I am submitting a review for publication elsewhere so won't publish my full review here. These are more my off-the-cuff impressions. Suffice to say, I like this book a lot. Bates argues convincingly that Faith (Pistis) means allegiance to Jesus as the risen and reigning Christ. Therefore, understandings which problematize the relationship between faith and works miss the point. Loyalty to Christ demands we embody our faith by following Jesus' directives as our King. 

So while moral codes do not save us, allegiance to Christ does. And this demands our loyalty to Him in everything. 

This follows the trajectory of Wright, McKnight, Gorman and others but it is really refreshing for people overexposed to Reformed Evangelicals.

Matthew Bates thinks the understanding of salvation by faith is rooted in a poor choice of words to translate the idea of pistis in the Greek. A better understanding of this word might be “allegiance” or “faithfulness.” Part of the problem that he sees is a lack of focus on how the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension vindicate him as the King who has come and that the only appropriate response to this King is our full allegiance, both initially and through life, and that this restoration to our true allegiance is what constitutes our salvation which certainly includes pardon for our rebellious sin but encompasses so much more. Bates summarizes his case as follows:

“So, in the final analysis, salvation is by allegiance alone. That is, God requires nothing more or nothing less than allegiance to Jesus as king for initial, current, and final salvation. As such, while continuing to affirm the absolute centrality of the cross, the atonement, and the resurrection, the church must move away from a salvation culture that spins around the axis of ‘faith alone’ in the sufficiency of Jesus’s sacrifice. It must move toward a gospel culture that centers upon “allegiance alone” to Jesus as the enthroned king. With the Apostles Creed as a pledge of allegiance, the rallying cry of the victorious church can become ‘We give allegiance to Jesus the king.’ For as the creed reminds us, Jesus the Christ is ‘our Lord’ and he ‘is seated at the right hand of God’ and as such he both merits and demands our undeserved loyalty.”

One might note several emphases in this summary that Bates develops in different chapters of the book. One is an understanding of the gospel as reflected in the Apostles Creed, which he thinks ought regularly be recited in our churches as a king of “pledge of allegiance.” He identifies eight elements in the gospel of Jesus the king:

He pre-existed with the Father.
He took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David.
He died for sins in accordance with scripture.
He was buried.
He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.
He appeared to many.
He is seated at the right hand of God as Lord.
He will come again as judge.

Bates contends that these last statements as well as the pre-existence of Jesus rarely are part of our gospel messages and that we thus fail to properly set forth Jesus as God’s anointed Messiah King.

This also informs his understanding of justification. Bates understands justification as tied up with God’s vindication of the son, crucified for sin in his resurrection and ascension to God’s right hand. Through our union with Christ, we share in that vindication, that justification, both instantaneously through our allegiance to Christ, and increasingly through life as we stay with Christ, which he calls “restoring the idol of God” reflecting all and more than we were made to be through Christ. He, along with Wright and others, also observes that the future hope of Christians is resurrection life with Christ in the new creation, not some vague hope of heaven.

He deals with objections, foremost of which is the idea of allegiance as a “work.” So much of his case hinges on the thinness of how we often discuss belief, which seems mere intellectual assent or some kind of trust in Jesus without any further obligation. He contends that faith is in fact a human response to the grace of God, no matter how defined, and that allegiance fills this out as the form of loyal trust appropriate to servants of the Risen King.

I do think the title may de-center the proper focus of allegiance. The focus seems to be on “allegiance alone” but this is dangerous and de-centered if we do not focus on “allegiance to whom?” It is Christ who saves and restores. Just as it has been observed that faith is not “faith in faith” so here we need to avoid “allegiance to allegiance.” While the title makes a polemical point, we might more accurately say “by allegiance alone through grace alone in Christ the King alone.”

