Guest Post: Review Committee responds to Seifrid's review of Campbell's Deliverance of God

Have you ever asked, 'Who reviews the reviewer?' "The committee" (not code for me!) has found it necessary to review this review, and I have uploaded it for you below.

(Prof. Mark Seifrid's review of Campbell's The Deliverance of God, can be found, on the Themelios webpage, here)
Response to Seifrid's review of Campbell's The Deliverance of God

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 15

A summary review PART 15

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

The alternative system: two loose ends

DC ends this thought experiment overview of the alternative system by addressing two ‘loose ends’. First, what is the nature of ‘faith’ in the alternative system, a subject so central to JT and yet hardly mentioned in these chapters of Romans (5-8)?

Faith

Any excuse ...

Faith, here, refers a) to correct beliefs about God that follow the arrival of salvation. While the Christian journey begins by submission to teaching (6:17), it is enabled by the Spirit (5:5; 8:9-11, 14-17, 28-30), so that faith ‘refers to the theological journey that Christians are meant to undertake in light of the Christ event’ (67, italics suppressed). Paul is passionate about correct beliefs, especially given the resistance of flesh, and they are configured by looking back on the event of revelation. Hence Paul's concern, we could add, for the renewal of the mind etc. But faith is also, b), as in Koine Greek, an activity of faithfulness or fidelity (68). This is seen in perseverance and endurance through suffering, aided by the Spirit and understood as participation in Christ’s own death and glorification. Also for the alternative system, such faithfulness is ultimately necessary for salvation to be reached (68). In sum, faith is ‘right beliefs’ as well as faithfulness through suffering, enabled by the Spirit.

The nature of the redeemed community

Second, the alternative theory means that the redeemed state is interpersonal. This relationality is evident in the way the texts speak of God and Jesus, and Christians, as brothers of Jesus and children of God. They cannot be separated from these relations (8:38-39). Humanity is neither individualistic nor communal as though key relationships constitute the Christian’s identity, ‘a degree of individuation is not erased’ (69). Redeemed anthropology is thus best described as relational (here I am doing a dance: my thesis explores Pauline relational language in a good deal of depth. Interestingly, I found that it is everywhere present in Paul and absent for extended paragraphs only in … Romans 1-4).

Two more important implications of the alternative theory

Two further matters deserve elaboration as their implications for the ongoing thesis of DoG cannot be underestimated: 1) the question of Israel and 2) its view of violent punishment

Given that this ‘theory’ is based heavily on Jewish scriptures, which, though redeploying themes in surprising and unanticipated ways, is still decidedly Jewish, what is the implicit view of Israel (here DC draws on texts outside Romans 5-8)?

Paul’s grasp of Israel is patriarchal (cf. Gen. 22 in Rom. 8:32), yet only Christ is the answer to the Adamic condition. The Mosaic law remains locked in the old creation and, while it remains blameless itself, is exploited by Sin. After Christ reconstitutes and new humanity, and the Spirit indwells it, there is no function left for Torah – it is displaced, possessing ‘no independent ethical function at all’ (70). So what is the role of scripture here? It can, to a certain degree, anticipate the arrival of Christ and the Spirit, and this event can be illuminated in retrospect by scripture. I am reminded of a marvelous line from Beverly Gaventa’s short commentary on Galatians in the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible.

Beverly Gaventa

'Scripture is not, in Paul's thinking, a passive repository from which readers retrieve principles and commands but at an active partner in interpreting God's actions in Jesus Christ’ (Gaventa, 1379).

But there is more: despite dramatic redefinitions of Israel and the law, it was a light in a dark place. It anticipated and, indeed, provides the human heritage of Christ, and Christians are simply ‘grafted’ into Israel’s historical lineage. Jesus, the template of the new existence, remains king of the Jews and so ‘heavenly existence is Jewish’ (70). Soteriology, for Paul in this theory, is Jewish, even as it redefines Israel.

DC will return to the matter of coercive violence in depth at the end of this chapter, in an excursus. But let's simply follow his line of thought here. While God’s fundamental posture is one of benevolence, and Christians ought to share in this basic disposition, what of the people who do not presently share in this salvation (e.g. those behind the distress, perils, sword etc. of 8:35)? Relevant here are the ‘universalist’ passages in Romans 5 and 8, of course, and whether a universalist position is embraced or not, the universal intention of God’s love is obvious. So what to do with mention of ‘the coming wrath’ (cf. 5:9)? Presumably Sin and Death will not be included, but eliminated, in the glorious future. Indeed, Romans 5-8 anticipates a final judgment where ‘things evil and hostile to God will be overthrown’ (72). So, while the text is confident about the future of Christians, it is ambiguous about the universal and unconditional love of God for humanity. DC adds, Paul: ‘does not seem to ask explicitly, and hence to answer, whether God’s universal designs in Christ are “irresistible” in relation to humanity as a whole. (Perhaps Paul felt that he did not need to ask this question)’ (72)

In a footnote, DC expands his position:

‘Nevertheless, we should probably infer with some confidence that a God so acting in the past and present will act consistently, and therefore not do violence to humanity, or necessarily engage with some future punishment of people. But this is not necessarily to suggest that some sort of exclusion or even elimination is not possible. It is of course tempting to appeal to Romans 11 at this point, specifically v. 26 … But various other Pauline texts could also be cited, and on both sides of the issue’ (948 n.11)

This position, by the way, sounds a lot like the ‘hopeivism’ I have expounded on this blog before – and note Robin's recent post on this theme here.

