Inhabiting the Curicform God (Part 1: Justification)

If you don’t know who Michael Gorman is, you better find out in a hurry.

I use his Apostle of the Crucified Lord in my Acts- Revelation course because (a) students devour it; and (b) once they have, they speak of Paul differently, they read Paul differently, their understanding of the gospel is articulated in terms of the narrative of the cross.

I use his Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross in my Cross in the New Testament course because (a) I want my students to understand that biblical “ethics” is about living into a story, not about lists of right and wrong; and (b) because I want to subvert the idea that when we study the cross in the New Testament the most important thing is “theories about the atonement.” No, discipleship and “spirituality” are the more prominent interpretations of Jesus’ death on the cross.

If you want a quicker in to Gorman’s reading of Paul, you can check out his Reading Paul for a great orientation.

But in this and one subsequent post I want to say a few words about Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (for my gratis copy of which I pass on my thanks to the goodly folks at Eerdmans). Today I mostly want to talk about justification, next time we’ll deal with nonviolence.

Gorman begins with a reading of the Christ-hymn in Philippians 2, which he calls Paul’s “master story.” “Although/because Christ existed in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be exploited for gain, but emptied himself…” Although [x] not [y] but rather [z]. That’s Paul’s narrative.

The surprise of this story is that Christ reveals what it means both to be truly God and what it means to be truly human by not exploiting the power and position he had, but by self-emptying (=kenosis). For Paul as an apostle, his own life story must manifest the same: although he’s an apostle, he doesn’t exploit his position for gain, but labors and gives himself for the salvation of the churches (see 1 Thess 1, 2 Cor throughout).

We come now to chapter 2, whose subtitle begins, “justification by co-crucifixion.”

Gorman argues for a vision of participation in Christ in which justification happens by co-crucifixion. This means, among other things, that we must never imagine that there is a rift between justification and transformation (= sanctification) or between justification and justice. For my part, I would suggest that Gorman is here part of a growing chorus of voices that is helping get Paul scholarship back to one of the most important aspects of Reformed theology, one that had been set aside by several generations of Paul scholarship (perhaps culminating with E. P. Sanders): justification is a facet, and function, of Paul’s union with Christ soteriology.

For Gorman’s proposal concerning justification, two elements are indispensable: (1) the faithfulness of Jesus, expressed in going to the cross, is the reason that the cross effects our justification; and (2) this faithfulness is covenant faithfulness–fulfilling a covenant that demands both love of God and love of neighbor.

In short, what this means is that being united to the story of the self-giving son, Christians find themselves reconciled to both God and other people–and living into the narrative of God- and neighbor-love as the Spirit who joins them to Christ works out his cruciform image in them as individuals and as communities.

The means by which justification is accomplished (Christ’s faithful death) demonstrates the mode by which it comes to us (our own faithful response to God) and the manner in which we are called to live in the present (59).

In working out this theology, Gorman stresses that it is by grace: it is not self-generated; it is corporate: we are not saved on our own, but in Christ and as part of a body; it is an introduction into a new life that includes participation now in Jesus’ resurrection (69-70).

How does transformation happen in the Christian life? “Paradoxically, this death experience called faith results in life, both present and future” (80).

Two crucial take-home points for Pauline soteriology emerge from this chapter: (1) justification and union with Christ are not two separate theological models, but one model in which the former is a component part of the latter; and therefore (2) justification can never come without personal and corporate transformation into the image of the crucified and risen messiah.

Next up: co-crucifixion and non-violence.

This entry was written by J. R. Daniel Kirk , posted on Friday January 29 2010at 11:01 am , filed under Book Reviews and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink . Post a comment below or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

11 Responses to “Inhabiting the Curicform God (Part 1: Justification)”

  • Dan,
    Great review. I love this book also. He does a great job, as you said, connecting justification and transformation, and even finding a place for theosis in Pauline scholarship. I loved his reading of Gal. 2:20 and how it is integral to understanding justification by faith.

  • Thanks, Geoff, and thanks for the RT as well.

