Who really were and are the Anabaptists? A short introduction

I have written before how the White Horse Inn misrepresents the New Perspective on Paul. Once again, they have misrepresented a section of the Christian church, and in this case, it is the Anabaptists.

In episode broadcasted on the 6-3-11 of the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton and his gang calls the Anabaptists are a continuation of medieval mystics, and then he says that they are not part of the Reformation. Where did Michael Horton and the guys at the White Horse Inn do their Church History at? Haven’t they heard of the Radical Reformation? Or they think that the only streams of the Reformation are Lutherans and Calvinist? (Ken Jones says he is a Baptist, but I’ve done some research and still can’t find what Baptist denomination he belongs to.)

Michael Horton mentions in minute 12:08 to 12:15 that the Anabaptists are not part of the Reformation, and claimed that they were a continuation of the mystical medieval movement from the earlier centuries. So Horton condemns the Anabaptist as heretics, since because they don’t belong to the Reformation, they must belong to the Reformation arch-enemy, the Roman Catholic Church. This is just a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It would seem that Horton and the gang are a new kind of history revisionists, who are trying to reconstruct the Reformation to fit their own petty ideas as to who belongs or not to the Reformation.

James R. Payton Jr., has written a gem of a book titled, “Getting the Reformation Wrong. Correcting some misunderstanding.” He has a chapter “How the Anabaptist Fin In.” He rightly points out that many get the Reformation wrong by continuing using the term Anabaptist as a ‘“catch-all” designation for a much more diverse assortment of religious movements which were neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant.” Both camps, Roman Catholics and Protestants saw Anabaptists as a threat to their own interests. While the Roman Catholics saw the Anabaptist as Protestants to be wiped out, the Protestants saw the Anabaptists as rejecting the Magisterial Reformation (they rejected the connection of Church and estate, a practice that carried over to the Lutherans and Reformed from Rome. It would seem that Horton does not see that some Roman practices did live within the Magisterial Reformation churches, at least for a while.) They rejected what both Luther and Calvin were doing, not because they were anti-reformation, rather, because they saw that in many issues, they weren’t going far enough. As mentioned, they kept the alliance between church and state, and also kept the baptism of infants.

But to correct Horton’s misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of the Anabaptist, I would like to list the different brands of Anabaptists during the XVI century, as listed by Payton:

Swiss Anabaptism: They emerged from Zurich, and were originally working along with Zwingli. Conrad Grebel, and Felix Manz influenced them. They wanted a more rigorous type of discipleship that the one practiced in both Catholicism and Protestantism. They embraced pacifism and rejected the norms found in their Christianised society. The downturn of this group was that in their rejection of medieval society, they created a sort of monastic community for themselves, not dealing with the outside world.

Establishment Anabaptism: This branch of Anabaptism was short lived. Led by Hubmaiaer, received the support of the local rulers, which was very unusual within the Anabaptists. The movement took place at Waldshut, Germany. But it ended when Hubmaiaer was captured and killed in 1528.

Militant Anabaptism: This is one of the two brands that Anabaptists get the bad name they fare among the likes of Horton and others who portray Anabaptists are radicals, extremists, and dangerous people who follow their own prophecies and private interpretation. It was in the city of Munster, in Northern Germany that the Anabaptists won the majority in the city council. Due to their convictions, they enacted laws that were increasingly radical. Many citizens left and carried their discontent to both Catholic and Protestant lands. The leaders of the city, Jan Matthijs and Jan van Leiden, saw themselves as Old Testament prophets, and introduced polygamy into the city, as well as outlawing sin by civil enactment. The other towns heard of it, and waged war against the city, and the Anabaptists were defeated. This episode was not forgotten by the rulers of Europe, who came to consider Anabaptists seditious, and also helped Menno Simons to embrace pacifism as a trait of Anabaptism.

Communitarian Anabaptism: As the name implied, this branch of Anabaptists practiced community of possessions. This was due to considering themselves a separated community from the rest, and also following Acts 2 and 4. After the 16^th century, only the Hutterites maintain such lifestyle.

