Summary of Paul and the New Perspective
What Is the New Perspective on Paul?
The New Perspective on Paul is a general term referring to
multiple strains of thought that have been building in England and North
America for about 30 years but have caught the attention of most PCA leaders
within the last five years. In broadest terms the New Perspective emphasizes
the corporate nature of our salvation in distinction from the typical way many
North Americans think about their salvation primarily as "a personal relationship
with Jesus." The best forms of the New Perspective do not deny the
personal aspects of our salvation but contend that a focus on individual
blessings is more a product of Western culture than a reflection of the Apostle
Paul's design for the New Testament church. What we need to remember is that
the Bible never divorces our corporate identity from our personal faith -- we
who believe are members of the body of Christ. Still, without personal faith
and repentance we cannot truly unite with Christ no matter how much we
participate in the Church's corporate heritage or practices.
What Are the Key Names and Groups
Associated with this New Perspective?
In scholarly circles the New Perspective was originally most
associated with such names as Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, and James Dunn.
These are not traditional Evangelicals, though they may identify themselves
with some Evangelical concerns. The New Perspective has made its most important
inroads into Evangelical thought through the writings of N. T. Wright. Wright
is a brilliant and engaging Anglican who has written masterfully about subjects
such as the resurrection and the historicity of the Gospels. But Wright has
additional concerns that are stirring the Evangelical community. He argues that
the early Reformers (especially Martin Luther), though they may have advanced
correct theology, wrongly read Paul in the light of their conflict with Roman
Catholicism rather than in the context of the Apostle's own setting and
concerns. Wright says that Paul's central concern was not how we obtain personal salvation by faith
versus good moral works. Rather, Wright thinks Paul was mostly concerned about
how New Testament Christians identified themselves with the corporate, covenant
community that was no longer exclusively Jewish. Wright says Paul is not so
much arguing against gaining salvation by moral merit, but against the claim
that in order to be a Christian one had to adopt the practices of Jewish
exclusivity and identity in addition to faith in Christ.
Often mentioned in the same breath as the New Perspective
are some persons identified with what they prefer to call the Federal Vision or
Auburn Avenue Theology. Persons with PCA ties who are identified with these
views include Doug Wilson, James Jordan, Steve Wilkins [who pastors the Auburn
Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Louisiana] and Rich Lusk. Although not all
of these men are presently in the PCA, they are intelligent and prolific
writers whose works are read by persons who are zealous about Reformed theology
(and who often think the PCA is not Reformed enough). While appreciating
aspects of the New Perspective on Paul, these PCA-related writers strongly
insist that their main concerns differ from the New Perspective.
The Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue advocates (who think of
themselves as returning to a more consistently Reformed theology) do not want
to link their views to the New Perspective because of its apparent questioning
of basic Reformed theology. Conversely, New Perspective leaders may little
regard Federal Vision or Auburn Avenue Theology because of its tendency to
narrow its concerns to Church sacrament issues or related Church doctrine. New
Perspective leaders tend to think of themselves as being about the "Big
Story" of the role of the covenant in redeeming creation. They tend to
view Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue as being caught up in a "little
story" of renegotiating Presbyterianism. Despite these differences and
objections, however, the two groups (New Perspective and Federal Vision/Auburn
Avenue) continue in common perception to be of the same cloth. Reasons for this
include the observation in PCA presbyteries that Federal Vision and Auburn
Avenue Theology proponents are often those most conversant with and defensive
of New Perspective ideas. The Federal Vision advocates have mined New
Perspective writings for ideas supportive of their interests, and consequently
the two groups have simultaneously emerged in PCA consciousness. These
realities will probably continue to cause the two groups to be considered
together -- despite the legitimate objections of their respective leaders. What
may be less apparent to both groups' leaders, however, is the common cultural
soil from which they emerge even as they point to their different root systems.
From Where Did this New Perspective
Come?
Biblical scholars tend only to look within their ranks over
the last 30 years for the origins of the New Perspective and related movements,
but the origins are much older. The philosophical currents behind the New
Perspective on Paul began to flow early in the 20th century. At that time, the
modern confidence in scientific objectivity was quickly eroding. New
communication theories, the discovery of the subconscious, and rapid shifts in
scientific theory were destroying claims that we could replace the "myths
of religion" with "objective" scientific explanations of our
world. We discovered that science was subject to its own subjectivity -- we see
only what we are prepared to see and discover only what our present technology
allows. As a consequence, Western philosophy plunged into a radical relativism
that concluded that the only truth we can know is what we individually
perceive.