    Hard as it may be to believe, there’s actually a lot of exciting theology going on in NT scholarship these days, including Mike Gorman’s and Richard Hays’s work.

  • BrianN says:

    Dan:

    I think I understand what you are saying, but can we escape “theories about the atonement”? Does Jesus’ death propitiate (pacify) God’s wrath or not? Yes, it does more than this (Christus victor, etc.), and it does it within the context of union w/Christ, but is it wrong to ask such a question? What is the point of Rom. 5:1-11 if not assurance that God is no longer angry with us because of the atoning death of Christ?

    (I like what you say here about the simultaneity of just/sanct., and do not understand how the WesCal guys can be viewed as “Reformed” rather than neo-Lutheran.)

    Kind regards,
    Brian

    • Hi, Brian, I’m not saying that atonement is unimportant, but that if that’s our primary focus or question then we might need some realignment.

      There are important things to say about atonement, but I do think we’d do better to pour our energies into discerning how the death of Jesus is called to shape the lives of our Christian communities. When we use differences in atonement theories to create differing camps, factions, churches, and denominations, we are often, ironically, denying the work of the cross as we passionately plea for our interpretation of it.

  • In light of the previous two comments, I must warn my readers that stark, draconian penalties are being devised for those who refer to me as “Dan” Rather than “Daniel” on my blog. These might include forcing you to memorize long passages of Unlocking Romans, tying you to a chair and sitting you in front of hours of Oprah reruns, or speaking ill of your cruciformity.

    You’ve been warned. :)

  • josh says:

    you talk quite a bit about ethics as living within a story, and you usually cite Hays, Gorman, and Wright as some of your main inspirations. i’m wondering if you took any courses with Hauerwas during your time at Duke or if his narrative ethics has also been influential in your construction of a narrative ethic?

    • Josh, I didn’t take any courses with Hauerwas. I have his reader, but haven’t gotten very far into it. Most of my trajectory has been set by the “Redemptive Historical” approach of the now-dead Westminster, that found its capstone when I read Hays’ Moral Vision the summer before I started at Duke. Then it was mostly me and Paul working it out. With a bit of Jesus thrown in…

  • DANiel, (ha!)

    Thanks for this! I look forward to reading your next installment. As you know, I’m readying Inhabiting as well and find it enlightening. Lot’s of “aha!” moments so far.

    peace,

    Mike

  • [...] began my engagement with Inhabiting the Cruciform God by highlighting some of what Michael Gorman does with justification. This time, I want to focus on non-violence, the subject of chapter [...]

  • Christopher says:

    Daniel,

    You mention your Cross in the N.T. course you teach. I am interested in getting a reading list. Also I am not familiar with the “Redemptive Historical” approach. I am a pastor trying to keep current with what is going on in N.T. and Paul studies. Thanks.

    • Christopher, with the significant caveat that these books represent different points of view and that I have varying degrees of affinity for them, here is my reading list:

      REQUIRED READING:
      Various passages in the New Testament
      John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, eds., The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1995).
      D. A. Carson, “Atonement in Romans 3:21-26.” Pages 119-139 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives (ed. Charles E. Hill et al; InterVarsity, 2004).
      Richard B. Gaffin, “Atonement in the Pauline Corpus.” Pages 140-162 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives (ed. Charles E. Hill et al; InterVarsity, 2004).
      Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Eerdmans, 2001). 400 pages.
      Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement (Abingdon, 2007). 177 pages.
      Barbara E. Reid, Taking Up the Cross: New Testament Interpretation Through Latina and Feminist Eyes (rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). 184 pages.

      RECOMMENDED READING:
      Mark D. Baker, ed., Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement (Baker, 2006).
      Joel B. Green and Mark Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (InterVarsity, 2000).
      Charles E. Hill et. al., eds., The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives (InterVarsity, 2004).
      Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (HarperOne, 1996).

      Don’t worry about “Redemptive Historical” reading of scripture. If you learn to read the NT from the likes of Richard Hays you’ll be getting the best of it and more.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>