VANHOOZER & WRIGHT

Differences over theological method seem to be at the heart of the controversy over the New Perspective on Paul in Reformed circles. Of course, as is often the case in church disputes, the underlying methodological assumptions often remain unstated. On one side, a tradition of Reformed (or broadly Protestant) orthodoxy (RO) inherited a particular understanding of how to interpret the sprawling Pauline canon. Formed by the 16th century disputes with Rome, and subsequent polemics against antinomianism and heterodox views of the atonement, RO has stressed the legal aspects of justification and imputation (or, at least, that’s how it is often presented). On the other side, the New Perspective school (NP), which is itself quite diverse and difficult to pin down, emphasizes the occasional setting of Paul’s theology – his particular focus on Jewish-Gentile relations and (particularly in N.T. Wright’s version) the covenantal narrative of Jesus-as-faithful-Israel and our incorporation into that “faithfulness.”
Both sides operate with rather distinct assumptions about both Paul’s theological aims, and – perhaps more crucially – about how a contemporary theology of Paul should be done. The NP critique of RO (again, expressed most directly by Wright) centers on the charge that RO simply does not understand the origin of Paul’s theology (ad fontes). This “humanist” concern stresses, perhaps ironically, the literal reading of Paul’s theology of justification, sonship, and so on. According to Wright’s NP, the contemporary church must recover this lost theology in order to avoid an overly legal understanding of the gospel.
On the other side, RO is put into the interesting position of defending a more properly “theological” or ecclesial interpretation of Paul (albeit, one that excludes non-Reformational strains of theology). According to the accepted history, the notion of a logical ordo salutis emerges out of 17th and 18th century pietism, and later, from within RO itself. The articulation of this causal order of salvation had several uses, but was particularly relevant for the post-Reformational churches seeking to correct erroneous interpretations of redemption (e.g. antinomianism, perfectionism, Amyraldism, Arminianism, etc.). While defenders of RO would certainly classify their interpretation of Paul as the true and literal one, it is still clear that the RO methodology is, according to Alasdair MacIntyre’s usage, “tradition-dependent.” The irony of this situation is that one would assume that the NP would be more likely to adopt such a “traditional” hermeneutic (since its recasts soteriology as ecclesiology) and that the RO would reject it as an accretion to scriptural doctrine.
And so, it would seem that the NP and RO are at some sort of methodological impasse. However, several Protestant theologians have recently made an effort to reconcile the two views, or at least to establish some sort of doctrinal détente. For instance, Wright’s methodology has run into criticism from his erstwhile ally, Richard Hays, who argued at the recent Wheaton Theology Conference that Wright needs to incorporate an ecclesial-theological hermeneutic into its theology. Otherwise, Wright risks presenting the NP as a sort of “fifth gospel,” an indispensible key to the church’s comprehension of the original apostolic teaching. Hays suggests that the NP should admit that, as Christians, we necessarily read Paul (and the whole Bible) through an incarnational and resurrection-hermeneutic. We come to the text with certain canonical assumptions, as the people of God. The “occasionality” of Paul’s theology is therefore important, but should not obscure the theological framework of our biblical faith. We must trust that the Spirit is still active in preservation of the Tradition.
Perhaps even more relevant to the debate between the NP and RO is Kevin Vanhoozer’s recent effort to reconcile the warring tribes. Vanhoozer acknowledges and appreciates Wright’s emphasis on the corporate soteriology of Paul. At the same time, he wants to question the NP when it assumes that the corporate nature of salvation somehow excludes individual application. At base, Vanhoozer implies that the church must “perform” Paul’s theology; the occasional character of his epistles does not limit possible application to the first century church. In addition, Vanhoozer goes beyond Hays’ methodological proposal to suggest that the NP and RO might actually find common ground on the doctrine of adoption. Adoption, after all, is uniquely relevant both to RO’s concern for how we are accepted by God and to the NP’s focus on our inclusion into God’s family. Here, Vanhoozer draws on the WCF and, more specifically, Calvin to propose the notion of “incorporated righteousness.” Could it be, Vanhoozer asks, that the court that declares us righteous before God is the same court that adopts us into His family?
While the ordo salutis structure in the WCF might lead some to assume that it sides firmly with the perspective of RO, Richard Gaffin and Robert Letham suggest that the Assembly relies on the soteriological framework of union with Christ. While Lutherans traditionally place union subsequent to justification, Gaffin argues that such a temporal-logical sequence cannot be found in Westminster theology. Implicit in Gaffin’s argument is the plea not to place too much weight on the fact that the WCF has the chapter on justification (XII) preceding its chapter on adoption (XIII). Rather, the declarative function of justification and the inheritance of God’s adoption are two sides of the same coin.