I have written about the moral justification of liberal justice in two posts (here and a much updated version here).

I have looked at the economic and social implications both here at FPR and at this post on BCC. These are both central to what I view as social justice. I also introduce John Rawls and my Mormon Rawls Project at this post.

My sense of justice influences everything, from my view of nationalism and patriotism, to the way in which I analyze church policies about caring for the poor.

These views are mine. I do not claim that they represent the views of the Church or that they are the only possible interpretation of certain scripture. However, my Mormonism and my sense of justice are one and the same for me. It might be a different perspective, but it is mine

Oh, I forgot about the podcast on global social justice.

“We have drifted from having a market economy to have a market society.” Wow. A thoughful and insightful critique by the political philosopher Michael Sandel.

Check out the clip.

Also, I have written a few thoughts, inspired by Sandel and some conversations I have had lately, over at Radical Moderation.

This podcast was made by two of my students, Jericho Cline and Ethan Blevin, during a senior seminar on global justice.

I am sharing this today because I have been thinking a lot about Ethan. He recently got into a great law school. He also just suffered a great loss in his family. He and Jericho are not only great students, but great men. I have some great former and current students.

Oaks cites Gary Lawrence’s recent book How Americans View Mormonism, expressing disappointment that few American’s could cite the central claim of Mormonism, namely, “restoration or reestablishment of the original Christian faith.” He connected this lack of awareness about Mormonism to a broader ignorance about “religion,” by which he meant Christianity. To blame for this state of ignorance, Oaks said the following:

“Many factors contribute to our people’s predominant shallowness on the subject of religion, but one of them is surely higher education’s general hostility or indifference to religion.  Despite most colleges’ and universities’ founding purpose to produce clergymen and to educate in the truths taught in their chapels, most have now abandoned their role of teaching religion.  With but few exceptions, colleges and universities have become value-free places where attitudes toward religion are neutral at best.  Some faculty and administrators are powerful contributors to the forces that are driving religion to the margins of American society.  Students and other religious people who believe in the living reality of God and moral absolutes are being marginalized.”

Here, he suggests that American universities have the veered away from “their role in teaching religion,” again meaning, Christianity. He laments the “value-free” and “neutral” stand toward religion, but especially what he sees as the “marginilization” of religion. The suggestion that American universities are hostile to faith is, of course, widely dispute and several studies show little difference between professed religious belief on campus and religious belief among non-college going peers and even broader society. In many ways, one could argue that relative to the early and mid 20th century, university education is must less hostile to religion now.

He continues:

“Some have suggested that religion is returning to intellectual life.  In this view, religion is too influential to ignore in these times of the Taliban and the political influence of some religious organizations.  But it seems unrealistic to expect higher education as a whole to resume a major role in teaching moral values.  That will remain the domain of homes, churches, and church-related colleges and universities.  All should hope for success in this vital task.  The academy can pretend to neutrality on questions of right and wrong, but society cannot survive on such neutrality.”

Here, Oaks suggests, as I understand this statement, that the study of religion is happening at universities, specifically the study of radical Islamic groups and the “political influence of some religious organizations.” He acknowledges, however, that it is “unrealistic” to expect universities to teach “moral values.” Homes, churches, and church schools are necessary for this, and nothing less than the survival of society rests on the success of these institutions. Why exactly it is unrealistic, Oaks does not say. Neither does he suggest that in today’s pluralistic environment, the teaching of one particular faith in a university is a bad idea, or undesirable.

I find several of these claims to be very interesting, and regret that they weren’t fleshed out more. These polemical jabs at secular universities are all the more interesting since they appear to be entirely extraneous to the main points of the talk as well as the intended purpose of the forum. Oaks has recently deployed familiar culture war rhetoric on other topics such as religion in the public square and of course on marriage, some of which he repeated at Harvard tonight. Yet, I am unaware of him previously taking up the cry against secular education, lamenting the lack of Christian moral teaching in universities.

I am particularly interested in the nostalgia for a time when Christian “religion” was taught, as the only sure source of societal survival. Oaks seems to suggest that not only is the lack of teaching about Christianity to blame, but that any other religion would be insufficient to teach students about “moral values.” What moral values is he referring to exactly? If the survival of society is threatened by university educations which fail to inculcate these moral values, what specifically is he referring to? Is he committing to a view that social survival is only possible where Christian moral values are taught?