The secular answer to this relativism that isolates everyone
in his or her own personal truth was the claim that we could understand each
other if we shared similar experiences. But, of course, the more we compared
our lives, the more we discovered that our experiences -- even if we are in the
same communities, churches, or families -- are radically different. The need
for a common framework to understand others' experiences led to the conclusion
that the way for us to have common understanding of our world is through shared
stories. These stories are the shared experiences that allow us to understand
our world with a common perspective. Thus, it was claimed that each culture
frames its own meta-narratives that form the basis for interpreting individual
experiences and that allow us to live in community.
As these ideas worked their way into religious studies, much
damage was done to orthodox faith. Modernist theologians in the early 20th
century claimed that Scripture was myth that could be replaced by scientific
understanding. But, when science lost its claim of objectivity, purveyors of
"Neo-orthodoxy" claimed that the Bible could be understood
existentially (i.e., individually) by the unique work of the Spirit in each
person apart from the historical truth claims of the Bible.
When this individualistic view of faith was eventually seen
only to be feeding the interests and appetites of self, contemporary
theologians turned to teaching that faith must be formed in community.
According to this line of thought, by its shared narratives each community
forms the faith that creates its religion that, in turn, informs its worldview.
Of course, this would mean that the Bible is not divine truth provided by
heaven, but is simply a cultural product that provides narratives by which
individuals can operate in community. In other words, Christianity supposedly
is no different from every society that creates its own "truth" with
its own stories -- there is no transcendent truth, all religions are human
projections.
Evangelical theologians have not followed all of these
philosophical trends but have been influenced by them. In particular,
Evangelicals have understood that faith, even Biblical faith, cannot and should
not be understood only individualistically. We understand God's inspired and
transcendent truth both because of His Spirit in us and because we are part of
the body of Christ. The stories of the Bible are descriptions of experiences
that enable Christians across all ages to understand the unchanging
propositions of Scripture. And, God placed us in the church community not
merely to satisfy our needs, but because the community -- as each member does
his or her part -- helps us understand and apply the truth of Scripture.
Neither faith nor true religion is formed by the community, but our expression
of faith and understanding of religion are not possible apart from the Biblical
community that includes the saints who have gone before us, as well as the
saints that are around us.
What does all of this have to do with the New Perspective on
Paul? The New Perspective follows the trajectory of the community emphases that
have so dominated the trends of contemporary philosophy. The New Perspective
does not accept all the "faith-is-formed-in-community" philosophies,
but alarm over the dissolution of church communities (and/or the impotence of
the modern church) due to the assaults of secular culture has sensitized New
Perspective folk to the corporate components of faith. New Perspective
advocates look around and see those who call themselves Evangelical (and
Reformed) little distinguished from secular culture on matters as diverse as
promiscuity, abortion, divorce, stewardship, business ethics, care for the
poor, racism, etc. At the same time, New Perspective folk look in Scripture and
see Paul calling us to live as a covenant community that is distinct from the
culture, united to Christ, united to each other, and transforming the world.
Reacting to what they perceive as individualistic, autonomous, and
"Baptistic/Revivalistic" (i.e., overly focused on producing personal
professions of faith) influences on the Church, New Perspective advocates
believe they are calling the Church back to being the faith community that the
Bible requires both by its doctrinal teaching and by the narratives that reveal
its larger redemptive story. Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue proponents -- on
a different but parallel path -- also view themselves as calling the Reformed
church back to a more consistent expression of its doctrine that will also
create a community more faithful to its covenantal distinctions.
What Are Some Things the New
Perspective Teaches?
Recognize again that there are many strains of the New
Perspective. It is impossible to say what is taught uniformly by all those who
are identified with this movement. Nevertheless, here are some of the major
thoughts that are getting attention:
When
Paul describes the Jews' misuse of the law, he is not attacking the Jews for
believing in a legalistic works righteousness such as was advocated by late
Medieval Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholicism to which Luther reacted
taught that persons gained merit by moral virtue and religious observance made
possible by grace infused through the sacraments of the Church. The New
Perspective folk (particularly those associated with N.T. Wright) claim that
the Jews at the time of Jesus did not believe in this kind of legalism, but
rather advocated the necessity of identifying with the covenant community by
staying within its boundary markers that were defined by Jewish standards
(e.g., circumcision, Sabbath observance, cleanliness laws). One was not gaining
merit by these standards but rather was defining one's community identification
and status.
Paul, according to Wright's view, was not arguing against the necessity of
community identification, but rather was arguing that the standards for this
identification had changed for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of
God. The new boundary markers for Jews and Gentiles in the covenant community
are faith in Jesus Christ (marked by baptism in the New Testament church), separation
from the secular society, and participation in the Lord's Supper. [Note: As we
will observe, the New Perspective seems to create unnecessary dichotomies.
