re: Campbell's Quest for Paul's Gospel
I did not take Douglas Campbell’s course on Paul last year as many of you did, so I took the time to do a close reading of his “The Quest for Paul’s Gospel” on my own. It is provocative, and I see resonances in the work of Carter and Eastman. In a recent discussion, I learned that at least one brother considers Campbell heretical. My question: what do you think of Campbell’s argument in favor of the PPME model and against the “Justification by Faith” model? And, in particular, what do you make of his case study on the question of gay ordinations?
My purpose in posting this is to learn by encountering your own critical engagement of his work, since I studied it alone. I am hopeful to read some real specific engagement on this that will help me to process it critically, rather than vague generalizations that condemn or adore without explanation. Thanks!
posted by Unknown at 4:30 PM
16 Comments:
This is not as in depth as is perhaps as you requested. But that will have to wait until you ask some more specific questions. But in general, I'm buying what Campbell is selling. And as near as I can tell from the Pauline Dogmatics working group, so is Hays. PPME (over and against JF) fits with the subjective genitive reading of the pisits Christou occurrences. It moreover escapes and evades logical and theological problems vis a vis (as of yet) unbelieving Jews.
While I find Campbell's approach to the question of same sex issues plausible on its face. I am not yet finally convinced. In some ways Dale Martin's critique of Hays is more compelling.
I'll leave it at that for now. If you can ask more specific questions about Campbell and/or provide more specificity about your borther's objections, I could say more on those points.
Matt and Derek,
I very much appreciate your feedback. Matt, I had forgotten about McClendon in relation to this, but I think you are absolutely correct.
One question that I keep asking myself (which telegraphs my own opinion on this) is about its implications for leadership of a church. What does it mean in practical terms? How does one teach PPME to a people schooled in JF (but not realizing how much of JF they have embraced uncritically)? Do I have to re-write all my teaching tools (because the Campus Crusade genre and all the denominational resources I see are so deeply committed to JF)? To target the de-churched, do I have to create my own Alpha Course in the PPME model (a project I have begun contemplating!)? How do I approach the un-churched with this? And what about hymnody and worship? Where do we find worship resources that do not reinforce JF and do reinforce the PPME I will be preaching and teaching? This last is very much on my mind because my every thought seems to be directly or indirectly related to my hopes of planting a church next year in Raleigh.
Craig,
The answer is yes, or at least maybe. I am not sure what to do with those already saturated with JF. Like many things, it may be something that needs to begin with new members and catechumens. To grow a PPME congregation within a congregation.
The difficulty with teaching PPME is that to the average JF Christian it all to easily strays into works righteousness. The proof of one's faith is in one's life and actions (piety), not in one's confession or propositional orthodoxy. This next bit is beta, so don't hold me to it yet. But with respect to the unchurched, it seems the way to go is to let them into the life and ministry of the Church rather than try to apologize or evangelize. In other words, don't do Alpha. "Mainstream" unchurched/seekers in regular studies. Other than leadership and sacrament, the unbaptized ought to be indistinguishable. The PPME premise being that works of faith are impossible without converting faith. That is, one's baptism and confession (of adults of course) is a retorspective proclamation of something that has already happened.
This returns us to Newbigin and Yoder. The life and minstry of the congregation must be sufficiently robust to have a genuinely alternative community and form of life into which to invite the unbaptized. As Christ works in them and brings more centrally into the life of the congregation, those already baptized help them to recognize what it is that has happened and is happening.
This is a LOOSE analogy, so take it with some salt. Sometimes you ask someone out conspicuously on a date. This is the traditional "call to conversion." And PPME seems to have room for this mode, though it thinks of it differently. But other times, you're spending time with someone more and more, and then at some point one or both realize that the relationship has changed from platonic to romantic. At which point the "define the relationship talk" retroactively names and proclaims already-happened shift. It seems this latter is the mode of PPME type ministry.
We are very much in sync on this, Derek. As you know I am doing an independent study on church planting and evangelism this summer, and my research matches your comments precisely. Campbell footnotes Stark’s study on conversion and we read Stark for Kavin’s course on Acts. Stark shows that conversion is not intellectual at all, but relational. So evangelism rightly consists of inviting others to participate (“Come and See!”) in order to build relationships, which then lead to the state, “in Christ,” at some point. I am looking at this practically rather than theologically in much of my thinking: I plan to establish metrics to monitor the flow of un-churched and de-churched into relationship with the community as key indicators of our fulfillment of mission. Right now, baptism presents a rough measure of the flow of those who move from community participation to participation “in Christ” (besides the obvious problems, one reason it is rough is that so many Americans are baptized at birth but fall away).
Your remark about Alpha matches research I did while at Cambridge. The bottom line is that roughly 80% of England does not attend church. Of these, 40% are de-churched and 40% are un-churched. Alpha reportedly produces excellent results for the former, but does not work at all for the latter. Hence, we ought to use different techniques to transition the two groups into the community. If de-churched, then Alpha -like approach; if un-churched, fresh expressions of church are helpful. As you can imagine, I am deeply invested in cell church/accountability group approaches for all members regardless of their source. So both de-churched and un-churched are funneled into small groups.
When I speak of re-creating “Alpha” I mean that I am contemplating the design of an introductory course of nurture (“Foundations”) for the de-churched for whom I must engage probable baggage that includes preconceptions about the church and the Gospel couched in JF language. Our symbols will require unpacking (liberating distortions) and then repacking (reinterpreting the meanings towards which the symbols point).