On the heals of the Newsweek article mentioned above, which suggested that Harvard should include a more high-profile study of religion, dismissing the Harvard Divinity School as full of “believers,” Elder Oaks offers a critique from a different direction. While the specific claims of the Newsweek article are almost all suspect, from the characterization of the resources available to study religion at Harvard, to the details of the curricular issues at stake and administrative issues in making a department of religion at Harvard, the emphasis that Harvard students should study religion is something few could disagree with. But this is not what Oaks has in mind. For the author of the Newsweek article, it is knowledge about other religions that is key to social stability in our current world: “Any resolution of these conflicts will have to come from people who understand how religious belief and practice influence our world.”

Oaks, however, takes a different tack, suggesting that the study about religions is ultimately insufficient for the survival of society, and that such a stance constitutes a threat that can only be counterbalanced by the teaching of religion, if not in universities, than in churches.

It is interesting to contrast these two messages about how society will survive vis a vis religion. For the Newsweek article, knowing about religion, what motivates people, and an awareness of the values (“morals?”) of religious people is a necessary aspect of leadership in society. For Oaks, an awareness of these things is not valued at all since it implies a dangerous neutrality. Rather, it is living the moral values of Christianity that is necessary for the survival of society. Are such ways of seeing religion as incommensurate as both views suggest?

http://chronicle.com/article/Reactions-Is-Tenure-a-Matter/64321/

Thoughts?

These are issues that LDSs have different views on. Leaders throughout the history of the Church have also expressed a variety of views in responding to these kinds of questions. The fact that 2 different LDSs can hold opposing views about these issues and both still be considered “faithful” is a primary reason that some see Mormonism as having postmodern tendencies.

“Postmodern”, of course, could mean a number of things; but when people use it in this case I take it to highlight the degree of interpretive “openness” within the tradition. In other words, multiple–often contradictory–viewpoints are taken as permissible within the same community. The contours of LDS belief are postmodern in the sense that no one narrative rigorously systematizes these diverse viewpoints.

Not everyone, of course, agrees. What I want to highlight in this post is the tension between the points of disagreement. There is a glaring conflict between claims of LDS openness and the degree to which alternative views on these kinds of topics are actually welcomed in church settings. In other words, one would think that a tradition that allows a diversity of views on things as important as the nature of God would tolerate the expression of this openness. On the contrary, properly following the manuals usually entails suppressing it. It seems as if this kind of openness, while permissible, is not welcomed.

There are a number of reasons for this tension. In searching for a way to describe it, I propose to use the term “imposed openness”. An imposed openness occurs when a variety of viewpoints are deemed acceptable, but the situation is not desirable by the community of interpreters. In this case, I don’t think that most LDSs believe that there are in fact multiple correct points of view on these issues. Ultimately speaking these questions do have answers, and there is not more than one right answer. Unfortunately, our position as human beings with limited capacity for understanding and limited knowledge of the situation entails that we only grope after the solution to these questions. Openness, therefore, is a result of our ignorance or the limits of our knowledge; and is not something purposefully sought out. Our openness is imposed, therefore, by the constraints of our circumstances and not because our theology desires it. Ontologically speaking, most LDSs do not believe that multiple views on these important issues is permissible. While we should be satisfied with permissibility (perhaps throughout our mortal lives), we must not equate this with an endorsement that there are multiple correct beliefs, or multiple truths.

While I do not share some of these views, I think this analysis captures the crux of an important problem–ontologically speaking most LDSs are not postmodernists; and while many permit an openness of views on some very important issues, many of them will tend to do so begrudgingly as nothing more than the result undesirable circumstances attributed to the limits of our understanding. As such, we shouldn’t be surprised that expressions of this openness will continue to be unwelcome in church settings.

5 And when thou prayest thou shalt not do as the hypocrites, for they love to pray, standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

These two verses remind my wife and I of arguments for school prayer. They rarely have anything to do with humble communication with God. Instead, they are about using prayer to make a political statement.

Am I painting advocates of school prayer in an inaccurate light? Probably. Having grown up in a place with considerable religious diversity, I have never been comfortable with public religion. I am not talking about public expressions of religion, but instead public endorsements of religion. Such endorsements violate the social contract that makes it possible for a community with such pluralism to exist.