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 14

A summary review PART 14

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

Having outlined the many intrinsic difficulties (IDs) of JT, those problems thrown up by the internal logic of JT itself, DC now turns to examine the problems that become evident when JT is contrasted with things Paul says elsewhere in his letters.

Systematic Difficulties

‘If the essentially contractual theory of Justification is inserted into Paul’s thought, then almost every aspect generates tension in relation to something the apostle says elsewhere’ (62). To show these 'systematic difficulties' DC works backwards, by first outlining an alternative Pauline theory. With that different perspective in view, it will be clear how, if JT is inserted into Paul, tensions are produced.

An alternative Pauline theory: the soteriology apparent in Romans 5-8

The thought experiment now undertaken answers the question: If, ‘by a twist of canonical fate’ (62) one had only Romans 5-8 left from Paul’s letters, what would one conclude about that Paul’s soteriology? (Some of the following will reflect a position DC already outlined in his book, The Quest For Paul’s Gospel, reviewed by your host here

First, the text evidences a complex soteriology, involving an interrelated mix of topics like the nature of God, the Spirit, Christian existence, a perspective on ontology and epistemology etc. So, as DC must begin somewhere, he begins with ‘the state from which humanity is rescued’ (63, though ultimately this ‘alternative soteriology’ begins with the unconditional salvific and apocalyptic deliverance of God, so 72). This state involves flesh-humans, descended from Adam, enslaved by Sin and Death, one that finds itself as an enemy of God, totally unable to please God (5:10; 8:5-8). ‘Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?’ (7:24).

‘People who exist in this dire condition … are obviously incapable of accurate theological reflection or of any positive action, ethical or salvific … hence the text’s repeated emphasis on deliverance (7:24b; 8:2 …) And this rescue is apparently the result of interlocking actions by God the Father; his only, beloved Son, who he sends into the enslaved Adamic condition; and the Holy Spirit’ (63).

It is indeed interesting that Paul does not have too much to say about forgiveness (a point made years ago, e.g. by Krister Stendahl) and is more concerned with deliverance from Sin. To also be noted is the Trinitarian shaped language in the following: the Father’s actions are fundamentally loving (5:5, 8; 8:32), giving up his Son much as Abraham offered up Isaac. The Son descends, takes the likeness of sinful flesh and in an act of obedience, climaxing with his death, terminates the old, enslaved and Adamic being (cf. 8:3 – with a thus appropriate OT sacrificial idiom). He is then raised to new life as a template for the new humanity (8:29). Christ assumes, terminates and reconstitutes humanity as the loving act of God. The Spirit likewise benevolent activity inaugurates (i.e. does not complete) the rescue of enslaved humanity, enabling Christians to know the love of God, to hope and pray etc. and grafts them into the death and resurrection of Christ through baptism.

Christian salvation is thus fundamentally transformational and relational, the Spirit effecting the change ‘with reference to Christ’ (64). Ethics is inherent to this transformation from slavery to sin to holiness to eternal life (6:19, 22-23); human ethical capacity is freed from slavery and is itself transformed by grace (6:15, 23). The perception of human enslavement is seen in light of this grace, i.e. it looks backward (is retrospective, a posteriori) as ‘a corrupt human condition could not derive accurate conclusions about itself’ (65 – and cf. Rom. 8:7). What is needed is unconditional rescue, ‘and no criteria for its activation, appropriation, or reception by humans are apparent in this text, while what causality or agency is apparent is attributed to God’ (65 - with reference to 8:29-30; 5:6-8, 10). This inaugurated (partial) transformation is also liturgical (7:24; 8:15, 26-27, 34), it calls forth ‘human participation in the liturgical communion of the divine condition’ (66), yet at the same time thus calls for patience, perseverance and hope (5:2-5; 8:23-25), itself a participation in Christ’s sufferings (8:17). By the Spirit, believers participate in the ‘descent’ of Christ into his death, which guarantees their part in his risen life. And all of this, from beginning to end, is held in the unconditional love and benevolence of God (reflect on the beginning of Rom. 5, and the end of Rom. 8!).

At the end of this section, DC summarises this "alternative" theological system in a helpful, structured, way, as he did with JT.

In the next Part, we summarise DC's attempt to tie up two "loose ends".

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 13

After a nice long blogging silence (I just couldn't be bothered to post anything!), I am keen to get going again on my hopelessly long review summary of Campbell's book. Let's start again on lucky number 13! We are presently in the thick of DC’S list of Justification Theory’s intrinsic difficulties (please see earlier posts for qualifications about what is, and is not, meant by 'Justification Theory'.

A summary review PART 13

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

We complete, today, Campbell’s list of intrinsic difficulties as they relate to Justification theory.

