In joining »faith« to »faithfulness« Wright construes faith as fundamentally active. For this reason, »faith« for him serves as a »sign,« »emblem,« or »badge,« a visible mark of the Christian. Precisely here Wright sets himself at odds with the apostle, for whom faith remains fundamentally passive and hidden, even though it is operative in the whole of life.
God alone sees the hidden Jew and the circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:29). The obedience of faith is an obedience of reeeption that no longer seeks to secure life and righteousness by Performance, but simply grasps the divine word that announces the Christ who is present in the Gospel. All distance between God and the human being, between our present state and final justification, has been spanned by the crucified and risen Lord. Ironically, in his active conception of faith that sets distance between the human being and God, Wright meets his bete noire, Rudolf Bultmann. While Bultmann internalizes faith in existential decision, Wright externalizes it in the outward badge of faith(fulness). For Paul, faith is God’s creation. Both Wright and Bultmann turn faith into a moral demand that must be actualized, and thereby lose God’s absolute, unqualified gift of himself to us in Christ. Consequently, neither of them has a taste for the cross as a »great pleasure of our existence.«
Nicely put. There’s more. Here.
I’m sure you have occasion to be right in places, but on my reading of Wright, he seems on most occasions to emphasize the “faithfulness” of Christ, rather than our faithfulness. Faith is indeed the beautiful gift of God, but it is pursuant to it’s object (not abstracted faith for faith’s sake, but faith in the Faithfulness of Christ). Faith/faithfulness as a marker is indeed a fruit of being “in Christ.” Wright, to my reading, is never arguing that it is a matter of earning, but rather an identification of our new found status “in Christ.” You will never find someone in Christ who has no faith, it is the gift of faith that identifies us together as belonging to Christ.
your argument isnt with me, it’s with the essayist
Sorry, I assumed you agreed with the essayist’ argument since you said “nicely put.” My bad.
oh i do. but youre argument is still with him.
‘Faith/faithfulness as a marker is indeed a fruit of being “in Christ.”‘ -Adam
The confusion remains, then. Is it faith or faithfulness that is this marker, or both together, or one implying the other, or either construed as the other? All of these require a synthesis of belief and human action. All of them are therefore Tridentine.
“All of these require a synthesis of belief and human action. All of them are therefore Tridentine.”~Emerson
If there is no synthesis of belief and action, faith and faithfulness, I would hardly say we have belief at all (in the New Testament sense, Pauline and otherwise). As a Protestant, I prefer not to think about the implications from James as Tridentine
I guess I just fail to understand what is meant by faith as a marker if there is no implication for faithfulness emerging from the gifts of faith and the Holy Spirit. I suppose you could argue that there is no need for a marker at all, but if that’s the case, why is Paul consistently giving indications of the fruit (faithfulness) borne by those who will inherit the kingdom.
Thanks for critical response though, keep um coming. Sorry for monopolizing your blog, Jim. Glad I stumbled upon it the other day.