`But again one might ask whether we are to pray by words or deeds and what need there is for prayer, if God already nows what is needful for us. But it is because the act of prayer clarifies and purges our heart and makes it more capable of receiving the divine gifts that are poured out for us in the spirit. God does not give heed to the ambitiousness of our prayers, because he is always ready to give to us his light, not a visible light but an intellectual and spiritual one: but we are not always read to receive it when we turn aside and down to other things out of a desire for temporal things. For in prayer there occurs a turning of the heart to he who is always ready to give if we will but take what he gives: and in that turning is the purification of the inner eye when the things we crave in the temporal world are shut out; so that the vision of the pure heart can bear the pure light that shines divinely without setting or wavering: and not only bear it, but abide in it; not only without difficulty, but even with unspeakable joy, with which the blessed life is truly and genuinely brought to fulfillment.'

Augustine, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount 2.3.14

Mark Goodacre has written an interesting and thought-provoking post on the dates of Galatians and 1 Corinthians, in which he outlines a case for placing the date of Galatians between 1 and 2 Corinthians. (Part One and Two)

Cafe Apocalypsis has begun a series that takes an in-depth look at the relationship between Israel and the Church without resorting to LaHaye-esque jibberish. Chris Tilling is also continuing his series on Christian Zionism.

Chris Petersen is writing a fascinating and well-written series on the Date of the Passover and Inerrancy, with a strong critique of Andreas Kostenberger's view, amongst other things. Meanwhile Chris Weimer is writing a good in-depth series on the history of the canon.

Finally, Dr Jim West has relocated to a new address. Be sure to add http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/ to your bookmarks!

This post continues the mini-series I'm doing on D A Campbell's critique of justification by faith as the primary model of Pauline theology. Following on from part 3, this post will look at the Pauline doctrine of atonement through the eyes of the JF model, although much of the foundation for this post was set out here.

Christ and the Atonement

This particular part of Campbell's critique is not as in depth or as sustained as some of the other parts, and would perhaps benefit from being a little more in depth, although Joel has usefully pointed out that Campbell has another book on Paul and JF coming out soon, so perhaps we'll hear more then. The overriding problems Campbell sees is that the JF model focuses on the cross exclusively as it tries to explain Christ's saving work, yet

"while placing a satisfactory emphasis on the cross, [it] evacuates the incarnation, much of his life, his resurrection, and his ascension of all soteriological value. According to the JF model, these aspects of Christ have no real part to play in the great drama by which God saves humanity, since the JF model focuses solely on the cross." (168)

Campbell paints with a bit of a broad brush here, though he is correct insofar as Protestantism has seldom placed as much emphasis on the saving aspects of the incarnation and the resurrection as the NT and early church did. This has inevitably discoloured our understanding of the cross slightly, since the incarnation of the Word and his resurrection are the framing events that give the cross its fullest meaning.

So also Paul emphasises the saving effects of the resurrection, not simply the cross (e.g. 1 Cor 15:17), and the resurrection is also an integral part of Paul's doctrine of justification ("he was delivered for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification." Rom 4:25). Furthermore, Paul emphasises the sending of the Son as a foundational premise in his soteriological constructions (Rom 8:1-4, 2 Cor 5:21, Phil 2:5-11). God the Father sends his Son into the human condition to deliver us from it in an ongoing saving act whereby the incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection are all indissolubly linked together (and we might also mention the sending of the Spirit, which Campbell does not allude to at this stage). Emphasising one aspect of this process to the neglect of the others inevitably skews our understanding of Jesus' saving life and work. This is Campbell's main criticism of JF at this stage, claiming that JF leads only to a "christological cul-de-sac".

Perhaps this is the case, but more importantly as far as Paul's overall theological scheme goes Campbell points out that Paul never attempts an extended and systematic explanation of how and why Jesus' death was of salvific significance, despite many extensive rationalisations of the atonement in later theology claiming to stand in the Pauline tradition (he is remarkably similar to Stephen Finlan at this point).  It may be a little unfair to single out JF-focused theologians and exegetes at this point, although it is interesting that JF's complex and thorough account of the cross actually bears remarkably little resemblance to what Paul actually says.

