There is something inevitably self-defeating about defending yourself.
The very act positions you where you don’t want to be – in the dock, under accusation, needing to offer some explanation, as though the texture of Christian fellowship easily included a kind of questioning of others. And besides, half the people who overhear might not even have heard the accusation, but now they have, and mud sticks. Most awkward, defending yourself positions you as someone worth defending, instead of an ‘unworthy servant’ – there are far more interesting things to talk about!
And yet …
Not defending yourself – especially in a small-town culture like Sydney evangelicalism – just allows talk to turn to rust and become permanently attached.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Well, for better or worse, I’ve decided that it’s time to go on the defensive – and yet at every point, to try to avoid defensiveness! A thin line.
Background – for years now, a simple equation has been made about me: Katay = New Perspective, New Perspective = bad; therefore … . It started at college – 1994 to be precise – when some of the students from a different university to mine decided that I wasn’t quite kosher. They were part of a big and chattering scene, and it’s kind of gone on from there. I don’t suppose I helped a great deal – college is a heady place of ideas, and it can be hard to get a grip, and I wasn’t that troubled by their chatter.
Of course, there’s no great problem with chatter in itself. Community always includes talking about others, and therefore being talked about, and the Christian intent is to do it in a godly way. The primary rule is to make sure that the significance of what’s said is matched by the seriousness of the attempt to verify – saying someone is lousy at tip footy hardly matters; saying someone is a dangerous heretic matters a great deal, and only gets to be said after serious investigation.
The catalyst – over the last few years, I’ve heard on and off reports from people saying that they had been recommended not to join the fellowship here because of the equation. That seems to have intensified recently. Being hurt personally is one thing; having the church you love and serve potentially hurt is another.
And so, the next few posts will be my effort to set the record straight – but not only that. Record straightening is almost always boring. Rather, I’ll have a go at something positive, saying bit by bit what I think – and have always thought, because I haven’t changed my mind about any of this stuff – Jesus and Paul taught about justification, salvation, the law, the Christian life, sanctification, assurance, merit, works, grace and faith, amongst other things! If you’re into this, you might find it stimulating. Feel free to interact. If not, I’ll see you in a few weeks!
Either way, going on record feels like an interesting experience.
Now that I’ve read the post, should I comment? How will it be perceived? 😉
Go for it – I look forward to learning how much I should tar myself with the same brush!
Anthony, I’ll get the turps ready!
Oh, gosh, I was hoping it was water-based and would just rinse off. That’s petrochemicals for you, darned inconvenient.
I’ll be cheering you on, brother. And looking forward to seeing if this can be turned into a genuine ‘learning conversation’.
Oops – that was Chris! The pitfalls of sharing one computer… I second the sentiment though!
Thanks Andrew, I’m looking forward to it. I generally feel a bit Deuteronomy 19:18-21 about the way the heretic word is thrown around at college
Michael,
fascinating thought re Deut 19! One of the issues around this is the sociological function of doctrine, which usually comes to mean that the assessing is only done in one direction.
You made this point (re. “heresy”) a couple of years ago in arts small group training, and it was very helpful for me.
I’m sure you’ll get to this, but surely our doctrine should shake up that sociology. At the very least JBF should lead to brotherly love.
Hi Andrew, I really do look forward to hearing from you. One of the things I’m often annoyed by as I read various advocates of the New Perspective is their persistent focus on defining people by criteria related to whether they’re “in” or “out” of the right “community” or “family” (e.g. Tom Wright’s recently expressed equation, “righteous” = “member of God’s family”). What ultimately matters is not whether you belong to the right group of people. So I’m looking forward to hearing from you, and I promise to try to avoid unwarranted sociological pigeon-holing as much as I’m humanly able.
On a slightly different topic: in the comments of a previous post you promised to provide a few actual quotes from the Trellis and the Vine to back up your general critique of it–I know blog posts and comments can be ephemeral, but I’d still like to remind you of and hold you to your promise.
Lionel,
always glad to have you along – I too hate ‘defined by belonging to a group’, whether an in-group or an out-group.
At the same time, you won’t perhaps be surprised to hear that I think think that’s a misreading of NTW.
It raises something that I learned at college – it’s important to be clear what’s at issue – a person’s actual convictions, or their reading of another person’s convictions. The former matter a great deal; the latter is more an intellectual exercise – important in its way – but not that important. We may just have to agree to disagree about interpretation of NTW’s interpretation of righteousness, and stick to the main game, ie the text of scripture, rather than the text of someone else. This has always struck me as the evangelical way.
