Last Sunday I completed a two-part course on The New Perspective(s) on Paul in our Christianity Matters class. Now if you have any understanding of the NPP, you’re probably thinking the same thing I thought when I sat down to outline the class - this is useless and esoteric. A local church, especially Baptist, has no need discussing the NPP. Where’s its relevance? In hindsight, that question ended up being the hardest and the one I did the poorest job at answering. (Note to all teachers: make sure your audience knows the topic’s relevance.) Though it should have been obvious since all of my reading and research was on a semi-scholarly to scholarly level. Most people don’t even know what nomism is much less care if it’s covenantal or variegated. (To which you say, “Huh?” And I say, “My point exactly!”)

I’ll grant there is some relevance in the accusation that we’ve misunderstood Paul because of his interpreters, namely Luther and Augustine. In other words, the NPP says we’ve got Paul all wrong because we’ve spent too much time reading Piper, who reads Edwards, who read Luther, who read Augustine. Okay, now they’re getting a little closer to home. In addition, they say it is misleading to claim that all Jews in the first-century believed in a works-righteousness religion. That too is an accusation made of traditionally reformed people like myself. But even if those are relevant accusations, when was the last time you found church members discussing them after the evening service? Where’s the cool attraction in that for young people?

My point in all of that is to say the NPP discussion can be irrelevant to most congregations. (I emphasize “can” because any Christian or pastor that’s dealt with an errant member on this issue or some variation of it knows by experience its relevance.) So where is the NPP’s relevance for the rest of us?

I think it’s in the theological commonality with emergent theology, namely the emphasis on the gospel being about Jesus’ lordship, victorious kingdom, and inclusive community to the exclusion of a guilty sinner’s salvation from God’s wrath through Jesus’ substitutionary death and imputed righteousness. That’s the line, albeit perforated, connecting the NPP and Emergent. They use different cups to drink from the same theological well. They both talk about the traditional understanding of the gospel and justification being too small or individualistic. It’s “not about how someone gets saved.” Justification is not about “soteriology but ecclesiology.” Instead, they argue, it’s about the story of the Bible. It’s about God’s solution to Israel’s abiding problem - the exile - and his inclusion of the Gentiles. The gospel is much larger and cosmic in scope than the traditional church has affirmed. It’s about God overcoming all the sin and evil wrought by the Fall and not about individual sinners being guilty before God. Furthermore, they both conclude with with the same implications - social restoration. (If you want resources, read Brian McLaren’s The New Kind of Christian and N.T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?)

Well, it’s here in the theological similarity that you find its relevance. It’s a similar theological drink being passed around in different cups. You may be a in a reformed church and have to deal with theological issues that are explicitly labeled NPP or some variation. You may be in a church that has no reformed roots at all but have to deal with matters from the growing popularity of Emergent theology. But no matter what church you’re in the issues will have alot in common. And that common tread is to reconceive and redefine the gospel in different terms.

Posted in Church Life, Theology & Doctrine |