Mystical Anabaptism: This is the other brand of Anabaptism for which Anabaptists still get a banging on the head, but it is not taken into account that such form of Anabaptism died along with the Peasants’ War, 1524-1526. In this type of Anabaptism, it was emphasized that the believer could gain a mystical connection with God. God could speak directly to the believers as to His will on earth. While some took a quietist approach, others like Thomas Muntzer, took a very activist approach, even taking part in the Peasant’s War. Because of its elitist nature, it was restrictive, since only some would receive the revelation of the Spirit, and the others would have to follow. Although this type of “spirituality” is still present with us in some parts of Christianity, it is not prominent among Anabaptists today.

Spiritualist Anabaptism: A derivative of the previous, spiritualist Anabaptists were quietistic in orientation, claiming that they received direct interventions from the Holy Spirit. Again, because of its elitist nature, this movement was confined to individuals and never became organised communities.

Apocalyptic Anabaptism: The last brand of Anabaptism also claimed to have divine revelation as to the second coming of Christ. Hans Hut was a clear example of this movement, who predicted the coming of Christ in 1528. Melchior Hoffman predicted Christ’s return to Strasbourg in 1533. He was jailed on arrival, and died 10 years later, past the time of his prophecy. Of interest is that although we find such figures in Anabaptists, there were similar trends within Roman Catholicism as well in Protestantism. An example is that Luther considered the present pope, Leo X the antichrist, but he died and Luther’s suspicions were proved wrong.

There were 3 kinds of Anabaptisms that had a spiritual leaning, that didn’t last, the militant one, the spiritual one and the mystical one. I can’t say the same for the apocalyptic one, because as I have said before, they find their equal in both the Catholics and Protestants.

I like the White Horse Inn, I listen to it every week, and have even subscribed to their magazine, Modern Reformation. But this continuing attack on these brethren in Christ, is really tiresome, taking into account that they have brand all Anabaptists as spiritual and radicals.

Funny thing is that, although persecuted, the ones that survived don’t even get a mention by the White Horse Inn people!! Hutterites, Mennonites and Amish, they are faithful Christians who are carrying on with the beliefs and practices of the Anabaptists, and it was them who were concerned about mission, long before the leaders of the Magisterial Reformation even cared about that.

This is my small contribution to this issue, and I hope serves as a corrective, to both the listeners, and the presenters of the White Horse Inn.

Luis Alberto Jovel

What Is Hell Like? Does It Even Exist? NT Wright on 100 Huntley Street (HD)

With all the fuss about Rob Bell's book, as always, N. T. Wright brings us a good word on the subject of hell.

By RUSSELL D. MOORE

Are we witnessing the death of America's Christian denominations? Studies conducted by secular and Christian organizations indicate that we are. Fewer and fewer American Christians, especially Protestants, strongly identify with a particular religious communion—Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. According to the Baylor Survey on Religion, nondenominational churches now represent the second largest group of Protestant churches in America, and they are also the fastest growing.

More and more Christians choose a church not on the basis of its denomination, but on the basis of more practical matters. Is the nursery easy to find? Do I like the music? Are there support groups for those grappling with addiction?

This trend is a natural extension of the American evangelical experiment. After all, evangelicalism is about the fundamental message of Christianity—the evangel, the gospel, literally the "good news" of God's kingdom arriving in Jesus Christ—not about denomination building.

The post-World War II generation of evangelicals was responding to congregations filled with what they considered spiritual deadness. People belonged to a church, but they seemed to have no emotional experience of Christianity inside the building. Revivalists watched as denominational bureaucracies grew larger, and churches shifted from sending missionaries to preach around the world to producing white papers on issues like energy policy.

View Full Image

Getty Images
More and more Christians choose a church not on the basis of its denomination, but on the basis of more practical matters.

The revivalists wanted to get back to basics, to recover the centrality of a personal relationship with Jesus. "Being a member of a church doesn't make you a Christian," the ubiquitous evangelical pulpit cliché went, "any more than living in a garage makes you a car." Thus these evangelical ministries tended not to talk about those issues that might divide their congregants. They avoided questions like: Who should be baptized and when? What does the Lord's Supper mean? Should women be ordained? And so on.

The movement exploded. Before 1955, there were virtually no megachurches (defined as 2,000 people per worship service) in the country. Now there are between 850 and 1,200 such churches and many are nondenominational, according to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. Evangelicalism wanted to open its doors to all believers and it often lacked roots in the traditions of particular congregations. So many evangelical churches have a generic identity. This has changed the feel of local church life.