And I do remember my promise, and actually got the book off the shelf, but ran out of time. I’ll try to do it this month.
Hi Andrew – yep, I agree it’s very important we stick to the biblical text. As for NTW, I was just citing and summarising his argument about the meaning of the word “righteousness” in Galatians in his latest book Justification, e.g. page 100, and page 112, point 2. I find his definitions of “righteousness” here quite clear, and also quite wrong and annoying. I’m not at all assuming that you agree with NTW or even want to defend him, since you have said yourself that you don’t like the simple equation “Katay = New Perspective”. I actually wanted to imply the opposite: anyone who writes off Katay simply because he possibly belongs to this suspicious “New Perspective” bunch, which is by definition “bad”, is doing the very same thing that I find annoying in various advocates of New Perspective itself: making “boundary markers” and group definition a bigger deal than they should be. I’m looking forward to what you actually have to say, and I’ll try to overcome my own natural sinful impluse to think in terms of group membership and boundary-marking. Thanks too for being willing to put in the time to find the choice quotes from Trellis and the Vine.
Get out of Sydney, brother. Too much hot fat boiling on the stove. Wherever you stand in the kitchen you are likely to get burnt.
Murray,
don’t think I haven’t considered it!
The problem is, I love Sydney – the city and the Diocese. Always have, always will.
Hey FWIW, as an evangelical theologian in Sydney who isn’t a “sydney evangelical theologian,” I once blogged this half formed thought about Moore College after a conversation with a friend.
http://critical-discipleship.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-education-and-being-right.html
Katay, I have never heard of you before – but now, I will be following with some interest :o)
So if it is going to be a non-defensive defence, will it then be an offensive defence?
Byron,
probably – perhaps even in both senses. But I’ll work hard to stay on the playing field.
Andrew,
Looking forward to what you have to say. I keep having frustrating conversations with 1st year USyd students who ask in hushed tones ‘Is the EU ‘new perspectives?” Especially frustrating as the majority of them have no idea what the new perspectives are; they just know it’s ‘bad.’ Praise God the EU still teaches critical thinking; there is hope for them yet!
Grace & peace brother.
<> Sounds like you’re entering the confessional. Are we going to hear your most intimate secrets? I just stumbled across this blog for the first time via a Facebook post by Byron Smith. Good to hear that you’re still alive and kicking. May you continue to struggle with critics of your faith for many years to come. It means that what you’re doing is authentic. Happy defending!
Hey Andrew,
I am glad you are doing this, but deeply saddened that you feel the need to.
as Iago says in Othello
“reputation is often got without merit and lost without deserving”
it ticks me off that there is this kind of culture that is so suspicious and quick to label and categorically dismiss rather constructively engage.
zeal for truth seems to so easily get used to as a justification for ugly and ungodly personal attacks. As a person who has been quite critical of certain aspects of the “new perspectives” (note the plural) – I hope I have not been part of that ugliness, and pray there will be repentance and reconciliation where there has been.
maybe important and related topics are
1. how to engage zealously for truth in ways that are respectful, gracious and godly.
2. discern when it is appropriate, and over what – to discourage fellowship with a person or church.
I look forward to the discussion.
s
by the way, I would discourage moderation but maybe set up some rules for engagement?!
I had a similar thought.
Basically, we all play fair and don’t call each other names!
I first heard about this NTW stuff about five years ago when our Sydney church studied Romans. I really wanted to get to the bottom of it.
I’ve since asked about 10 different MC Graduates to explain why they thought it wasn’t a good idea, and they all failed to articulate anything clearly – but were fairly content to radiate a negative vibe and point me to Don Carson’s book. The best I got was a link to a series of online articles that talked vaguely about a non-individual salvation and corporate identity before God.
I’ve read “What Saint Paul Really Said”.
My mind is open, my cup is not yet full.
Can somebody please explain (a) the for and against, and (b) where it comes from in the Bible so I can make up my own mind?
JG,
hold onto your hat – that’s the journey!
Lionel,
at the risk of ruining this thing before it gets started, can I push back a little.
If I understand you, you have made an equation: holding the view that righteousness is to be defined as being a member of God’s family = defining people by criteria related to whether they’re “in” or “out” of the right “community” or “family”.
Two thoughts about this – first, I’m guessing, but it seems to me that the issue that concerns you is in part good old fashioned accuracy – is this or is this not what the word means in its context etc? Fair enough, and worth arguing about. Meanings matter.