Unquestionably, Paul at times challenges Jewish legalism based on ceremonial
customs, but at other times he also challenges the assumption that one can be
righteous before God on the basis of moral behavior. Yet, in either case, it is
still true that one cannot be justified by keeping the law (of ceremony or of
virtue) and, thus, Luther's understanding of Paul's principle that salvation is
by grace through faith remains valid.]
When
Paul uses the term "faith" as the basis of our salvation, he is not
using the term merely to refer to our trusting acknowledgment of the work of
Christ in our behalf, but rather as a commitment to coming under the rule of
Christ in the ordering of one's life. Thus, faith is really
"faithfulness" (a semantic possibility in Greek) to one's
identification with the community that honors Christ. The Gospel is not so much
about gaining one's personal salvation as it is about bowing to the declaration
that Christ's kingdom has come and identifying with the community that
recognizes that "Jesus is Lord." New Perspective advocates
(particularly those desiring Evangelical regard) strenuously insist that they
believe that those who submit to Christ's lordship are those called into a
saving relationship with God by His grace alone. Still, the movement's strong
insistence on faith as community identification has caused much confusion (and
misstatement) even within New Perspective ranks and, consequently, much
suspicion from those zealous to protect the Reformation distinction of
salvation by faith alone.
Suspicions have been further revised by the New Perspective's questioning of
historic ways in which the Reformers describe our justification. The Reformers
described the grace of our salvation as involving Christ's righteousness being
imputed (attributed) to us, and our sin being imputed to Him. Wright says this
is an extra-Biblical notion. He says that God as a righteous judge pardons our
sin, but that the removal of our sin (rather than the imputation of Christ's
righteousness) is the Biblical basis of our justification before God. To most
Reformed ears, this is a needless narrowing of the historic doctrine of
justification that involves the pardoning of sin and the provision of Christ's righteousness. This narrowing
undermines both the fullness of Christ's provision and the assurance of His
resources for our spiritual destitution. New Perspective advocates want to
heighten the Pauline emphasis on union with Christ, but since this union
necessarily connotes that we are one with the Holy One, there should be no
debate that His righteousness is ours by His grace.
The New
Testament sacraments are about more
than remembering
what Christ did in our behalf. [Note: some are anxious to protest that the
sacramental issues being discussed in the PCA are not derivative of the New
Perspective, but because the sacraments are identity markers of our covenant
community the New Perspective inevitably becomes part of the present
discussion.] By the sacraments believers identify with the covenant community
that God has elected for salvation and glory. Thus, the sacraments not only
establish one's identification with the community, they are also the means by
which God conveys aspects of His grace to individuals. The sacraments establish
the boundaries of the saved community and, as a consequence, identify those
within the boundaries as possessors of God's pledge of salvation. The
sacraments are not magical, and few of the New Perspective advocates (or
related groups) are willing to say that the sacraments actually cause the grace
they signify apart from faith. Still, these groups perceive grace as so integrally
related to identification with the covenant community that its boundary signs
(sacraments) are being treated with an importance unparalleled in recent
generations of Reformed believers.
In part, this heightened focus on sacraments as a means of including us in a
worship community results from this generation's own longing for church and
family solidarity in an increasingly broken society. Sadly, however,
expressions of this heightened importance have been made with such zeal or
relational clumsiness (perhaps because of our church's own relational
struggles) that advocates have been perceived by unprepared ears as advocating
a virtually Roman Catholic view of the sacraments. In the PCA, where polarities
and distrust are yet a product of our painful withdrawal from mainline
Presbyterianism, the consequence of this insensitivity (and occasional error)
has been heightened suspicion rather than solidarity.
The
baptism of children has become a particular point of tension because the
sacramental emphasis discussed above also means greater significance is being
attributed to this rite than has been the case in typical expressions of
American Presbyterianism. By their baptism children are identified with the
Christian community. They, too, come within the boundary markers of the
covenant community by the administration of the sacrament. Thus, some who are
advocates of the New Perspective -- particularly from the Federal Vision and
Auburn Avenue groups -- say that baptism "makes a child a Christian."
By this the kind of wording New Perspective advocates do not typically (there
are exceptions) mean that the child is automatically made regenerate by the
baptism, but rather that the baptism gives the child identification with the
covenant community. What this means precisely is hotly debated and variously
expressed. For instance, some have argued that baptism is so conclusive a
sacrament that it is improper for a person who was baptized as a child to speak
of a later conversion by saying something like, "I became a Christian in
college." The argument is made that the person became a Christian (i.e.,
was identified with the covenant community) in his infant baptism, and simply
confirmed his Christian status as a young adult.