6. Christology and Atonement. ‘Justification theory does not explain why Christ must atone as against other people or things, and especially, in the place of the established temple cultus’ (49). If transfer of punishment is the basis of the atonement, if the key is to make atonement possible and to provide it, why Christ? God surely could have ‘sent a very large bull to atone for the sins of the world’ (49) – perhaps a number, sacrificed weekly or daily, or hourly?

Of course, this discussion necessarily leads to an engagement with Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo (remember, the point here is not whether Paul could have anticipated Anselm, but to what extent JT works at a theoretical level), and for those of you not familiar with his argument may like to read this. In a crude nutshell: Given the debt of human sin, only God can make satisfaction, no number of large bulls will work) so God incarnates himself in the form of a man to pay off this debt in his death on the cross.

A closer look at a key presupposition is required, namely its notion of wrongdoing as ‘a sort of negative currency’ (51 - for justice to be exacted on, for example, a rapist, it is not necessary for the rapist to be raped. Rather, some ‘price’ must be negotiated for the crime). But is it valid, DC asks, ‘to apply such an intermingled economic-equivalence view of punishment to all wrongdoing – and, most importantly, to offenses against God’ (52)? This reduces reality to economic terms, and the Christian church has indeed rightly opposed the notion that ‘all human action is essentially economic’ and that people are ‘fundamentally economic units’ (52). Further, ‘[f]or God to receive a payment from Christ’s death sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, we must then in effect posit a marketplace within God ... [thereby positing] a fundamentally economic view, not merely of reality, but of God Himself!’ (53). What is more, is the metaphorical transition from the value of Christ, to his death understood in terms of price justified (as some maintain, a fundamental difficulty with Marxism is that value is not directly equivalent to price). I can value a freshly ground Panama bean espresso coffee much more even than an expensive Ferrari car, for example! DC gives another example: ‘We value a stable global climate highly, but cannot pay anyone with it’ (54). Yet Anselm requires an equivalence between value and price.

Now monetary imagery is indeed Pauline, but this is used metaphorically not literally – as is necessary for Anselm’s theory to hold good. So, the ‘Anselm defence’ fails to come to the defence of JT which anyway, in terms of satisfaction, operates in terms of strict equivalence (Jesus dies for me as I should die for my sin) rather than substituted payment.

7. Faith. ‘Justification theory harbors a cluster of complex problems with respect to faith, in two main variations. The “Arminian” variant struggles to explain faith fully and, in particular, how individuals can actually exercise faith in order to be saved. The “Calvinist” variant can get beyond these difficulties by introducing revelation and election at the point of faith but then runs into further problems in relation to the privileging of faith and its gifting to individuals who have negotiated phase one ’

Couldn't put it better myself! He explains: ‘[a]lthough popular discourse uses the language of choice and free will ubiquitously in relation to matters of belief, beliefs cannot in fact simply be chosen ... If we really hold something to be true [or untrue], then we cannot alter that simply by choice’. An act of will cannot alter our beliefs. If it is responded, in good Calvinist fashion, that faith is a gift, it must then be asked: why privilege ‘faith’ as the condition for salvation? Why not, in terms of the internal dynamics of JT, something else like ‘wearing a red T-shirt with “Jesus Saves” written on it (or the ancient equivalent)’ (56)? Why not love, hope, justice, or something else? Does it not strike one as arbitrary. Why not a simple set of works that all could accomplish? Further, what is the point of phase one if faith is then simply ‘given’? The logic of ‘faith’ in the system of JT thus breaks down for the Calvinist variant, while the Arminian option remains impossible.

For these seven reasons, JT ‘breaks down internally’ as a soteriology, ‘in strictly theoretical terms’ (37).

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 12

A summary review PART 12

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

We continue our overview of DC’S list of Justification Theory’s intrinsic difficulties

From http://www.insidesocal.com/godblog

4) Anthropology. ‘Justification theory presupposes in humans an inherent ability to deduce and appropriately fulfil the truth of certain axioms and, at the same time, a profound universal sinfulness – that is, fundamental and simultaneous capacity and incapacity’ (44). This say it all, really! Strategies which seek to evade this point, by proposing dualistic metaphors (mind / body, inner / outer etc.) fail as they need to be understood literally, not metaphorically, to actually work (I would add: how often popular apologetics works on the understanding that human reason, on the basis of universal foundations, should lead to Christian faith. For some, there can even be a hint of 'you must be stupid not to be a Christian')

5) Theodicy. ‘Justification theory posits a God of strict justice who holds all people accountable to a standard they are intrinsically unable to attain, and this seems unjust’ (45). In accordance with the theory’s first phase (or ‘vestibule’), it is those who are not perfect (irrespective of whether they generally live their lives at personal risk for the sake of others, and likewise claim no perfection) who will be judged. Surely one could ‘lower the bar’ and relax the demand for perfect obedience? However, JT best works when this first phase is entirely rigorous as it aims to drive sinful humans to embrace the gospel.

Linked to this point, Is it just that one’s own deserved punishment is transferred to Christ, a transfer accessed by faith? Does not retributive justice demand that sinners themselves be held accountable and punished? Is justice really satisfied on this count, as JT claims, if somebody else, an innocent, is punished for another’s sin? So DC writes: ‘Justification theory is not just, even though it claims to be’ (49).