Where hymnody once came from the spontaneity of slave spirituals or camp meetings, worship songs are increasingly now focus-grouped by executives in Nashville. The evangelical "Veggie Tales" cartoons—animated Bible stories featuring talking cucumbers and tomatoes—probably shape more children in their view of scripture than any denominational catechism does these days. A church that requires immersion baptism before taking communion, as most Baptist traditions do, will likely get indignant complaints from evangelical visitors who feel like they've been denied service at a restaurant.

But there are some signs of a growing church-focused evangelicalism. Many young evangelicals may be poised to reconsider denominational doctrine, if for no other reason than they are showing signs of fatigue with typical evangelical consumerism.

For example, artists such as Keith and Kristen Getty and Sojourn Music are reaching a new generation with music written for and performed by local congregations. Yes, prosperity preacher Joyce Meyer sells her book "Eat the Cookie, Buy the Shoes," which encourages Christians to "lighten up" by eating cookies and buying shoes (seriously). But, at the same time, Alabama preacher David Platt is igniting thousands of young people with his book "Radical," which calls Christians to rescue their faith by lowering their standard of living and giving their time and money to Church-based charities.

And though nondenominational churches are growing, the Southern Baptist Convention—the nation's largest Protestant group—has over 10,000 students studying for ministry in six seminaries right now.

If denominationalism simply denotes a "brand" vying for market share, then let denominationalism fall. But many of us believe denominations can represent fidelity to living traditions of local congregations that care about what Jesus cared about—personal conversion, discipleship, mission and community. Perhaps the denominational era has just begun.

Mr. Moore is dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

Finally Joel Osteen had the guts to call sin, sin. Well, sort of.

How can a gun-crazed society lead the world?

Posted By David Rothkopf Sunday, January 9, 2011 - 3:50 PM

According to a 2007 survey, the United States leads the world in gun ownership: 90 guns per 100 people. We are a country with five percent of the world's people and between 35 and 50 percent of its civilian-owned guns. That's something like 270 million weapons.

Repeated studies have shown that the United States is far and away the leader among the world's developed countries in gun violence and gun deaths. There is no other developed country that is even close. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence. Most of these are suicides but in excess of 12,000 a year are homicides. Another 200,000 Americans are estimated to be injured each year due to guns.

In 2009, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote a compelling column noting that since 9/11 over 120,000 people have died in the United States as a result of gun violence. By now, the number is in excess of 140,000.

For those in the world who are mystified by this, the legal explanation associated with it by gun rights defenders is that the right to own guns is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This statement has taken on quasi-theological importance for many in the United States even though it is clearly being misinterpreted by those who believe it provides every individual the right to own such guns -- including advanced, highly-destructive automatic weapons. The misinterpretation begins with the deliberate ignoring of the first half of the sentence associating the right with the need for a "well-regulated militia." This is a clear qualifier associated with the so-called right to bear arms and had it not been important to the sentence, one can only conclude it would not have been included in the famously sparely written document. If militias don't exist, one can therefore conclude this "right" should be reconsidered if not eliminated.

Further, of course, there have been many elements of the Constitution that have required amending because the views, values, and circumstances of the nation have evolved since the country's founding. Strangely, many of those who consider the Second Amendment sacrosanct would vigorously support those subsequent adjustments to the document.

Congresswoman Giffords, the targeted victim of this attack, was a supporter of "Second Amendment rights." This is a tragic irony, but it does not suggest this case should not reopen the discussion on this important issue. Consider the case of the shooter, a drug-using, clearly unhinged loser who responded to a requirement from his community college to seek a mental evaluation due to troubling behavior not by seeking help but by going out and buying a weapon … legally.

The attack also rightfully raises a question about the tenor of political discourse in the United States. This was not an attack by the venom-tongued and reckless political extremists and hate-mongers who have become so common in recent years. But it was certainly a consequence of the culture of disrespect and violence they have fomented. With some luck this attack my cause all parties to be more circumspect and embrace civility.

But in a global context we have to ask as dispassionately as we can: What do these events say about America's culture, and what are their impact on America's ability to lead? Many will reflexively note that other societies also have similar shortcomings. That is no doubt the case. But no society that holds itself up as an example to the world should, as the United States does, brazenly shrug off what are clearly deep national character flaws when it comes to our love of guns or our celebration of hate politics. Tragedies like that which unfolded in Arizona this weekend not only wound the victims, but also America's ability to lead and to advance our interests and values worldwide. Think, to take just one example, how the shadow of events like this and the patterns and history they reveal impact America's ability to advance its human rights agenda internationally -- as it will no doubt attempt to do during the upcoming visit of China's president next week.