So much confusion is being created by this terminology that New Perspective
advocates are finding themselves pressed very hard to define the spiritual
status of the baptized child, the benefits that are actually conferred by the
baptism, the relation of the baptism to the parents' profession of faith, the
nature of the child's (and/or the parents') profession, and even the nature of
regeneration. This has led some ministers to make statements before
presbyteries that sound almost indistinguishable from the Roman Catholic view
of baptismal regeneration.
What Are Some Good Emphases of the New
Perspective?
There is no question that many of those who advocate the New
Perspective are seeking to bring Biblical correction to what they believe are
misunderstandings in present expressions of Evangelical and Reformed belief.
Their goal is to steer the Church toward greater fidelity in Biblical doctrine
and practice. Some of the concerns of the New Perspective are valid, and we are
aided by considering the seriousness of these concerns:
We are not saved alone. The New Perspective rightly
critiques much of the North American expression of Christianity that makes
faith merely a personal fire insurance policy that requires no obligation to
others, little concern for the world, and little obedience to God beyond what
satisfies our own pleasures. The New Perspective reminds us that we are saved
as part of a community with concomitant loves, obligations, and
identifications.
Saving faith is not alone. The New Perspective reminds us
that we are part of a great story in which God is calling a covenant community
to Himself in order to glorify Himself and transform this world for His glory.
Our calling inherently and necessarily includes works of obedience. We have no
assurance of the validity of our faith where there is no fruit to our faith.
The sacraments are not signs alone. The New Perspective (especially
as articulated in Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue Theology) elevates our
concern for the sacraments and reminds us that they are not merely sentimental
ceremonies (or simply memorials) but means by which God is communicating
aspects of His grace and obligating Himself to bless His people.
The Bible is not propositions alone. The New Perspective values the
Bible's use of narrative as a means of unifying and teaching the covenant
community. Despite the desires we sometimes have, the Bible is not simply a
systematic theology textbook. Attempts to force all the Bible into easy
doctrinal categories have sometimes created an unhealthy rationalism that does
not adequately express the human experiences, divine interventions, and
salvation story by which God communicates His covenant love throughout
redemptive history. The New Perspective's emphasis on the drama of redemption
in Scripture can help theologians and pastors better describe what the Bible
teaches on its own terms, especially in ministry to a postmodern generation
that (for philosophical reasons expressed above) is powerfully moved by
narrative.
What Are Troubling Aspects of the New
Perspective?
Concerns about the New Perspective need to be divided into
at least two categories: theological and pastoral. The first category will
probably require sorting out over several years. My sense is that we are on a
journey similar to our experiences with the Charismatic and Theonomy movements
decades ago. The Charismatic movement was concerned that the Church was not
rightly applying the New Testament gifts of the Spirit; the Theonomy movement
was concerned that the Church was not rightly applying the Old Testament law;
the New Perspective is concerned that the Church has not rightly applied the
corporate nature of the covenant. All of these movements have had some
legitimate concerns, but all err in subtly moving the emphasis of the Gospel
from a Christ-centered provision of grace to proper expressions of human
performance. [Note: My friends who are advocates of New Perspective and Federal
Vision, have strongly objected to this last statement. They believe their
approach strongly supports a Christ-centered perspective for God's Church
family. So, I hope that I am wrong and will need to be forgiven. Still, I feel
the responsibility to express my honest concern, resulting from the way these
issues have been advocated in the contexts the seminary must serve. The zeal to
prove others wrong, and even ridiculous, for not seeing these new perspectives
has created significant pain. Almost always the pain is the result of persons
being belittled for "not getting it." Thus, the fruit has not been a
new focus on the beauty of God's grace, but the reoccurrence of old divisions
driven by supposed superior knowledge or practice.]
The advocates of the Charismatic and Theonomic movements
were also intelligent, zealous in conviction, concerned that the rest of the
Church was not Biblical enough, claimed that their positions were historic, and
rarely stated a position that was clearly unorthodox. But, over the course of
time (and through the sad experiences of numerous churches), those movements
were shown by their fruit to be divisive, and they largely faded from view. My
prayer is that we will be able more quickly to reach consensus about what are
legitimate concerns of, and about, this New Perspective for the peace, purity,
and progress of the Church.
What
are some legitimate concerns about the New Perspective on Paul?
An unnecessary and dangerous ambiguity
regarding the nature of justification.
