The Dark Night

Okay everyone, this is the post you’ve finally been waiting on! We are finally into Part 4 of The Deliverance of God where Campbell begins to walk through his alternative reading of Paul.

To begin, Campbell asks us to step back and consider the “frame” of Romans. Why was the book written? What prompted Paul to send such a long, polemical letter to a church he had yet to visit? What was going on in the church at Rome?

These questions are important because, as Campbell reviews, different proposed frames for the composition of Romans have produced some intriguing readings. Campbell’s frame is that the Roman church encountered (or would soon encounter) some Jewish-Christian teachers who were proclaiming a gospel at odds with Paul’s gospel. Paul, thus, is keen to get the letter of Romans to the church in Rome to refute these teachers of a “false gospel.” I find this frame very plausible as it fits with a variety of other biblical data: The debates about circumcision in Acts (Acts 11, 15), Paul’s squabble with Peter in Antioch (Gal. 2), and, most convincingly, Paul’s final exhortation at the end of Romans:

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

So we can assume that the goal of the letter of Romans was a refutation of a “false gospel,” one tied to the Judaizing teachers, those in the early Christian church who taught something similar to what we find in Acts 15.1: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

With this frame in mind we can approach Romans 1-4.

Campbell starts his reading by taking in the big picture. Specifically, when we look at Romans 1-4 we find two soteriological systems. The first is characterized by “works of the Law.” The second is characterized by “faith/trust/fidelity.” Each of these systems claim to bring salvation: “Righteousness” or “justification.” What everyone agrees on is that Paul rejects the first soteriology–righteousness/justification through works of the Law–and advocates the second (”righteousness by faith/trust”). So far so good. The trouble comes, according to Campbell, when Justification Theory unnecessarily (and somewhat paradoxically) links these two soteriological systems. They become, respectively, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Justification Theory. That is, we move from condemnation under a “works-based” system into the grace of the “trust-based” system. We have already noted some of the contradictions that are created when we link these two systems.

Campbell’s argument is that there is no good textual reason to link these two systems. Paul clearly wants to reject the “works-based” soteriology. According to Justification Theory he really can’t. Paul has to adopt the Retributive God and the perfectionistic criterion. Why? So he can create the moral despair necessary to propel his audience (then and now) into the arms of grace (Phase 2). But many problems are created when we are forced to link these two soteriologies; weirdly, Paul has to both accept and reject the “works-based” system.

So why not simply leave these two systems separate? In short, two gospels are on display in Romans 1-4. Gospel A: A works-based gospel, and Gospel B: a trust-based gospel. Paul rejects the former and embraces the latter. Importantly, this means that Paul is now rejecting all the problematic aspects of Justification Theory (e.g., the retributive, punitive, perfectionistic God).

In short, the problem with Justification Theory is that it attributes both gospels to Paul. And this creates all those apples and oranges problems we find in Paul where he says one thing and then, later, seems to say the exact opposite. God is a wrathful, retributive God! Wait, no he’s not! He’s a God of grace and love!

Simplifying, here’s the situation with Justification Theory:

Gospel A + Gospel B = Justification Theory
Result: A confused and contradictory Paul (and a really schizophrenic God)

Campbell’s very simple solution is this:

Gospel A or Gospel B? Gospel B! (Praise be to God!)
Result: A consistent and cogent Paul (and the God of Jesus Christ)

This solution fits well with the frame for Romans. Recall, Paul is combating Judaizing Christians, a gospel that preaches circumcision and Torah obedience “to be saved” (cf. Acts 15.1). Gospel A–the works-based gospel–is the “good news” preached by these Jewish-Christian missionaries in (or soon to arrive in) Rome. Paul wants to put this “false gospel” on display and thoroughly discredit it. Romans 1-4 shows Paul doing just that.

***

Campbell’s solution to the problems in Paul is simple and elegant. But a moment of reflection should reveal an important consequence of this reading. Specifically, if Paul is presenting two gospels in Romans 1-4–one false the other true–then significant portions of Romans 1-4 will not be Paul’s teaching. That is, there will be times in Romans 1-4 when Paul is presenting the false gospel and we don’t want to attribute those words to Paul or the Christian gospel. This is a very different way of reading of Romans 1-4. According to the conventional reading, 100% of Romans 1-4 is Paul speaking and, thus, 100% true. As noted above, this creates a lot of problems. If Paul is responsible for saying 100% of Romans 1-4 then, well, Paul’s saying a lot of weird things. But if a part of Romans 1-4 is the “false gospel” then 100% of Romans cannot be attributed to Paul. Paul wrote it all, but Paul isn’t endorsing it all. In fact, Paul is actively arguing against this gospel in Romans 1-4.

In short, according to Campbell, Romans 1-4 is an argument in the form of Greco-Roman diatribe. Sometimes a diatribe can become highly Socratic (see the question/answer format of Romans 3.1-8). Diatribes also have lots of rhetorical questions (”What shall we say then…?”). And, importantly, diatribes also employ what is known as “speech-in-character,” where a sage/teacher adopts the voice, argument, persona and rhetorical style of an antagonist allowing those voices, in a performative way, to argue back and forth. Think of Stephen Colbert’s Formidable Opponent:

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Formidable Opponent - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Trial
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

The difference between Colbert and the diatribe form is that where Colbert’s persona are balanced the “Formidable Opponent” in a Roman diatribe is meant to be defeated in the argument. Paul wants to defeat the “Formidable False Gospel” of the Judaizing teachers in Rome. So he imports their voices into Romans 1-4 to knock them down.

If we recognize Romans 1-4 as a diatribe we then need to read the text rhetorically, noting when Paul switches from his own voice to the voice of the Teacher of the “false gospel.” This might seem like a hard thing to do. And it is for English readers. In The Deliverance of God Campbell discusses the various textual clues that would have signaled for the church in Rome the change of voices (e.g., Colbert switching back and forth) as the letter was read aloud (and performed by Phoebe for them).

***

So how does Romans 1-4 read if we read it rhetorically? Let me sketch out, with more to follow, how this reading works for the first part of Paul’s argument (under the conventional reading) for Romans 1.18-3.20.

Recall, according to the conventional reading Romans 1.18-3.20 is supposed to be Paul’s “Statement of the Problem.” That is, all people–both Jew and Gentile–stand in sin. To make this argument Paul makes an appeal to two different moral “laws.” The Gentile stands condemned under a natural law of conscience and the Jew stands condemned under the Mosaic Code. For each, Jew and Gentile, a retributive God working with a perfectionistic criterion is running the show.

Under the rhetorical reading much of Romans 1.18-3.20 is actually a presentation of the “false gospel.” The most critical presentation of this “false gospel,” given as a “speech-in-character,” is presented right out of the gate in 1.18-32. Recall, this text borrows a lot from the Wisdom of Solomon, a bit of Jewish moral propaganda ranting about the depravity of the pagans. Importantly, what we find in 1.18-32 is the soteriological principle of desert, the message that righteousness is attained by ethical performance. And, according to the Judaizing teachers, the Gentile Christians in Rome would have been impaired in being ethical people (they were pagans after all) because they didn’t have the tutelage and structure of the Law.

After the presentation of the “false gospel” in 1.18-32 Paul then makes a rhetorical move in 2.1-8 to universalize aspects of the “false gospel.” Specifically, as noted above, the the principle of desert infuses the indictment of the pagans. This is clearly stated in 1.18:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men…

In 2.1 Paul takes up this principle of desert and applies it to the Judaizing teachers. He asks, in effect, “If your gospel is driven by moral desert how does that criterion apply to you?” According to the “false gospel,” grace is going to shown “to the Jew first and then to the Greek” (1.16) because of the Torah obedience of the Jew (so you Roman Christian had better get circumcised!). But, as Paul responds to the “false gospel,” in point of fact the wrath of God will be upon “the Jew first and then to the Greek” (2.9). In short, from 2.1 onward Paul shows how there is no ethical, ontological, or eschatological advantage in being a Jew. In fact, as Paul argues in 2.25-29, there are many pagans who are morally superior to Jews.