When, at this point, DC refutes a strategy to mask this particular intrinsic difficult with JT, something struck me. I personally think it at least likely that Luther suffered from a religious expression of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and that his understanding of God’s grace was something of a cure for him, as it was, in different ways, for John Bunyan and Saint Thérèse of Lisieux (cf. Ian Osborn, Can Christianity Cure Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?: A Psychiatrist Explores the Role of Faith in Treatment [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2008]). While it is evident that the pious and confessional frame of 'confession of sin' is usually enough to justify notions of personal sinfulness (it is right to acknowledge our sinfulness before God), a problem can exist here. ‘[I]n so reasoning, Justification advocates have essentially repositioned a legitimate Christian activity in a location that renders that activity incoherent and, moreover, calls God’s character radically into question’ (47). Yes! Here is a question that I hope will help sufferers of religious variations of OCD, to rethink some of there practices (nothing like a bit of cognitive-behavioural therapy in the middle of a book review!): Is the context of your personal sin-confession God’s own gracious ‘yes’ to us in Jesus, or rather a ritualistic and self-atoning mechanism by which God’s holy justice is appeased? The difference here is considerable. It is the difference between Justification Theory and the apocalytpic gospel DC will suggest Paul truly advocates.

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 11

A summary review PART 11

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

The following chapters will examine various problems with the contractual soteriology of JT i.e. the system of soteriology involved in conventional readings of Romans 1-4 (remember: it is not a description of anybody's soteriology in toto, but an elaboration of the theoretical commitments of the conventional, non-rhetorical, reading of these chapters, one which does indeed have a more extensive grip on popular theologies)

Intrinsic Difficulties

Chapter two carefully and fairly (i.e. he always engages with the best counter arguments) examines the ways in which JT ‘breaks down internally, that is, in strictly theoretical terms’ (37). DC proposes that the following seven points of internal tension or incoherence must be admitted:

1) Epistemology. JT proposes a journey from the First Phase, ‘the rigorous contract’, to the second, ‘the generous contract’. The two phases must thus be integrated. However, two epistemologies are at work, one based on universal and ahistorical truths available to the ‘generic, philosophical individual’ (38), while the Second Phase posits an ‘irreducibly temporal and historical’ knowledge, based on scripture, the man Jesus Christ etc.

From http://www.godshealthlaw.com

2) Natural revelation. ‘The first phase of Justification theory depends on individuals’ detection within the cosmos of a series of propositions’ (39) involving certain truths about God such as monotheism,  and God’s retributive justice (cf. Rom. 1:18-23), as well as a full ethical system, with special reference to monogamy and heterosexuality (cf. Rom. 1:29-31). However, ‘the rational derivation of this set of propositions seems to be impossible’ (40). Even if a vague notion of the existence of God could be proved, which is highly debatable, can one really philosophise their way to this god’s concern about sexual relations? ‘This model creates, in short, the very situation is seeks to deny: a self-confident atheism’ (943 n.10)! Can it be denied that modes of Christian faith, which most strongly emphasise JT, also assert aggressive apologetic schemes which seek to ‘prove God’?

3) Law. ‘Justification theory asserts two sets of law within one soteriology committed to a just God and perfect obedience – a dual system that is incoherent in terms of both content and desert’ (41). Ask yourself, can the details of Jewish law be discerned from the cosmos, such as the prohibition on cutting forelocks (Deut. 14:1)? Hardly. So, one must thus argue that Mosaic law is distinguishable, at some level, from natural law. Pagans must only abide by natural law for JT to function coherently. However, this would mean, if the Jewish law does truly represent God’s ethical concerns, that natural law is inadequate, that God considers some things important for Jews but not for pagans – which ultimately leads to a law which is, in terms of content, incoherent. And if two people groups have different divine demands to uphold for salvation (the Jews get the harder, longer set!), then this seems unfair in terms of desert. Interestingly, this ties into tactics which problematically distinguish, in a priori fashion, between ‘ceremonial’ and ‘moral’ law (DC demonstrates why this hermeneutical sleight of hand fails, with due recognition of Klaus Berger’s defence, and Heikki Räisänen’s pointed critique in his Paul and the Law).

The next two posts complete DC's overview of Justification Theory's internal difficulties

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 10

A summary review PART 10

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

Today we complete our overview of DC's summary of Justification Theory.

Justification Theory and its Root Metaphors

George Lakoff's notion of root metaphor's position is important here. The activation of a single key metaphor or part of the narrative launches the whole thing.

