We have received many letters in response to the exchange between Robert Gundry and Thomas Oden on "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration." That exchange began with a critique by Gundry in the January/February issue, continued with an exchange between Oden and Gundry in the March/April issue, and concluded with Oden's response to critics of "Celebration" in the May/June issue (a longer version of which is available here on our Web site). Following is a representative selection of responses from our readers. Many thanks to all who have taken the time to think through these matters and write.

My first reading of the Gundry response to "Celebration" and his articulation of what I considered to be several significant and well–considered questions left me with a strong appetite for the inevitable response which would follow. Desperate for well–articulated debate I thought here for once was an opportunity for the evangelical community to engage in a rigorous examination of fundamental concepts.

Count me in the utterly disappointed category having read Thomas Oden's "Calm Response," which I found completely lacking in both calm and response. According to whose set of rules does a questioner get labeled as a critic? Did not Gundry demonstrate his own fundamental allegiance with the broad intention of the document? Did he not verbalize his own concern about the possible interpretation that he was being overly "picky" in raising some of his concerns? For this he gets marginalized for daring to examine rigorously the perhaps unintended consequences and possible errors of the document.

Quite apart form the tone, Oden did not even offer up an exegetical response to Gundry on the key question of Righteousness. Instead he tries to fend off Gundry with a list of the signers, as if their assent to the document determines its truth. At the same time, he deflects the question with his interpretation of how Calvin and Arminius are actually aligned on the issue, such that Wesley himself attests to the core elements of what "Celebration" proposes.

My response to Thomas Oden would be threefold. First, he demonstrates once again that we are not yet ready to engage in real debate on core questions. This is tragic. Second, he trivializes the concept of sola scriptura by offering up Calvin and Wesley rather than addressing and perhaps even demonstrating where Gundry may be in error. Finally, through his dependence on the cloud of witnesses who support "Celebration," he leads me to conclude that truth can be reduced to a numbers game or perhaps the academic equivalent of "my dad's bigger than your dad."

In the end I am still waiting for a response to Gundry. If Oden can't or won't answer the question, hand the pen to someone who will. If the question does indeed call us to look again at the evidence and affirm or revise our theology, so be it. Waiting for a real response.

J. Roger Laing

Aberdeen, Scotland

Robert Gundry is either being disingenuous or very naive when he writes, "does Oden not allow that contemporary exegesis may correct an aspect of classic Protestant teaching on justification just as that teaching corrected an aspect of classic Roman Catholic teaching on justification?" For the sake of remaining charitable, I have to assume that it is the latter that is the case. Certainly, it is more than naive to suggest that a positive imputation of Christ's righteousness constituted only an aspect of the classic Protestant teaching on justification. It was the insistence on the positive imputation of Christ's righteousness which made Protestantism to be a revolution against the Catholic doctrine (and not merely a correction of an aspect of it).

Admittedly, this understanding did not emerge overnight. It required the Osiandrian controversy in the early 1550s to bring final clarity into the confessional position on justification affirmed by Protestantism. But once that clarity was achieved (through sweat, blood and tears), it remained the defining doctrine which gave to the Protestant Reformation its character as Protestant. Reading Gundry, it becomes quite understandable why so many Protestants today have become Catholic in their understanding of justification. For all too many, this entire sixteenth–century debate was about nothing more than a modest correction of an aspect of Catholic teaching. If that were true, there would be no reason not to return to Rome. Robert Gundry has already taken the most decisive step.

Bruce L. McCormack

Weyerhaeuser Professor of Systematic Theology

Princeton Theological Seminary

Princeton, N.J.

Congratulations to B&C for the courage of faith to publish the spirited exchange between Robert Gundry and Thomas Oden. For this ordinary reader, patient perusal of its unplain scholar talk was worth it. I take as their agreed objective, not to split hairs over the gospel. They are evidently not convinced, however, of each other's desire not to split its heirs. At points their debate was almost palpably frosty. Nevertheless, it succeeded, prompting me to download "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" for myself and my family. I offer these comments on the trigger of this apologetic cold snap, Christ's righteousness.