Allegiance or Faith?

 

Some reactions to Matthew Bates’ Salvation by Allegiance Alone & Gospel Allegiance.

Matthew Bates, associate professor of theology at Quincy University, has written two books (Salvation by Allegiance Alone and Gospel Allegiance) that argue for a change in the way Christians, especially Protestants, talk about faith, the Gospel, justification, and salvation. This is not a book review, but more of a theological reaction to Bates’ arguments. These are just short observations. Obviously, to do justice to these arguments would take an entire book or two, and that is just not going to happen.

First, the good.

 In both Salvation and Gospel Allegiance Bates lays out what he believes should be the actual content of the Church’s Gospel. His summary looks a great deal like Saint Paul’s summary in First Corinthians 15 and the second article of the Apostles’ Creed. This is a needed reminder that a preacher is not called merely to talk about the Gospel, but is actually to declare who Jesus is and what He has done—as a Lutheran, I am at pains to add— “for you”! At times pastors can fall into the habit of teaching the doctrine or the church to the exclusion of the words and actions of Jesus.

Another plus is Bates’ desire to reinvigorate the Ascension of our Lord as a (in his case the) central focus for the life of the Church. Ascension Day has historically been one of the high feast days on the Christian calendar. There are some great Ascension hymns, not to mention the comfort and encouragement that come from knowing that He who died and rose again for us also sits enthroned with all power in heaven and earth.

He overreaches here, attempting to assert the Ascension as the prominent or most relevant aspect of the Gospel for proclamation. I would argue that the passages which Bates uses to justify this claim all betray him. They all, in fact, point to the death and resurrection of Jesus (the cross) as the center and focus of the Christian life. While some of the summaries in the New Testament leave out various pieces of the Gospel, (the author of Hebrews famously skips from the death of Jesus to His ascension and Saint Paul leaves out the ascension in First Corinthians 15) they never leave out the cross. The ascension of Jesus becomes a terror without the cross. Suffering, death, and resurrection is also how Jesus summarizes His own mission.

Laying that aside, however, just look at the Gospels themselves. All 4 of the Evangelists include the death of Jesus. Only 2 (one, if you do not include the longer ending of Mark) recount His ascension. Obviously Matthew and John did not see the ascension of Jesus as equal to His death.   [Technically, this should be part of the bad, but it made more sense to include it here.]  

Bates also draws attention to allegiance, loyalty, and faithfulness as necessary virtues. This is a needed focus, especially in our day and age. Christians will be tempted to compromise their faith as the world around us becomes increasingly hostile to Biblical teaching. His ideas about using the Apostles' Creed as a Christian pledge of allegiance is headed in the right direction.

Unfortunately, this focus on allegiance is another one of the places where Bates overreaches. He has fallen for one of the classic blunders. The most well known is, “Never get involved in a land war in Asia.” But only slightly less known is this: NEVER MINGLE JUSTIFICATION WITH SANCIFICATION WHEN SALVATION IS ON THE LINE!

Now, the bad.

Bates argues that the Greek word pisits (typically translated into English as “faith” or “belief”) is better translated, especially in the writings of Saint Paul, as “allegiance”. This might have been an interesting nuance added to an old word. But Bates takes it too far. He insists that pistis is not a passive instrument to receive righteousness from God, but rather and active one to achieve it. (See “Faith Is Body Out” in Gospel Allegiance)

First, “faith” is able to capture more of the nuance of pistis even if (and that is a BIG IF) Bates is correct in his restructured doctrine of justification by faith. We can talk of “faith” as “fidelity”. We cannot speak of “allegiance” as “trust” or “belief”. It seems to me that the English word “faith” remains a better choice.

Second, while Bates freely admits that pistis does NOT always mean “allegiance”, he separates Saint Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith from Jesus’ own doctrine of salvation by faith. Bates is willing to allow that Jesus uses pistis as “trust”. This is good. Because what Jesus says repeatedly in the Gospels is that “your faith has saved you.” This comes typically after Jesus performs a healing or cleansing miracle. In this context it is obvious that He is speaking of their trust/faith in Him, not their allegiance to Him. Jesus is not merely indicating that these people are healed, but that they are saved. Their salvation has been received by faith/trust in Jesus. Saint Paul is not contradicting this teaching of Jesus, but rather highlighting it.

Third, Bates also fails to reckon with the passages in Saint Paul’s letters where faith is linked to the promise (especially Romans 4:13 and Galatians 3:18, 29). A promise does not elicit allegiance, but trust. The emphasis in these passages is that Abraham held on to the promise of God, he trusted that God would keep His Word. Indeed, Abraham is rather unfaithful to God (and His wife) at various points in Genesis. Yet he is reckoned righteous by faith/trust in the promise that God will bless the earth through Abraham’s offspring.   

Fourth, the Epistle of James (Luther’s infamous “straw gospel”) contradicts Bates’ notions about faith itself being an active, embodied thing. James writes that “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead…I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:17-18) While Bates tries to marshal this passage to his argument on page 166 of Gospel Allegiance the logic of the passage actually works against him. Bates wishes to show that faith necessarily does things. Faith must show its allegiance.

However, the logic of the passage is that faith itself cannot be seen outwardly because it is internal and invisible. In order for faith to be visible, works of love must be added. Works are not added for the sake of justification before God, but to show faith, which remains unseen, to the neighbor.

Ultimately this is a question about who gets the credit. Does God receive all the credit for sending Christ Jesus to suffer, die, and rise to reconcile the world (and me along with it) to God? And I receive this reconciliation only passively by faith? Or do I contribute my allegiance (loyalty, faithfulness) to the equation? Interestingly, Bates himself gives a clue to the right answer. On page 124 of Salvation he says, “The desire for an enumerated list (of loyal actions) is often indicative of one of two things: either a failure to know and trust the goodness of Jesus the king, or a what-can-I-get-away-with orientation.” (Emphasis mine)

Indeed, it all must begin with trusting the work of Jesus. Loyalty and allegiance grow out of trust, but trust comes first. Once the Holy Spirit has worked that trust within us, we will grow to be allegiant to Jesus our king. But that allegiance does not bring us into the kingdom. Rather, having been brought in by grace, we are all the more fiercely loyal.