40 Bicycles

I have been reading through sections of Doug Wilson's book "Reformed" is Not Enough again and I thought that I would make a couple of comments on the Appendix. I greatly enjoyed reading Wilson's book when I first read it, feeling that it gave a very clear description of his position, a position that I find myself in fundamental agreement with. However, after reading the body of the book I came to the appendix on the New Perspective, where I was sorely disappointed by Wilson's treatment. I expected to find a more nuanced and informed critique of the movement than that which Wilson presented. Wilson seems to be attacking the common perception of the NP movement, rather than the movement itself. Having read the appendix I felt that Wilson was more intent upon disassociating himself from the NP movement than upon distinguishing himself from the NP movement. I do not find this to be the most helpful approach to such a complicated movement as the NP. I certainly agree with Wilson in his protest that his position is not to be confused with that of the NP. Anyone who confuses the two betrays an ignorance of the source material. The position of Wilson et al is also, in my reading, to be distinguished from the position of Norman Shepherd, although they are in fundamental agreement they should not be identified. Again, Norman Shepherd should be clearly distinguished from the NP. Norman Shepherd does not hold to NP theology as the following quote from The Call of Grace demonstrates:—

Without Christ, the Mosaic covenant is transformed into a covenant of works. People who seek to live under this transformed covenant are seeking to establish their own righteousness (Phil. 3:9). They are seeking to achieve salvation by their own human effort (Gal. 3:3).

In the course of his refutation, Paul uses an ad hominem argument by quoting Scripture according to the sense in which his opponents understand it. Those who seek righteousness by means of the Mosaic covenant as a works/merit principle have not met the standard they set for themselves. "The man who does these things will live by them"—but they have not done these things.

Shepherd and the NP are agreed in seeing the law as a gracious thing, but they disagree when it comes to identifying the aims of Paul's opponents. I don't know of any NP author who reads Galatians as Shepherd does. There seems to be a very rough way of dividing the field on this question: 1. Those who hold that both Paul and his opponents viewed the law as given fundamentally as a means of earning salvation; 2. Those who hold that only Paul's opponents did so (Shepherd, Wilson(?), Ridderbos, etc.); 3. Those who hold that only Paul did so (and that he was trying to enlighten his opponents to this fact); 4. Those who hold that neither party did so (Wright and others). Returning to Wilson's critique... Wilson claims that 'those things which distinguish the school of thought [the NP] are erroneous' presents the 'basic tenets' of the NP:—

...first, that the Judaism of the first century was not a "works religion." Acceptance before God was not earned through a merit system of righteousness based on works. Secondly, it is held that justification by faith does not represent the center of Pauline theology. Rather, Paul argued for justification as a pragmatic tactic as he sought to advance his mission to the Gentiles.

My reading of New Perspective literature is quite limited (I have read a lot of Wright, but not a whole lot of any other NP authors). However, Wilson certainly classes Wright under the NP movement, so I feel justified in questioning Wilson's representation. Regarding the first claim, we must recognize that the essential NP claim is not that there were no legalistic forms of first-century Judaism. This would be, apart from anything else, impossible to prove! Most in the NP movement have made general statements regarding the character of second-temple Judaism. However, the movement, insofar as it is a new perspective on Paul, has to do with the character and aims of Paul's opponents in such places as Galatians, and how we should read Paul in relation to them. If people are willing to grant me this definition, we can see that a NP position can theoretically be reached from a reading of the text of Galatians (say) alone, without any prior knowledge of second-temple Judaism. This is how I arrived at my present position. It is also how N.T. Wright reached his position:—

The way that I came into this is a bit interesting. I grew up as a somewhat typical middle-Anglican with a strong dash of evangelicalism, or put the other way around, I grew up in a Lutheran evangelicalism which left me with a strong antithesis between law and grace. I found this all profoundly unsatisfying until I met Calvin and Calvinism. I began to think, "Whew...the law is a good thing. It is holy and just and good. It is right and it has been fulfilled, not abrogated, in Christ." All of that is right. So, if you are faced with a choice between Luther and Calvin, you simply have to choose Calvin. I think a lot of evangelical debates in North America, at the moment, are still right around that axis, although they don't come right out and actually say so. What I then found, and believe me I tried very hard to do this, was that I couldn't make the Calvinist reading of Galatians actually work. I was reading C.E.B. Cranfield on Romans and trying to see how it would work with Galatians, and it simply doesn't work. Interestingly, Cranfield hasn't done a commentary on Galatians. It's very difficult. But I found then, and this was the mid-seventies before E.P. Sanders was published, before there was such a thing as a "new perspective," that I came out with this reading of Romans 10:3 which is really the fulcrum for me around which everything else moved: "Being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own."

