A Theology for Hipsters (Part 26): Keeping the Fundamentals (Part 5)

The third distraction that appeals strongly to hipsters involves the theme of “community.” For all their aversion to conformity there is nonetheless a strong desire for real authentic community among hipsters. For many this has led to continued development of a theology of community, a great thing, which displaces the gospel of Jesus Christ as central, a bad thing! We saw the roots of this theological shift in the post-foundationalist developments, but it has broadened today to touch particularly the theme of justification. This latter development has been popularized through the works of N.T. Wright.

Wright, former Bishop of Durham, is one of the most celebrated New Testament scholars of today. His commentary series are accessible without being shallow, and his work on Jesus represents some of the best scholarly work in the 21^st century. His work on the storyline of the Bible has been equally praised as a response to the reductionist approach of much other reading. When it comes to his work on Paul, and particularly the doctrine of justification, however, Wright finds much more resistance in evangelical circles. And rightfully so, for his doctrine of justification seems to be rooted not in repentance and in the faith of the individual in the work of Christ, but rather in a participation in the community called believers. For Wright justification is about covenant membership and not about having a right relationship with God. Since community has become such a popular buzz word in theology today, and particularly among young hipsters, and because Wright is so well-respected it’s easy to see the appeal that this theory has. But the theory and the Scriptural interpretations Wright uses to support it fly in the face of centuries of protestant theology, and more importantly do not square with the Scriptures themselves.

A few examples from Wright will help clarify the discussion that Christians must have and that hipsters must pay attention to. In his book What Saint Paul Really Said Wright makes his definition of justification clear. He writes:

“‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.”[1]

“Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God … On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it [i.e., the problem] has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?”[2]

“What Paul means by justification, in this context, should therefore be clear. It is not ‘how you become a Christian,’ so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’”[3]

The implications of this re-definition of justification cannot be overstated. To remove justification from the realm of personal righteousness before God and make it an issue of communal participation is to distort the very fabric of Pauline theology, and to flatten the gospel message. The issues of sin and atonement are practically lost in this new equation. Charles Hill summarizes nicely the difference between Wright’s and Paul’s view of justification. He writes:

What does this redefinition do for Wright? It keeps justification (reckoned righteousness) at the point of “ecclesiology” rather than “soteriology.” Justification is for him the presentation of your card at Costco: Are you a member? Here’s my card. I pronounce you justified, come in. This happens every time you go to Costco.

But for Paul justification is not a test of a membership already possessed, a test which can be repeated each time your “righteousness” is called into question. It is the eschatological pronouncement of God, once and for all, that those who believe in Christ stand before God as fully forgiven, fully righteous, on the basis of Christ’s propitiation for them. This reckoned righteousness is not an abstract thing. Elsewhere Paul says that our righteousness is not our own, not based on law or works, but is the gift of God (e.g. Rom. 3.24; 4.4; 10.3-4; Phil. 3.9).[4]

To redefine justification, you see, as our place in the community Wright has inadvertently robbed Christians of the real solution to our exclusion from the membership of God’s kingdom: a right standing with God. Paul understands justification as our being declared righteous by God by virtue of our faith in Christ’s work on the
cross as our substitute (Rom. 5:1).

Now this is not to say that community is unimportant to Paul, it is indeed very important. In fact one of the interesting things that Hill points out is that Paul has language for our community identification, but it is not found in the terminology of justification. Listen to how Hill corrects Wright here:

Now, Paul says that there is a “badge” of covenant membership, but that badge is circumcision. Listen to what Paul says: “He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11). That is, before Abraham got his “badge” of the covenant (i.e. circumcision), he had already been justified by God through his faith. In Paul’s mind, faith is reckoned as righteousness, the badge of which is circumcision (baptism).[5]

Hipsters must be very careful at this point not to get so swept up in our earnest desire for community and a theology of community that we fall prey to Wright’s diversion. Justification is not about our identification with the community first, but about our having right standing before God and from that comes a discussion about community. We must hold fast to the true gospel: Jesus’ death for our sins and his resurrection for our justification, and His coming Kingdom. Anything less than this will slowly begin to make us less like Christ and more like generic hipsters (who may also happen to read N.T. Wright).[6]

---

[1] N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand   Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. 119.