George Lackoff
http://www.radioopensource.org/george-lakoff-obama-in-a-bind/

DC has painted JT according to its ‘rational argumentative progressions’, but it is illuminating to show the key ‘images and metaphors’ (DC draws on the work of George Lakoff, especially Moral Politics. Cf. n.27 on p. 941, which is one example of many superb notes that I WISH were printed as footnotes, not endnotes) deployed by this soteriology, for the purpose of further clarification, to grasp what is at stake in understanding Paul’s theology, with special focus on Romans 1-4. As DC explains:

‘Arguments tend to draw out more precisely the relationships and inferences inherent in a juxtaposition of premises ... and premises often have a strong image-based or metaphorical dimension. The Justification model is no exception’ (30)

This is key because the activation of a single key metaphor or part of the narrative launches the whole soteriology. One could argue that this is demonstrated in, for example, Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2007), where references to the 'death of Jesus' in 'our place' in the early church Fathers, launches, for these authors, the entire model of penal substitution. A quick plug, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors we Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), is a most stimulating read: illuminating at all kinds of levels.

Justification Theory, DC argues, is driven by two root metaphors, one concerning humans, and one concerning God.
  
Anthropology: For JT to work, humans are understood in highly rational, individualistic and self-interested terms, who ‘acquire knowledge by reflecting on the world’, which means knowledge becomes information. Anthropology thus determines an epistemology which works prospectively – it moves forward in  a linear fashion. Knowledge of God, which is largely informational, is deduced from creation (natural theology) by this rational individual who is individually and ethically culpable before a holy God, and who acts to fulfil such ethical demands, in accordance with self-interest (can you think of popular approaches to ethics which tag in a line such as ‘it is in your own best interest not to  [fill in the gap: sleep around, get drunk etc]’?) 

Theology: God is both one and invisible, and importantly, God is retributively just – he is, in Lakoff’s terminology, a ‘strict’ authoritarian (the dominant image of God in the Southern states of America [!], according to The Baylor Survey of Religion - cf. 941 n. 27).

An aside: I have found DoG useful in prompting my mind to reflect on the ‘root metaphors’ that make sense not simply of my theology (which I kid myself is way more sophisticated than it actually is) but of my Christian practices. I wonder why I seem to default to a God dominated by justice (and love on good days)?

DC finishes as he started: ‘it should be emphasized that the preceding description is primarily theoretical’. It is about ‘the Justification model’s approach to salvation in terms of the most coherent conceptual route to that end’, which particularly examines ‘the internal theoretical integrity of the model’ (35). This point has, as we mentioned, nevertheless sadly been missed, leading to many unfair dismissals.

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 9

A summary review PART 9

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

The Second Phase of Justification Theory: The Generous Contract

If the First Phase is faulty, then the solution offered by this Second Phase will likely also be faulty. It also will determine, given its dynamic, the nature of this Second Phase, which will now be understood in contractual and individualistic terms, even if that contract be generous.

This Phase involves two components. First, in response to the central axiom of God’s justice, there will be a central place for the satisfaction of that justice in the death of Christ (and often positively an imputation of Christ’s righteousness). This is crucial, as the demands of justice are central - this cannot be compromised. So ‘the model’s opening calculus ... remains essential’ (25). The demands of a certain understanding of justice (which he will later explain is forensic retributive) frame the nature of this model’s solution. 

From http://2009.solaconference.org/

Second, given that this model’s premises are contractual, a criterion will need to be fulfilled to appropriate the benefits of this satisfaction of justice. Given the claims of Phase One, this new criterion will need to be manageable, and at this point ‘faith’ makes sense (and ‘the claim that faith alone saves is cradled by the logic of the first phase’ [26]). Also to note is that this faith is understood in a voluntarist framework, as ‘if the saving criterion were coerced, then the preceding progress of the rational individual would be pointless ... If it were lacking, then we would not really be dealing with this model at all’ (26). 

Above I stated that this contract is 'generous'; I deliberately avoided calling it gracious. The reason for this is that while God’s saving activity in the death of Christ, in this Second Phase, is certainly generous, it is not unconditional (so DC must ask whether even the good news of JT is really gracious).

The next instalment finishes of our overview of DC's Justification Theory, before we turn to see how he reviews it.

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 8

A summary review PART 8

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

In this post we complete our analysis of DC’s portrayal of the First Phase of JT. In the next post we will detail the nature of the Second Phase before turning to look at the important matter of the ‘root metaphors’ of JT.

The introspective twist

So far, this First Phase is nothing unusual. However, the point of all of it is to drive the sinner into a second, Christian phase. ‘How it achieves this pressure is quite ingenious, involving, first the rigor with which the law is upheld and, second, a principal of introversion’ (19).

The rigor may either be interpreted as the demand for total obedience, or obedience which outweighs disobedience – though the former tends to trump the latter (cf. the Westminster Confession of Faith: 'The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience'). But either way, the point is that obedience is impossible – it leads to condemnation. Hence the second point: ‘People are supposed to reflect on their own condition in the light of the demands of the law and to realize that they fall short if the requisite obedience’ (20). We all sin and everyone who look at themselves honestly, who examine themselves enough, will realise this (cf. aspects of the autobiographies of Luther and Augustine at this point!)
 

The loop of despair

Hence, some poor folk may simply ‘try harder’, ‘pull up their moral bootstraps’ as Tom Wright may phrase it. But this will fail, generating a loop of despair (hence, I am tempted to add, Luther, his probable OCD and his anguished conscience – cf. Osborn, Ian. Can Christianity Cure Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?: A Psychiatrist Explores the Role of Faith in Treatment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2008).