In another comment that echoes Finlan's claim, Campbell asserts that Paul offers no extended explanation as to how the atonement works for the simple reason that the cultic metaphors and sacrificial images were already very familiar to Paul's original readers, so a more in-depth account is not needed.In closing this particular criticism, Campbell touches briefly on a NT theme that he focuses upon next, namely the tricky issue of Jesus and Judaism. JF assumes (although rightly, in my view) that the saving death of Jesus has superseded the old sacrificial system, but it does not explain why Jesus' death should function as such:

"In sum, Christ's role seems to have bene strangely constricted by the JF model to the work of the cross, while neither do we really understand exactly why he, the Son of God, is actually doing this, thereby also displacing a system that already did it. This is a strange and difficult set of conundrums, and they must be added to the difficulty we noted earlier, namely, why Christ's work had to be conceived of in punitive terms at all, in satisfaction of the demands of divine justice." (169)

Although I agree with Campbell's criticism in a broad sense at this point, I felt that his overall argument here was too underdeveloped. Nevertheless, he does pave the way for what in my view is still the biggest problem for a JF-centric reading of Paul, which is the accusation that theological constructions of JF have critically misrepresented first century Judaism.

There have been some good 9/11 related posts on the net this week, but here are my favourite two:

Dwight revisits some of his thoughts from five years ago, and considers some of the less than Christlike responses that appeared in some parts of the church.

Matt Francis also writes a rather poignant account of his own experiences of 9/11 here.

In this little mini-series I have been outlining D A Campbell's criticism of attempts to make the doctrine of justification by faith the theological centre of Paul's Gospel. In Campbell's view, placing JF at the centre of Paul's theology causes many other key elements of Pauline theology to be dragged and pulled out of shape, or even completely distorted. One such distortion that certain understandings of justification by faith have caused is to ideas to do with God's justice. This post will outline Campbell's critique of what he sees as gross distortions of divine justice caused by many Protestant expressions of justification by faith.

Justification and the Justice of God

According to Campbell, the JF model struggles from the outset becuase it is wholeheartedly commited to placing the justice of God at the centre of the Gospel, and even more than that it focuses mainly on the retributive justice of God. With this as its primary emphasis, it throws many other of the divine attributes out of kilter:

"By orienting the model's first phase to God's retributive justice, the model in fact commits the entire theological programme to this basal understanding of the divine nature; if all else fails or does not unfold, God will still, at bottom, be retributively just. It follows from this that any different attributes - for example, mercy - must in effect be super-added to God's existing nature. They are accidental or occasional qualities, while the divine justice lies beneath them permanently. Indeed, they can only be exercised when the divine justice has been satisfied."

This criticism of some JF models and their corollaries such as penal substitution are not new, and are often dealt with by somehow viewing the cross as a means of resolving two conflicting attitudes in the Godhead, such as God's justice (which must punish sin) and God's mercy (which wants to forgive sinners). John Stott's The Cross of Christ would be a good example of this. Yet ultimately the JF model still requires that at the most basic level it is God's retributive justice that is constant, while his saving love is arbitrary. If this is what Paul thinks about atonement, he does not really articulate this idea to any great extent. Furthermore, if it were not actually the case that God's core attribute is his tendency to be retributively just, most of the evangelical expressions of JF would collapse:

"It is hard to see, then, how a God constrained by a fundamentally retributive attitude could act in a consistently and fundamentally gracious and loving fashion. These are, at bottom, different Gods." (166)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this also calls many aspects of the JF model of atonement into question, since what we see at Calvary is an accomodation of the divine love to the divine justice. Grace and love are made to fit within the retributive parameters that the JF model is already committed to, and not vice-versa. Apart from an appropriation of the benefits of the cross by believers, other humans will encounter only God's justice, will his love and mercy remain elusive.