Those who use of prayer for political points will have surely have their reward.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is God’s power for salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first, as well as the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith(fullness) for faith(fullness), as it has been written, ‘(and) the Righteous One/righteous will live through faith(fullness).’  -Romans 1.16-17 [1]

Few passages in the New Testament have elicited more debate throughout the centuries than Romans 1.16-17 and its explanatory corollary passages in Romans 3 and 5. Standing towards the beginning of perhaps Paul’s greatest letter, Romans 1.16-17 is the formulaic prelude to a dense discussion which follows in subsequent chapters. It is the author’s contention that the most adequate understanding of Paul’s writings follows from the recent insights of what has been termed the “New Perspective on Paul” (hereafter NPP).[2] Although not a univocal movement, the NPP is a revolution in Pauline scholarship which began in the late 1970’s following E.P. Sander’s major publication Paul and Palestinian Judaism, seeking to place Paul and his writings back in their proper historical context: namely that of first century Judaism(s).[3] Dislodging Paul from later Augustinian and Reformed interpretations that portray Paul as though he were fighting against Pelagius, Erastus, or the Catholic Church, the NPP has brought to the fore important components of Pauline thought that have been previously neglected—or simply misunderstood—not least of which is Paul’s discussion the dikaiosune theou, the “righteousness of God.”

To understand Paul’s writings, one must first understand his personal background and the socio-historical context of his writings. Paul was born a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised on the eighth day of his life, belonged to the Pharisaic party, and claimed to have followed the “traditions of my fathers” more passionately than any of his contemporaries, even stating that he was “blameless” according to the “righteousness” that could be found under the Torah/Law (Philippians 3.4-6; Rom. 9.1-5; Gal. 1.14; 2.15). His zeal for Torah led him to fight against the “church of God” (Gal. 1.13). However, he abruptly became its greatest advocate after he received “the benefaction of God”[4] (1 Cor. 15.8-10) when God “[revealed] his Son” (Gal. 1:16), the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, to him in a revelatory vision (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1-2). Following this vision Paul became a powerful advocate for Gentile Christianity, often combating within early Christianity alternative viewpoints that tried to disavow Gentiles Christians full admittance into the Church unless they first followed Torah proscriptions, such as circumcision and dietary laws.[5]

However, despite his revolutionary change from strict Torah observance to his new-found Christian “freedom” (Gal. 2.4), much of Paul’s personality and religious worldview remained the same.[6] Scholars now almost universally recognize this point,[7] which is foundational for all further discussion. For instance, Paul quotes often from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, displaying his underlying assumption that they are still authoritative texts for interpreting the God of Israel’s past and present will and actions. He likens his call as an apostle to a prophetic calling (Gal. 1.15-16; cf. Isa. 49.1; Jer. 1.5);[8] in fact, he appears to understand his mission as apostle to the Gentiles as shaped around passages in Isaiah that display the Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel (Rom. 15.21; cf. Isa. 52.15).[9] His devotion for Torah has now become his devotion to the proclamation of the Christian gospel.[10] His worldview remains dominated by the Jewish mentality of division between Jews and Gentiles, between the God of Israel and the pagan gods of corrupted humanity (Rom. 1.16; 9.24; 1 Cor. 1.22-25; 10.32, etc.).[11] His religious thought is dominated by an apocalyptic understanding of the Messiah (the Messiah being a decidedly Jewish eschatological hope), and the future judgment of the world (e.g., 2 Cor. 5.10; Rom. 2.3-11).[12] His theology is constructed around the understanding that God’s relationship with humanity is founded upon covenant agreements, especially God’s covenants with Abraham.[13] In fact, his arguments in Galatians and Romans are primarily shaped around explicating this covenant and its present purposes (see for instance, Gal. 3-5; Rom. 4-11). Many other such points could be listed. Simply, Paul’s concerns are the concerns of first century Judaism, but have been uniquely reformulated in result of his revelatory vision that prompted his newfound understanding that in Jesus of Nazareth God revealed his saving plan to the entire world, not just to those of Jewish heritage.[14]

With this basic understanding of the man who penned the letter to the Romans, our first question should thus be: What would a first-century Jew or Jewish Christian have understood by the phrase “the righteousness of God”? This phrase occurs throughout the Septuagint (LXX), and typically refers to God’s covenant faithfulness—especially within the Psalms and Isaiah, both of which were frequently quoted or alluded to by early Christians, including Paul.[15] That is, it is typically employed to express God’s own faithfulness to his covenants. According to Richard Hays:

God’s righteousness is manifest in his resolute faithfulness to the covenant with Israel. Indeed, in the lament Psalms, the Psalmist can frequently appeal to God’s righteousness as a way of invoking the…covenant blessing (cf. Ps 31:1; 71:2)… [God's righteousness] characterizes not merely an abstract attribute of God, but [a specific] aspect of the divine character made manifest in the action of claiming and delivering Israel.[16]