Stepping back, we can summarize the content of the “false gospel” in the following way. The pagans are depraved and stand condemned before God. And this is a Good of retributive justice. But God gave the Law to provide moral support and guidance. The Law, thus, is the means of salvation for the pagans. The Law is “the good news.” Yes, it is a salvation based upon ethical merit. But this isn’t as bad as it sounds as God, through his grace, gives us the Law. Thus, if the Gentile Christians want to come out from pagan sin they need to embrace the Law as their hope of salvation. This is their gospel.

Paul, for his part, is aghast at this gospel for its lack of Christology. According to Paul, the Law confers no ethical advantage. As he argues from 2.1-3.20, the Jew is no better, ethically speaking, than the Gentile. The Law cannot save. Only participation in the death and resurrection of Christ can save us. This is Paul’s gospel.

In short, there is a lot of similarity between the conventional and the rhetorical reading (to this point at least). Paul is rejecting a works-based righteousness in each. But the rhetorical reading allows us to jettison all the problematic aspects of the “false gospel”–a wrathful, retributive God, moral perfectionism, etc. In this new reading, these things are not imported into Christian soteriology the way they are in Justification Theory. According to the Judaizing teachers Paul is debating, God is a God of wrath and judgment and ethical performance. So you better get your act together! And fast! But Paul steps in to say, “How is that good news?” Paul’s gospel is different: God is a God of surprising, jawdropping love. While we were sinners Christ came and rescued us. We were enslaved and now we are free. Our primal, first experience of God isn’t an experience of wrath and retributive justice. It is, rather, the experience of radical, surprising and inexplicable love.

Part 3 of The Deliverance of God moves us into the text of Romans. The focus of Part 3 is the reading of Romans 1-4. Campbell calls Romans 1-4 the Textual “Citadel” of Justification Theory. That is, the heart and soul of Justification Theory rests upon a particular reading of Romans 1.16-4.25. This stretch of text is where Justification Theory advocates believe Paul, in his most systematic theological treatment, lays the foundation of Justification Theory. Consequently, interpretations of outlying texts (e.g., Galatians) tend to be driven by the reading of Romans 1-4.

In short, Justification Theory stands or falls on the reading of Romans 1-4.

In Part 3 of The Deliverance of God Campbell gives us, first off, the reading of Romans 1-4 that is believed to support Justification Theory in the theology of Paul. After giving us this “conventional” reading, Campbell uses the rest of Part 3 to show us the exegetical problems of that reading. At the end of Part 3 it seems clear that Justification Theory isn’t the best reading of Romans 1-4. Something is amiss in this reading of Paul. Way too many loose ends and internal contradictions.

Let me start where Campbell starts, with his overview of the “conventional” reading of Romans 1-4, the reading that is taken to support Justification Theory.

Campbell begins with what he calls the general structure of Romans 1-4, the conventional take on the various facets of Paul’s argument in these chapters. This general structure has three parts:

1. 1.18-3.20: The Statement of the Problem
2. 1.16-17, 3:21-31: The Solution to the Problem (stated in thesis form)
3. 4.1-25: A Biblical Example that Supports/Illustrates/Authorizes the Solution

Let’s go through each part of Paul’s argument.

1.18-3.20: The Statement of the Problem
Tersely, the problem of humankind is summarized in 3.23:

…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

But to get to that conclusion Paul has to get both Jew and Gentile under the condemnation of God. To make this happen the conventional reading suggests that 1.18-3.20 is devoted to showing how the Gentile and Jew, each in turn, stand condemned before God. Paul starts with the Gentiles in 1.18-2.8 and then turns to the Jews in 2.9-3.9. By the time Paul is done both Jew and Gentile stand under God’s wrath.

Importantly, Paul’s indictments differ for both the Jew and the Gentile. Because, obviously, the Gentiles were unfamiliar with God’s Law. If so, how could they stand condemned? According to the conventional reading Paul makes an appeal to natural theology, a moral law accessible to all human persons. This is nicely summarized in 1.20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

When Paul turns to indict the Jews he leaves natural theology behind and focuses on Torah obedience. The Jews are guilty because they failed to keep the Law. 3.20 concludes:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Having shown that both Jew and Gentile are guilty Paul concludes in 3.9b:

Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

1.16-17, 3:21-31: The Solution to the Problem
Having shown that both Jews and Gentiles stand condemned under natural or Torah Law what solution does Paul offer? According to the conventional reading the “solution” is given, in abstracted form, in 1.16-17 and 3.22:

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

The gospel, then, is this: Having fallen short of perfect obedience and standing condemned before God the Jew and the Gentile can embrace “a righteousness that is by faith.” That is, according to the conventional reading, 1.16-17 and 3.22 summarize the core claim of Justification Theory: Salvation is attained through “faith” in Jesus.

4.1-25: A Biblical Example that Supports/Illustrates/Authorizes the Solution
According to the conventional reading Paul then goes on to “authorize” and illustrate the gospel by citing the key human player in salvation history: Father Abraham. The argument is that Paul uses Abraham to make the claim that righteousness comes through faith. This is summarized in 4.1-3:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

The crux of the argument is that Abraham’s “faith” was “credited” to him as “righteousness.” In this Abraham becomes the primordial and paradigmatic example of all those who become “righteous by faith.” As Paul concludes in 4.16:

He is the father of us all.

***

So this is the reading of Romans 1-4 that functions as the “Citadel” of Justification Theory. And Citadel is a good word. Because it looks like a pretty solid, obvious reading. And it is. No doubt this is why the reading has become so dominant and popular. But if you’ve read all the posts up to this point you know that there are a lot of problems with this reading. For example, don’t you find it odd in 1.18-3.20 that God condemns humanity with two different rulebooks? Why give the Torah if natural law was enough to condemn humanity? Doesn’t this make the entire “nation of Israel experiment” in salvation history somewhat irrelevant? Seriously, there is something deeply incoherent about this argument. Of course, Paul could have been making a bad argument. But we should also entertain the possibility that Justification Theory is importing these incoherences into Paul.

In the remainder of Part 3 Campbell goes back over Romans 1.16-4.25 with a fine toothed comb looking to see if Justification Theory really is giving a consistent and coherent reading of this text. More specifically, Campbell looks for two different kinds of problems. Both types of problems are a kind of mismatch between the Theory and the Text:

1) Textual Underdeterminations:
Textual underdeterminations occur when the Theory says more than the Text. Justification Theory is based on some pretty critical assertions. We’d like to see those assertions baldly stated by Paul. Oddly, many of these critical propositions just aren’t in the text. They have to be read into the text.

2) Textual Overdeterminations:
Textual overdeterminations occur when the Text says more than the Theory in a kind of “too much information” situation. This could be just noise in the text, but problems emerge when this additional information contradicts or undermines the conventional reading.

With these two kinds of problems in hand Campbell goes through Romans 1.16-4.25 looking for these Text/Theory mismatches. By the end of Part 3 he reviews 35 examples of textual under- and overdeterminations.

To give you a flavor of this work let me describe selected textual under- and overdeterminations for each of the main sections of Paul’s argument. I’ve used two criteria for making these selections. First, not having finished the book I’ve guessed which over- and underdeterminations seem most “damning” and, thus, might be critical to Campbell’s alternative reading of Romans 1-4. Second, some of these were selected because they are easier to describe to non-professionals (i.e., I understood them).

1.18-3.20: The Statement of the Problem

Textual Underdeterminations:
In condemning Jew and Gentile Paul never explicitly states the “perfectionistic criterion.” This is odd because this facet of Justification Theory–God demands 100% moral perfection–carries such a heavy load in the theory. The perfectionistic criterion is the gasoline that makes the whole machinery work. Thus, it is peculiar that Paul never makes the claim outright.

Another underdetermination occurs in 2.1. After condemning the Gentiles in 1.18-32 Paul turns to argue with a person in 2.1:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

In the conventional reading this “you” is taken to be a rhetorical device referring to Judaism as Paul switches from his indictment of Gentiles to his indictment of the Jews. However, Paul never explicitly equates the “harsh judge” of 2.1 with Judaism. This is an important underdetermination as there is considerable exegetical evidence to suggest that Paul isn’t, in fact, referring to all of Judaism. Paul has a particular person (or persons) in mind.