Since the JF model has a strong emphasis on retributive justice punishing human sin, it tends towards seeing Calvary and the atonement as being chiefly punitive. Campbell quite simply suggests that no mechanism of punishment-avoidance is necessary, and that God quite freely choose to forgive sinners purely out of his own graciousness:

"Such a God can presumably just forgive that sin, and get on with the task of restoring humanity from Sin's alienating ravages. There is no need to set up some elaborate mechanism whereby punishment is meted out on that sin appropriately but the sinner is not destroyed [...] the cross would be fundamentally transformative, as against a punitive event. But the prospective JF model excludes this possibility." (167)

Finally, the final justice of God on judgment day also becomes somewhat clouded when interpreted and developed through the theological precommitments of a JF-centric soteriology:

"This fundamentally just God holds everyone accountable on the Last Day for any failure to perform good deeds. If this was to be a just scenario, however, then human beings would have to be capable of performing good deeds (as well as avoiding bad ones) [...] but the JF model also holds that people are actually incapable of doing good deeds indefinitely, and of avoiding the bad. People are fundamentally fallen and corrupt by nature [...] And this raises an awkward question. It does not seem fundamentally just in retributive terms to hold people accountable for something that they could not avoid instrinsically." (167)

This is an important and legitimate point raised by Campbell. The incapability of humanity to correctly perceive God or to do what is right (this is not the same thing as "works" in the Pauline sense, I think) and to do only evil may appear to have Pauline support (Rom 3:12), but Paul may not necessarily share the view of many of his interpreters - namely that the innate human tendency to do only evil will only be met with the retributive justice of God at the final judgment (consider Rom 2:7).

Furthermore the inability of human beings to do good (or "earn their way to heaven", to use a profoundly unbiblical and theologically confusing term) is an essential component of the JF model, yet it seems remarkably at odds with the JF emphasis on divine justice if at the same time if it insists that the punishment of human beings for sins of which they are helplessly and innately guilty is fair and just. The JF commitments to the centrality of divine retributive justice and to the impossibilty of human beings ever doing good may seem, in the final event, to depict a God who is "arbitrary, inaccurate, and at times also rather appalling" (167), and certainly one who is different to the God we find revealed in Paul's own writings.

Mike Bird has also written a good post on the Gospel and Justification here. The next post in this series will briefly consider some of the issues that JF raises for some questions in atonement.

In my last post, I began to examine the question of Paul's theological centre in the light of D A Campbell's recent book, The Quest For Paul's Gospel. Campbell suggests that many problems and inconsistencies in Pauline theology have arisen because many exegetes and theologians have placed at the centre of Paul's thought that which should really be peripheral, and have made peripheral that which should really be central.

To this end, he is strongly critical of Pauline models of theology that place justification by faith (or a particular understanding of this doctrine) at the heart of Paul's theology. Campbell's key points on the matter are certainly very interesting, and this first post will outline some of his critique.

The problem of justification by faith and natural theology

Campbell begins his journey on the well-worn path of Romans 1, which he alleges is usually assumed by proponents of the justification by faith model (hereafter JF) to be a discourse on natural theology:

"A generic individual is meant to discern God's existence from the cosmos, "from what has been made", deducing that "he" is single, divine, powerful, invisible, and cannot be imaged. It is the failure to glorify and thank this God that leads immediately to the darkening of the mind, and to an ensuing sequence of mounting behavioural depravity." (p164)

There have of course been other ways of reading Romans 1, although Campbell does not allude to them. Nevertheless, he sees this particular reading as integral to the JF model, but one that is theologically flawed on several grounds. Firstly, it requires that the model of salvation is wholly orientated only towards solitary rational individuals, and that this way of salvation is the one that everyone is supposed to take. This in turn places the catastrophically darkened human being at the centre of all soteriological models and marginalises both soteriologies that have God at the centre of the saving initiative and also anthropologies that are more collective, corporate, and relational than the models of Luther and his followers have perhaps been.

