Confession time: this is my first encounter with Alister McGrath. Some would say I was in for a treat. I was. The Passionate Intellect is essentially a series of related essays by McGrath which have been reworked to accommodate a book format. Because this work first existed as a set of separate essays, the theme seems, at first, to be rather broad; beginning with a discussion of theology, moving into Darwinian science, and finishing (not rounding) things off with a rebuttal of Dawkins and Hitchens New Atheism.

As someone who is most interested in theology, I found myself most captivated in the first third of The Passionate Intellect. There McGrath warns against the dangers of theoretical theology which remains in the head and halls of academia, but fails to have an impact on society. He argues that in order for theology to be good theology it must have a positive, or at least engaging, effect on culture and cultural trends.

With this in mind – almost as a case in point – McGrath turns his attention to the relationship science and religions have had over the years and graciously suggest a way forward. It is in this second third of The Passionate Intellect that McGrath has written an interesting article on Augustine and Evolution. He shows that Augustine’s approach to the first three chapters of Genesis made way for a reading of creation which accommodates theistic evolution. In is clear that this chapter is not written with the New Atheist in mind, but to the conservative evangelical who insists that Genesis 1-3 must be read through the literal six-day creation paradigm.

Finally McGrath turns his attention to the arguments of New Atheism and, bit by bit, shows the flawed assumptions and true roots which lay behind the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens and others. There can be little doubt, says McGrath, that there are no “new” arguments or evidence against religions by the New Atheist. The only new feature brought to the table is an almost religiously vehement hatred for any other religion – save their own.

My only real criticism of this work goes back to – interesting enough – his essay on Augustine. There seems to be an assumption McGrath makes which – frustratingly – is made repeatedly by theistic evolutionists or intelligent design defendants (Scot McKnight, Hugh Ross, Karl Giberson, Francis Collins et cetera). These authors attempt to (however gently sometimes) wrestle the so-called science reading of Genesis out of the anti-intellectual hands of Fundamentalists, as if the only concern someone might have for reading Genesis 1-3 literally were to preserve a literal reading of the account.

My own approach is to follow Henri Blocher’s literary reading which, in itself, does not rule out many literal elements.  But my primary concern for continuing to read Genesis in such a way as to believe – for example – in an original primeval couple, appropriately named Adam and Eve, and in an actual place called Eden, rests, not in an insistence of squaring natural science with the Biblical creation account. My primary concern is theological and cross centered. With such emphasis placed on theology as the catalyst to discussing such things as evolution and the New Atheism, I am disappointed that McGrath takes the turn that he does in his essay on Augustine without so much as to suggestion how an evolutionary worldview may square with a theology of the cross.

All and all I highly recommend this read.

“The concept of justification and the doctrine of justification must be carefully distinguished. The concept of justification is one of many employed within the Old and New Testament, particularly the Pauline corpus, to describe God’s saving action toward his people. It cannot lay claim to exhaust, nor adequately characterize in itself, the richness of the biblical understanding of salvation in Christ.” – Quoted in Wrights Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision, p.79

I’ll break here as Wright does just to highlight the obvious of what McGrath is getting at. The idea (or notion or thought) of Justification in the scriptures is that it is one (and only one) aspect of the salvation process. Justification is not synonymous with salvation (Justification ≠ Soteriology). McGrath continues…

“The doctrine of justification has come to develop a meaning quite independent of its biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man’s relationship to God is established. The church has chosen to subsume its discussion of the reconciliation of man to God under the aegis of Justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent from the New Testament. The ‘doctrine of Justification’ has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins.” – ibid, p.80

What McGrath seems to be saying is that we have a case of mistaken identity of which I am as guilty as anyone for perpetuating. I thought: “Justified by Faith” = “Saved by Faith”. And I was not alone. This case of mistaken identity is perpetuated almost every time the subject comes up in conversation. In chart format, the doctrine of Justification – if I understand McGrath correctly – is usually thought of like this:

So that just as we are “justified” by “faith in Jesus Christ” and not by observing the law in Galatians, we are “saved through faith” and “not from yourself” (or, “by our works”) in Ephesians. The doctrine of sola fide is thought of in such a way that Galatians 2:16 and Ephesians 2:8 are two different ways of saying the same thing and the terms used are interchangeable.

So does this biblical support for sola fide (the doctrine of Justification) dislodge McGrath’s analyses? Does it support the view that the doctrine of sola fide accurately depicts the biblical concept of Justification despite McGrath? Well that depends on how Galatians 2:16 (and Romans 3:22) translates the phrase pistis Christou? (Yes, the old “pistis Christou” debate.) Here are your options:

The difference between the New International Version and the International Standard Version in translating this passage is not something which someone can simply shrug their shoulders at. The difference is drastic and the message could not be more different. The NIV is teaching that we are justified by BELIEVING in Jesus Christ whereas the ISV is teaching that we are justified because of Jesus’ own FAITHFULNESS (i.e. “obedience” or “works”). The first (NIV) is teaching that we are not justified by works but by faith. (There is a dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) The second (ISV) is teaching that we are not justified by our works but by Christ’ works. (There is no dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) You can already see that there is more at stake here then just “justification”. Regardless, N.T. Wright affirms the ISV’s rendering over the NIV here:

“This theme makes it very likely, in my view, that when Paul speaks in Galatians and Romans of pistis Christou, he normally intends to denote the faithfulness of the Messiah to the purposes of God rather than the faith by which Jew and Gentile alike believe the gospel and so are marked out as God’s renewed people.” – Wright, Paul: In Perspective, p.47

So now a paradigm shift has taken place. Rather than viewing Galatians 2:16 as simply another way of saying the same thing as Ephesians 2:8, the two are no longer a match. The one (Galatians) teaches that you are Justified because of what Christ did for you on the cross (i.e. his “faithfulness” or “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) whereas the other (Ephesians) is teaching that you are saved by grace through faith (or “believing the gospel”). The chart format reflecting this new paradigm which confirms McGrath’s analysis and Wright’s understanding of Justification is this:

So what is the point? The point is that church doctrine has raised Justification up to be the center of Paul’s theology. It’s a categorical mistake with important implications. As Wright says:

“We find that [Justification], though it is indeed related closely to the whole theme of human salvation by God’s mercy and grace through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, does not denote that entire sequences of thought—so that to force it to do that is necessarily to invent all kinds of extra bells and whistles of which Paul was innocent—but rather denotes one specific aspect of or moment within that sequence of thought.” – Justification, p.87

In other words, the biblical concept of Justification is not central to Paul’s theology (as the church doctrine of sola fide has made it) and it is not synonymous with salvation. Rather the biblical concept of Justification nestles itself nicely within the broader Pauline category we have termed “Participation” or “Union with Christ” or simply: “in Christ”.