Textual Overdeterminations:
There is wide agreement that Romans 1.18-32–Paul’s attack on the Gentiles–is borrowing heavily from the Wisdom of Solomon. The Wisdom of Solomon is a Deuterocanonical book, a book considered canonical by the Catholics but not by Protestants. The Wisdom of Solomon is considered to be one of many Jewish “propaganda” books that rant about Gentile immorality. On one level the parallels between Romans 1 and Jewish moral propaganda isn’t a big deal. But the question is raised: Why would Paul grab some Jewish moral propaganda in condemning the Gentiles and then turn right around and knock that argument down? That is, Paul quotes the Jewish indictment approvingly in Romans 1, but then turns harshly upon the judge making the indictment, suggesting that, what?, the indictment was in error? Overblown? That the judge is simply a hypocrite? In short, Paul seem to be shifting gears between Romans 1 and 2 in an odd way.

A different overdetermination centers on the turn in 2.1, when Paul turns away from the Gentiles to attack the “harsh judge.” Who, exactly, is this judge? The conventional reading says that the “judge” is all of Judaism. But if this is so a Jewish reader can easily sidestep Paul’s condemnation. Why? Because a kind, humble Jewish person could easily say, “I don’t judge anybody.” Surely this is a possibility. Jews and Gentiles mixed frequently in the days of Paul. Do we have to imagine that every Jew harshly judged their neighbors? That no Jew ever said, “You know, I’m no better than Joe, my Gentile co-worker.”? This problem grows more acute when we look at how Paul characterizes the Jews in 2.21-22:

You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Surely there were Jews who could say to Paul, “I don’t steal. I have been a faithful spouse. I don’t rob temples.” In short, if we equate the harsh judge of 2.1 and the sins of this judge with Judaism Paul is making a really bad argument. It’s too crude and harsh. Recall, Paul is trying, according to the conventional reading, to bring the Jews under indictment. But Paul’s argument is so full of hyperbole that no reasonable Jew would feel that Paul was speaking to them. Paul, basically, is a really lousy preacher.

But if we assume that Paul actually had a clue and was a pretty good preacher then we must conclude that Paul isn’t aiming at Judaism in 2.1. But if Paul isn’t railing against the Jews–generically speaking–in 2.1 who is this harsh judgmental Jew he is arguing with?

Finally, just when you think the Gentiles are these evil people, Paul, suddenly, revisits them in 2.26-29:

If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.

Hold on a second! Who are these Gentiles who “keep the law’s requirements” and get “praise from God”? I thought getting praise from God for keeping the law was impossible?

1.16-17, 3:21-31: The Solution to the Problem

Textual Underdeterminations:
In a prior post I noted the problems with the phrase pistis Christou. Should it be read as “faith in Christ” or “faith of Christ”? In a related way, the text never explicitly claims that faith is the action a person exercises to secure salvation. No doubt faith is associated with righteousness and salvation in the text, but the connection between faith and righteousness is vague. Nowhere does the text say “faith is what you must do to be saved.”

Another underdetermination in this section is the absence of any discussion of Jesus’ atoning or substitutionary sacrifice. This is odd as this is a critical feature of Justification Theory and it is conspicuously absent from its foundational text.

Textual Overdeterminations:
Consider again the critical thesis in 1.16:

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith

How, exactly, can faith “reveal” something? Faith, according to Justification Theory, is an act of affirmation or assent to something that is already revealed. That is, the gospel is revealed to you and then you have faith in it. But 1.16 suggests that faith acts as a form of disclosure, where something previously hidden has now come into view. This “apocalyptic” (revelatory) aspect of faith strongly suggests that when Paul is talking about the relationship between faith and righteousness he’s talking about something very different than what Justification Theory is talking about.

4.1-25: A Biblical Example that Supports/Illustrates/Authorizes the Solution

Textual Underdeterminations:
In the conventional reading Abraham is the paradigm of faith. But the texts fails to specify Abraham’s life before faith. Presumably, Abraham’s pre-faith life is supposed to be correlated with Phase 1 under Justification Theory: Standing condemned before God under the perfectionistic criterion. But Romans 4 doesn’t present Abraham’s journey to faith in those terms, making us wonder how Abraham makes a good illustration for Justification Theory’s model of salvation.

Textual Overdeterminations:
The character of Abraham’s faith in Romans 4 looks nothing like faith in Justification Theory. The entire description of Abraham’s “faith” in Romans 4 looks a whole lot more like lifelong, persevering covenant “faithfulness.” In short, Abraham’s “faith” looks a whole lot like “works.” It definitely doesn’t look like there was one moment in time that functioned in an analogous way to the classic “accept Jesus into your heart” kind of faith that Justification Theory talks about.

***

In conclusion, although Justification Theory looks like a cogent and formidable reading of Romans 1-4, by the end of Part 3 of The Deliverance of God we are really ready for a better reading of Paul.

The Citadel of Justification Theory has collapsed.

On to Part 4…

To recap, in Part 2 of The Deliverance of God Campbell works to create some distance between readers of Paul and Justification Theory. Justification Theory has been so dominant that it’s difficult to approach Paul for a fresh reading. Some of this has to do with the fact that Justification Theory has played such a large role in church history, the Protestant Reformation in particular. Thus, for many people turning one’s back on Justification Theory is tantamount to turning one’s back on the Reformation. This raises the stakes considerably. So in my last post I reviewed how Campbell attempts to show that both Calvin and Luther leave us with a mixed legacy when it comes to Justification Theory. No doubt they both strongly endorsed the key tenets of the theory. However, as discussed in my last post, Calvin and Luther also articulated theological positions that significantly undermine the theological and exegetical integrity of Justification Theory. In short, in reevaluating and potentially jettisoning Justification Theory we are not turning our backs on the Reformation. We are, rather, simply working to reconcile the contradictions the Reformation passed onto us.

Having discussed the church-historical issues that complicate the debates surrounding Justification Theory, Campbell goes on to consider the way Justification Theory has also been propped up by aspects of modernity. This part of The Deliverance of God was very interesting to me.

Campbell’s argument is that Justification Theory is hard to dislodge because it is, in many different ways, a product of modernity. That is, Justification Theory embodies the values and ideas of modernity. This close alliance with modernity makes Justification Theory “feel right” to us given our modern sensibilities. This is deeply problematic because it makes it difficult for modern readers of Paul to criticize Justification Theory. Because if we criticize the theory we end up challenging some of the deepest values and prejudices of the modern spirit. To challenge Justification Theory, then, is to challenge the modern worldview. As with the Reformation, this raises the stakes considerably.

Let me briefly summarize the way Campbell describes the unholy alliance between Justification Theory and modernity. Specifically, we’ll discuss the way Justification Theory shares modern notions of selfhood, epistemology, politics and economics.

Modern Notions of Selfhood and Epistemology
In the very first post of this series I reviewed some of the basic features of Justification Theory. Specifically, we described the introverted and epistemological nature of the journey of faith. This inward turn to find certainty should be familiar to many. It is, at root, the same path René Descartes took when he turned inward with his method of methodological doubt. You’ll recall, if you forgot your Philosophy 101 class, that Descartes famously decided to deny the truth of all things–doubt it all!–to start from the ground up from first principles. This drove Descartes inward and as he contemplated this own mind he stumbled upon his first incontrovertible and undeniable truth: Cogito ergo sum (”I think, therefore I am”).

Without going too much into detail, there is a general consensus that many of the problematic features within modernity started with Descartes’ turn inward. Some of these problems have to do with modern notions of the self, the severe introversion of the modern psyche, what Charles Taylor has called the punctual or buffered self. This notion of the introverted and isolated self sits behind the modern fetishization of The Individual and cult of self (e.g., self-improvement).

Descartes inward turn also began some problematic trends in epistemology. For our purposes we only need to note how Descartes arrived at truth by turning inward.

Justification Theory sits very comfortably with these modern notions. Justification Theory supports the modern view of the autonomous ego. The journey to faith is undertaken by individuals. Further, it is undertaken by individuals turning inward. Faith, like Descartes cogito ergo sum, is an epistemological truth discovered in the privacy of your own heart.

Modern Politics
One of the most interesting parts of The Deliverance of God is when Campbell shows the close connections between Justification Theory and the foundational ideas behind the establishment of the modern liberal democracy. A great deal of the credit for laying the philosophical foundation for liberalism was John Locke, whose ideas fueled both the American and French Revolutions. Interestingly, as Campbell shows, Justification Theory is deeply Lockean in both form and function.