The problem is that we are not talking about the aberrant behavior of a lone gunman here. Instead we should see that what we are discussing are grossly uncivilized aspects of American society, aspects of ourselves that we ought to change not because we fall below international norms, but because we fall so short of doing what is right, moral, or sensible.

How bad is the Left Behind series for Theology

Scott McKnight has given us a very precise and accurate overview of the issues that the Left Behind series raise.

Here I would like to share them with you:

1. Not fiction simply but theology combined with an attempt to be almost like a documentary. Left Behind is like an advance DVD.
2. The Bible is a puzzle to be put into a futurist script. Hopscotch method.
3. It is selectively literal.
4. Misunderstands the nature and function of both prophetic and apocalyptic literature.
5. Finds a two-fold “coming” of Christ in Rapture and then Parousia.
6. Dispensationalism is a 19th Century approach.
7. We are on the brink of the Rapture and Tribulation … that’s what matters.
8. Misses the richest theological content: Alpha and Omega.

Theological and Spiritual Problems

1. End times is about the period between First and Second Coming.
2. To much about Rapture, and unhealthy concern with details that are unknowable.
3. Fear dominates.
4. Discipleship is reduced … in a number of ways.
5. Escapist.
6. It is inherently militaristic.
7. Anti-Catholic.
8. Fails to see the Church as the peaceful alternative.

Political problems.

1. Uncritically pro-American.
2. Privileges the modern State of Israel uncritically.
3. Suspicious of everything connected to United Nations.
4. Wars in the Middle East are justified and justifiable.
5. It is survivalist and crusader in approach.

Never too late to say sorry

“Lutherans” to Anabaptists: Sorry
Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:37 AM
Anthony Sacramone
So, after 450-plus years, some Lutherans*, presumably trapped in an airport somewhere, bumped from their flights to see the La Brea Tar Pits, or unable to compete in their respective bowling leagues due to wrist-lock, have decided to kill time by issuing a formal apology to the descendants of the 16th-century Anabaptists, namely, Wanda and Earl Kolodny of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Some perspective. To begin with, one must understand that, in nailing his theses to the Wittenberg church door, Martin Luther bore a hole large enough to let loose a bevy of self-proclaimed prophets, apostles, revolutionaries, screwballs, and unitarians. Some were calling for the violent overthrow of the existing order. Some were calling for the near-total withdrawal from the existing order. And some just wanted to prance around naked and sing an early version of the theme to Caddyshack.

Among this dappled crew were those who believed the church to be so corrupt that only the re-baptizing of professing adults could make a clean spiritual start of things. Infant baptism was mere thralldom to an ecclesiastical leviathan that had made common cause with corrupt civil government, pious hypocrites, and whoever invented the atomic wedgie.


Luther, never known to mince words, felt something to be amiss with these folks: “Who seeth not here in the Anabaptists, men not possessed with devils, but even devils themselves possessed with worse devils?” Luther being Luther, he encouraged their being tossed into rivers and beaten with sticks—oh, you know how he gets.

Among the radicals, however, was one relatively benign sort, a guy named Menno Simons, from whom modern-day Anabaptists take their name: the Simonizers. Harmless, pacificisististical, and really bad drivers, the Simonizers can be found buffing a Hyundai near you.

And here we are, in 2010, making amends. So, Mr. and Mrs. Kolodny, as a poor Lutheran layman, allow me to offer my deepest apologies for the 1500s and the rather intemperate recommendations of Dr. Luther.

I promise: it will never happen again.

* It should be noted that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not in league with the Lutheran World Federation, which issued the apology, but is in league with the Justice League of America. Which is to say, as far as I know, the LCMS does not apologize, but may still feel really bad about it all. Rumor has it that the new president of the LCMS has asked Congorilla to mediate a brunch in the not-too-distant future.

Trying out the iPad

This is the first post I make from my iPad, and having the keyboard to write helps a lot. I like it because it just stands anywhere in the house, and I don't have to wait for it to start up.

So far so good. I hope I can enjoy it even more, but lately, my wife has taken over it since it's a bit more convenient than her own computer. The same happened to my first iPod, first iPod touch, but not the iPhone, I managed to keep it. The trials of married life!!!!!