Before proceeding further, however, it must be understood that “righteousness language” as a theological concept within biblical literature (including Paul) and Second-Temple Judaism has its roots in the metaphor of the law courts of ancient Israel.[17] In ancient Israel, the law court was where the plaintiff or defendant would be vindicated, or declared “righteous,” after the trial had been heard by a judge. The righteousness at stake for the defendant or plaintiff is that of a status (not necessarily a judgment of the moral state of the individual) after the trial has concluded which declares them to be in the right.[18] The righteousness at stake for the judge, however, is not a status, but a quality of impartiality and commitment to fairness that he uses in deciding the case.[19] It is clear within this context that when calling the judge “righteous” or the defendant or plaintiff “righteous,” two quite different meanings are being posited. It is a conflation of usage to suggest that the judge has imputed or imparted his own righteousness to the defendant or plaintiff after a case has been decided, as if righteousness is a substance that can be transferred from one to another; nor does it make any sense to say that the judge has a status of righteousness after the trial has been concluded. Simply, the judge’s “righteousness” and the plaintiff’s or defendant’s “righteousness” are different categorically.[20] This point will become important when analyzing the history of interpretation of Paul’s use of dikaiosune theou in Romans.[21]

One more critical point must also be understood concerning “righteousness/justification” language (both “just” and “righteous” in English [and their other related forms] translate just one word [and their related forms] in Greek and Hebrew) and the theological metaphor of the law court—it only makes sense when the understanding of God’s righteousness (as judge) is firmly fixed within the understanding of the covenant with Israel.[22] For it is within the analogy of the law court that the apocalyptic judgment of God upon the nations (Gentiles) will occur, and within which God’s vindication of Israel is often portrayed within the biblical texts (especially Isaiah and Psalms).[23] For instance: Israel has been constantly oppressed throughout her history by the gentile nations (whether depicted as the Assyrians, Babylonians, or, for first century Judaism, Rome), and seeks vindication in God’s metaphorical law court by bringing a suit against them (in some alternative instances, interestingly, it is instead YHWH who brings a suit against Israel for unfaithfulness; this “covenant lawsuit” motif is found often in biblical literature. [see Hosea 4.1-3; 12.2; Isaiah 3.13-15; Micah 6.1-8]).[24] Often in this scenario Israel (as plaintiff) seeks to be acquitted—declared “righteous” or vindicated—as God’s true people on the grounds of God’s own faithfulness to the covenant that he had graciously made with them. If Israel truly is God’s chosen community as he has promised and declared, then his righteousness—his resolute faithfulness to this covenant to deliver Israel and honor his covenant with them—they believe, will assure them their victory in court.[25]

As mentioned, however, Israel has been oppressed by foreign nations throughout her history. Has God, therefore, been unfaithful to his covenant? Has the honor of his name been destroyed for withholding his judgment on the Gentiles and allowing his own people to be oppressed? Prophetic interpreters, such as Hosea and Jeremiah, stated that Israel had often been allowed to be afflicted because of her sinfulness—for having been unfaithful to the Mosaic Covenant charter, the Torah.[26] The question thus arose following the annihilation of the Israelite monarchy and state in 586 BCE: would Israel ever be vindicated? Had God permanently abandoned Israel on account of her metaphorical “adultery” (for the analogy of Israel’s unfaithfulness to YHWH as adultery in biblical literature, see Hos. 1-3; Jer. 2.2; 3.1-5, 19-20; Ezek. 16; Is. 5.1-7; 62.5)? According to Richard Hays, following the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, the question of the continuing validity of God’s prior covenants with Israel became of paramount importance to explain, and it was to “God’s [own] righteousness”—the dikaiosune theou—that Israel’s hopes would appeal: “…In Deutero-Isaiah, God’s righteousness becomes the ground and content of an eschatological hope for the setting right of human historical experience: despite present appearances to the contrary, God will reveal his righteousness in a way which will vindicate Israel’s trust in him, thus leading all nations to acknowledge his cosmic lordship.” [27]