The loop of foolishness

Of course there will be some fools who, having confronted the reality of themselves (introspected), fail to realise the gravity of the situation and boast in their own righteousness. These hypocritical folk, though truly destined to doom, are terribly deceived, and this explains why the pious are often the wost kind of people, and liable to the most guilt.

The next post completes our overview of JT according its logical progression.

Why am I, at the moment, going so slowly through my Deliverance review?

1. I feel an extended meditation on the point of DC's portrayal of Justification Theory (JT) was, er, justified, given the many misunderstandings and unfair dismissals in peer reviews.
2. Many who will read this review will, I suspect, gain much from DC's critical engagement with JT. As Doug made clear in his guest post, at a more popular level JT problematically holds a more extensive grip on theological imaginations.

For these two reasons, I plan to slither reasonably slowly through Part One of The Deliverance of God.

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 7

A summary review PART 7

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

It was necessary to spend so much time clarifying exactly what DC aims to do with 'Justification Theory' (JT), because it has so often been misunderstood and rhetorically dismissed, rather than argumentatively falsified. In so doing, the problems which dog the interpretation of Paul have been swept under a rhetorical carpet, an unhealthy manoeuvre DC aims to combat. Let us now, then, press on to overview JT itself, remembering the points made above, specifically that we are now going to be confronted with the theological content of readings of Romans 1-4 (not ‘conservative’, ‘Lutheran’ or any other academic readings of Paul in toto!) and the theological implications of this reading, something that needs to be undertaken before this soteriology is then introduced them into the broader picture of Paul. 

The First Phase of Justification Theory: The Rigorous Contract

The Opening Progression

The soteriology, which DC calls JT, begins with the pre-Christian condition, a state which involves rational, self-interested individuals who know what must be obvious to all: that God is just and retributively punishes sin. Sin, here, is the transgression of God’s moral demands which, for the Jew, is the law (who are ‘the archetypal occupants of phase one’ [16]), and for the Gentile is the conscience (hence natural theology has a big part to play in this soteriology). As God is just, it functions as follows: 'do bad you get punished', but also ‘do good you get rewarded’. Hence the soteriology is fundamentally conditional. It follows that, for this system, ‘ethical legislation based on retributive justice is the fundamental structure of the universe, as well as of the divine nature’ (17).

The eschatological caveat

But because it is obvious that the universe is not simply ordered such that the righteous get blessed, and the wicked get punished in this life (the theological problem of the wealthy, happy sinner and the crushed, unhappy saint), ‘[e]verything tends towards a future eschatological climax, when history will be unravelled into its dual constituents – the righteous and the wicked’ (18). In other words: 

Romans 2:6-10 … he will repay according to each one's deeds: ⁷ to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; ⁸ while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. ⁹ There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, ¹⁰ but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good

Yes, of course, this text can be read in different ways (and a terrific analysis of the various options is presented by Michael F. Bird in his helpful book, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007], pp. 155-78), but it seems to me that Bird's "Christian Reading" of these verses, that "Paul is speaking of Gentile Christians who fulfill the Torah through faith in Christ and life in the Spirit" (166), tries ultimately to make the text say what it does not say.

We will continue this overview of JT in the next few posts

Guest Post on the Deliverance Series: Douglas Campbell responds

A qualification about this guest post first: Douglas, of course, does not have the time to engage with all critical points in the comments of these posts. Occasionally, however, he may write a post or two to clarify one or the other point, develop something I have said, or engage with reader comments (e. g. today Daniel Kirk and his comments here and here). I particularly urge readers to study DC's first point below, in response to Francis Watson, which I think will clarify matters considerably. I now hand over to DC:

1. Which major commentator on Romans does not reproduce JT (Justification Theory) when exegeting Romans 1-4? I grant you that Jewett, Dunn, and Wright do not in part. But who else? Stowers? Is that it? Every other major commentator runs JT through Romans 1-4 in a tradition stretching back to the Reformation and now encompassing all major Catholic as well as Protestant commentaries. It almost completely dominates the commentary tradition on Romans 1-4. JT also dominates almost all the minor commentators on Romans, the NT Intros-, the Introductions to Paul's theology, the treatments of Paul's theology when treating justification, etc. etc. Name me a study bible that does not run it. JT is everywhere.

Another way of putting this would be to say, which major commentator does not get to 3:20 and say something like "Paul has just proved that all fall short of God's just requirements, and are under indictment, including Jews, so that the gospel can now be preached to all without distinction..." Even the revisionists turn around and say something like this.

When Francis says that no one attests to JT, he's not really talking accurately about what JT is actually claiming in my book, which is the foregoing. He's saying (presumably) that broader reconstructions of Paul's theology generally don't commit to JT in toto. They find some way to amalgamate it with other views. So do most leading Reformation thinkers. (I don't think that Melanchthon does much other than JT, but even he has some alternative material in play.) But of course they do! You have to. There is so much more in Paul than JT.

But nobody is disputing this.

In fact, I would make a slightly different claim in relation to Francis and others at this point, namely, that these broader syntheses are incoherent. When we press on them we find that they fall apart. The explanations we have been given at such points rest on special pleading and poor exegesis (etc.).