In other words, what we have here is a covenant status which is for Jews and Jews only. I have a vivid memory of going home that night, sitting up in bed, reading Galatians through in Greek and thinking, "It works. It really works. This whole thing is going to fly." And then all sorts of things just followed on from that. I mean Sanders was a great boost but he didn't start this for me and he hasn't given direction to what I did or was doing. It was more like Sanders was saying, "Actually first-century Judaism never was like what Luther said it was."

Many evangelicals have the conception that we should be very careful about resting our theology on hypotheses about first century Judaism. I couldn't agree more! However, what they often fail to realize is that they have the biggest stake in the question. If Luther's hypothesis about first century Judaism is generally wrong, Lutheran (and much of Reformed) Pauline theology becomes increasingly implausible. If Sanders is generally wrong, I don't see that it follows that a NP reading of Galatians needs to be rejected, there are many reasons to follow it (I feel that it could even exist under position 2 above). In effect, the NP, to the degree that it affects our reading of Paul, does not demand any great presumptions about the nature of first-century Judaism. The exegetical case for the NP is the strongest weapon in its armory. The reasons for accepting a NP reading of Paul are manifold, the principal reason being that Paul starts to make sense! As Tim Gallant points out, there are plenty of reasons to question the Reformation’s reading of Galatians from a simple examination of Paul’s argument. If Paul is really arguing against what many think he is arguing against, he is saying all the wrong things! Wilson goes on to point out the constant human problem of self-righteousness as ‘evidence’ against the NP position. This is a flimsy argument if ever I saw one! Does this mean that Paul has to be arguing against it in Galatians (which is, of course, much of what this is about)? Besides, NP theologians are not generally arguing that Martin Luther was wrong in his opposition to the Roman Catholic church (many would stand beside him). Wright, for one, makes very clear that he (and the Bible in his reading) is irreconcilably opposed to any concept of ‘earning’ God’s favour. Nor does he believe that we are saved by grace and stay in by our own merit (he makes this clear in commenting on such verses as Philippians 2:12). NP theology is about our reading of Paul, not about how we relate to the Roman Catholics. It must further be observed that we often equivocate in our use of the term ‘legalism’. Wright is quite happy to observe:—

My teacher George Caird said when I read the mishnah that is what I mean by legalism. You know people are often not satisfied with one definition. They will say, "Is it a this or is it a that?" And when you have given them that, they then say, "But what happens on the Sabbath?" This results in more and more and more endless definitions that have to be learned and applied. That produces a rulebook mentality. Even if you say the whole thing comes under the rubric of grace, by the time you get nineteen stages down the development of the casuistry you just have to wonder how much of this really is grace.