It is within this context of the metaphor of the law court and the hope of Israel’s future vindication on account of God’s own righteousness that Paul’s purposes for Romans should be grounded. Second Temple Judaism (including what would become the Christian movement) often expressed their future hope for the vindication of Israel through their eschatological views of the coming Messiah.[28] But if Israel already had a hope for the future deliverance of Israel (a hope based upon God’s righteousness and covenant promises, and which would manifest itself in a deliverer Messiah), what is Paul then seeking to defend God’s righteousness and the covenant against in Romans? Here we encounter head on Paul’s contention with those in the early Christian movement who sought to make Gentile converts conform to Torah obligations before allowing them full participation within the Christian community.[29] If Paul’s position is that Gentile converts do not need to follow Torah restrictions to be allowed full fellowship/table participation in the covenant community, has God been unfaithful to ethnic Israel which had been historically defined around the Mosaic covenant and its subsequent Torah obligations? It is to explain how God has both been faithful to the Mosaic covenant contracted with Israel and yet allowed Gentiles into the covenant community without first conforming to Torah obligations that much of Paul’s argument in Romans is focused according to the NPP.[30] For Paul, God’s honor and faithfulness to the covenant with Israel is not in question, for he has not abandoned her or his covenants with her, but has now instead reconstituted the true people of God—the true “Israel”—in the new Christian community, whose covenant charter is the “Torah (nomou) of faith” (Rom 3.27), not the Mosaic Torah.

God’s righteousness—his resolute covenant faithfulness to assure Israel’s hope of vindication—has been manifested apart from the Law (Rom. 3.28)—that is, the Torah—by sending Jesus to redeem all humanity (thus destroying Israel’s true oppressors, not Babylon or Rome, but sin and death) and to redefine God’s chosen community. For Paul, Israel had missed her vocation, namely to be that of a light to the world and to declare to the Gentiles through her example that the God of Israel’s dominion is all pervasive.[31] They had misunderstood all along the original covenant with Abraham (a covenant which, importantly, did not function under later Mosaic Torah obligations), which was destined to redeem all of humanity—not just ethnic Israel.[32] God, according to Paul, has acted to do just that in Jesus the Messiah. God’s righteousness is now apart from Torah, for it is not Torah that now defines or identifies who is truly member of “Israel.”

Before proceeding further, it might be helpful to clarify the Torah’s relationship to the covenant. This is another place where the NPP has helped to shed significant light on Pauline studies. As E.P. Sanders originally stated:

The all-pervasive view [of Judaism] can be summarized in the phrase ‘covenantal nomism’. Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression…obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.[33]

Sanders summarizes:

…covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God‟s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.[34]

Simply stated, Torah obligations were not usually viewed by early Jews, including Paul, as a means of earning salvation; rather one kept the Torah as the proper response to the salvific covenant offered by God to Israel. Unfortunately, later interpreters such as Augustine and Luther have misunderstood this crucial point, and in so doing have often presented Paul as antagonistic to the Torah, or as refuting (anachronistically) some form of moral legalism that seeks to earn God’s salvific favor. Rather, Paul is arguing that Torah obligations are no longer the means of maintaining the covenant and identifying who is already a part of true Israel.[35] The true community is no longer identified and no longer maintains the covenant based upon Mosaic Torah obligations as a proper response to God’s covenant love, but now instead keeps the “Torah of faith” (Rom. 3.27).

This foundational discussion of God’s righteousness and the relationship of Torah to the Mosaic Covenant will now allow us to understand properly what Paul’s use of another technical term—“justification”—meant. In Romans, as has been noted, Paul’s main purpose is to explain how God has accepted Gentile Christians as part of the true community of God without having to maintain Torah regulations. Paul’s point is that the true covenant community is no longer outwardly defined or identified only by those who are of Jewish ethnicity and practice strict Torah obedience—for God has now redefined the community around those who believe through “Christ’s faith(fulness)” (Rom. 3.22, 25-26). “Justification” as a technical term is about explaining how one is identified as a member within the collective covenant community (i.e., the Christian church, the new Israel); it is not used to denote how an individual somehow receives their future “salvation” in the present, or forgiveness of sins for that matter.[36] Paul is not using “justification” as a technical term to explain how a sinner is ultimately found to be worthy to dwell in God’s presence, and he is certainly not using “justification” as a term to explain how one is saved by God’s grace as opposed to those who try to “merit” their own future salvation and right standing with God. For both Paul, and Jews at large, earning ones salvation was not a concern. However, defining who God’s true people were in the present was always a pressing issue for both Jews and early Christians.[37] “Justification” as a technical term is concerned with identifying/defining those who are in the present members of God’s true corporate covenant community, those who can anticipate God’s future vindication conditional upon their continuing faithful obedience to the covenant and their future eschatological judgment. And for Paul it is those who “believe” through “Christ’s faith(fulness)” that have this covenant identification. Christian “faith” for Paul is, as N.T. Wright has stated, a “badge” identifying them as a member of God’s people, just as faithful adherence to Torah prescriptions had been in the past a means of identifying God’s chosen group.[38]