"Justification is an act of God's free grace wherein
He pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight only for the
righteousness of Christ imputed [i.e., attributed] to us and received by faith
alone" (cf. WSC #32). The New Perspective claims that Paul's chief concern
was to make sure that the Jews shifted the boundary markers of their covenant
identification from the ethnic practices of Israel to the identity practices of
the New Testament Church. This perspective inappropriately de-emphasizes Paul's
concern that Jews (and others) were seeking to establish their righteousness
before God based on their personal moral sufficiency. By moving Paul's major
concern to community identification, the New Perspective de-emphasizes the role
of grace for personal justification and the sufficiency of Christ's work as the
sole basis (or ground) of righteous standing before God. In particular,
Wright's argument that justification is not so much about how someone is
personally saved, but rather who should be recognized as a member of the
covenant community can move the focus of our theology from properly emphasizing
the personal faith and repentance from which all true, Christian assurance and
faithfulness flows. Of course, we must grant that there is every necessity of
recognizing Christ as Lord, and living out the imperatives of our faith
commitments in order to have the assurance of our salvation and express love
for our Savior. Still, this necessity is an insufficient reason to question the
historic understanding of justification.
In justification our sins are imputed
to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal.
2:20). Wright has questioned whether it is Biblical to say that Christ's
righteousness is imputed to us since that is a judicial (forensic) declaration
that he does not explicitly see in the Biblical text. Yet, even if Wright wants
to hold the terminology of imputation in question, the reality of our union
with Christ by virtue of His grace alone (which Wright does not question)
should be reason enough to emphasize with the Reformers that Christ's work --
not ours -- is the ultimate basis of our present and eternal standing before
God.
In an oft-quoted statement Wright says that at the final judgment we will be
judged on the basis of performance not possession (of Israel's status). Were
this shocking statement all that Wright said, then he would be easy to dismiss
as obviously unorthodox. However, elsewhere he indicates that this performance
means being "a doer of the law," and then he says that for Paul being
such a "doer" means putting one's faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord.
In this way Wright avoids outright denials of Reformation theology, but
introduces unanswered questions (particularly since he seems willing to define
faith as faithfulness) that are inappropriate for one as theologically skilled
and influential as he. This new confusion about the interplay of faith and
works in justification may cause you to hear New Perspective advocates compared
to Norman Shepherd, a professor dismissed from Westminster Seminary more than
twenty years ago for teachings that caused similar confusion. Shepherd's work
is now being re-quoted by some New Perspective advocates (especially some who
relate to the Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue groups).
It is very important to say that I know of no PCA minister who has denied the
imputation of Christ's righteousness. Most of the concern that is being
expressed in PCA circles is over some pastors' loyalty to Wright because he is
so often accused of being fuzzy on the subject of justification. There is also
a secondary controversy as to whether both Christ's active righteousness (i.e.,
His obedience to the law) and passive righteousness (i.e., His suffering our
punishment) are imputed to us, but this is an older issue that even divided the
Westminster divines and is unlikely to be finally resolved in our generation. I
believe that both Christ's active and passive righteousness are imputed to us,
but even where brothers differ over this there
should be no question that in our union with Christ His holiness becomes ours
by grace alone and through faith alone. Whatever, or whoever, does not make clear that we are
justified before God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone ... is
wrong.
An unnecessary and dangerous lack of
clarity regarding what the sacraments accomplish.
As a consequence of concerns
raised primarily by the Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue groups, a controversy
is boiling in the PCA around the subject of baptism (but it seems likely to
move with equal emphasis to the Lord's Supper in the near future). Here's the
question: To what degree do the sacraments actually convey the grace they
signify? The issue has become most apparent in discussions about infant
baptism. As I indicated earlier, the claim that the New Testament sacraments
function as boundary markers for the covenant community is taken by some New
Perspective advocates to mean that baptism makes a covenant child a Christian.
There is a sense in which this is true. Baptism does mark the child as
covenantally connected to the Christian community. Our PCA standards even refer
to baptized children as infant members (or non-communing members) of the
church. Additionally, the Westminster Assembly's Directory for Publick [sic] Worship also lists among the grounds
for infant baptism, "That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into
the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and ... they are
Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they
baptized." We have never meant by these important
distinctions, however, that baptism regenerates a child. [Warning to readers: Since this
is now the hottest aspect of the Federal Vision controversy in PCA circles, I
am devoting several paragraphs to this subject. Please move on to the next
section if this does not scratch where you are itching.]