WRIGHT AND CALVIN: NOT SO FAR APART

Gerald Hiestand

As noted in my previous post, I think a lot of the confusion regarding Wright arises from a failure to fully embrace the fact that he is using the term dikaioo (and its cognates) differently. This difference in semantics gives the appearance, I believe, of more distance between Wright and his critics than is warranted. So when trying to compare and contrast Wright and the Reformed paradigm I wonder if it wouldn’t be more productive to drop these terms altogether, and instead utilize neutral terms that gets to the substance of what each theologian means.

When it comes to substance (not semantics), there are four basic questions that every evangelical soteriological system generally addresses. I’m better on Calvin than Wright, but here’s how I think they both would answer these questions.

1) What is the ultimate ground of our initial acceptance before God?
For Wright, the ultimate ground of our initial acceptance before God is the atoning work of Christ—his death and resurrection. Wright’s covenantal focus gives his view of the atonement a unique twist, but basically he affirms penal substitution. Christ died in our place—the divine curse for sin is poured out on Christ and thus the way is cleared for all to participate in the blessings of the covenant (or something like that). He doesn’t affirm double imputation as understood by later Reformed theologians, but he does maintain that through Christ’s atoning work the believer has a righteous status before God.

For Calvin, the ground of our initial acceptance is the cross-work of Christ and the imputation of a righteous status based upon this cross-work. (I”m not convinced Calvin affirms the imputation of Christ’s legal obedience as understood by later Reformed theologians.) From what I can tell, Wright and Calvin are pretty much in-line regarding the ground of acceptance—the cross work of Christ, and maybe even the imputation (perhaps not Wright’s word of choice) of a righteous status.

2) What is the proper human response for appropriating this initial acceptance—i.e., what must a person do to “get in,” as it were?
Here’s where I think Wright gets a bit murky. From what I’ve been able to piece together, Wright doesn’t seem to think that any human response at all is required for “getting in.” For Wright the royal proclamation of Christ’s death, resurrection and Lordship (what Wright means by “gospel”) is itself the means by which a person “gets in.” This royal proclamation contains within itself the power to “save” those who hear it. He writes, “The message about Jesus and his cross and resurrection…is announced to them; through this means God works by his Spirit upon their hearts; as a result, they come to believe the message; they join the Christian community through baptism, and begin to share in its common life…” (What Saint Paul Really Said, 116). And again, “The [announcement of Christ’s death, resurrection and Lordship] carries its own power to save people, and to dethrone the idols to which they have been bound….[this announcement] itself creates the Church (Saint Paul, 151).”

But for me, the question still remains as to what human response is required in Wright’s view, if any, to move a person from outside to inside. One might be tempted to think Wright views “faith”—specifically faith in the royal proclamation—as the necessary human response for appropriating the blessings of the covenant, but not so. Wright is pretty clear that faith is not a means of “getting in.” He writes, “Faith…is never and in no way a qualification, provided from the human side, either for getting into the God’s family or for staying there once in” (Saint Paul, 160). For Wright, faith is not a means of “getting in” but rather is evidence that one is already in. So is there any response needed from the human side that is necessary for getting into God’s family? I haven’t yet found it in Wright. Wright’s articulation here seems radically monergistic—as though the royal proclamation is a magic dust that gets sprinkled over people and “poof!”—they are part of the people of God. There is an irony here, because Wright is often accused by Reformed theologians of opening the door to semi-Pelagianism. But given the above, I just can’t see it. If anything, I don’t think Wright gives enough attention to the human response. If anyone has a better understanding of Wright and can provide more clarity here, I would appreciate it.

For his part, Calvin is pretty clear that faith is the necessary human response for securing the blessings of salvation—i.e., “getting in.” We find mercy and God’s help, “if, indeed, with firm faith we embrace this mercy and rest in it with steadfast hope” (Institutes 3.2.1). So this seems like a pretty major difference between the Calvin and Wright, but one that, if anything, makes Wright more of a monergist than Calvin!