To accept a general NP position you do not even need to deny that the Judaism of Paul’s day had deep legalistic tendencies. Anyone who has heard Steve Schlissel at AAPC 2003, will have heard plenty of examples of deep-rooted legalism in Judaism! Legalism can destroy what should be gracious, but it should not immediately be identified with merit theology — although closely related, they are not the same thing. Legalism can make the law of God like a treadmill without claiming that you obey it to ‘earn your salvation’. Nor does legalism necessitate perfect obedience to the law. It should be remembered that, in Galatians, Paul’s opponents are ‘Christian’ Jews, not Pharisees. If we take seriously how Paul introduces the subject of circumcision and justification (the dispute with Peter over table fellowship) the traditional Reformed reading becomes increasingly implausible. What Paul says in places such as Galatians can certainly be used to inform any attack upon legalism or merit religion, but neither of these things is really being directly addressed by Paul (Christ, of course, has a lot to say about the former in places such as Matthew 23 as does Paul on other occasions). Wilson also misunderstands NP theology by his treatment of the ‘getting in / staying in’ distinction regarding the role of works. He pretty much treats this as a distinction without a difference (in which I think he is severely mistaken). He neglects to notice the difference between works in the context of grace and works outside of this context. The works are built upon the foundation of grace and only stand on this foundation, they have no autonomous strength. I sometimes wonder whether he wishes to exaggerate the difference between covenantal nomism and the position held by himself and Norman Shepherd on the role of works (rightly understood) in justification. I do not believe that the position of Norman Shepherd is legalistic (I am fundamentally in agreement with it). However, if misunderstood it can easily collapse into legalism. Wilson then goes on to criticize Sanders for his pastoral naïveté in teaching covenantal nomism. He fails to notice that Sanders did not believe that covenantal nomism was the way to describe Paul’s theology (see Daniel Kirk’s New Perspective on Reformed Tradition: A Response to Kelly). Moving on to the next point. Wilson argues that ‘it is held that justification by faith does not represent the center of Pauline theology. Rather, Paul argued for justification as a pragmatic tactic as he sought to advance his mission to the Gentiles.’ I seriously doubt if N.T. Wright would use the words ‘pragmatic tactic’ to describe Paul’s doctrine of justification! Wilson’s quote from J. Gresham Machen (to the effect that Paul was committed to the Gentile mission, because he was devoted to justification by faith and not vice versa) muddies the waters even more. Part of our problem here, again, is that we are dealing with such a broad movement. I am informed Sanders reads justification as ‘entry language’; Wright does not. This complicates matters. I’m with Wright on this, and I think that Wilson would have made things a whole lot easier had he been clearer in defining what he and his chosen opponents really mean when they use the word ‘justification’. Equivocation will not help an already muddied argument. Wilson goes on to state:—

They want to maintain that Paul was actually addressing a particular problem at a particular time (which problem was that of getting Jews and Gentiles together), and that his gospel does not address the universal human dilemma—at least not in the way that we have readily assumed.

Having listened to the AAPC 2003 talks (which I thoroughly enjoyed), I am sure that Schlissel gets caught in the crossfire here! The way that Wilson makes this point distorts the issues considerably. Paul is certainly addressing a universal human dilemma in his epistles. However, the redemptive historical background should alert us to the fact that this dilemma is not the one that Wilson is thinking of. It seems strange to me that Wilson should speak of the problem of getting Jews and Gentiles together as a ‘particular problem at a particular time,’ with little or no bearing upon the ‘universal human dilemma’! It seems to me that if Wilson and others of like mind are right, the eschatological significance of the coming of Christ is markedly downplayed. The gospel might merely become an abstract atonement religion to oppose an abstract merit religion. In conclusion, I would suggest that Wilson’s critique of the NP has been hastily thrown together after a reading of Stuhlmacher’s book, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. All of his references in this chapter (apart from one from Rich Lusk) can be obtained from Stuhlmacher’s book (including the details of the Stendahl book and the J. Gresham Machen quote). With research that appears to be this limited, I am not surprised with the conclusions he reaches. I am also concerned that, if we see the gospels and epistles as an attack upon an ‘earn your own salvation’ religion we can, ironically, make their attacks on legalism less relevant for our own time. Legalism thrives in evangelical churches. Legalism will flourish especially well in any merit-orientated religious system, whether or not the system claims that we earn our own salvation. That much of Protestantism holds to such a system is reflected in its doctrines of the Law, Covenant of Works, atonement of Christ, etc. Once you accept the system in principle it will soon infect the practice. Some of the problems in this area are highlighted in Mark Horne’s insightful article — Whose Legalism? Which Works-Righeousness?. Many people have merely replaced a legalistic view of works with a legalistic view of faith. However, the Gospel’s attack upon legalism extends to both. Finally, Wilson gives us the perception that NP theology presents us with the false dilemma between corporate or individual justification. I do not think that such a criticism can stand. I am pretty sure that Wilson would not write the same critique today. More exposure to the writings of the NP movement (and Wright in particular) would lead a more nuanced critique of this varied movement. I respect Wilson as a theologian and like to believe that this is atypical of him. Nevertheless, I do feel the need to express some of my concerns about his approach. If Wilson wants his theological opponents to represent him fairly (which they have not done) then he should extend the same courtesy to Wright. I would be interested to know if anyone can direct me to any document that would outline where Wilson stands in relation to the NP now.