Returning now to the original phrase under discussion, it is quite clear that when dikaiosune theou is taken as referring to God’s own righteousness, Paul quickly becomes dislodged from later Augustinian and Reformed readings that make his discussion of the “righteousness of God” in Romans the antidote to Pelagianism or the teachings of the medieval Catholic Church which (according to Luther) stressed “works righteousness,” seeking to merit God’s salvific favor and grace. Rather, by placing Paul’s writings in their proper first century context, it becomes clear that the dikaiosune theou is a subjective and/or possessive genitival construction referring back to God himself—it is God’s own righteousness that is being discussed in Paul’s writings in terms of his covenant faithfulness (possessive genitive) and his closely related acts of covenant faithfulness (subjective genitive).[39] Because Lutheran, Reformed, and Augustinian readings have most often erroneously taken Paul’s discussion of the righteousness of God as the terminology for how a human can come to stand in God’s holy presence, they have instead turned the phrase “righteousness of God” into a genitive of origin (making “righteousness” an “imparted” or “imputed” status given to humans that declares them “righteous”) or an objective genitive (denoting righteousness as a “quality” that some humans have [or are given from God] that God recognizes as effectual).[40] However, Paul is simply not addressing how an individual sinner is accounted as “saved” when he discusses the “righteousness of God” (or when he uses “justification” language for that matter). God’s righteousness (as judge) simply is not a transferable substance or  legal fiction that is “imparted” or “infused” for/to/into humans to make them worthy to dwell in God’s heavenly presence. As N.T. Wright has stated, “The Jewish context…creates such a strong presumption in favour [sic] of [righteousness as referring to God himself] that it could only be overthrown if Paul quite clearly argued against it.”[41] As Richard Hays has summarized the situation:

Once it is recognized that “the righteousness of God” in Romans is deliberately explicated in terms of this covenant conceptuality, it becomes apparent that the term refers neither to an abstract ideal of divine distributive justice nor to a legal status or moral character imputed or conveyed by God to human beings. It refers rather to God’s own unshakable faithfulness…Insofar as “righteousness” may be ascribed to human beneficiaries of God’s grace…this righteousness should be interpreted primarily in terms of the covenant relationship to God and membership within the covenant community…”Righteousness” refers to God’s covenant-faithfulness which declares persons full participants in the community of God’s people. This declaration has a quasi-legal dimension, but there is no question here of a legal fiction whereby God juggles his heavenly account books and pretends not to notice human sin. The legal language points rather to the formal inclusion of those who once were “not my people” in a concrete historical community of the “sons of the living God” (Rom. 9.25-26)[42]

Romans is thus a nuanced explanation of how God has been faithful in his own righteousness to his past covenants to redeem the world, and how one defines the true” Israel”, or community of God. It is not an argument for how to combat those who try to approve themselves worthy of a right relationship with God through works. Rather, the works Paul discusses are those of the Mosaic Torah, by which devoted Pharisees—and Paul had said he had been a “blameless” Pharisee—identified who was truly a member of the covenant community in the here and now.[43] By admitting that Paul’s primary concern is how Gentiles can have full table fellowship with fellow Jewish Christians and be considered “Abraham’s children” (Gal. 3. 29; cf. Rom. 4-8) the depths of Paul’s writings are released.

[2] Many of the world’s foremost biblical scholars are major proponents of the NPP. See: E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns in Religion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1977); Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1983); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990); The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998); N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said: Was St. Paul the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997); “The Letter to the Romans.” New Interpreters Bible, Volume X. Ed. Leander E .Keck. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002); Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philidelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976).  See also Ben Witherington’s Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004).

[3] For a simple introduction to historical scholarships’ views on Paul as well as the beginning of the NPP and its aims, see N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 7-23. That we can only really speak of first century Judaisms, see pg. 78 specifically.

[4] Here I have followed the suggested translation of Zeba Cook in “The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 2 (2001-05): 9-26 (as cited in Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of Go, Volume 2 (SLC, UT: Kofford Books, 2004), 293, 306), whose explanation of the translation of 1 Cor. 15.10 is as follows: “The typical translation of charis as “grace” obscures the clear connection that Paul draws between the reception of the vision and the charis that makes him what he is. While, as a translation, “grace” has pleasant theological nuances, it hardly reflects the meaning the word has in the context in which it functions, namely that of divine patronage. Instead, translating charis in a way that Paul’s contemporaries would have understood the term brings this verse into startling relief: “By the benefaction of God I am what I am, and his benefaction which was given to me was not in vain, but I toiled beyond all of them, not I but the benefaction of God which is with me”(1 Cor. 15.10).”