3) What is the ultimate ground of our final acceptance before God at the judgment?
From what I can gather, both Calvin and Wright would argue that the basis of our ultimate acceptance at the judgment is the same as the basis of our initial acceptance at our conversion – the redemptive cross-work of Christ. Wright would agree with Calvin, who writes in reference to the final judgment, “Therefore if one seeks the first cause that opens for the saints the door to God’s Kingdom, and hence gives them a permanent standing-ground in it, at once we answer: Because the Lord by his own mercy has adopted them once for all, and keeps them continually” (Institutes, 3.17.6). In other words, the basis for the believer’s acceptance before God at the judgment is the same as the basis for the believer’s acceptance at conversion . It’s not as though for Wright (or Calvin), one is saved initially by Christ’s redemptive work, but then must “make good” on this in order to stand at the judgment. This will become clearer below.

4) What is the necessary human response for appropriating this final acceptance at the judgment? (i.e., How do works relate to the judgment?)
Here is where Wright is most misunderstood, and thus the target of much misguided criticism. Wright certainly believes that a life of good works is the necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family, just as faith is a necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family. But Wright wouldn’t suggest that works somehow “earn” or “secure” one’s possession of eternal life at the final judgment. Just as faith is not a means of “getting in,” in an initial sense, so too works are not a means of “getting in” an ultimate sense. Both faith and works are the fruit of being in, not the cause. Pointing out that Wright affirms a final justification on the basis of works misses the point. For Wright, the final judgment is not about getting in, but about declaring who is in fact already in. The judgment is a public vindication of God’s previously private judgment. It is in this sense that Wright is comfortable talking about Spirit-wrought works “vindicating” the believer at the judgment. For Wright, the reason good works are are a source of vindication is because such works show that one is already “in Christ.” If I read Wright correctly, we are “in” at the final judgment because the royal proclamation has had its way with us; the inevitable result of this royal proclamation in us is a life of both faith and good works (a very Reformed idea!). At the judgment, God publicly declares who is in fact already in, based on the evidential good works wrought by the effect of the “royal proclamation.” So the final judgment for Wright is not about works “getting us in” but about God declaring who is already in. (The big deal that was made at ETS this year about Wright modifying his language from “on the basis of” to “according to” only underscores the point that Wright has not been understood. If you feel better about Wright because he is now using the phrase “according to” then you didn’t really understand him in the first place. From Wright’s perspective, and how he understands what is happening at the judgment, there really isn’t much difference.)

Interestingly, Calvin has more of a merit theology than Wright. Calvin is willing (all be it hesitantly) to talk about eternal life as a “reward” given to good works, but only in as much as one’s works have been justified and cleansed through the blood of Christ. “It is no absurdity that man is so justified by faith that not only is he himself righteous but his works are also accounted righteous above their worth” (Institutes 3.17.9, see all of 3.18). For Calvin, works are a “secondary” cause of being received positively at the judgment.

Ultimately, I don’t think Wright and Calvin are really all that different at this point. For both Wright and Calvin, works don’t “earn” or “acquire” eternal life in themselves, but rather are the necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family—the membership badges, as Wright calls them. For both Wright and Calvin, works function more in an evidential, rather than instrumental, role. If anything, Calvin’s discussion of judgment and works could be construed in slightly more Augustinian/synergistic terms, since Calvin views the judgment as more about “getting in” and Wright views it more about “declaring who is already in.”

Conclusion
So there you have it. If I’m reading Wright correctly, I don’t think substantively that he is all that different than Calvin when it comes to his basic soteriological framework. Semantically yes, but substantively no. The major place where Wright parts company with later Reformed theologians is (as noted above) his denial that faith is a means of “getting in” and of double imputation. Perhaps it bears noting that I don’t tend to follow Wright in all of these matters. I’m not sure he’ s using the terms “justification” and “righteousness” in the best ways, and I’m certainly in favor of the way Calvin (and Augustine) talk about faith as a means of appropriating salvation. But I am fairly confident that Wright isn’t a semi-pelagian who thinks that somehow we earn salvation through good works.

What N.T. Wright Really Said

Something that I found from the least expected place:

Did N. T. Wright adjust or change his view of justification at the 2010 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society? The claim is now making its way around the internet that Wright indeed has reformed himself (to one degree or another) on this issue, and this claim is occasionally accompanied by the insinuation that he is being less than forthcoming about the degree to which he has changed. (Here I do not have in mind A. B. Caneday’s comments highlighted earlier on this blog. The careful reader will note that Caneday’s suggestion is that Wright has failed to communicate his position effectively in the past, not that Wright has changed his position and is seeking to cover it up. The difficulty that many have had in understanding Wright points to some validity within Caneday’s concerns.)