The basic form of Locke’s vision of government is that of free individuals who are able to enter into agreements and contracts with other free individuals. Further, these free individuals may choose to form a government to assist in the management of the larger social contract. Importantly, the legitimacy of the government is given by the general consent of the people. Working behind all this is the notion of certain natural or God-given “rights.”

According to Campbell, Justification Theory fits this political vision “like a glove.” Mainly because Justification Theory is focused on individuals entering into a new contractual relationship with God. And, similar to the way the people give their consent to the government, God’s rule over the believer is, essentially, one of consent/agreement, what we call “faith.” In all of this, the actions of the believer (the consenting individual at the core of liberal democracies) are the focus. In this, Justification Theory is anthropocentric (human-centered) rather than Christocentric (Christ-centered).

Further, in liberal democracies, where faith is a matter of “belief,” faith becomes privatized and separated from political realities. Faith, in liberal democracies, has no political implications at all. Faith is just your religious preference. Religion is a private thing you do between you and God. Keep it out of the public sphere.

Scandalously, Justification Theory, due to it’s inward, individualized and epistemological nature, goes right along with this separation of faith from politics. This is deeply problematic because Justification Theory is promoting the modern view of faith–individual and private–that is one of the biggest problems in Christianity today, the notion that faith is a private transaction between you and God that has nothing to do with issues such as justice, peace or environmental stewardship.

Economics
The final way Justification Theory supports modernity is in how it embraces the centrality of the marketplace. It is difficult to separate capitalism from liberal democracy. The two go hand in hand. Consequently, the values of the marketplace have seeped into just about every facet of modern living and identity. Somewhat shockingly, by making marketplace exchange the mechanism of salvation (i.e., Jesus pays for sin), Justification Theory has made the modern market the foundation of the salvation event.

To conclude, the reason Campbell finds all this problematic, and I strongly agree with him, is that Justification Theory is crippled when it comes to critiquing the sins, errors or overindulgences of modernity. Why? Because Justification Theory, at just about every turn, supports the modern project. Justification Theory can’t get ethical leverage on modernity because, well, Justification Theory is in bed with modernity. It’s an unholy alliance.

I finished reading Part 2 of The Deliverance of God and I’d like to use two posts to summarize the points I think are important and/or interesting in this section of the book.

Before turning to the Pauline texts in Part 3 Campbell asks us to step back in Part 2 to examine our hermeneutical situation. Campbell is keen to do this because if we jump too quickly into a reading Paul we’ll just read into Paul all of our preconceptions and assumptions. That is, we’ll find in Paul exactly what we expect to find.

A large portion of Part 2 is devoted to understanding how Justification Theory fits into church history. Further, Campbell also discusses how Justification Theory is deeply implicated in the modern project (e.g., liberalism, democracy, capitalism). The links between Justification Theory and modernity are particularly important to note because, as Campbell observes, modern readers, steeped in the values and assumptions of modernity, might be unable to criticize Justification Theory properly. Like a fish that doesn’t know it lives in water, modern readers might not be able to objectively criticize Justification Theory as being a tool of modernity. Being “in” the water of modernity we can’t see its influence upon us or our theology, Justification Theory in particular.

In sum, Campbell wants us to trace the history of Justification Theory in the life of the church and how the theory partnered with various developments during the Enlightenment and beyond. According to Campbell, this analysis will help place some distance between us and Justification Theory, helping us to resist the temptation to read Jusification Theory into the Pauline texts.

In this post I’ll try to summarize how Campbell places Justification Theory within the context of church history. In the next post I’ll summarize how Justification Theory is implicated in modernity.

As noted in the earlier posts, Justification Theory is often called the “Lutheran Reading” of Paul. Most certainly, Luther was the first to articulate Justification Theory as we know it today. This formulation was later elaborated by other Reformers, John Calvin in particular.

Given this history we can make a couple of observations. First, the arguments about Justification Theory are largely “in house” Protestant debates. Catholics and the Orthodox don’t have a lot of dogs in this hunt. Second, given the importance of these issues for Protestants appeals to Luther or Calvin carry a lot of weight in these debates. That is, a reading of Paul might be deemed more correct because Luther read Paul a certian way. In short, appeals to Luther or Calvin can function as appeals to authority in the justification debates. As Campbell observes, these are illegitimate arguments. At the end of the day, Luther might have been wrong. The proper reading of Paul should be judged on exegetical, not church-historical, grounds.

We could just leave it at that, but Luther and Calvin are towering figures. It is hard for Protestants to discount or dismiss their interpretations. So Campbell goes a bit further, suggesting that while both Luther and Calvin endorse Justification Theory at many points in their writing they also articulate positions that sit in conflict with Justification Theory. Campbell’s claim is that Luther and Calvin were complex and that their thought cannot be easily or consistently read as supportive of Justification Theory. In many places Luther and Calvin seem to support the apocalyptic reading we considered in an earlier post.

Let me focus on the prime example of this tension within Luther and Calvin. Although Luther and Calvin each espoused Justification Theory they both, in many places, articulated a very pessimistic view of human agency. So much so, as witnessed in Luther’s exchange with Erasmus, that Luther would deny that humans could do anything that might prove helpful in saving themselves from damnation. This includes faith itself, the necessary saving criterion. We tend to call this anthropological stance, in Calvin at least, the doctrine of “total depravity.” And in light of total depravity how are humans to exercise faith? Both Luther and Calvin appeal to the action and grace of God. Faith itself becomes a gift. Calvin formalized this notion as the doctrine of election.

The point that Campbell makes is that the doctrine of election sits in tension with Justification Theory. Recall, for Justification Theory to work the human person must complete a tortured inward journey culminating in the realization that he stands condemned before God. But if the doctrine of election is operative this introspective and epistemological journey seems to be a bit irrelevant. Further, given the condition of total depravity how could humans even begin or complete the journey?

And here’s the deal. Most of us are well aware of these problems. Justification Theory is, at root, a rhetorical device for evangelism. Through bible study or preaching you lead the listener through the critical realizations:

1. I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And this includes you! “All” means all.
2. The wages of sin is death.
3. In light of the aforementioned realizations, you’re screwed.
4. But you can have grace if you accept, through faith, Jesus as your Savior.

But if faith is a matter of election it seems that evangelism is problematized. Evangelism presupposes a clear head and a clear heart. It presupposes the ability to volitionally respond. But if faith is a matter of election is any of this necessary? And if total depravity is in play is any of this even possible? Depravity and election throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of Justification Theory, rendering most of the theory irrelevant.

These are very old debates. Witness the tensions between the Calvinistic and Arminian attempts to resolve these questions. The point is, Luther and Calvin were no simple and consistent advocates of Justification Theory. Important aspects of their theology (e.g., their anthropology, the role of God in granting faith) greatly complicated their espousal of Justification Theory, so much so that the children of the Reformation are still debating the issues. The tension between evangelism and election is still very much with us. Consequently, it would be silly to assume that Justification Theory has been handed to us by Luther and Calvin as anything other than a partial and incomplete soteriology.

And, interestingly, Luther and Calvin got their notions about election from passages such as Romans 5-8 and 9-11 where we find the apocalyptic soteriology within Paul. And isn’t it curious that the conflict within Luther and Calvin’s thought emerges from the same conflict we observed earlier, the tensions between Romans 1-4 and the rest of the book? In short, although both Luther and Calvin read Romans 1-4 as supportive of Justification Theory, other aspects of their soteriology (informed by texts such as Romans 5-8 and Romans 9-11) create tensions with that reading that remain unresolved to this day.

So the sum of the matter is this. Any appeal to Luther and Calvin doesn’t resolve anything in the justification debates. Not only would this be an illegitimate appeal to authority it is, more importantly, simply a restatement of the problem we noted earlier: The conflict between Romans 1-4 and the rest of the book.

In the last two posts I reviewed some of the intrinsic (theoretical) and systematic (textual) problems with Justification Theory discussed by Douglas Campbell in his book The Deliverance of God. In this post we will examine the empirical difficulties of Justification Theory wrapping up my summary of Part 1 of The Deliverance of God.

As a biblical and theological theory Justification Theory is not, generally speaking, a theory that can be falsified with historical or empirical data. For the most part, Justification Theory will stand or fall depending upon how well it explains the soteriology of Paul given what he wrote in his letters. However, Campbell notes two locations where Justification Theory makes contact with empirical reality making claims that can be assessed sociologically and historically. That is, there is some hard(er) data we might consider in assessing the viability of Justification Theory.