[5] Although this point is likely obvious from a simple reading of Galatians and Romans, see anyway Bart Ehrman’s introductory discussion of the Letter to the Galatians in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 331-340.

[6] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 25-37; and John W. Drane’s article “Paul” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Eds. Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 576-579.

[7] Ibid. So specifically claims N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 20.

[8] Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 87-93. Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philidelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976), 7-23.

[9] Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 78.

[10] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 39-40.

[11] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 29-35, 79-94; Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; and Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93.

[12] Ibid. For the role of the Messiah among various Jewish and early Christian groups see Bart Ehrman The New Testament, 68.

[13] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 29-35; Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; and Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93.

[14] For a fuller discussion of Paul’s Jewishness as laid out here, see Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93. Such works are of course heavily indebted to the foundational studies of W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism; Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: S.P.C.K., 1955), and E.P. Sanders revolutionary work Paul and Palestinian Judaism. For a good, although brief, introduction into Paul’s pre-Christian background and the affects it had upon his subsequent Christian life and thought, see again N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 25-37, as well as the subsequent chapters which systematically flesh out Paul’s modified Jewish views and mentality in light of his revelatory experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus. See also Bart Ehrman’s discussion of Paul’s newfound views in consequence of his vision in The New Testament, 293-301.

[15] At least 107 direct quotations of the Hebrew Bible appear in Paul’s writings, many of which belong to the Psalms and Isaiah. See M. Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, Eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 631.

[16] See Richard B. Hay’s article “Justification” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 3. Ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 1129. See also the discussion of Ben Witherington in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 52-56.

[17] For a discussion of the metaphorical law court in which righteousness language is couched, see: N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 96-99.

[18] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 98-99.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] For how this plays out in the history of interpretation, see N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 100-103, 113-117, 118-120, 125-133.

[22] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pgs. 95-99.

[23] Ibid. Also, see Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” pg. 1129-1133.

[24] See Michael Coogan’s The Old Testament A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 323; also pgs. 321-325.

[25] For a discussion of the biblical eschatological judgment and the analogy of the law court as described in this paragraph, see again N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pgs. 96-99.

[26] For and introduction to Hosea and Jeremiah see Michael Coogan, The Old Testament, 321-325 and 366-376, respectively.

[27] Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” 1129.

[28] For the role of the Messiah among various Jewish and early Christian groups see Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 68. For instance, the Qumran community had hopes of two future Messiah’s, one political and the other priestly. Their own conception was that their community was actually the true Israel. Much of their literature also expresses the apocalyptic view of the coming eschatological judgment of the nations. See the lengthy introduction of Geza Vermes in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Classics, 2004).

[29] Ben Witherington on page 3 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans has correctly noted, however, that there are no direct indications that Paul is critiquing specific Jewish Christians in Rome who are trying to make Gentile Christians follow Torah laws, and that, therefore, this letter is not a polemic against them, but rather simply an explanation or exhortation based on God’s righteousness. Even though this letter is not necessarily directed against Jewish Christians at Rome and shouldn’t be regarded as a polemic against them as such, it is of course important to note that much of Paul’s thought expressed in this letter certainly developed in such engagements (cf. Galatians) and clearly cannot be completely divorced from such contexts.

[30] Again, see representative NPP scholarship on Paul’s historical context and Romans in such works as: James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said; “The Letter to the Romans,” in the New Interpreters Bible, Vol. X. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002); Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles.

[31] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 33, 84-85, 106.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 75, 420. Emphasis in the original has been removed.

[34] Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 422.

[35] Ibid.

[36] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 118-133.

[37] See the discussion in N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 25-30, 31, 32-35. Wright convincingly argues that proper keeping of Torah was seen as the way in which many Jews in the present could be identified (or self-identified) as part of the true Israel, as those who could anticipate future vindication conditional on their continuing faithfulness to the covenant obligations as defined by the Torah. Divisions within Judaism(s), therefore, often centered on what constituted proper “Torah keeping,” and not about how one is to enter the covenant.

[38] N.T. Wright,What Paul Really Said, 132.

[39] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 100-103.

[40] Ibid.

[41] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg. 103.

[42] Richard B. Hays,”Justification,” 1133.

[43] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 118-133.

For the first time in four years, I am not an employee of Brigham Young University-Idaho. This post, despite being about the political clubs at BYU-Idaho, is not a political post, but instead a post about BYU-Idaho. For the first time, I feel that I can freely discuss this situation. It was discussed last year both at A Soft Answer and at Millennial Star.