In my judgment, however, the claim that Wright has changed his view on justification is misguided and results from the misreading of Wright that has been rampant in the Reformed world for quite some time. I will explore this issue through asking and answering four questions.

1. What did Wright say at ETS to incite such controversy?

The issue under debate is Wright’s understanding of how the believer’s Spirit-inspired good works relate to what Wright calls “final justification.” In his lecture at ETS and the following discussion, Wright stated that he understands final justification to be “in accordance with” works, and not “on the basis of” works. In fact, he said that he does not remember ever using “basis” language to describe this relationship, and would be happy to adjust future editions of books if others would point out to him where he has made such statements.

Minutes later, Tom Schreiner pointed out one place in Wright’s work where he had spoken of final justification “on the basis of the whole life lived,” and bloggers have drawn attention to a number of other instances of similar language in his books and articles. In response to one such post (written by Denny Burk), Wright claimed (in a blog comment!) that he has not “retracted anything that I meant in my many, many earlier statements on this subject.” He said that after receiving Tom Schreiner’s paper (in which he was critiqued for using the word “basis” in his descriptions of the role of works in final justification) he did not have access to his works to check whether or not he had used the language of “basis.” After recognizing the examples produced by Burk, Wright then wrote, “I have always made it clear, as I did yesterday, that I did not mean or intend the kind of thing that clearly some theologians think that word ‘must’ mean.” Wright thus agreed that he had used the word “basis” to describe the relationship between works and final justification, but suggested that the context of these statements clarifies that he has never meant by this word what many of his critics have taken him to mean.

2. What have Wright’s critics taken him to mean?

One of the most prominent critics of Wright’s views on justification is John Piper, who devoted an entire book to the topic (The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright). Chapter 8 of this book discusses Wright’s view of the relationship between works and the final judgment. In this chapter, Piper first admits that he finds Wright’s view “ambiguous” (p. 117), but after extended analysis, he concludes that Wright’s denial of the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ “results in a vacuum that our own Spirit-enabled, but imperfect, obedience seems to fill as part of the foundation or ground or basis alongside the atoning death of Jesus” (p. 128, emphasis original). Piper hastens to add, “I say ‘seems to,’ since I would be happy for Wright to clarify for his reading public that this, in fact, is not what he believes” (pp. 128-129, emphasis original). Nevertheless, Piper’s tenuous portrayal of Wright’s position has become common among Wright critics in the blogosphere and elsewhere, particularly among folks who self-identify as Reformed. These critics suggest that the Spirit-inspired obedience of the believer stands as the believer’s righteousness in Wright’s understanding of final justification in the same way that Christ’s lifetime of perfect obedience stands as the believer’s righteousness in the traditional Reformed view. Thus, they understand Wright to be teaching a sort of Augustinian works-righteousness.

3. What has Wright really meant?

Are the critics right? The keys to adjudicating this question are Wright’s understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language in Paul and his understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict.

In his ETS lecture, Wright indicated once more what he has stated many times: in his view, when Paul applies the word “righteousness” to a human being, it means “covenant membership.” (This is slightly different than when the word is applied to God, in which case it often, but not exclusively, means “covenant faithfulness” according to Wright.) This definition of “righteousness” should immediately cause us to question the reading that suggests that Wright understands the believer’s Spirit inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification. If “righteousness” is covenant membership, then righteousness does not and cannot consist in good works themselves, either the believer’s Spirit-inspired works or Christ’s works on the believer’s behalf.

This becomes even clearer when one considers Wright’s understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict. According to Wright, the question under consideration in the divine courtroom is not whether or not one measures up to God’s moral standards, but rather whether or not one is truly a member of God’s covenant people. Thus, the trial is meant to determine which people are truly covenant members, and to be justified is to be declared a covenant member.

According to Wright, present justification occurs immediately after conversion. In Wright’s understanding of conversion, God sends the Spirit to produce faith in one who hears the proclamation of the gospel (Wright thinks that Paul refers to this event with the word “call”). Thus, faith is the first evidence that one has become a member of God’s covenant people. Present justification follows immediately. Present justification is “by faith” because faith in Christ is irrefutable evidence that God has indeed made one a member of his covenant people through the work of his Spirit. Thus, in Wright’s view, when Paul speaks of present justification by faith, he means God’s declaration that one has been brought into the family of his covenant people. The evidence that God cites to demonstrate that one has already been brought into covenant membership is the presence of faith.

Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in final justification is identical to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification. Just as Spirit-produced faith is the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the point of one’s conversion on. When Wright has said that good works are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a covenant member. They are the “basis” for final justification the same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the verdict in a paternity lawsuit. A paternity test does not make one a father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along. So also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member all along. The assertion that Wright understands Spirit-inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification misconstrues both his understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language and his understanding of the question under consideration in the divine courtroom.

[Two parenthetical comments:

(1) In his writings, Wright has sometimes muddled this issue by his responses to critics. Wright has two arguments for why his position does not promote any kind of works-righteousness, as his critics claim. The first is his understanding of the trial and “righteousness” language as detailed above, and the second is his assertion that the works considered in final justification are Spirit-inspired. This second argument does not satisfy many of Wright’s critics, and sometimes that is the primary response Wright makes to such charges. When Wright focuses on this argument rather than the first, his critics often become confused and don’t realize how the broader framework of his understanding of the trial and “righteousness” language make the works-righteousness interpretation of his writings impossible.

(2) A second point where confusion has arisen is through the claim that Wright understands justification to be primarily “ecclesiological” rather than “soteriological.” Although Wright once expressed this contrast himself (What Saint Paul Really Said, 119), he has more recently decried this depiction of Paul’s meaning as a false dichotomy, suggesting that here we have a “both/and” (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, 132-133). Nevertheless, careful attention needs to be paid to how he describes the relationship between justification and soteriology. He relates justification to soteriology in two distinct ways: (1) he insists that declaring one a covenant member is to declare that one is indeed saved because the blessings of covenant membership include forgiveness of sins, etc. (Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 121-122); (2) he wants to broaden our understanding of the term “soteriology” to include deliverance from the plight of Genesis 11, in which humanity was fractured into different nations, in addition to deliverance from the plight of Genesis 3, in which humanity fell subject to death through sin (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, 133-136). In Wright’s view, justification directly “saves” humanity from this plight by creating one cross-national covenant people of God, and is thus a directly “soteriological” act because it directly reverses the plight of Genesis 11. Thus, when Wright claims that his view of justification is both ecclesiological and soteriological, he does not mean that his view of justification is soteriological in the precise sense that some of his critics mean.]

4. What is the meaning and significance of Wright’s assertion at ETS that final justification is “in accordance with” and not “on the basis of” works?

We return now to our original question: has Wright changed his view by denying that final justification is “on the basis of” works? In short, the answer is no. Nothing that he said indicated that he has changed his understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language in Paul’s writings. Nothing that he said indicated that he has changed his understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict. On the contrary, he reasserted his position on both of these points.

What then did the denial of “basis” as an appropriate way to talk about the relationship between final justification and Spirit-inspired works mean? The most responsible reading of this statement is that Wright is denying the interpretation of his writings that insists that he equates the believer’s righteousness in final justification with Spirit-inspired works. I think that everyone in the room who has read his works carefully was probably stunned to hear him say that he did not remember using the language of “basis” in this way, but I think that his lapse in memory on this point demonstrates that the language of “basis” is so inessential to what Wright has always meant that he can dismiss it without realizing how frequently he has used it in the past. Basically, Wright’s shift in language simply means that he is using new wording to express what he has always been saying, but in a way that is less apt to be misunderstood than his previous statements. He still holds that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one is truly a member of God’s covenant people in final justification, and this corresponds to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification. He has not changed his view at all, but he has finally offered the clarification for which Piper hoped by denying that he understands works to be the “basis” of final justification in the way that Piper understands Christ’s righteousness to be the “basis” of final justification. One might wish that he had made this clarification clearer in his book-length reply to Piper (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision), but we may all be grateful that he is now speaking in a way that perhaps fewer people will misunderstand. Also, perhaps the debate can now shift from this red-herring to the real points of disagreement: Wright’s understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language and his construal of the question under consideration in the divine courtroom. On these points, Wright should be engaged and evaluated with an open mind, an open heart, and, not least, an open Bible. The discussion at ETS was a fine example of such engagement, and we should all be thankful to the panelists for modeling a charitable dialogue on this issue focused on the exegetical details from which the differences arise. May God give us wisdom as we continue to consider His Word together.