First of all, this is a very brief, and hopefully pointed
response to Andrew Perriman’s criticism of Gospel Coalition’s reaction to certain
elements of emergent theology that appear to misunderstand the gospel according
to Jesus, expounded by Paul in his letters. Andrew Perriman states it clearly:
They appear to be reacting against
theological developments which have driven a wedge between the Reformed
emphasis on personal salvation, supposedly as Paul understood it, and the
“emerging” idea—though it’s not stated as such—that Jesus preached kingdom and
that kingdom means social transformation. - See more at: http://www.postost.net/2013/06/gospel-coalition-gets-gospel-back-front#sthash.Ag3l7KMY.dpuf
Perriman immediately gives us the real crux of the problem
with the narrative-historical approach: “Did Paul preach Jesus’ gospel?” Perriman criticizes Piper for admitting to reading the
gospels backwards. What Piper means is that he begins with the cross and works
through the story again to enrich his understanding of what Jesus was doing. In
other words, the crucifixion was the whole point of the narrative and it is
always good to go back now and see the events that lead up to the climax of the
story. Perriman seems to endorse the idea that such a practice impedes
understanding when just the opposite is the case. Understanding the crucifixion
can only offer us a much better understanding of much of what Jesus had to say
leading up to that event. Perrmian’s criticism seems preposterous from this
perspective.
Perriman gives us a flow chart as an example of why reformed
thought fails to understand the gospel.
- See more at: http://www.postost.net/2013/06/gospel-coalition-gets-gospel-back-front#sthash.Ag3l7KMY.dpuf
In the first place, Perriman’s tactic is terribly
misleading. It assumes that Reformed theology has no historical basis for the
theology to which it holds. He assumes it is a modern, or later invention that is
forced back onto the text. Perriman does very little demonstrate why we should
take his argument seriously. Perhaps Andrew wants to take the next 15-20 years
and have us all re-debate the issues the church debated beginning at the
Jerusalem conference, all over again. Perhaps that is what every generation of
the Church should do. This way, all we would ever accomplish is debate after
debate after debate. Is that really what the Church should do? Does Perriman
and the other emergent really think this is the right course of action? The
Christian group has a set of values and a confession that everyone who claims
to be part of that group is obligated to keep. It is irrational to think that
we must cover the same ground with every passing generation. The structure of
elders teaching the younger generation is designed to safeguard against this
very thing.
The basic problem with Perriman’s chart is that not only is
the previous one an ad hominem against reformed theology, his alternative is
terribly inadequate. The gospel does not begin with the story of Israel. It
begins in Gen. 3:15. The gospel begins with God’s promise to our parents, the
head of the human race. “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And
between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall
bruise him on the heel.” This is the initial promise of the redeemer who would be
born of a woman, who would crush the head of Satan by bruising His own heel.
The location of this promise in history makes it universal. Israel is nowhere
to be seen in this place or at this time. Andrew’s argument depends on his
starting within the right historical framework. I argue that Scripture clearly
contradicts Andrew’s choice. I also think it is clear that Andrew’s choice of
where to begin is based on extreme theological bias. He reads his own
understanding back into the text as much or more than the reformed tradition.
What Paul will later do with Jesus’
gospel has been hinted at already. Simeon prophesies that the historical
salvation of Israel will be a “light of revelation to the Gentiles”—that is, it
will open the eyes of the Gentiles to the power of Israel’s God to intervene in
history and save his people from their enemies - See more at:
http://www.postost.net/2013/06/gospel-coalition-gets-gospel-back-front#sthash.Ag3l7KMY.dpuf
Andrew takes great pleasure in referring to God as Israel’s
God. But is He Israel’s God alone? Is God not our God? Does God’s election of
Israel as a nation mean that He is not our God as well? Are we forever on the
outside looking in? Again, this language is not based on Scriptural teaching as
a whole, but rather on Andrew’s theological bias. God’s promise was redemption for
all the nations, for those whom he would call, for His own. And that includes
much more than the nation of Israel.
Paul’s role as a minister “of the
gospel of Christ” is to ensure that the response of the Gentiles to what God
has done for his people through his servant Jesus is acceptable. - See more at:
http://www.postost.net/2013/06/gospel-coalition-gets-gospel-back-front#sthash.Ag3l7KMY.dpuf
Is this how Paul viewed his role? Does Paul ever burden
himself with responsible of making sure that Gentiles are responding
appropriately to the message of the gospel? Surely Andrew reads much more into
the text than Paul intended. Paul’s role as a minister of the gospel was to
preach the gospel to those who had never heard the gospel. Paul’s role is to do
what he can to make sure the Gentiles hear the gospel, not to take
responsibility for their response to the gospel.