I find several things helpful in this work. One is that it addresses the question of “cheap faith” that does not seem to eventuate in any kind of transformed life, often because the person does not think or expect that this follows. Another is that it does reflect the full gospel that the church has confessed through history, the gospel of the king and his kingdom and sets our pardon for sin in the context of being restored subjects, indeed vice-regents, in his kingdom. Finally, and Bates alludes to this, the idea of allegiance may address the sharp divides around grace, faith, justification and works that have separated Protestant and Catholic for five hundred years. The focus on scripture and creed to understand these things may point the way forward. We can hope.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Matthew W. Bates has a doctorate from the University of Notre Dame and teaches theology at Quincy University.  In Salvation by Allegiance Alone, Bates argues that the faith (Greek pistis) that brings justification in Paul’s writings is not merely intellectual assent to propositions or passively trusting Christ that one’s sins are forgiven and that one has eternal life.  Rather, for Bates, pistis in Paul’s writings is continued loyalty and allegiance to Christ as king, which entails doing good works.  (Note: Bates includes Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals in Paul’s writings, whereas a number of scholars dispute Pauline authorship of those epistles.  Bates addresses this in the endnotes.)

The key points in this book include the following:

—-Bates shows that pistis in Second Temple literature and Josephus’ writings can mean loyalty or faithfulness to a dynasty or king.  Bates also agrees with New Testament scholar Richard Hays that Paul frequently discusses the faith of Jesus, meaning Jesus’ faithfulness.  While Bates acknowledges that there are cases in Pauline writings in which pistis refers to intellectual assent to propositions, he maintains that it mostly means allegiance or loyalty in those writings.  Bates attempts to demonstrate that his interpretation is consistent with the Pauline passages themselves.

—-Bates mediates between Protestant and Catholic views on justification (being righteous).  Like Protestants, Bates maintains that justification includes imputation, God’s declaration that the believer is innocent and righteous, even if the believer practically falls short.  Like Catholics, however, Bates holds that justification includes infused and imparted righteousness: that the believer is righteous in terms of his or her deeds, not just declared to be so.  A significant aspect of Bates’ view on justification is believers’ union with Christ, a theme that appears in Pauline and Johannine writings.  For Bates, when believers are united with Christ, they share Christ’s status as righteous and innocent, even though they fall short of Christ’s righteousness, and yet they also bear spiritual fruit (good works) in their union with Christ.  Bates subsumes both imputed righteousness and practical righteousness under the category of justification and dismisses as unbiblical the Protestant belief that justification is imputed righteousness, whereas sanctification is the believer becoming practically righteousness.

—-For Bates, as part of one’s allegiance to Jesus, one needs to repent of sins and do good works if one wants to enter the good afterlife and avoid hell.  Bates appeals to passages in the synoptic Gospels, Pauline writings, and Johannine writings to support this point.  Bates also draws from John Barclay’s scholarship.  According to Barclay, a gift in antiquity often entailed reciprocity on the part of the recipient.  The same goes for those who receive God’s gift of salvation!

—-Bates contends that a key theme in the Scriptures is God dwelling with people on earth.  For Bates, this will find its culmination in the eschaton, when God renews the earth and dwells therein.  This, not heaven, is the hope of believers, as far as Bates is concerned.

—-Another key theme in the Scriptures, according to Bates, is that human beings were made in God’s image.  Humans mediate the divine presence, as images (idols) were believed to mediate the divine in many pagan religions.  For Bates, humans being in God’s image entails that they rule the earth as God’s representative, with justice and righteousness.  Christ and believers will do so more fully in the eschaton.  Moreover, one of Christ’s tasks was to renew the image of God in human beings so that they could be righteous, like God, and this occurs with believers (Colossians 3:10).

—-Bates argues that the Gospel is more about Jesus and how we participate in what he is doing, than it is about us being assured of personal forgiveness and having eternal life.  For Bates, the Gospel states that Jesus pre-existed, came to earth as a human being, died for people’s sins to bring them forgiveness, and rose from the dead to a position of authority.  Bates maintains that this Gospel is present throughout the New Testament and should be emphasized in Gospel presentations.

