Is justification by faith the centre of Paul's Gospel? 2

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.