This in turn causes epistemological problems, argues Campbell,

"as it assumes that God is to be understood primarily in propositional terms, that is in terms of information that is apparent to self-reflective individuals, whoever or wherever they are. This may be contrasted with traditional Jewish epistemology that is based on revelation, often in relation to texts, and is also highly personal and particular. Put a little more bluntly, natural theology excludes personal, particular, and scriptural revelations, which, as such are not available universally to self-reflective individuals." (p165)

Or put more bluntly still, to assume from Romans 1 that mankind's universal depravity is a result of the failure to comprehend the knowledge of Yahweh from nature overlooks the fact that Yahweh has revealed himself specifically and particularly through Abraham, Israel, and Torah.
Furthermore, if Paul really is trying to establish the natural theology that the JF model requires at this point, he does seem to perhaps stretch it a little too far. Is it really possible to infer from nature (for example) that "heterosexual monogamy is written into the cosmos, along with a prohibtion on idolatry"? It is ludicrous, Campbell suggests, to insist that these things can be inferred from nature.

Campbell finally dismisses the JF reading of natural theology in Romans 1 by appealing to elsewhere in Paul's own writings. In 1 Cor 1:17-2:16 Paul is strongly critically of natural theology since it is a "wisdom of the world" an cannot know God, and above all his reason for rejecting it is on Christological grounds. God has revealed himself to the world through the weakness of Christ rather than through the worldliness of natural theology or philosophy.

In short Campbell suggests that the JF is made weak from the start since it is committed to an understanding of natural theology that Paul himself rejects:

"that Paul would be more strongly committed to a christological and staurocentric position than the deliberations of generic rational individuals on nature seems prima facie more likely [...] In sum, a nasty thicket of problems surrounds the apparnt commitment of the opening phases of the JF model to natural theology [...] it causes acute problems for the Pauline interpreter" (165)

Campbell's opening criticism is fairly well made, though here (as elsewhere) he highlights the negative with which he disagrees rather than stating a positive lternative. Understanding Paul's Gospel in on JF's terms does not live or die on this analysis alone, and Campbell might have also taken into account ome of the OT traditions that assert the knowability of Yahweh through the wonders of creation (though one might argue that this was a perfectly legitimate onclusion for the Psalmist, since he had already accquired knowledge of Yahweh through other means).The next post in this series will look at the JF model's account of the justice of God.

My God, I believe most firmly
that You watch over all who hope in You,
and that we can want for nothing
when we rely upon You in all things.
Therefore I am resolved for the future...
to cast all my cares upon You...

People may deprive me of worldly goods and status.
Sickness may take from me my strength
and the means of serving You.
I may even jeopardize our relationship by sin,
but my trust shall never leave me.
I will preserve it to the last moment of my life,
and the powers of hell shall seek in vain
to grab it from me.

Let others seek happiness in their wealth
and in their talents.
Let them trust in the purity of their lives,
the severity of their mortifications,
in the number of their good works,
the enthusiasm of their prayers,
as for me, my Rock and my Refuge,
my confidence in you fills me with hope.
For You, my Divine Protector,
alone have settled me in hope.

"This confidence can never be vain.
No one, who has hoped in God,
has ever been confounded."

I am assured, therefore, of my eternal happiness,
for I firmly hope in it and all my hope is in You.

"In You, O loving God, have I hoped:
let me never be confounded."

I know too well that I am weak and changeable.
I know the power of temptation
against the strongest virtue.
I have seen stars fall and foundations of my world crack;
these things do not alarm me.
While I hope in You, I am sheltered from all misfortune,
and I am sure that my trust shall endure,
for I rely upon You to sustain this unfailing hope.

Finally, I know that my confidence
cannot exceed Your generosity,
and that I shall never receive less
than I have hoped for from You.
Therefore I hope that You will sustain me
against my evil inclinations,
that You will protect me
against the deceitful attacks of the evil one,
and that You will cause my weakness
to triumph over every hostile force.
I hope that You will never cease to love me
and that I shall love You unceasingly.