The College Republicans and the College Democrats are a standard feature at most college campuses. At Ricks College and then later BYU-Idaho, the College Republicans were at time a huge and active club, while the College Democrats was a much smaller, though tight, group. I have had interaction with both. I was a College Republican at Ricks before my mission. I was an exciting time. That Fall, the Republican Gingrich revolution swept both houses of the Congress. I was elected to be one of the vice-presidents for the following year, but instead decided to go on my mission rather than return for my sophomore year. When I returned from my mission, I was again elected to a leadership post…though I would no longer be a Republican by the end of the year.

I returned to Rexburg in 2006 as a visiting member of the faculty. I attended some of the meetings of the College Democrats and gave a couple of guest lectures. When the previous advisors sent out an email in late 2008 looking for volunteers to take over the responsibility, I volunteered. I was excited, the College Dems were a thoughtful group of kids who enjoyed discussing politics and policy. I actually tried to get them to be a bit more partisan. Most of all, I tried to get them to stop apologizing for being Democrats.

In March, I got wind that the University was up to something in relation to the clubs. A meeting was scheduled with the administrator over student activities. We were informed that the President’s council had decided to abolish the club be they violated the University’s neutrality policy which pretty much banned any and all political activity on campus. The neutrality policy is more of an anti-politics policy. I understand why the University would want to be viewed as neutral. Yet, this policy sought primary to keep the stain of politics off the BYU-Idaho campus.

The problems that led to the dissolution of these clubs had little to do with the College Democrats. We were pretty passive. The College Republicans were very aggressive. They sent students all over the country for campaign excursions. Their membership approached 200 students during elections seasons. They even did very creepy things, like holding affirmative action bake sales.
The death nail came when they invited Lt. Gov. Larry Risch to speak to the club when he was running for the U.S. Senate seat he now holds. Local political extremist Rex Rammell threw a tantrum. We were all toast. The administration, which did not like our presence on campus as it was, now had the motivation it needed to expand the neutrality policy to include a ban on the political clubs.

The College Republicans now meet off campus. Most of College Dems have put their energies into other clubs, including the new non-partisan public policy society.

What drives me crazy about this change is not so much that the clubs contributed so much to the campus, but that the administration did it rather arbitrarily. They just did not like the clubs. The reason for this dislike is that they do not see how such clubs translate into jobs in the business world. It is part of an overall anti-liberal arts attitude at BYU-Idaho. This attitude causes me to worry about the education being offered at BYU-Idaho and the future of what is called the “Spirit of Ricks.” I have fond feelings towards my Ricks College experience. I loved my students, many of whom are doing great things and going to good graduate programs. Yet, this action against the political clubs is one reason that I fear that the Spirit of Ricks may be dying and the spirit of corporate America is replacing it.

I am holding on to that box of College Democrat items for a bit longer. It is a symbol of the BYU-Idaho College Democrats –in-exile.

The class I teach is for high school juniors and seniors. We have a discussion-oriented class. They have had these stories before in seminary and elsewhere. They know the details of the scriptural narrative better than I do. As a result, we have been able to discuss applications and potential meanings of different concepts. It has gone really well (which is my way of saying that I have enjoyed the last few months).

Yet, I have a problem. I do not believe that the flood in the story of Noah covered the entire earth. I do not view this as a big deal. Whether the entire world was flooded or not is not the point of the story. I view the story as being one about obedience and separating ourselves from the world (something like that).

However, I have a few questions about how I will deal with this in my lesson.

Should I mention my interpretation of the flood?

It is not necessary for me to do so. Yet, I am planning on making some comment about it not mattering whether the flood covered the whole world or not. Here I worry that I might be doing this for my own purposes and not out of love.

Does it matter how anyone, including my students and myself, view the flood?

No. It does not really matter. Additionally, I feel no need to disabuse anyone of their view of the flood. I am not claiming that I am right and that they are wrong. I just do not think that the earth was entirely flooded. I think it is great that others think differently than I do.

What has me thinking about this is a recent Facebook interaction with a former member of the Church. He is now a proud atheist and claims to only take “scientific” approach to the world (he in fact has a high school level of the scientific method which he thinks is clever. At every chance he seeks to tear down the beliefs of the Mormon’s he knows (including his family).
While I am very secular in some senses, I cannot relate to this. While I do not view things in a particularly orthodox way, I do not mind if others do. I just hope they give me the same benefit of the doubt.

As a teacher in the Sunday School, I do hope that my students will think about these things, particularly if they have not done so in the past. However, what they think is up to them. They are a great group of kids. I hope not to do anything that messes that up.