Wright Is Wrong

The Wright stuff - An Article by Couldn't Help Noticing

Noticed by Tony at 09:50 AM on 1 June 2006 AD

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

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

Bishop Wright’s response was as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Wright then responded:

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

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

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