Empirical Claim #1: The Experience of Second Temple Judaism
As noted in earlier posts, Justification Theory–salvation by grace through faith–is seen as the solution to a problem that was inherent in Judaism. Specifically, Judaism is characterized by a “works-based righteousness.” More, the Jews were legalists, struggling under a perfectionistic criterion. 100% Torah obedience was the mark of righteousness. This, according to Justification Theory, was a dead end, a trap, a moral impossibility. Given this situation, the gift of grace was a way out of the perfectionistic trap of legalism.

This characterization of the Jews made by Justification Theory is, at root, an empirical claim. It is a description of the theology and experience of Second Temple Judaism. So, it seems reasonable to ask, is this description accurate? Were the Jews struggling under a legalistic and perfectionistic system?

The short answer is no, they were not. The historical picture, filling in more every year, of Second Temple Judaism presents a picture at odds with the characterizations made by Justification Theory. A lot of this work has suggested that the Jews were not working with a legalistic model but were, rather, working within a covenantial model. More importantly for Campbell is what we have learned about the emotional experience of life in Second Temple Judaism. According to Justification Theory the Jews would have been in either one of two emotional states. First, an emotional despair at failing to live up to the perfectionistic criterion. Or, second, a (delusional) pride for being “blameless” under the Law. But there is little in the historical record to suggest that this is how the Jews experienced life under the Law or Covenant. Life during Second Temple Judaism was all over the place, with pockets of very different emotional experiences and performance expectations. No doubt there were Jews with tortured consciences (the Second Temple Jewish equivalent of Martin Luther) and Jews who were prideful hypocrites. But most Jews, well, were kind of like us. Trying to do good but with a somewhat realistic stance about what humans might achieve, morally speaking. Further, when the Jews experienced moral failure the Temple had its rituals of sacrifice and absolution, providing the Jews a regular means to handle their sin and disobedience. Jews went to the temple like Catholics go to confession. There was no hypocritical pride, no legalistic expectation, no angst at being damned. The Jewish soteriological system, in short, was working just fine, thank you very much. Thus, why would the Jews need to be rescued by the message of grace?

In short, Justification Theory, to make sense, needs to specify the theology and experience of Second Temple Judaism (i.e., they were tortured or prideful legalists). But, as we have seen, this specification is false. It’s a straw man. In this sense, Justification Theory is an “answer” or a “gift” to a non-existent “question” or “trap.” And if the trap never existed in the first place it’s hard to see why Justification Theory is needed at all.

Empirical Claim #2: The Experience of Conversion
As noted in earlier posts, Justification Theory suggests that conversion occurs in a very particular way. Essentially it is a tortured, private, introverted, epistemological journey. You reach certain realizations that make your situation clear (”I am a sinner and stand condemned, justly, before God.”). Having reached this place you accept, through faith, the offer of grace.

As Campbell points out, this view of conversion is an empirical prediction. Justification Theory makes the claim that, generally speaking, conversation will look a certain way. So the question becomes, does conversion in the real world look like the conversion described by Justification Theory?

The answer, unsurprisingly, is no, it does not. Few Christians are ever converted in this manner. Campbell reviews the sociological literature that suggests that conversion is more relational than intellectual. Although people might report spiritual journeys that seem to follow the path of Justification Theory, in empirical fact the “response” to the gospel occurs over time as a person becomes more and more affiliated with a particular faith community. That is, there is less a moment of moral crisis than a gradual identification with and participation in the life of a faith community. Conversion happens when we become more and more dislocated with the people on the “outside” and more and more affiliated with the people on the “inside.” The final shift might be sudden and emotional, but the movement began well ahead of the final altar call.

The point of all this is that Justification Theory has a hard time explaining the inherently communal and participatory nature of real-life conversions. Few conversions look like the tortured inward journey posited by Justification Theory.

But it should be noted that the apocalyptic soteriology described in the last post does fit very well with how actual conversions work: The soteriological notion of ethical and liturgical participation in the life of a new, inherently communal, Kingdom. In short, there are readings of Paul that make more theological, textual and empirical sense than Justification Theory.

After working through the intrinsic (analytical/theoretical) problems in Justification Theory, The Deliverance of God turns to consider the systematic problems of Justification Theory. These are, as noted in the last post, problems Justification Theory has in explaining Paul in a coherent fashion. As Campbell points out, whenever we import Justification Theory into Paul we immediately create tensions and contradictions in relation to other things Paul has written. In short, Justification Theory tends to import contradictions into our understanding of Paul. Rather than resolving tensions and conflicts within Paul Justification Theory tends to do the opposite. This is problematic for any theory hoping to explain Paul in a cogent fashion.

To illustrate this Campbell examines the soteriologies in Romans 1-4 and Romans 5-8. Historically, Romans 1-4 has been read as the dominant text supporting the key features of Justification Theory. If this is taken for granted (i.e., we assume that Paul is preaching Justification Theory in Romans 1-4) scholars have long noted that this creates tensions with the soteriology presented later in Romans 5-8. That is, if we read Justification Theory into Romans 1-4 we create tensions with Romans 5-8. This is an example of what Campbell calls a systematic difficulty. Rather than giving us a seamless and consistent reading of Paul from Chapters 1-8 Justification Theory tends to cuts Paul’s argument into two pieces that don’t fit together very well.

To illustrate the disjoint let me point out a few of the tensions (discussed by Campbell) between Romans 1-4 and Romans 5-8 (again, if Romans 1-4 is assumed to be a proclamation of Justification Theory). First, and I’m following Campbell’s lead here, we need to sketch the soteriology of Romans 5-8 to make the relevant comparisons with Justification Theory.

The soteriology in Romans 5-8 is a soteriology that is often called apocalyptic. This is in contrast to the contractual soteriology found, presumably, in Romans 1-4. That is, Justification Theory posits an inward and tortured epistemological journey culminating in the exercise of the saving criterion (”faith”). In contrast, the salvation in Romans 5-8 is characterized by God’s unconditional act of deliverance and rescue. There is no introversion. No emphasis on epistemology. No contract we must accept. No saving criterion we must exercise to “receive” God’s gift. Rather, God decisively breaks into history through the revelation (i.e., apocalypse) of Jesus Christ who rescues us from “Sin and Death,” the ontological condition of being “in Adam.”

With this minimal specification we can now make some contrasts between the apocalyptic soteriology in Romans 5-8 with the soteriology of Justification Theory:

Epistemology:
According to Justification Theory humans always have epistemological clarity. This is needed to make Phase 1 work. You need to realize that you are in a doomed situation. Further, we take this knowledge forward in time. We recognize our doomed situation and then move forward, prospectively, into Phase 2. Finally, the entire process is rationalistic. I move through the phases by coming to appreciate and believe in a set of propositions about myself, my situation, and about how to secure the gift of grace.

The soteriology in Romans 5-8 has none of these things. First, prior to salvation humans don’t have epistemological clarity. In Adam we are deluded and blind. Hostile to God. Further, we make this realization only retrospectively. Finding ourselves delivered we look back and see the state we were in. Finally, salvation is neither introspective or epistemological. God pulls you out of Sin and Death. There is no sales pitch, no crisis of conscience. You simply discover yourself free from bondage. Like you’ve woken up from a long nightmare.

View of God:
The fundamental characteristic of God that drives Justification Theory is the attribute of retributive justice. Your first recognition of God is dominated by fear.

In Romans 5-8 God’s character is wholly benevolent. Finding yourself rescued, your first recognition of God is an experience of love, joy and doxology.

Ethics:
Justification Theory has great difficulty connecting ethics to the experience of salvation. The crux of Justification Theory is to get the judgment of death shifted off one’s head (through Jesus’s substitution). More, recall that Justification Theory posits that the gift of grace emerges as the solution to “works-based righteousness.” You can’t save yourself by ethical practice so you must give up that attempt. Needless to say, this entire arrangement demotivates ethical living in Phase 2. Once saved there seems little left to motivate vigorous ethical living. Further, vigorous ethical living was the very thing you needed to be saved from!