The infant's holy status is recognized in baptism, but that status results from
God graciously providing the child's relation to the covenant community through
believing parents. God can certainly regenerate whomever and whenever He
wishes, but in terms of what the church can assess, the parents' faith is the
basis of a child being recognized as "holy before baptism" (cf. 1
Cor. 7:14). The water ceremony does not cause the child to have saving faith,
and the sacrament does not guarantee that he will truly believe in Christ as
his Savior. Thus, in North American culture, we have not usually talked without qualification about baptism making the child a Christian lest we wrongly
communicate to our people that the rite is accomplishing what the Spirit does
by faith alone (i.e., we have been careful to distinguish our practice from the
Lutheran and Roman Catholic views of baptismal regeneration).
We must confess that most ministers in the PCA have framed their baptismal
explanations to distinguish our practice from Catholic or Lutheran practice for
listeners coming from a largely Baptistic culture. In contrast, the early
Reformers framed their explanations to make sense in a largely Roman Catholic
culture. For this reason, some statements of the Reformers do sound more
"Catholic" than we are accustomed to hearing. All parties would do
well to recognize the realities and reasons for these differences of
expression, while recognizing that unnecessary controversy will ensue if we do
not make it clear for our church and culture that neither the Scriptures nor
our Standards teach that the rite of baptism actually and of itself regenerates
the spirit of a believer or child.
Now, again, I know of no PCA minister who advocates an explicitly Lutheran or
Roman Catholic view of baptismal regeneration, but some associated with the
Federal Vision are so anxious to communicate that in baptism God actually
transfers His covenantal grace to a child that they are pressing the
terminological limits of our traditional baptismal vows. Certainly there is
much misunderstanding and mere sentiment involved in many of our churches
regarding infant baptism. However, when infant children are declared
"Christians" at their baptisms without
explanation
that their blessing is grounded on their parents' profession of faith and not based
on any guarantee of what is (or will be) the eternal status of the children,
then further misunderstanding is created in a culture not steeped in
Presbyterian distinctives.
Recognition of historic differences among Presbyterians can also help us deal
more charitably with one another. The Northern Presbyterian tradition tends to
emphasize the solidarity of the family in God's redemptive plan -- treating
covenant children as members of the body of Christ (having been made disciples
in their baptisms). The Southern tradition prior to the 20th century tended to
emphasize the need to save our children from an unregenerate state (even
referring to the children of believers as "little vipers"). These are
significant differences in emphasis, but we have united in the PCA with
everyone refusing to presume a guarantee of the regeneration of the children of
believers, or to teach that baptism causes regeneration. Recognition of this
unity can help us talk respectfully to and about one another in our present discussions.
So much of our confusion regarding baptism results from our inability to relate
to the earliest Christians. They were the converts to a new religion in a
culture of paganism or Judaism. For the first Christians, baptism (particularly
an adult baptism) was a true crossing of boundaries -- an undeniable
declaration of a new life and an abdication of a former one, often at the cost
of one's family, status, and security. To be baptized was not participation in
a sentimental ritual that everyone in the culture had undergone, but rather was
identification with Christ in an entirely new community and way of life. Thus,
when a person was baptized it was important to recognize that the Lord was
present in the sacrament and lovingly embracing the individual through the
corporate prayers of those gathered, through identification with the previous
saints of the covenant community, through the convert's own expression of
faith, and through God's own pledge of faithfulness to all whose faith was
genuinely being expressed in the baptism. Thus, baptism not only signifies the
grace of salvation; the sacrament itself blesses the believer with the grace of
God's signified and actual embrace. The Westminster divines said, "... by
right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really
exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such
(whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the
counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time" (WCF XXVIII.6, emphasis mine).
Since the sacrament is both a recognition and a means of the grace being
signified (as the person publicly passes from one realm to another in the
embrace of God provided by the sacrament), Calvin spoke of the believer being
lifted to mystical union with Christ in the sacraments. Yet, the vital
distinction of Presbyterians who acknowledge that a sacrament recognizes and
even ceremonially confers God's blessing is that the sacrament symbolizes and
conveys the grace that already
"belongeth unto" the believer by faith." The sacrament does not create
the grace, cause salvation, or guarantee faith. Baptism (and the Lord's Supper)
reinforce, further bless, and publicly declare the covenantal relationship of
the individual (or parent), but faith -- not any element of the sacrament -- is
the God-given instrument of the individual's ultimate blessing and status with
God. This is why before the statement about baptism
conferring grace, the Westminster divines state, "... grace and salvation
are not so inseparably annexed unto it [baptism], as that no person can be
regenerated, or saved, without it; or that all that are baptized are
undoubtedly regenerated" (WCF XXVIII.5).
