More on Campbell’s “Deliverance of God” (3) « Cross Talk ~ crux probat omnia

More on Campbell’s “Deliverance of God” (3)

At the end of the book, Douglas summarizes his view of Paul’s gospel as “the countervailing gospel [i.e., contra Justification Discourse] of sanctification, ethical efficacy, and ecclesial community” (p. 935); I think this is a fabulous summary of Paul. In the same context he claims that his argument

is meant to be an important moment in the advance to ecclesial and scholarly triumph of the participatory and apocalyptic gospel, which is also really to say, of the Trinitarian gospel—an ecumenical gospel that both Protestants and Catholics can presumably affirm (obviously in accord with both the Orthodox and most post-modern Protestant traditions), a gospel both old and new…. an authentic and orthodox Pauline gospel. (p. 934; cf. my similar comments in the Introduction to Inhabiting, p. 8, n. 22)

Douglas has indeed rendered a tremendous service both to Pauline scholarship and to the church. He rightly insists that the material content of Romans 5-8, transformation or sanctification or “ontological reconstitution” (e.g., p. 185), is not supplemental to the gospel or to justification but constitutive of them:

Paul’s account of sanctification is his gospel. His description of deliverance and cleansing “in Christ,” through the work of the Spirit, at the behest of the Father, the entire process being symbolized by baptism, is the good news. It requires no supplementation by other [e.g., “contractual”] systems. (p. 934; cf. pp. 187-88)

However, Douglas believes that his thesis about 1:18—3:20 as “alien discourse,” and only this thesis, elevates Romans 5-8 “to its rightful status” (p. 934), because his thesis, and only his thesis, makes it possible to “affirm coherently that ‘God justifies the ungodly,’” that is, that God unconditionally delivers those enslaved to Sin (p. 934). While I strongly affirm his overall interpretation of Paul’s gospel, I think Douglas’s reading of 1:18—3:20 is wrong, and that his reading of Paul’s gospel does not depend on his reading of 1:18—3:20.

More to come…

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 9:21 pm and is filed under Biblical Scholars & Theologians, Paul, Salvation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to “More on Campbell’s “Deliverance of God” (3)”

T says:

November 12, 2009 at 11:05 am

Michael,

I’m encouraged by the bits and pieces of Campbell’s work that you and others are highlighting. When I’m explaining the gospel to people now, I tend to start with a description that “the good news” is about all the good that God is doing and wants to do for the world through Jesus. Everything he’s done, is doing and has in mind to do is good news (which is what the entire NT seems to be about). We are called to trust this good news, and get on board. I see a recovery of this “big gospel” in the quotes from Campbell’s book, and it encourages me to keep opening myself to that good news and keep living and giving it.
MJG says:

November 12, 2009 at 11:10 pm

T—

I’m glad! Spread the word! (Just don’t leave sin out of the picture completely !)
T says:

November 19, 2009 at 11:52 am

Michael, of course. Part of what I mean by “all the good God is doing and wants to do for the world through Jesus” is our justification and our sanctification–our increased participation in the life of Christ as we simultaneously lay down our condemned lives that are enslaved to sin. Getting some freedom from sin (and not merely it’s penalty) is a big part of the good news.

BTW, I wonder how much emphasis we have put on the use of the term “sin” even over and above the substance of the term. I just posted on this today, and didn’t have space there to include a “sin as a power” discussion, which I agree is a very important angle, but I’d be curious for your thoughts on the point of the post. In sum, I see too many in Church that want to focus on the term but not the problem (and its solution). The contrast to 12-step groups is especially painful here.
MJG says:

November 19, 2009 at 11:05 pm

T—

Off to SBL. Will try to look at your post at some point!
T says:

November 20, 2009 at 11:28 am

Michael,

In retrospect, the problem I describe in my post may be a problem that is more unique to my context, which tends to be an inner-city environment where the right religious badges or correctness too often gets in the way of unity and/or ministering to the most hurting. It may not be worth your time.

Thanks again for the review of Campbell’s work and all that you do bringing Paul and his message to greater light.
Tim Marsh says:

November 23, 2009 at 10:11 pm

Dr. Gorman,

I write as a former student of Dr. Campbell (well, just the Romans course). You wrote that Dr. Campbell’s reading of Romans 5-8 should not necessarily be dependent on how he proposes to read Romans 1-4. However, I would argue that his reading of 5-8 is necessarily dependent on his reading of Romans 1-4. His theology of 5-8 is dependent on a complete debunking of human faith as the soteriological mechanism in the process of salvation.

Salvation (i.e., Romans 5-8) in his system is a total work of God and only realized retrospectively. Campbell will not leave any room for the appropriation of salvation, which Romans 1-4 traditionally espouses. In other words, there is no “sinner’s prayer” or “Roman Road” in a gospel presentation, but only the proclamation of the Lordship (i.e. divinity) of Jesus as revealed in his death as a martyr and subsequent resurrection.

Whether one would agree with this or not, I would argue that for one to say that Campbell’s readings of 5-8 to be valid without accepting his reading of 1-4 is to say that one has not completely grasped the nuances of his reading of 5-8 (And, I do not claim to have done so, either).

For Campbell, at least in Quest, and in class, it is an all or nothing deal on his reading. And, I have been wrestling with his reading since Spring 2007.
MJG says:

November 24, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Tim—

Thanks for the post. I will post a few excerpts from my paper on his book given yesterday at the SBL panel review of his book. A couple of points:

1. I don’t claim to understand every detail in the book, but I may be the only person in the world other than Dr. Campbell who has read it four times.

2. There are two things about Romans 1-3 that tell strongly against Dr. Campbell’s argument. First, the early part of Romans is not a prospective “Roman Road” but a retrospective interpretation of the human condition outside of Christ from inside Christ. If 1:18-3:20 is not prospective, than it can be integrated with chapters 5-8.

Second, Paul himself uses some of the key words form Romans 1-2 later in the letter, especially in chapters 8 and 12-15, to show how life in Christ is the antithesis of the human condition in Adam in the fulfillment of what God intended. Why would he use that language if he did not agree with it?

On this second point, which was raised both by me and by Fuller’s Seyoon Kim, Dr. Campbell said that if Kim is right, he is wrong. Quite and admission!
clayboy » Biblical Studies Carnival XLVIII says:

November 30, 2009 at 7:28 pm

[...] of God. Michael Gorman posted some previews of his contribution in four parts, one, two, three and four, with a retrospective part five after the panel. Amomng other bloggers Chris Tilling was [...]

Cross Talk ~ crux probat omnia

More on Campbell’s “Deliverance of God” (3)

8 Responses to “More on Campbell’s “Deliverance of God” (3)”

Leave a Reply