Within Justification Theory this problem is usually addressed by contrasting justification with sanctification. Justification is that moment when you are declared “righteous.” This happens when you exercise the saving criterion (i.e., accepting grace “through faith”). Sanctification, by contrast, is the ongoing process of Christian growth and maturity.

Campbell points out, however, that there are a number of problems with this solution. Specifically, Justification Theory only handles the consequences of sinful living (i.e., it removes hellfire from the equation). Consequently, it fails to specify the ethical code for Phase 2. Jews in Paul’s day who converted and moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2 would be freed from salvation via Torah Obedience. However, once in Phase 2 what is to guide the journey of sanctification for this new, formerly Jewish, convert? Presumably they should continue to practice Torah obedience. There is nothing in Justification Theory to suggest that the rules of holy living changed from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Jews stand condemned in Phase 1 because of their fundamental moral incapacity. Not because the Law was invalid. If anything, the Law must remain in force in Phase 2 for God’s judgment in Phase 1 to be just and right. Because if the problem was with the Law God should remove the Law, not condemn those struggling underneath it.

And, interestingly, this is exactly what we find in Romans 5-8. God rescues us from the Law (among other things). God’s deliverance is, ethically speaking, a game changer. For both Jew and Gentile. No doubt, some of the older ethical practices will be carried forward. However, at root, a reset button has been pushed. A New Order has commenced.

All this is a problem for Justification Theory. Justification Theory needs the Law (God’s moral expectations) in Phase 1 to be righteous and just. Only in this way can I be condemned as a moral failure. (Otherwise it’s the Law that has the problem, not me.) But after salvation the Law should remain in full force. It is, after all, as we learned in Phase 1, the way God wants us to live. We just couldn’t live up to its expectations. Grace thus saves us from the consequences of that failure but there is no reason to expect that the moral expectations (for the Jew at least) will be changing in Phase 2. And yet, no reading of Paul suggests that this is, in fact, how Paul viewed the Law in light of the apocalypse of Jesus Christ. A Paul writes in Romans 7.4-6

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Justification Theory, by focusing on the consequences of Law (hellfire) rather than the apocalyptic focus on ontology (”Who will rescue me from this body of death?”), has no real mechanism to explain the deliverance from the Law in Phase 2. Grace is simply about avoiding hellfire rather than the inauguration of a new ontology.

Campbell goes on to discuss many other systematic difficulties, most of which can be seen as points of contrast between a Justification Theory reading of Romans 1-4 and Romans 5-8. My goal in this post was to simply give a taste of Campbell’s argument, to show how, if we import Justification Theory into Paul, a host of tensions and contradictions quickly emerge. All of which should make us skeptical that Justification Theory is giving us the correct reading of passages like Romans 1-4.

As we noted in the last post, Douglas Campbell’s contention in his book The Deliverance of God is that our understanding of Paul, his soteriology in particular, has been distorted by the prism of Justification Theory. In one sense, this a shocking claim as Justification Theory is the consensus view regarding salvation (at least in the West). But in another sense, Campbell’s claim isn’t news, particularly in scholarly circles, as there has been a growing disillusionment with Justification Theory. Many scholars have raised concerns about the Lutheran reading of Paul. However, these criticisms have been particular and piecemeal, a picking away at the edges. Thus, advocates and defenders of Justification Theory have been able to respond and, to some degree, fend off these localized objections. Due to this piecemeal approach Justification Theory has survived relatively unscathed. True, it might be admitted, the theory wasn’t perfect. But its general thrust and foundation was solid and cogent.

In light of all this, what is significant about The Deliverance of God is its exhaustive and thorough dismantling of Justification Theory. It really is quite a beatdown. Although parts of Campbell’s argument have been known for some time, no one had pulled it all together, marshaling all the damming evidence into one prolonged, devastating and withering critique. This, I suspect, is another reason why The Deliverance of God is on everyone’s must read lists. Justification Theory has been thoroughly discredited.

There is no one reason that discredits Justification Theory. That is likely the reason for the theory’s long shelf life. What Campbell does is gather, point by point, all the problems and inconsistencies associated with Justification Theory into one big heap. And when Campbell is done with this work you look at that heap and say, “Justification Theory just can’t be right.” There are just too many cracks. Too many holes. Too many leaks.

I’m not going to survey every one of these holes, cracks and leaks. I’ll simply give a taste, picking up the criticisms of Justification Theory that I think are easy to understand and grasp.

Campbell groups his criticisms of Justification Theory under three headings. These are:

1. Intrinsic Difficulties:
Theoretical, logical and analytic problems within Justification Theory. That is, the problems of Justification Theory as a theory. For example, a theory that contradicts itself is bad as a theory, irrespective of any ambitions it might have about explaining the world.

2. Systematic Difficulties:
Problems Justification Theory causes for our reading of Paul. Again, as a theory Justification Theory is trying to help us understand (i.e., organize and explain) Paul’s thought. But if our theory makes Paul seem confused, incoherent, or inconsistent we should wonder if the theory is doing its job. A proper theory should make reading Paul simpler, not harder. It should turn the lights on, not throw us into darkness.

3. Empirical Difficulties:
Justification Theory is, generally speaking, theological in nature. However, there are places where Justification Theory requires empirical specifications. That is, for Justification Theory to work the world needs to be a certain way. So is the world that way? If not, then even if Justification Theory was self-consistent (which it’s not, see #1 those Intrinsic Difficulties) it wouldn’t correspond to the world we live in. Justification Theory might be a perfectly fine soteriology for, let’s say, Martians, but it wouldn’t speak to our realities.

For the rest of this post let me give some examples of the issues Campbell discusses as Intrinsic Difficulties for Justification Theory. In the posts that follow I’ll discuss the Systematic and Empirical difficulties.

Example 1: Natural Revelation and Epistemology
For Justification Theory to work Gentiles (during Paul’s day) and non-Christians (in out time) must be able to examine the cosmos and, if they are honest, reach a few basic conclusions. Some of these conclusions are:

1. Theism
2. Monotheism
3. God’s Retributive Justice
4. Divine Concern for Human Heterosexuality and Monogamy
5. Divine Concern for Ethical Perfection

Recall, for Justification Theory to work people must stand self-consciously guilty in Phase 1, the Pre-Christian phase. But if these propositions cannot be self-evidently squeezed from the cosmos then how could you claim that the people in Phase 1 were willfully disobedient and violating their consciences? In short, how could God judge people when there is no way for these people to reach any of these conclusions?

Immediately, Justification Theory seems incoherent. Is it self-evident when people examine the cosmos that God exists? That there is only one God? That this God demands moral perfection and will condemn you if you fail to achieve perfection? Is it clear that God finds homosexuality unacceptable? That monogamy is okay and polygamy is not? Is any of this obvious? Well, no, it’s not. So how could God judge anyone on these particulars?

These realizations about God are only obvious after one has encountered the “Christian” message. And this brings up a related criticism made by Campbell. There is a disjoint between the epistemology of Phase 1 and of Phase 1. As we have just seen, Justification Theory posits a universal and transparent epistemology for Phase 1. Every person should be able to examine the universe and conclude that, for example, God exists, what this God expects of you, that you must be perfect, and that God won’t forgive you aren’t perfect. All that, to put is mildly, is a bit of a tall order. But even if we grant all this, the person in Phase 1 can’t get to Phase 2–the Christian Phase–by examining the cosmos. People can conclude they are damned in Phase 1, but they aren’t expected to figure out how Christ can save them. This very particular information isn’t embedded in the cosmos. Rather, it is a historical and contingent revelation delivered by human messengers. Concretely, a missionary has to show up at your village.

This is a very odd situation. But we can see why Justification Theory needs it to be this way. The goal of Justification Theory is to have everyone, and I mean everyone, stand condemned in Phase 1. No one is “without excuse.” Everyone is doomed and, importantly, they know it. And if they don’t know this it is due to the fact that they are disobedient and wicked, willfully ignoring the transparent claims of the cosmos. This universal condemnation functions as a prerequisite, the stage setting for the delivery of the Christian message. The trouble is that the Christian message might never come. It needs to be delivered by human persons. For Justification Theory this makes sense. The Good News isn’t philosophical or metaphysical. You can’t save yourself by examining the cosmos and worshiping the God (or gods) revealed to human reason. You need to hear about Jesus. The trouble is that while our universal condemnation is open to reason our salvation is not. We all stand condemned but only some people have had the luck to hear the message of Grace. In short, there are two epistemologies in Justification Theory. One that is universal, transparent and a product of natural revelation. The other one is particular, historical and the product of human declaration. And, on sheer theoretical grounds, a theory positing such disjointed epistemologies seems deeply problematic, creating a host of philosophical problems.