Here are some of my thoughts about this book:

A.  I am giving this book four stars, even though I cannot say that I “like” the book (for reasons I will explain).  Overall, the book argued its case rather effectively, and it also did well to mix relatable anecdotes with heavy theological discussion.  (I think of Bates’ discussion of his vocational path and how he came to understand that in light of his beliefs about God’s renewal of the cosmos.)  Bates was especially convincing in his argument that the New Testament holds that good works are necessary for final salvation.  It is difficult to reconcile certain New Testament passages with ideas such as once-saved-always-saved, or the notion that all one has to do to be saved is to trust Christ, without avoiding sins or doing good works.  Bates’ argument that Christ’s pre-existence is in the synoptic Gospels was not as strong, however.

B.  That said, the book did depress me, a bit.  “If that is how it is, then I might as well give up on salvation, since I will never be good enough!”, I thought (not that I have given up on salvation).  To his credit, Bates did attempt to address pastoral questions: Does one’s allegiance have to be perfect for one to be saved?  What is the minimum of obedience to God that is necessary for final salvation?  Bates’ answers were not always helpful, though.  For example, Bates said that we should look at our lives and make sure that we are repenting of the sins in Galatians 5:19-21, sins that Paul says can bar one from the Kingdom of God and eternal life.  That may be faithful to what Paul is saying, but my problem is that many Christians define these sins rather broadly.  Adultery is on the list.  Remember that Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 that looking on a woman to lust after her is committing adultery in one’s heart.  Does having sexual desire place one on the path to hell?  Idolatry is on the list.  There are Christians who define idolatry, not merely as worshiping images, but as looking to anything or anyone other to God for one’s fulfillment.  Who isn’t guilty of that?  Even if I were to tell God I was sorry for that, I would still do it, on some level, for it is part of who I am!  Also on the list are enmity and envying.  Does that mean a person would go to hell for not liking everyone, or for having negative feelings toward others?  Can people eradicate such feelings from themselves?  There are Christians who have reasonable answers to these questions; perhaps Bates could have engaged such questions better than he did, without going too far afield.

C.  There was a lot of emphasis in this book on doing good works or avoiding sin as part of receiving final salvation.  The book would have been better had it also emphasized God’s love, or God’s faithfulness towards human beings.  Maybe Paul had the sort of soteriology that Bates thinks he had, but Paul also felt loved and accepted by Christ (Romans 5:8; Galatians 2:20).  Paul thought that Christ had made Paul his own (Philippians 3:12) and that Paul would be with Christ after dying (Philippians 1:23).

D.  In my opinion, Bates was rather inconsistent on faith and good works.  Bates seemed to treat good works as part of one’s allegiance (pistis) to Christ, whereas Paul in Romans 4:5 distinguishes faith from works.  Even though Bates believes that good works are necessary for final salvation, Bates stresses that we cannot earn our salvation: our good works are a result of God’s grace in Christ, after all, something that we neither earned nor deserved.  Bates also employs the New Perspective on Paul in explaining the Pauline distinction between faith and works: we are saved by allegiance to Christ, not by obeying the Mosaic law or doing good works apart from Christ.  You would think that Bates maintains that Paul is distinguishing Mosaic works, not good works in general, from allegiance to Christ.  And yet, Bates also seems to maintain that Christ delivered us, in general, from a system that focused on rules.  I question, though, whether one can embrace Bates’ soteriology and avoid that kind of rule-based system.

E.  While a “trust-alone” Gospel does make me feel better, I identified with some of Bates’ practical critiques of this view.  Bates said that there are Protestants who seem to stigmatize good works, treating them as an attempt to earn God’s approval, which contrasts with passively trusting Christ for salvation.  In my opinion, that particular Protestant viewpoint (not that all Protestants hold it) is itself discouraging.  If I do good works, how can I be sure that I am not doing them to earn God’s approval?  Should I not do them?  Will I go to hell if I do them to earn God’s approval, even in the tiniest bit?  I think that the doctrine of hell can ruin a lot of people’s spiritual lives, making them feel that they have to have all their ducks in a row to avoid going there.  This can occur when one adds good works as a requirement for salvation, but also if one holds that trust-alone is the requirement for salvation.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley.  My review is honest!

(Read with proper formatting [italics & links] @ blog.)

