I’ve put it off as long as I could, but I’m finally starting to climb Mount Everest (= reading Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul). 
I confess that I’m going into this kicking and screaming–not just because the book is 1180ish pages long, but also because I tend to find Campbell’s representations of views he doesn’t agree with to be disappointing. That is to say, I sometimes find that he’s taken a good swipe at a theory, but that nobody I know who holds to the position he’s engaging actually thinks about their own theory what Campbell is dismissing it for.
I began Deliverance of God with a similar apprehension, as he takes his baby steps toward his argument and outlines what he’s going to be disagreeing with.
But then I found myself more and more resonating with his concerns about how Reformed theology depicts God, justice, and the world, culminating in this marvelous sentence, summarizing what he calls the “justification” position:
“In a very real sense, ethical legislation based on retributive justice is the fundamental structure of the universe, as well as of the divine nature” (17).
I’m not saying I’m fully on board yet; and the reasons Campbell is going to disagree with this sentence are going to raise some red flags for me, but I’m ready to read with him now–because he’s nailed the shortcoming of theology in the Reformed tradition (and probably in the broader Christian tradition as well, though I’ll allow my friends to correct me on that point). The structure of the universe is not law, the story of the universe is not a court drama.
1151 pages to go.
In accordance with federal guidelines, I hereby disclose that I was given a free copy of the book being reviewed in this post. I did not agree to write a review, either positive or negative, in return for the volume. In fact, I didn’t even know it was coming and had already bought my own copy. But that’s another story.
I read very slowly and have very little time to do any reading anyway, so you are likely to zoom right past where I am in the book. I’m about 180 pages in. So far I like the general thrust of the book. I think Campbell is taking on things well. But now that you mention it, he does seem to swipe broadly at the opposing theory. I also have two other quibbles:
1. I hate endnotes! And for a book pushing 1200 pages, endnotes are terribly cumbersome. Campbell actually has some pretty substantive notes. They are not the sort of thing I would want to skip over. But I’m inclined to do so, simply so I don’t have to keep my finger in the right place to check the note when I come to its marker in the text.
2. I find myself having to read and re-read sections. I don’t mind this too much when it’s because the content is dense and needs a second look. But when it’s because the use of pronouns makes me wonder if I have the same antecedent in mind as Campbell does, I get a little perturbed. For some reason, I am not always sure his and my “it,” “that,” “this,” etc. are the same.
I’ll be anxious to read your thoughts on the book, especially once you get ahead of me and can help me know what to expect.
i’ll be interested in seeing where you come out. I agree wholeheartedly your comments about the structure of the world not being a courtroom and the flaw of Reformed theology. Perhaps Campbell can also answer my burning question about Reformed theology: Why are those who subscribe to it so mean?
So you’re needing to disburden yourself of one those anvils?
Alas, Tim, the “long story” has to do with unloading the extra.
Thank you for your kind remarks Daniel (at least, thus far!).
A couple of suggestions.
1. The “straw man” anxiety comes up a lot. I try to address this on pp. 11-13 (and endnote 5 is worth checking); 332-33; and 333-4 (perhaps through p. 337). But it’s really important to appreciate that ultimately I want to try to grasp how to read Paul. And hence I’m not so concerned about later theological and theoretical subtleties that don’t end up with any purchase on Romans 1-4, etc. You can try to escape certain theoretical inadequacies by tweaking the theory, or even abandoning it, but there is usually an exegetical price to pay. Unfortunately, the Justification crowd tend to be waiting for you as soon as you get back to text claiming that THEY are reading it better! In short, possible readings of the text act as a control on theoretical variations–and complaints! This is largely why I don’t think the “faith as gift” move ultimately helps us. It’s good theology, but bad exegesis. I explore this dynamic–at least a bit–on p. 59.
2. I wouldn’t concede the heart of the Reformed tradition to the a priori, retributive posture. I think the best parts of the Reformation, and especially of Calvin, are deeply critical of this posture. It is true that this posture does derive from the Reformation, but arguably–at least in the main–from its secondary figures, especially Melanchthon, Ursinus, and Coccejus. Barth, incidentally, has a beautiful little excursus on this in IV/1: 54-66. This is much better than anything I’ve ever written. It’s also quite a lot shorter–although I see that he wrote a fair bit on other topics.
Good luck with the rest of the climb. I hope that you find the view from the top worth the effort.
Douglas, do you realize that you just conceded that Barth dealt with something more briefly than you?
As to point 2, I do find Barth to be much better than Westminster on the issue of Christ, God, and covenants. One initial thought I had in reading through the early pages was, “Wow, I bet Douglas is the only real NT scholar in the world who understands why my disbelief in the Covenant of Works was the beginning of the end for me in the Presbyterian Church in America.”
I appreciate your willingness to separate Calvin out from some of this. Of course, that’s going to raise the question for me of how different the proposed solution is from a Calvin-like union with Christ soteriology. I’ll look forward to seeing how it all plays out.
I understand completely! Of course, such disbelief can get you kicked out of other things too. (Unbelievable really.)
I don’t think the ultimate solution will be very different from a “Calvin-like union with Christ.” In some ways I hope it isn’t. The principal road block for getting consistently to such a solution in Paul for me has always been the double contract reading of the Justification texts. So maybe we don’t have to worry about THAT particular issue so much now. And we can get on to the really important questions. Time will tell.
I have a few pages left in Part 1, and as confused as I was in the beginning, I am now beginning to track with Campbell.
What I found compelling is the idea that the core of the controversies in the debates on Paul have been touched on here and there by scholars, but can now essentially be sourced from the Justification Theory – “the naming of the elephant.”
I see many of the ideas presented by the Justification Theory in practice in the churches I have been a part of over time.
I must say that I am looking forward to some of the positive changes that will eventually manifest in the churches as we begin to see more cohesion in Paul and in turn teach and preach the alternative.