on Paul's precise statement in Romans 2:1-12.

The position being taken here is disturbingly close to Roman Catholicism, in which our justification on the last day is based not only on Christ's atoning death but also on the good works which we have done in cooperation with the work of God's Spirit in our lives (sometimes referred to as “synergism”). The good works are part of the evidence that results in justification.

Now, it would hardly have been very wise for Bishop Wright to preface his answer by saying, “My position on this question is essentially that of the Council of Trent”. Instead, he begins by pleading that what he is about to say is only what Paul himself “exactly” says in three passages. (Don't shoot the messenger: I'm only saying what Paul says.) He then throws a bit of rhetorical dust in the air by saying he is not talking about “works-righteousness in the usually fashionable sense” with respect to how we are justified by faith now in the present—which is a distraction because it's not the question at hand. And then he executes a classic “straw man” manoeuvre, by raising the supposed fear of evangelicals that “anything to do with works in relation to anything to do with justification is to creep back into synergism”.

Now evangelicals are rightly wary of creeping back into synergism, but I don't know any evangelicals who think that “anything to do with justification in relationship to anything to do with works” inevitably leads us to synergism. Evangelicals have been talking about the relationship between justification and works for centuries. We think it's vital to understand the relationship properly. We just happen to think that synergism is the wrong answer.

I'm not sure whether the polemical skill had its desired effect on the crowd. It certainly didn't fool Paul Barnett. His response was as follows:

I think we have a difference here, Tom. 2 Corinthians 5-6 is about Paul's apostolic ministry not about his specific relationship with God but how he exercises his ministry as an ambassador of Christ, and as a Holy Spirit-empowered co-worker of God. I think the Romans 2 passage sets out the necessary theory of the righteousness of God as being the basis of all judgement—God is impartial and he will not have favourites in terms of judgement. Then I think as the letter unfolds further he is saying that there is therefore in Christ no condemnation. Justification by faith is complete. I do however think that there is a doctrine of the evaluation of the justified in terms of commendation—commendation given and commendation withheld. But that is I believe of those who are justified by grace who in Christ do not face any condemnation, since Christ himself has borne that condemnation in our place.

This is a classic expression of biblical Reformed Protestantism—that whatever part our good works play in the final judgement, they do not secure our escape from condemnation (that is, our justification). That is achieved completely, finally and fully on the ground of Christ's atoning work on our behalf.

Bishop Wright then responded:

I'm happy with that. Although I could perhaps just comment that Romans 8—no condemnation—goes on with a sequence of gars: because this because that because the other. And one of those gars is because by the Spirit you now actually do what the law requires. I mean I know it's a controversial verse—to dikiaoma tou nomou in Romans 8:4.

To diminish the sense that he is saying anything unorthodox, Bishop Wright firstly avers that he's “happy with that”, even though Bishop Barnett has directly contradicted him. But then to show that he hasn't really changed his mind, he cites a contentious reading of Romans 8:4 in support of his earlier position, namely that condemnation is avoided by us fulfilling the righteous requirements of God through the work of the Spirit in us (synergism again).

Judging by the murmurs and chuckles of the crowd, and by the fact that no-one followed through on this, it seems that many of those present found Bishop Wright's answer satisfactory. Just goes to show what a bit of charm and polemical skill can achieve.

Equipping women

During a lunch break at the recent EQUIP conference, where my colleague John Sammut and I were running the bookstall, we nipped into the closest coffee shop for some sustenance. John knew the owner of the coffee shop and went over to say hello.

The owner of the coffee shop, who was not a Christian, asked John why he was at Darling Harbour, and John explained that there was a big convention of Christian women just next door.

“Oh that explains it then!” says the owner.

“What do you mean?”, says John.

“I was wondering why all our customers were so nice this morning. And that explains it.”

“You can really notice a difference?”

“Sure,” says the owner, “last weekend there was a convention and the people were just horrible.”

“Who was at the other convention?”

“Real estate agents.”

Praise God that the godliness of the women saints at Darling Harbour on Saturday can bear such testimony to the grace of God in this way.