Example 2: Theodicy and the Nature of God
For Justification Theory to work God has to send you to hell if you are not morally perfect. This immediately raises problems. Why does God require 100% moral perfection? In the last post we noted that a “good enough” criterion–51% rather than 100%–is unworkable in Justification Theory as it would allow people, through their own moral effort, to save themselves. Thus, it is critical that Justification Theory require 100% moral perfection. Why? Because no one can meet this threshold. Thus, everyone stands condemned. And that is what Justification Theory is trying to accomplish: Universal condemnation. The trouble is that, to accomplish this feat, Justification Theory has to make a claim about God that seems deeply problematic.

First, why would God create this flawed creature and then expect moral perfection? No reasonable person would expect perfection from a biological creature It’s just not in the cards.

Second, why is God so harsh? Why isn’t his nature more kind, generous and forgiving? Humans don’t demand perfection from each other. We forgive. God, apparently, doesn’t. And it’s not clear why, in light of Justification Theory, God couldn’t be this way. Why couldn’t God be forgiving and nurturing in light of our transgressions? Not that God would be a pushover, but at least God would be nice and reasonable given that he’s working with human beings, creatures that frequently make moral mistakes because, like any animal, we get scared or confused. The trouble for Justification Theory is that if God were like this–nice and reasonable–then the salvific machinery of Phase 2 is rendered moot. God doesn’t require the blood sacrifice of Jesus because God is intrinsically forgiving.

Third, in all times and places there have been sweet, kind and decent people. They are not perfect, but they are the moral exemplars amongst us. Think of the sweetest and nicest person you’ve ever known. Perhaps it’s a friend, neighbor or grandparent. According to Justification Theory even these sweet and decent people will be sentenced to eternal hellfire. Further, Justification Theory claims that this outcome is both righteous and just. These people deserve this treatment. And as Campbell points out, this is hugely problematic as it violates every notion of justice and proportionality. As a theory that purports to show God’s justice and goodness Justification Theory is just a total failure. Nothing in it shows God to be either just or righteous.

Campbell goes on to discuss other intrinsic difficulties within Justification Theory. Quickly, here are a few others:

1. Why, during Phase 1, did the Jews and Gentiles play by two different sets of rules?
2. How, exactly, is the death of Jesus a “payment” for sin? As a metaphor this might make sense, but when pressed the metaphor is incoherent.
3. Why is faith privileged the way it is in Justification Theory? And are the models of faith in the theory–Arminian (free will) and Calvinistic (election)–even coherent?

In sum, there are a host of intrinsic difficulties with Justification Theory. These are the problems that can be raised simply at the theoretical level, how well the theory makes sense on its own terms. And as we have seen, the whole structure of Justification Theory is a patchwork of problems and contradictions. A house of cards really.

In the next post we will move into the systematic difficulties of Justification Theory. That is, we’ll turn to the biblical text to see how Justification Theory performs in doing what it says it does: Explain Paul.

Last semester I noticed a lot of discussion on the theology blogs about the publication of Douglas A. Campbell’s book The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. There appeared to be a lot of excitement surrounding the book, with many thinking that it was a “game changer” in Pauline studies. Some predicted it would be the theology book of the decade and many had it at the top of their lists for Best Theology Book in 2009.

So I was curious and got a copy.

The book is enormous at 1218 pages. I worried if I’d be able to finish the thing. (I’m impatient with big books.) But I’ve just finished Part 1 and look forward to moving forward.

As I move through the book I’m going to be posting some “Notes,” interpretive summaries of the broad outline of Campbell’s book. I say “interpretive” since I’m not a specialist and there is a good chance that I’ll misunderstand Campbell at certain points. And, given that I’m summarizing a long and nuanced argument, there is the risk of over-simplification. So reader beware.

I’m going to be posting these notes for two audiences. First, myself. The book is so long that if I don’t take the time to summarize what I’ve read I’ll forget it all by the time I get to the end. So these notes are primarily for my own edification and memory record. However, my second audience is people like me, non-specialists who would like to hear about a book that is buzzing among the professionals. I figure there are a lot of people who would like to get a sense of what is going on at “the cutting edge.” This is my frail attempt to bring Campbell’s book to the masses.

To begin…

All works of scholarship begin with a problem, some crisis, controversy or conundrum. Campbell’s area of scholarship is Paul, his letters specifically. As you might imagine, Pauline scholarship is awash in controversy and debate. We won’t go into those debates in depth. I barely understand many of them. But to give you a taste let me present three:

The Meaning of Pistis Christou
What we know for sure is that Pistis means “faith” in Greek and that “Christou” means “Christ.” So far so good. But in the Greek there is some genitive ambiguity concerning how the two noun’s–faith and Christ–are to relate to each other. Martin Luther, and those who followed him, translated Pistis Christou as “faith in Christ.” But a growing number of scholars (e.g., Richard Hays, N.T. Wright) have argued that the proper translation of Pistis Christou should be “faith of Christ.” Wow, so much hanging on the switch from “in” to “of”! But it really is a huge change. Specifically, the change moves us from an anthropocentric view of salvation to a Christocentric view. In the former, the human person is the locus of salvation. I, Richard Beck, must have faith in Jesus Christ. My act of faith functions as the key to unlock salvation. In the latter view, it is the faithfulness of Jesus that unlocks salvation. Christ’s faithfulness saves me.

Paul’s Soteriological Inconsistency
Pauline scholars have argued that Paul’s soteriology, his view of salvation, is hopelessly muddled if not outright contradictory. To be sure, this might be unfair to both Paul and the canon. Paul might not be aiming for logical consistency. Plus, Paul might not have written everything we attribute to him. Regardless, it is worrying that Paul, the great theologian of the faith, might be confused or contradictory. For example, when scholars read Romans they see inconsistencies between the soteriology presented in Romans 1-4 and the soteriology presented in Romans 5-8. Of course, not everyone sees these inconsistencies, but as with the Pistis Christou debate, this is a location of scholarly controversy.

The Characterization of Second Temple Judaism and “Works of the Law”
When you hear the Jews described in church, and Paul’s life as a former Jew, they are described in a fairly stereotypical way: The Jews were trying to “earn” their salvation through “works of the Law” (Torah obedience). In short, the Jews were legalists. And this legalism was a source of great pride as many Jews felt that they were, indeed, “blameless” before God. Now, this characterization of the Jews has important soteriological functions. Namely, “Christian” salvation through grace is, at root, a rejection of legalism through works of the Law. Grace is the opposite of legalism. In short, the Christian notion of grace requires a backdrop of Jewish legalism for it to make sense, to be something “new and improved.” The trouble is, is this characterization of the Jews a straw man? Specifically, there is a great deal of biblical and extra-biblical evidence that suggests that legalism wasn’t really a problem, for Jesus, Paul or the Jews. Now, legalism was a problem for Martin Luther, his monastic attempts to save his damnable soul. But scholars have argued that Luther’s problem wasn’t the Jew’s Problem. Nor Paul’s. Nor Jesus’s. And, once again, there is debate about all this. It’s another location of controversy in Pauline studies.

In sum, these are three examples of the debates within Pauline scholarship. There are many more and Campbell reviews them all. Exhaustively.

Now here is the breathtaking move Campbell makes. Campbell’s basic argument is simple. Most, if not all, of these problems across the wide reaches of Pauline scholarship are the result of a single mistake. One simple but catastrophic mistake. Given this contention you can see the riches that await us. If this one mistake is corrected then Paul breaks free into the sunlight. All this nagging debate and argument about Paul falls away in a single stroke.

This, I think, is why there is such a buzz about this book. There are all these micro-level debates about Paul, little provincial struggles about this or that aspect of Paul. Which is, by the way, what scholars do. We specialize and focus on these little details. Expertise is finding a detail you just dominate. No one in the world knows as much about Romans 1.3 as you do. You did your entire dissertation on that single verse!