It’s no secret in scholarship that the English language does not have words that carry the same meaning and connotation of the Greek word pistis and its various forms and conjugations; however, that doesn’t stop most from using “faith” in its place wherever found. The driving force of Matthew W Bates’ Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King is the reevaluation of pistis as “allegiance rather than “faith” in its greater context. I do not doubt that many will find Bates convincing in this regard, especially those already aware of the political context of Scripture; however, there are several major points I find in need of revision in this thought-provoking work.

First, Bates argues that the oft used arguments for “salvation by faith alone” have not only been theologically wanting but also damaging to the way in which hearers may then perceive and read Scripture and live (or not) as citizens of the kingdom of God. Studying in both Presbyterian and Catholic contexts, Bates feels he is uniquely positioned to speak in a bridging manner for Protestants and Catholics, particularly regarding the place of “works” or “living out one’s faith,” as some describe it, in conjunction with faith—or, as he argues, one’s allegiance to Jesus as Lord. His arguments are sound and point out philosophical, theological, and practical flaws on both sides of the traditional arguments that overemphasize faith or works in such a way that diminishes the other. However, after so doing, he comes back to “allegiance alone” (hence the title), perceivably unable to escape his traditional Evangelical roots, even after arguing for a much deeper understanding of an holistic life actively aligned with the king in mind, heart, and action. Perhaps this new phrase is intended to imply this holistic life, but his arguments against “faith alone” can be used against the reevaluated pistis phrase since “allegiance” may be easily misinterpreted and misused in time, as he has demonstrated the case to be with “faith.” I would encourage an holistic understanding and teaching of pistis, as does Bates, but without the wholesale removal of “faith” terminology, arduous as the task may be.

Second, Bates attempts to define the “gospel message” in its entirety according to eight foundational statements found in the Apostle’s Creed:

"Jesus the King
1.	preexisted with the Father,
2.	took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David,
3.	died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4.	was buried,
5.	was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
6.	appeared to many,
7.	is seated at the right hand of God as Lord, and
8.	will come again as judge." (p# unavailable, emphasis original)

There’s no doubt that these statements are either explicitly or implicitly made by Jesus and/or the apostles; however, I find his argument utterly unconvincing, stemming more from creedal theology rather than an holistic approach to the New Testament’s use of euangelion and its varied forms—basileia (kingdom) isn’t even included in Bates’ gospel message, that which is most associated with “gospel” in the New Testament.

Third, Bates argues that we are “idols of God” solely based on characteristic similarities between “image” and “idol” and the nature of idols in ancient Egypt as articulated by John Walton. No linguistic evidence is provided—contrary to the positive evidence for the pistis/allegiance argument—for a shift from “image” to “idol” in his desire to “restore the idol of God” (humans who properly reflect God, Jesus noted as being the prime and only perfect example this side of the new heavens and earth), but that does not stop him from making the switch and henceforth referring to those aligned with Jesus as idols. Not only is it unconvincing, I find no positive or helpful reason for its inclusion in the book. It simply appears to be an attempt to cram into the book a second linguistic wrench of controversy for the academy and ends up detracting from the greater message.

Finally, pairing “allegiance” and his “gospel” creed, Bates encourages Christians to use and recite the current form of the Apostle’s Creed as the true and proper “Pledge of Allegiance” with ever-increasing frequency in order to proclaim, teach, and remind people of the gospel (as defined by Bates) and with whom they are aligned. Certainly reciting and affirming creeds is not my dispute. They may proclaim truth and serve a purpose, and it’s the purpose and degree of complete truth claimed by the authors and perpetuators that I question. Bates is not the first to put forth an alternative pledge that counters those nationalistic in nature (Shane Claiborne being one of the most recent), and it sounds like a good idea. Jesus is lord; Caesar is not. We (well, some of us) get that. My reservations for using at least this pledge in particular (or really anything as the pledge) should be apparent in my questioning of Bates’ presentation of the holistic gospel message above.

Given the aforementioned observations and reservations, I find the overarching thesis to be an important one in need of further discussion within the academy and local churches alike. A proper understanding of the political context within and with which Scripture is written can only help us more fully understand whose we are, for whom we live, and what a life lived with that perspective may and ought to look like.

*I received a temporary, pre-published digital copy for review from Baker Academic via NetGalley.