But there seems also to be another issue – namely, the spectre of nominalism. That is, if people are defined by what community or family they are in or out of, then it opens the door to the notion that mere church attendance (say) could be held out as sufficient for salvation ie. being righteous.
This matters even more. Such a notion is obviously contrary to the gospel and a betrayal of the cross of Christ – there’s the first non-defensive defensive moment! I’ve never thought, taught or implied any such silly notion, and anyone who says I have is a doggarned liar (oops, slipped a little there!). # (see below for further comment)
But here’s a second thought – it’s one thing to say what the relation between community membership and salvation isn’t – it isn’t mere attendance / being part of a sociological group. We should also say what it is. So try this question – are the righteous / those who are justified co-terminus with the body of Christ (1 Cor 12.13) and members of the household of God (Eph 2.19) – yes or no?
I know, and you know, that there is no simple yes or no answer to this – because more needs to be said about the visible and invisible church etc, and because co-terminus is not the same thing as ‘equals’ or ‘means’. But the question matters, and a simple denial of the nominalism notion isn’t sufficient, because there’s more in Scripture about the relationship between salvation and the people of God / church / body of Christ etc than that.
But we’ll come to the doctrine of the church later on, and perhaps have an opportunity to interact on the substance of the issue, rather than method, then.
# I happen to think that NTW also doesn’t hold the nominalism notion, but don’t want to argue about it.
Hi Andrew – I think I really need to clarify. I’m really truly not trying here to accuse you of a nominalistic approach to salvation through church attendance, or anything of the sort. I actually really truly want to hear what you have to say for yourself. If I have invited you into a trap, then Michael, (below), is right when he says I have done it “without meaning to”.
I was simply trying to point out the irony of anyone who makes simplistic assumptions about your alleged un-Kosherness because of assumed New Perspective associations – the irony is, that this kind of emphasis on right and wrong communities and boundaries is a feature of the New Perspective!
Now it sounds like you want to avoid detailed debate about NTW’s position here. Fair enough. So I’ll refrain from mentioning his own position any further. People can read his book. As I’ve said, I’m looking forward to hearing from you directly about your understanding of these issues in the Bible.
for plebs like me a glossary of terms might be helpful too!
Hi everyone.
Lionel has I think (without meaning to) invited Andrew to walk into a potential trap – the very trap he is trying to get out of right here!
And it’s this:
1. There are debates about what NTW does and doesn’t say.
2. There are debates about what APK does and doesn’t say.
APK may well wish to defend NTW from being misrepresented – a worthy desire, especially since there is so much confusion around.
But if he does so, will we be able to refrain from saying ‘APK defends NTW, so he must agree with NTW?’ Will we seperate 1 from 2? This has been a problem from the get-go, IMHO.
Personally, I am more interested in hearing what APK does and doesn’t say.
NTW is big enough and certainly ugly enough to defend himself.
Mike,
thanks for that – yep, that’s the trap to avoid.
So to say now, I won’t be discussing the views of other people – even if from time to time I might indicate what I thing they think.
praying for you as you do so, brother.
look forward to it.
Actually, speaking of ugly…
🙂
Andrew,
Every blessing for your exercise in clarification. As one who has critically engaged Wright in a different area (cosmic eschatology), it can be an anxious exercise trying to to defend oneself to people who despise Wright (although I haven’t had to much – lots of people like his cosmic eschatology, probably many more than his views on justification). In fact, we had a chat about Wright on the phone many moons ago for precisely the reason that you were being labelled “New Perspective” and I had no idea what that meant for you. I appreciated your candor then, and now.
Mark, I’d love to have a look at anything you wrote concerning Wright’s cosmic eschatology. You can find my email address here.
I understand Mark is going to have his phd thesis published soon which is very exciting!
it was on something to do with Discipleship in the book of Revelation ” destroying the destroyers of the earth”
Hi Byron. I will be in touch soon with some more details. Wright wasn’t the main focus of my thesis, which was on continuity/discontinuity issues in the cosmic eschatology of the Apocalypse of John. But I had to engage him (and his most eloquent opponent yet, Edward Adams). Shane is right that a book is in the works, but:
1. It is not due out till next year.
2. It is with Mohr Siebeck, so nobody will buy it, for fear of going broke.
Blessings
Mark
Mark – thanks! Of course I’m even more interested in what John’s apocalypse might say about eschatological continuity/discontinuity than what some random bishop thinks.
[…] on being accused of being ‘new perspective’ in Sydney […]
Katay, this series is a fantastic idea. Looking forward to following it!