Much misunderstanding of the efficacy of baptism could be corrected with
pastorally prudent explanations (i.e., baptism provides real blessing and
identification with the covenant community yet does not regenerate), but
because the Federal Vision advocates often see themselves as needing to correct
the Church, there is frequent use of arresting and incautious phrasing that
seems designed to create reaction or, at least, movement in the denomination.
An early (now retracted) Auburn Avenue statement even indicated that at his
baptism a child receives all the benefits of union with Christ except for the
gift of perseverance and final salvation. Such a statement could only have been
made if one had redefined a traditional understanding of union with Christ, all
its benefits (e.g., calling, regeneration, adoption, justification, and
sanctification), and perseverance.
Redefinition of a number of these historic doctrines is being attempted by some
New Perspective advocates (including those related to Federal Vision and Auburn
Avenue). The redefinition is sometimes an attempt to conform historical
doctrinal distinctions to Biblical wording that we have trouble reconciling
with the traditional wording of Reformed theology. For instance, Auburn Avenue
folk make the helpful (but not new) observation that the Bible does not always
use the word "elect" to refer only to individuals whom God has chosen
for eternal salvation. Sometimes Israel is called an "elect" nation
even though not all of ethnic Israel is true spiritual Israel (Rom. 9:6).
However, to move beyond this observation and say -- as some New Perspective
folk have -- that not all the elect will persevere in faith (or that some of
them can lose their salvation) creates a doctrinal crisis. Such a crisis would
be easily and pastorally avoided by indicating that the word "elect"
can be used in a technical way to refer to redeemed individuals (who always
persevere because God will not lose one of His own) and in a general way to refer to an ethnic nation through which God
is revealing His redemptive plan. The Bible has the right to use words in a
technical (doctrinal) sense and in a general (common) sense, and we should be
able to distinguish these without requiring a Confessional overhaul.
An
unnecessary and dangerous eagerness to critique historic understanding rather
than enrich it. So much of what the New Perspective advocates want to say would
enrich our understanding if there were not such a willingness to discredit or
dismiss previous teaching of Reformed doctrine. For example, there are
wonderful benefits to reminding every Christian that he or she has corporate as
well as individual responsibilities. But it is destructive to teach, or imply,
that our salvation is more corporate than personal. Pastoral approaches that
would say "not only, but also" rather than "not this (what our
Confession teaches) but that (what we have now discovered)" are much
better suited to build up the Church. We do not have to create questions about
the nature of justification to remind those who are justified that true faith
has real fruit. We do not have to make our sacraments sound nearly
indistinguishable from those of Roman Catholics or Lutherans to teach the
church of the real benefits of church ordinances. We should not have to
redefine "regeneration" in order to expand our understanding of the
sacraments.
I expect that the preceding paragraph would frustrate advocates of the New
Perspective who believe that the Church has not properly understood what Paul
(or our Confession) really teaches. They may feel that without the stimulus of
arresting language the Church will not listen. However, such an approach
mistakes the needs of the Church and the requirements of Gospel progress. Now
that the New Perspective is being closely scrutinized, its advocates in the PCA
are toning down statements (once made with frequent sarcasm and stridency) about
the supposed errors of Church Fathers, the blindness of ministry peers, and the
revolutionary nature of this new theology. New Perspective advocates are now
more likely to claim that they are saying nothing that is not already in our
standards and within the pale of historic Reformed teaching. This is a much
more helpful approach and ought to make it possible to speak much more
pastorally and gently about the perspectives that are being advanced.
Both those who appreciate and those who question the contributions of the New
Perspective should recognize the legitimacy of concern that over-emphasizing
the corporate aspects of salvation can make the necessity and blessings of
personal salvation seem insignificant or secondary. We must all acknowledge that
salvation includes corporate dimensions, and the Church may effectively present
or betray the Gospel based on her attention or neglect of these corporate
responsibilities. However, personal trust in God's grace must precede proper
love for God, His people, and His creation. Church history in Europe and North
America should remind us that when churches change the focus of their ministry and mission from living and sharing the
personal dimensions of the Gospel to reforming external society or refining our
own corporate identity, then dead orthodoxy (or worse) soon follows. Paul
reminds us to be active in the sharing of our faith so that we can understand
every good thing possessed in Christ (Phil. 1:6). Without an understanding that
discipleship begins and progresses with personal commitment to Jesus Christ in
response to His unconditional grace for individual sin, there will be no Gospel
for another generation.
Who Finds the New Perspective
Appealing?
