Must I Be Impotent to be Empowered? (1)

One of my chief research interests involves New Testament soteriology and ethics, specifically in the Pauline writings and in 1 Peter. The following post addresses one of the persistent problems in soteriology and ethics: the relationship between divine and human agency. In other words, if God is the one who saves and empowers, am I left powerless in the whole process? Or maybe we work together (synergism)? I'm quite positive that my own power can't accomplish my salvation and right living (legalism), but I do sense that my choices and actions are free and that doing good requires a fair bit of my own will power. How does it all fit together?

I'll set the stage by recounting an important movement in biblical criticism, and I'll pick up the story in the year of my birth.

In 1979, E. P. Sanders redefined the "pattern of religion" typical of first-century Judaism. His important work challenged the gross caricature of Judaism as a legalistic religion. Instead, Judaism fit into what he called "covenantal nomism," a pattern of religion in which one "gets in" to the people of God by grace, but "stays in" by obedience to the law (to oversimplify his thesis). His findings had an immediate impact on Pauline studies. In Galatians, for example, whom is Paul battling? The letter had traditionally been understood as his strong rejection of Jewish legalism (righteousness from works of the law); but if Judaism isn't legalistic, then what's going on? Has Paul misunderstood his Jewish opponents? Or is legalism not the issue? Sanders' new understanding of Judaism demanded a reassessment of Paul's letters and his own pattern of religion.

Some argued that Paul himself adhered to a type of "covenantal nomism." He is a Jew, and his "conversion" to Christianity did not result in a major shift in his pattern of religion. Some important details may have changed, but the pattern remains the same. One still "gets in" to the people of God by grace (Gentiles included!), and one "stays in" by obedience to the law (which does not include Jewish identity markers like circumcision or food laws).

Others maintained that Paul's thought does not fit within the "covenantal nomism" pattern. Charles Talbert, my dissertation advisor, outlined a pattern of religion based on Pauline theology that he called "New Covenant Piety." In this pattern, one "gets in" by grace and "stays in" by grace. Obedience to the law of Christ is a requirement of staying among the people of God, but that obedience is empowered by the Spirit of God. God saves, and that involves both calling and empowering.

Talbert's proposal rings true to me and seems to best summarize Paul's theology (see Gal 2:20-21, my favorite verse in the NT if forced to pick one). And yet, almost every time I articulate "New Covenant Piety" to someone, I sense resistance. My interlocutors seem to balk because they sense NCP paints humans as completely passive agents, and that doesn't jive with their theology or their experience.

They're both right and wrong. Humans are not impotent in matters of soteriology and ethics, but we don't have to be impotent to be empowered. And I'm not advocating a kind of synergism in which I do my part, God does his part, and it all works out. God saves and empowers completely. And yet I'm not left a passive agent in the process.

Our misunderstanding of power confuses the issue. People chafe against the New Covenant Piety pattern of religion because they have (unconsciously) bought into the Competitive Power Rule (to borrow a phrase from another of my teachers, Ron Highfield). But more on that tomorrow. . . .