So Campbell’s work is stunning (and long) because he tries to take in the entire sweep of Pauline scholarship. A macro-level approach that, he thinks, can fix the various micro-level problems. Of course, to make such a suggestion, you have to demonstrate to the micro-level specialists that you know what the hell they are talking about. You have to demonstrate competence and a grasp of the relevant issues. And this Campbell tries to do. Which is why the book is so long.

Of course, I have no idea if Campbell is successful in this. I’m no Pauline scholar. But everyone can grasp what his goal is: Fix the fundamental mistake that is causing all these problems.

So what is the fundamental mistake? The fundamental mistake was reading Paul through a particular theoretical lens. This lens is often called the Lutheran Reading of Paul. Campbell, not wanting to get bogged down in historical details as aspects of this reading pre-date Luther, prefers to call this reading, generically, Justification Theory.

According to Campbell, Justification Theory was the big mistake. When you read Paul through the lens of Justification Theory you get a wildly distorted Paul. And the debates within Pauline scholarship are created by this distorted Paul. This warped, funhouse mirror image of Paul. And if Justification Theory is wrong and alien to Paul then clarity might be achieved if we could read Paul through the spectacles he was wearing. To see Paul as he saw himself, not as we see him through the prism of Justification Theory. So Campbell’s project is twofold. First, show us the flaws of Justification Theory with a particular focus on how Justification Theory is implicated in the debates within Pauline scholarship. And, second, show us an alternative reading of Paul, one that approximates, as best we can, how Paul understood his own theology.

So what is Justification Theory?

First off, as a theory, Justification Theory is a way of explaining Paul. More specifically, it is a way of organizing the Pauline data–textual data mainly, but also historical, theological, anthropological and sociological data–in a way that makes sense of it all. And, like all theories, if Justification Theory creates more problems than it solves we grow dissatisfied with the theory and begin to wonder if a better theory should replace it.

Most Christians already know the broad outlines of Justification Theory. It is the consensus view on salvation, what it is and how it happens. A part of what Campbell does is to specify the theory in great detail, proposition by proposition, so that any disagreements about the theory can be taken up and debated point by point. But we don’t need to go into that amount of detail. I’ll paint the theory in broader strokes. In fact, I’ll summarize Campbell’s description of Justification Theory with a picture (click on it for a larger view):

As described by Campbell, Justification Theory posits two phases and salvation is, essentially, the movement from one phase of existence to the second. The first phase is the pre-Christian condition. Movement to the second, Christian phase is essentially an epistemological journey triggered by two realizations. The first realization is that there is a just, holy and omnipotent God who is characterized by retributive justice. The second realization is that human beings, across the board, are unable to achieve moral perfection. These realizations are reached in one of two ways. For the Jew, these realizations come through attempts at Torah obedience. According to Justification Theory, the Jew should come to the realization that he cannot keep the Law perfectly. For the Gentile, having never come into contact with the Law, the Phase 1 realizations come from an innate moral law that is shared and universal, a “natural law” available to everyone. Everyone knows right from wrong and you also know that you can never be perfect.

The nadir of Phase 1 comes when the two key realizations come crashing down upon you. God is a God of justice. All of us have sinned (i.e., are not perfect). Consequently, God will judge us negatively. Despair comes when we realize that we cannot rescue ourselves. We cannot keep the law–Torah or Natural–perfectly. We are doomed.

Pausing for a moment, you might be wondering if I have presented a caricature of Justification Theory. For example, is it really reasonable to expect Gentiles to reach these conclusions having never heard of the Torah or the gospel? But Campbell is clear that Justification Theory must endorse this proposition. If it doesn’t then someone, somewhere could comfortably live within Phase 1, indefinitely and without blame. They simply wouldn’t know any better. And couldn’t know any better. In short, for Justification Theory to work it must get everyone into the same boat and you need some mechanism to do that, some way to indict people who never heard of the bible or Jesus. The alternative would be that people could get into Phase 2 without acknowledging Christ (i.e., God takes them into heaven because they didn’t know any better) or that God judges these people unfairly (because these people are, after all, clueless about the gospel story). Thus, for God to be righteous in his judgment everyone must stand before Him with a guilty conscience.

Here’s another oddity. Why does God demand moral perfection? Why does it have to be 100% rather than 51%. The trouble with a “good enough” criterion (I’m 51% good) is that many (if not most) people can, realistically, achieve this goal. Such a situation is intolerable to Justification Theory. It would suggest that people could, by hitting the moral criterion of 51%, achieve salvation on their own, through their own good works. So the perfectionistic criterion has to stay, as unreasonable as it is, for Justification Theory to work.

In short, the parts of Justification Theory that seem odd or caricatured are, in fact, integral and vital to the theory. Weaken these aspects of the theory and it collapses.

Returning now to the theory, many readers will recognize the journey to despair in Phase 1 to be the very same pathway Martin Luther walked. During his early monastic days Luther became acutely aware of God’s looming judgment and his own moral imperfections. And, try as he might, Luther could not work hard enough to save himself. He felt himself to be doomed.

At this point the offer of salvation enters the picture. At the point of despair God extends salvation to the believer. The believer accepts this offer by exhibiting the saving criterion: Faith. In the Calvinistic variant faith is given by God to the believer. In the Arminian variant faith is a free act of human volition. Either way, the believer must exhibit faith to trigger movement into Phase 2.

Phase 2 is the Christian Phase and it is characterized by two things. First, the judgment of God, previously directed at the human person, is satisfied by the death of Jesus. In this view, Jesus “substitutes” himself, takes the place of the believer, taking the full judgment of God upon himself. Second, the righteousness of Jesus, his blamelessness, is imputed or reckoned to the believer. In short, where Phase 1 is characterized by a moral despair–the failure to achieve moral perfection in the face of God’s judgment–Phase 2 is characterized by grace, accepting through faith the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. God’s judgment is satisfied and the believer is “saved,” counted as righteous before the Judgment Seat of God.

Most of this is familiar territory. It is, as Campbell points out, the familiar “turn or burn” view of salvation. Stuck in Phase 1 you cannot save yourself. If you think you can get yourself out of Phase 1 on your own that is a manifestation of delusional damnable pride. Further, no one can avoid the indictment of Phase 1. Either the Torah or Natural Law condemns you. Failure to acknowledge this is also a mark of pride. Thus, if you choose to remain in Phase 1 God is both righteous and justified to judge you negatively. The only way out is to face up to your fundamental moral incapacity and to accept, through faith, the gift of grace.

Stepping back from Justification Theory we can now make a few broad observations. I’ll only comment on a few of these, picking up the ones I think Campbell emphasizes.

First, the theory is introspective. It is the inward journey of a tortured conscious. People will see both Augustine and Luther in all this. Being introspective the model is individualistic and pietistic.

Second, the theory is driven by human self-interest. At the critical moment an appeal is made, “You cannot save yourself. Will you not accept this wonderful gift of grace?” Self-interest is the motive force that propels you from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Salvation is, basically, a sales pitch.

Third, the entire journey from Phase 1 to Phase 2 is epistemological. Movement occurs via the acceptance of a few critical propositions. About God. About your moral situation (i.e., you are a sinner in the hands of an angry God). About the offer of grace. Faith is entirely rationalistic.

Fourth, the model is contractual. An offer is made and a stipulated criterion is specified (faith) for the offer to be accepted. Salvation has a conditional if/then structure.

Finally, the model is prospective, it moves forward in time. You begin with the present and move toward the future where salvation awaits you.

As you might expect, these aspects of Justification Theory will prove to be problematic. Many have been widely discussed and debated (e.g., faith as overly rationalistic). Some of these issues were new to me.

And now with Justification Theory described we will be able to explore its inconsistencies and weaknesses. In the next post I’ll begin my summary of the rest of Part 1 of The Deliverance of God discussing the various of the problems inherent in Justification Theory.

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/01/notes-on-deliverance-of-god-part-1.html

It is 5:13 PM Thursday evening on the last evening of the year 2009. I am ending this diary. I am going to just write in my LiveJournal from now on. If you want to continue reading me go to LiveJournal user name “crookedfingers” peace

“12: And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days.
13: And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
14: Where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome.
15: And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.
16: And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.
17: And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
18: Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
19: But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
20: For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
21: And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.
22: But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
23: And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
24: And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
25: And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26: Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28: Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
29: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
30: And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31: Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” Acts 28:12-31