sacraments and justification

For some time now I’ve been struggling with the protestant view of justification. For the longest time it was just one of the words that I rattled off when participating in the Biblical language game. I didn’t really know what it meant. It was one of those words that when said next to a string of other overtly Pauline words quickly rendered the verse meaningless because too many of the words have meaning that needs to be unpacked. Let me give you an example of a fictional verse I’ll make up. “you have been justified through the propitiating atonement of the holiness of God’s righteousness imputed to you through the sanctifying holiness of the Zion one.” Huh? Me too.

Slowly though this word came alive. It came alive when I really started to investigate how or why I am saved. I’m justified in the eyes of God because of Jesus. A couple of months back Christianity Today let the cat out of the bag and let the rest of the Evangelical world know that there is a debate out on some of these key Pauline words…justification chief among them. They actually drew cartoon looking caricatures of three figures on each side of two pages as to pit them and their respective perspective on Paul and Pauline language. On the left side were the reformation figures Luther, Calvin and Beza (I think) and the other were those who represent the new perspective on Paul…namely E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright and James D.G. Dunn (apparently initials are important in the new perspective). A perspective that I have found a breath of fresh air. The person from this school that I have taken particular interest in is Richard Hays of Duke whose work on the subjective/objective genitive construction pistis christou has been thought provoking.

Recently I stumbled onto the happenings of Baylor professor Francis Beckwith who converted back to his childhood faith of Catholicism. Part of the big deal about Beckwith is that he was the president of ETS, which is a group of Evangelical Theologians who wish they lived in a society where they could still burn people at the stake for believing the wrong things. In his blog post about why he went Catholic Beckwith writes:

The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.

At the end of this blog comments section, which is lengthy and full of angry protestants, Beckwith offers a pair of links both of which he says were compelling in his decision making process. One is from the Catechism and deals with grace and justification. I decided to take a peek given my recent convictions. I found it compelling. I agree with much of what is says, but have one notable hang up.

It states, “2014 Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ. This union is called "mystical" because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments - "the holy mysteries" - and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all.”

My hang up is with what I know they think the sacraments necessarily are. N.T. Wright restored my appreciation for sacraments, but I have a hard time believing that the God of the New Testament traps himself to dispensing grace through a church that is full of free willed men who screw it up all the time. I guess this is why the Donatist controversy has resurfaced as a significant for me. I believe in sacraments. But I believe that new and creative sacraments are found in our lives daily. The creative God of the New Testament finds all kinds of ways to make the “veil between heaven and earth seem especially thin” to borrow from Wright.

Here is where I depart from the Catechism. Like them I believe that spiritual progress tends toward intimate union with Christ and that this has big implications for soteriology. It’s just that I don’t believe this happens inside archaic buildings with people who are un-thoughtful about what they are really doing. It happens when a parent spends time with a child. It happens when an alcoholic says no to another drink. It happens when a band raises money for aids victims. It happens when someone lends a lawnmower to a neighbor. These are the means…the modes of salvation through we participate and progress towards intimate union with Christ.