1 of 7

Methodist theologian Thomas Oden, a contributing editor of Books & Culture, was asked by some of his fellow drafters of "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration" to respond to Robert Gundry's critique, which appeared in the previous issue of B&C ("Why I Didn't Endorse," January/February, 2001). Below is Oden's response and a reply from Gundry. While Oden expresses disappointment at the prospect of a public debate over "Celebration" ("we had hoped that we might be spared this sort of public squabble," he writes, speaking for the drafters of the statement), we at B&C think evangelicals can only gain from a forthright airing of concerns, in the spirit suggested by the statement itself. In fact, one of the reasons B&C was created was precisely to serve as a forum for such dialogue.

It is to Robert H. Gundry's credit that he intends to seek precision in speaking of the relation of justification teaching to the life of Jesus prior to his death. Whether that intention is rightly and sufficiently fulfilled remains at issue.

But let us first clarify points upon which "Celebration" and its critic, I think, agree:

Both the critique and "Celebration" seek unity in evangelical testimony without a sacrifice of intellect.

Both agree that "Jesus had to live a life of perfect righteousness if he was to qualify as the bearer of our sins" (Gundry).

Both agree that evangelicals "look toward their risen Lord in repentance and hope for empowering through the Holy Spirit."

Apparently, the critic's desire is to defend Arminians from overweening Calvinists, but in doing so the critique presents arguments that neither Arminians or Calvinists would find acceptable, based on their classical confessions.

Since the drafters of "Celebration" sought to be as inclusive as possible of major evangelical voices, including those our critic thinks have been neglected, we had hoped that we might be spared this sort of public squabble. But the critique makes it evident that the issues are such that they must be answered in a timely way, on behalf of the many who have conscientiously signed it.

The purpose of "Celebration" is to define those points of common understanding upon which diverse evangelicals agree. If this is not a decent goal, I would hope our critics would state their reasons why it is not, rather than attacking the irenic effort at its edges. It is not intended to inquire exhaustively into all points of ambiguity and difference between evangelicals. "Celebration" states what differing evangelicals hold in common while still being true to their distinctive traditions, historical memories, and exegetical convictions.

Most classical Wesleyan, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Pentecostal teachings have basically agreed that Jesus' active and passive obedience are both indispensable to the justifying verdict on the cross in which the believers' sins are accounted as sharing in Christ's righteousness. This is a standard pan-Protestant consensus that has stood the test of four hundred years. Yet the critique argues that this view represents a highly partisan "Reformed stamp that many evangelicals cannot knowingly endorse." But who among evangelicals could not endorse the complementarity of the active and passive obedience of Christ? Certainly not classic Wesleyans who have read Wesley's sermons on "Justification by Faith" and "The Lord Our Righteousness" or his "Doctrinal Minutes on Justification" or the Edwardian homilies on salvation.

Wesley indeed thought that the doctrine of accredited or imputed righteousness, while itself being thoroughly biblical and Pauline, could by misinterpretation become exaggerated toward antinomianism. But if you read his caveats in "Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ" and his Letter to James Hervey of Oct. 15, 1756, you will see that there is no attempt to disavow what he has previously said so clearly in his standard sermons on justification, but rather only to resist its misinterpretation. Some highly defensive and proactive self-avowed "Arminians" have themselves at times so exaggerated their differences with Calvinism in a counter-ecumenical polemical effort so as to stress repudiations which cannot be found in the Wesley texts. The best account of active and passive obedience vis-à-vis Calvin and Wesley is found in John Deschner's work on Wesley's Christology.

next page... |  1 of 7

share this page