"In You, O loving God, have I hoped:
let me never be confounded."

Amen

St. Claude La Colombiere 

O Lord my God,
teach my heart this day where and how to see You,
where and how to find You.

You have made me and remade me,
and You have bestowed on me
all the good things I possess,
and still I do not know You.
I have not yet done that
for which I was made.

Teach me to seek You,
for I cannot seek You
unless You teach me,
or find You
unless You show Yourself to me.

Let me seek You in my desire,
Let me desire You in my seeking.
Let me find You by loving You,
Let me love You when I find You.

Amen

St. Anselm

One of the best books on Paul that I've come across recently was D A Campbell's The Quest For Paul's Gospel, which came out late last year. It is an ambitious book that aims to try and determine the centre of Paul's theology so as to better understand the overall coherence of his theology. The book is not another vociferous defence of the New Perspective, but neither is it a reaffirmation of the traditional Protestant view of Pauline theology. Campbell argues (with a considerable degree of success in my view) that if we see Paul's chief theological concern as being justification by faith, then many other parts of his theology are a non-sequitur and appear to be out of place, or even contradictory. That is not to say that Paul is disinterested in justification by faith - clearly he is - but that for him the core of the Gospel consists of something else altogether.

Campbell considers four models that may be used to understand Paul's theological thinking. The first is the anti-theological model (AT), which suggests that Paul is too inconsistent and irrational in his thinking and so a reconstruction of his theology is not possible. Campbell spends only a little time critiquing this idea before considering the other three main models that claim to most clearly explain Paul's theology.

The first model is the Salvation-Historical (SH) approach to Paul's theology, which understands Paul as now seeing the Church as the fulfillment of Israel's history (he places N T Wright in this camp) but ultimately Campbell detects too many problems with this model for it to be considered a coherent theological strategy for explaining the conclusions that Paul comes to. Personally I thought Campbell was a little too keen to dismiss this model without really interacting with it as much as he could have done.

Campbell's own suggested model is what he calls Pneumatological Participatory Martyrological Eschatology (hereafter PPME, for obvious reasons!), which he sees as superior to approaches that place either SH or Justification by Faith (JF) at the heart of Paul's Gospel. Without going into too much detail, Campbell believes that the role of the Spirit in creating and constituting a eschatological people who share "in Christ" is Paul's overriding theological concern and the heart of his theology. My intention for now is not to focus on Campbell's solution so much as on his criticism of some aspects of the traditional Protestant reading of Paul which places justification by faith at the centre of the Pauline Gospel.

Debates over what St. Paul really said about justification by faith are rife on the internet and frequently far too shrill and defensive for my liking and I don't really want to get stuck into one as they tend to be somewhat tiresome. I should be clear that Campbell does not deny justification by faith, but rather he argues that if JF is the centre of Paul's Gospel, then too many other parts of it do not make sense. Rather than being the core doctrine from which all else radiates, justification by faith is really a peripheral doctrine in Paul's overall evangelical scheme. Rather than seeing the Gospel in what is perhaps a more traditional evangelical manner, Campbell summarises Paul's Gospel thus:

"...the important thing for Paul is the new set of relationships created in Christ, as well as the new relational capacity human beings have "in" him Through Christians' relationships with the Spirit, they now relate, in Christ, to the Father. In short, Christ makes Christians into fully relation beings, that is, into real full persons."In Him" they can relate to God as they ought to. Outside of him, humanity is enslaved to hostile and evil forces that curve people in on themselves, away from God and from others, corrupting and distorting all their relationships." (p41)

So far, so interesting, but what I really want to focus on in this mini-series is Campbell's critique of the JF model. Many of his criticisms of the "Lutheran view" are not original, but they are still valid, and at least raise some interesting questions about how we might better put together the pieces of the Pauline puzzle.The next few posts in this series will outline some of Campbell's criticism in a little more depth.

(This post was shorter than I intended it to be, but I'm working an awful lot of hours at the moment so it's better to write several short posts rather than one long one!)