Francis's straw man critique is a clever rhetorical move, because it makes my extended critique look irrelevant. But it's not actually a valid move, and on all sorts of levels. (It's not a true account of my position; it asserts a truism; it isn't a true account of the church--see below; etc.)

2. Now as to JT not existing. In addition to the commentary noted earlier, which parts of the four spiritual laws, the Alpha course's teaching on the atonement, the Navigator B pack's teaching on the atonement, or Billy Graham's model of salvation--to note just a few modern Christian icons--do not reproduce JT? Even more disconcertingly, which part of Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament is not basically committed to a variant of JT?

Which part of John Stott's Basic Christianity does not run JT? Almost every single student I teach at the Divinity School says to me "JT" sums up exactly what they have been taught about the gospel. There are some exceptions, but they are in the minority. Everyone I meet at bible study in prison thinks in terms of JT--every single one (cf. Rom. 3:10-18), although this sample is admittedly not large. Conservative organizations are excluding and firing people for not endorsing key aspects of JT. To not endorse JT is "heretical." JT is, moreover, extremely close to modern political and philosophical Liberalism. So is it really likely that JT does not exist?

You need to do a bit more work, then, if you want to marginalize JT as an interpretative tool than just say "it doesn't exist." There's an awful lot of evidence that says it does, and so you need to deal with it in some other way. I'm open to this, but if you don't actually deal with this material then you risk looking like someone standing in a field at midday with his/her eyes closed saying "the sun doesn't exist" (to wax Wrightian for a moment).

I can understand how Francis might miss this stuff, given his location. Perhaps JT is also less emphasized in hard Reformed circles as well, Daniel. But I suspect that neither of you are in mainstream conservative, or even mainstream church locations and traditions in these respects. All my soundings suggest that JT is ubiquitous. (I wish this wasn't the case; I really do. But I fear that it is.)

All-in-all, my hunch is that if you want to criticize Deliverance--and Francis seems to want to--then you would be better working some other angle. Rejecting the existence of JT risks making you seem a little out of touch. Also, another line of critique might engage with a position that I'm actually committed to arguing. The argument that JT doesn't exist has got no future. Ironically, you have actually set up a straw man.

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 6

A summary review PART 6

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

Many of the misunderstandings of DC’s thesis, which have surfaced in the comments to my earlier posts, could perhaps be avoided if one bears in mind that DC never argues that readers of Paul subscribe to JT in toto. He simply does not say that JT completely sums up readings of Paul – even Melanchthon, who is pretty close, doesn’t entirely. DC is well aware that other scholars know there is much more in Paul than JT. The point is this: to say other things about Paul, to make him more palatable, to include pneumatology etc., one has to amalgamate contradictory theologies into one. DC aims to sharpen our appreciation for the actual theological content of Romans 1-4, to clarify what is at stake. This all means that the straw man argument employed by some reviewers is in fact itself a straw man! Have not DC’s critics set up a weak caricature of his position, which ultimately means that they don't have to engage with its substance? The point is this: if you read Paul – which is after all what we are all supposed to be doing – you then end up with a certain argument, and then a certain theory, one that cannot simply be dismissed (i.e. you have to provide an alternative reading of the actual texts).

To clarify matters, I suggest that it is a good idea to treat DC’s theological elucidation of JT as a thought experiment (based mainly on Romans 1-4), to examine the theological content of those chapters. I am thus reminded of Karl Barth’s justified protest at those who wrote ‘merely the first step towards a commentary’ on Romans, and perhaps it will help to quote that great man at length:

‘I have, it is true, protested against recent commentaries on a Epistle to the Romans. The protest was directed not only against those originating in the so-called "critical" school but also, for example, against the commentaries of Zahl and Kühl ... My complaint is that recent commentators confine themselves to an interpretation the text which seems to me to be no commentary at all, but merely the first step towards a commentary. Recent commentaries contain no more than a reconstruction of the text, a rendering of the Greek words and phrases by their precise equivalents, a number of additional notes in which archaeological and philological material is gathered together, and a more or less plausible arrangement of the subject-matter in such a manner that it may be historically and psychologically intelligible from the standpoint of pragmatism ... Jülicher and Lietzmann, not to mention conservative scholars, intend quite clearly to press beyond this preliminary work to an understanding of Paul. Now, this involves more than a mere repetition in Greek or in German of what Paul says: it involves a reconsideration of what is set out in the Epistle, until the actual meaning of it is disclosed ... The conversation between the original record and the reader moves round the subject-matter, until a distinction between yesterday and to-day becomes impossible’ (Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns [Oxford: Oxford UP, 1968], 6-7, italics mine).

DC, like Barth, wants to engage us with the ‘subject-matter’ of Romans 1-4 and, according to the conventional reading, these are the theological commitments necessarily involved. Perhaps, in light of the DoG reviews it would have been better, for pedagogical reasons, to order the argument differently. Would it have been better to have begun with his hermeneutical clarifications in Part Two, or at least with his discussion in chapter 7, ‘The Recognition of a Discourse’ – only then to launch into the portrayal and critique of JF? Of course, I must insist that, as I noted above, DC did make himself clear in his preamble in chapter one (pp. 11ff).