Touche

It seems that Rev. Gordon Cheng is not the only Christian apologist beavering away in the nation's letter pages. An alert reader spotted the following exchange in the pages of The Australian:

Tim Saclier (Letters, 23/5) has summed up beautifully the old cliche that religion is a triumph of superstition and blind faith over reason and logic. My own epiphany came at the age of 12, when my Sunday school teacher, in reply to my asking who created God, informed me with a straight face that God had always existed. I refused to attend further religious instruction on the grounds that I was being taught by idiots. My Sundays were then spent happily playing in the local swamp, where I observed many of the creatures from which I had actually evolved.

Peter West, The Vines, WA

To which came the following riposte:

Peter West (Letters, 24/5) reminded me of my old science teacher, to whom, at the age of 12, I posed the question, “Who caused the big bang?” He answered me, with a straight face, that nothing caused it, to which I promptly replied that something must have because it obviously happened. It was at that point that I had an epiphany: my science teacher could not give me an answer that was either reasonable or logical. My Sundays were then happily spent attending Sunday school and learning about the God who created me.

Bruce Newberry, Mansfield, Qld.

Different rules for Christians

From a UK Briefing reader:

When the pressure group Christian Action posted on its website the names and addresses of those responsible for Jerry Springer The Opera with the request that people write to them about the production, many hands were thrown up in horror. If anyone from Christian Action was interviewed on TV to explain their action, someone always followed to declare how totally irresponsible it was, because ‘extremists’ might get hold of the information and endanger these people.

I know of no armed, militant and violent Christian groups offering harassment and intimidation to those who offend them, but if that is what they feared, then they had the right to express their prejudices.

However, when animal rights extremists sent letters to shareholders in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) threatening to publish their personal details on a website unless they sold their shares, an apologist for the animal rights movement was interviewed, who said these people were “absolutely a legitimate target” for this kind of action; but guess what? Nobody came on after that to say what a totally irresponsible action it was, despite the fact that there are known extremists who will use almost any means at their disposal—certainly violence, intimidation and even grave-robbing—to attain their ends. Even if the people doing the publishing of the names would not use those tactics, it is known that others would: so to threaten to publish names is to threaten violence and is in itself intimidation. But nobody came on to say so.

Isn't that odd?

Where are all the women priests?

When the women's ordination debate was in full swing (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) a panoply of arguments was put forward as to why we should all get on board, do the right thing and ordain women as priests/presbyters. We were told that our witness to an unbelieving world would never be effective until we removed the stumbling block of excluding women from leadership. And we were told that the ‘evangelical’ case for women's ordination had been made, and that many evangelicals were willing to get with the programme, presumably to the shame of those recalcitrants (like this author) who remained utterly unconvinced.

As the ever-perceptive John Richardson points out in a recent issue of ‘New Directions’, neither of these contentions have proved true. More than a decade after the ‘women's ordination wars’, the vast majority of women priests in the Anglican church in the UK are liberal, and none of them are running large churches:

Excluding cathedrals, there are about 160 Anglican churches with ‘Usual Sunday Attendances’ in excess of 350. The majority are growing, many of them are evangelical, and all the senior ministers of these churches are male. When pastoral push comes to shove, it seems that congregations instinctively congregate around male leadership.

If, as we have been told, most evangelicals have no problem with the ordination of women, we should expect this picture to change, so that the proportion of women running larger churches corresponds to the proportion of clergy who are women. However, whilst women are found in every ‘senior’ position from dean to archdeacon, and will soon be bishops, they have yet to be found running big churches, evangelical or otherwise.

Judging by the tiny numbers of evangelical women being ordained, it seems that evangelicals as a whole are actually not convinced at all about women's ordination. Those who are convinced congregate almost entirely in the liberal wing, and the churches that they run are hardly being overrun by grateful atheists willing at last to embrace the gospel now that a woman is in charge.

The liberal churches, in which the vast majority of women priests serve, continue to decline, while the evangelical arm of the denomination, in which there are very few women priests, continues to be the only sector showing any growth.