But it seems to me that by
beginning with the reductionist modern-Reformed premise that “gospel” is all
about the justification of the individual and working backwards from there they
have seriously misconstrued—or at least, misrepresented—the New Testament
narrative. - See more at: http://www.postost.net/2013/06/gospel-coalition-gets-gospel-back-front#sthash.Ag3l7KMY.dpuf
Is Perriman on to something here? Does orthodoxy reduce the
gospel to individual justification? Is it the case that reformed theology
begins at the wrong place? Does orthodoxy have no anchor in ancient biblical
exegesis? Are the confessions of Christendom the product of later pagan
influence and hence responsible for hiding the gospel for nearly 1900 years or
more? Is it possible that for 19-20 centuries, the true gospel of Christ has
been hidden and that all that the Church ever was was a product of pagan
philosophy and Greek influence as a result of twisting the sayings and teachings
of Jesus? That proposition is not only very difficult to imagine, it is one of
the most absurd propositions I have read.
The doctrine of justification is a cardinal doctrine of the
Christian faith. It has been from the beginning. Where one stands on this
subject determines whether or not they stand or outside the Christian group. I
realize this kind of language is frowned upon by modern scholarship. I fully
recognize this sort of language offends the sensibilities of many, if not most
in that community. However, I am far more concerned with truth that I am with
offending the sensibilities of men.
The question is what does the gospel have to do with
justification? And is Andrew right to draw such a sharp distinction between
gospel and justification? To answer that question, we turn to Paul’s earliest
letter, the letter to Galatians. Martin Luther refers to this letter as the
queen of the epistles. The early church fathers wrote more commentaries on
Galatians than any other NT book. The location of the churches of Galatia in NT
hierarchy only adds to the significance and prominence of this relatively short
epistle. “It remains true today to say that how one understands the issues and
teachings of Galatians determines in large measure what kind of theology is
espoused, what kind of message is proclaimed, and what kind of lifestyle is
practiced.” [Longenecker – WBC on Galatians]
However one understands Galatians, one thing is clear: Paul
was dealing with a different gospel, and that gospel was related to an
understanding of Justification that was different from the one these Churches
had previously received from him. “I
am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of
Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and
want to distort the gospel of Christ.” In fact, this gospel and its view of
justification was cause for Paul to accuse some of the Galatian churches of
abandoning the faith. Whatever Perriman and the emergent enlightened ones have
to say on this issue, they had better watch their Ps and Qs. As far as that
goes, we all had better watch our Ps and Qs. This is no small matter. It is in
fact an eternal matter.
“But it was because
of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our
liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But
we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of
the gospel would remain with you.” Paul refers to these men with a different
perspective of the gospel and justification as “false brethren.”
“Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in
Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the
works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”
Clearly justification is more than a mere afterthought in terms of the content
of the gospel. As Paul seems to argue, a misunderstanding of justification
equals a different gospel. “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if
righteousness comes through the Law,
then Christ died needlessly.” Once more, Paul’s polemic infers that such a view
destroys grace and makes the death of Christ meaningless. It seems there is
much more to Christ’s death than the just the suffering servant.
“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed
in you.” Andrew’s preference for Israel’s God also seems quite an overstatement
given Paul’s argument that from the very beginning God had the justification of
people from all nations in mind even when He made His promise to Abraham.
“Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” Paul here
proves that we understand the purpose of the Law only if we rightly understand
Christ and NT revelation. Andrew has it just the opposite. It is only in Christ
that we can see the true purpose of the Law. Without that light, we cannot see
the real meaning of OT revelation. Andrew seeks to throw away the light we have
been given in hopes of rediscovering it in the darkness of an intentionally
veiled message.
It seems nearly impossible to read Galatians honestly, to
borrow one of Andrew’s terms, and to walk away thinking that justification and
gospel can be separated. If I am not mistaken, someone in the visible Church
tried that once before and, well, we know how that turned out.
Hi Ed, since Genesis 3:15 seems so central to this response, I've addressed its interpretation here.
ReplyDelete