We will return, when we examine chapter 7, to the importance of some of the distinctions in play here. Let us press ahead now to DC’s analysis, which builds on J.B Torrance’s analysis of Federal Calvinism.

Indeed, I am tempted to continue this review with his chapter 7 first, before turning to Justification Theory ... what shall I do?!

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 5

A summary review PART 5

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

I must now expand on the point made in the previous post, as it seems to be a common misunderstanding of DC’s position. Watson, in his review, writes:

‘Throughout his book, Campbell engages primarily with the full, intact theory as he himself has reconstructed it, normally preferring to debate not with the specific views of an individual scholar but with Justification theory in its totality. In consequence, a number of possible divergences from this Justification theory are downplayed or ignored. Thus, “faith” might be understood theologically as an acknowledgment of divine saving action in Christ engendered by the Holy Spirit, and not at all as the “anthropocentric” product of human volition (as Campbell maintains); and the divine saving action itself might be understood in terms very different from Anselm’s, with an emphasis perhaps on the resurrection alongside the cross ... We note again how dependent Campbell is on his monolithic, undifferentiated Justification theory, which generates problems ... which for many scholars are simply non-existent’ (Francis Watson, “Book Review: Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul,” Early Christianity 1.1 [May 2010]: 181, 183)

Mark Seifrid makes a similar argument:

http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/mark-seifrid/

‘Rather than engaging the traditions in depth, Campbell constructs a straw man with whom he then holds his debate. His relatively brief discussion of Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Augustine (pp. 247–83) does not deflect him from his critique of the model of Protestant thought that he himself has constructed. This abstract and artificial theological “debate” fatally weakens his work’ (Mark A. Seifrid, “Book Review: Douglas Atchison Campbell. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul,” Themelios 35.2 [July 2010]: 308)

I would suggest, however, that these assertions entirely fail to hit the target. DC’s argument is simply this: that conventional readings of Romans 1-4 (including those which maintain crucial texts in these chapters are representative of Paul’s own theology and not ‘speech-in-character’ – which we will explain later) involve certain theoretical or theological corollaries, and, if Paul is not to be dismissed as hopelessly confused and contradictory at a basic level, then this is the system that follows. DC is well aware that scholars have ways around these theological implications, by reading parts of Romans 2, for example, in light of Romans 5 etc., and he will discuss these strategies later - under titles such as 're-framing' - and offer reasons why they fail. This is not his present point. But a detailed description of the theological commitments involved in a conventional reading of Romans 1-4 is necessary so that clarity may be gained in the task of understanding how Paul’s theology fits together as a whole. Further, arguments against DC, to the effect that the JT ‘construct’ is not found in Luther, Calvin etc. does not refute DC’s thesis at all, but ironically actually proves his point! If Luther and Calvin move away from JT at points, which DC will actively show that they indeed do (!), then all this demonstrates is that they have lost the exegetical witness of Romans 1-4, which, as we shall see, affirms one of DC’s main theses!

In the next post, I will mop up some of these points with reference to Karl Barth's exegesis of Romans.

Review of Campbell’s Deliverance PART 4

A summary review PART 4

of Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009

In the next few posts I will spend a fair bit of time on Justification Theory and misunderstandings of DC’s argument at this point. Hopefully we will then be in a place to better understand the brilliance of DC’s solution: a rhetorical and apocalyptic reading of Paul.

Part One: Justification Theory, and Its Implications

Chapter One: The Heart of the Matter: The Justification Theory of Salvation

In Part 2 we reviewed DC’s solution to the problem of entering the knotty problems associated with reading texts saturated by ideology, theological presuppositions etc, namely to initially analyse ‘a set of preliminary characterizations that were largely incontestable and could serve to establish and initiate the principal issues’ (xxvii). His much misunderstood Part One begins this process, the task of describing a particular soteriology, what he will call ‘Justification Theory’ (hereafter JT). It is key to recognise that JT is an:

‘... amalgam of a particular reading of various Pauline texts ... and a theory of salvation that, given certain key elements, simply must develop in certain directions as a matter of sheer rationality’ (12).

Had this point, and DC’S elucidation of it, been taken seriously, a number of misreading of DC’s thesis could have been avoided. JT is not simply a description of what Luther, Calvin, Moo etc. believe, nor did it ever claim to be. DC is well aware that the reformers, and those who followed, cannot be forced into the neat lines of the soteriology he will now describe. As DC explains: ‘There is a sense, then, in which this is something of a thought experiment: if Paul is interpreted ultimately a certain points in the following fashion, then all these consequences follow. And what follows is an individualistic, contractual soteriology grounded ‘in certain critical metaphors and reinforced by certain ideological and cultural positions, many of them distinctively modern’ (14). It is for this reason that DC’s JT cannot simply be dismissed as a ‘monolith’ (Watson), as if it were illegitimately imposed upon readers of Paul.

Given that misunderstandings are so common at this point, I will develop the point made above in the next installment in dialogue with Francis Watson and Mark Seifrid.