The polar ends of the PCA political spectrum have found the
New Perspective appealing for differing reasons. Those who tend to desire the
Church to engage more in social action for the renewal of society find the New
Perspective's emphasis on the corporate nature of faith appealing because it
keeps Christians from making their faith "all about me." The
individualistic, North American tendency to make "a personal relationship
with Jesus" the ultimate purpose of faith looks both shallow and selfish
in the light of the New Perspective's insights about the corporate responsibility
of each person in the covenant community, and the covenant community's
responsibility for world renewal. Those who understand the New Testament to be
teaching Christians to take responsibility for transforming society according
to the principles of Jesus also love the New Perspective's emphasis on the
"Big Story" of Christ's Lordship over all the world -- and our
participation in the culmination of that story.
The emphasis on community, accompanied by additional
concerns for observance of "boundary markers" and
"faithfulness," is also appealing to those we stereotypically place
at the other end of our political spectrum: societal separatists and/or
doctrinal precisionists. These are persons in our church who tend to want the covenant
community to have clearer distinctions from secular society and more
accountability for right behavior. It should not be surprising that some of the
same groups and personalities that once were drawn to Theonomy and
Reconstruction over frustrations with the modern church's worldly compromises
have now gravitated toward the Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue versions of the
New Perspective. Its emphasis on superior doctrine, corrected sacraments,
faith-validating performance, and well-defined covenant communities provides
much appeal for those seeking more refined expressions of faith. But, we should
also not be surprised that those in the PCA who have historically been most
concerned about deviation from our Standards (especially as defined by Southern
antebellum theologians), have expressed the most strident concerns about this
new perspective though they were once closely aligned with some of its
advocates in attitude and doctrinal interest.
How Should Covenant Seminary Respond to
the New Perspective?
The responsibility of Covenant Seminary in all such
controversies is not to embrace a view simply because it is historic or to
reject a view simply because it is new. Our unchanging task is to ask,
"What does the Bible say?" Then we must speak with clarity, charity,
and courage.
Clarity requires that we declare as best we can what God has
said in His Word. We must honor our forefathers' understanding of the Word, and
we must consider having our views enriched if we have not understood all that
the Lord has said in His Word. Charity demands that we not judge others'
arguments prematurely or seek to defeat them by unfair caricature. Courage
demands that we love the Bride of Christ enough to defend her from doctrinal
harm. Last year our faculty presented the distinctions and problems of the New Perspective on Paul in a seminar from which
audio recordings are available on the seminary web site. Also on the web site
is a statement regarding the New Perspective presented
at the PCA General Assembly two years ago. Covenant Seminary professors have
also spent countless hours working with a study committee of Missouri Presbytery
to declare what ministers must believe regarding justification, the sacraments,
and a number of other key issues. The presbytery plans for this study to be
available for the Church at large next fall. Please pray that the Lord would
grant clarity, charity, and courage to these men so that their work will
benefit the whole Church and glorify the Gospel of our Lord.
Please pray also that this controversy does not distract us
from the Gospel of grace. In my opinion, we are not likely soon to get to the
bottom of the controversy with definitive statements that will easily identify
all errors. PCA leaders on all sides of the issue are extremely articulate,
Biblically intentioned, and highly unlikely to state anything that (without
being caricatured) can readily be identified as outside Biblical orthodoxy. The
consequence is that pastors, professors, and students can become preoccupied
with debate -- making faith an expression of cerebral competition and
intellectual arrogance rather than heart engagement and spiritual dependence.
If our ministries only become battlegrounds for sacramental correctness rather
than instruments for promoting the Gospel of grace, then we and the Church will
have lost much. We all must pray earnestly for the work of the Spirit in our
hearts to help us determine whether our efforts are turning the Church toward
ever-greater introspection and isolation, or whether we are preparing the
Church for Gospel-true priorities and progress. Each must examine his own heart
to ask if what he is doing and teaching is creating greater love for Jesus that
liberates the soul to serve Him, or is binding God's people to standards of
ecclesiastical correctness rooted in our own doctrinal insecurities and
preferences.
We need the Lord's wisdom to know what needs to be defended,
what needs to be denounced, and what needs to be ignored because it only
appeals to our appetite for argument. We must not allow a controversy largely
outside our denomination to become the cause that defines us. The goal of Covenant
Seminary is to prepare leaders for the local church who understand and model
the Gospel of grace. Ask the Father to give us such great love of His Gospel
and such clear judgment from His Spirit that He will enable us to keep the main
thing the main thing. For those in whom the Spirit dwells, the message of
Christ's grace for sinners such as we will provide the most powerful motivation
possible for loving God, His law, His people, and His world.