Hence my concern about teaching materials, and especially hymnody/praise music. I don’t want to use music in worship (and my church will do a ton of singing) that confounds my teaching efforts.....
So...is Paul's gospel the Gospel?
I mean, douglas is quite persuasive in most of his readings of Paul, but my struggle with PPME (and JF and the other typology he presents in "Quest") is the novelty of it. This isn't how the father's read Paul, this isn't how the eastern church or the western church for two thousand years has read Paul, so are we witnessing a new clarity of Spirit? (This argument works the same on pistus christou)
And craig's point about teaching PPME to JF-trained Christians is incredibly apt because it shows how this model is something new. And like I said, I'm not comfortable with JF, but it has 500 years on PPME, and to blame the holocaust on it is anachronism in its worst form.
Ditto on all accounts, Matt. I don't see PPME as novel at all. Just so lacking in mindshare since the second generation of Reformers (particularly Melancthon) that it lacks significant support in our worship and literary resources.
I see threads of all three models in "Against Heresies," and I think Aquinas voices much of the participatory eschatology. And as I read Campbell's account, I kept thinking I heard echoes of Wesley arguing against the JF brand of Calvinism with similar themes, although Wesley was never quite able to free himself from the dominant flood of evangelical thought.
And Matt, I responded the same way when I read Wilson's comment: Campbell shows that Paul's Gospel is consistent with the four canonical gospels. And - a point I argued with some success for Kavin - I think Paul's epistles and Acts begin to cohere....
Lk. 7: "Your faith has saved you, go in peace."
Clarifications and Comments:
1) The relationship of JF and the Holocaust is not causal. That is JF did not lead to the Holocaust. Instead they are both effects of an abiding ambient anti-semitism (enter JK Carter) leading from the early pogroms, through the Reformation, into full-blown modernity, and culminating in the Holocaust.
2) PPME seems to me both novel and traditional. I think you can read it as or alongside theosis in the Eastern traditions. And it does fit with early Anabaptist readings as well. Also, if the Spirit was actively operating in such a way as to require Paul to clarify on the orderly expression of pneumatic charisms in corporate worship, it seems to fit well with the life of the early congregations.
Phil,
Can you exegete 'faith' in the text you quote according to the categories Campbell develops from Philo, Josephus, and Septuagint? As Campbell notes, there is no debate about the presence of the call for subjective faith by Christians. That is clearly present in NT. But what is meant by it? And what do we make of the key passages on which JF relies in which pistis refers to Christ and not Christians?
Campbell is clear in noting that Paul presupposes that Christians 'believe' certain propositions as true, and act on them by 'trusting' in their truth. The most important of these is the Resurrection. That trusting is a necessary element; am I too far off in thinking that the 'trusting' form of pistis describes the manner of our participation in Christ' faithfulness?
Lk 7 seems to fit right into the PPME model.
Oh certainly, that's what I think Luke 7 is all about. I doubt if that dear prostitue was thinking about the hypostatic union when she was washing Jesus' feet with her tears.
Here's the thing, friends: I don't think that Luther meant much different himself.
Actually, I just read a great Tyndale quote on just this matter the other day; unfortunately I don't have it on me right now, but the whole point of it was something like this: Christ alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; ergo, we need to trust in Christ alone for our salvation. That's what Tyndale meant by JF, at least in this quote. I found it marvelous, and full of comfort.
I guess what I'm saying is, I think we should be wary of making straw men JF and then tearing them down too fast. I've done that in at least 2 papers at Duke, and I wish I hadn't.
Again, ditto, Matt.
Phil, Campbell makes the point that Luther and Lutheranism are not the same, and Calvin and Calvinism are not the same (nor monolithic). So the JF critique is not really aimed so much at Luther or Calvin, as at the reductions that occurred in subsequent generations, as Campbell notes, particularly in Scottish Presbyterianism. Both Luther and Calvin (and Augustine), he notes, had elements of the PPME. Calvin certainly shares, for example, the pneumatological and participatory emphases; ironically, I find modern Presbyterians to be more highly skeptical of charismatic thought and practice than most other groups.
My issues are similar to Matt's. Except I am perhaps more severe in my criticism. My concern is that the JF model as I have witnessed it in action in local churches - at Holy Trinity in Raleigh, in my Methodist churches, and in the Southern Baptist churches of which I was a part - too often translates into structures that turn a priest into mere chaplain to the privileged and conservative. When alloyed with Jeffersonian values, it tends toward a highly individualized spirituality that lacks ethical teeth. Thus evangelicals baptize secular society in the same way that liberals do.
Here is another question for everyone: what do you make of Campbell's reading of Roman 1:18 -3:20? In class, did he respond to questions about others who might have discerned the ironic tone he attributes to Paul, or is he simply the first to notice?
I have researched ATLA for critiques without much luck. Anyone know if Martyn or others of his stature have critiqued this?
Thanks, Matt, as always! You and I had similar experiences in encountering Galatians. I recall your carrying around the Martyn commentary this Spring while I was writing my paper on the same topic for Susan Eastman's class on Paul's use of mimesis language. Eastman and Campbell both extend Martyn, a fact one appreciates in reading the draft of her dissertation slated for publication this year. No wonder you and I both appreciate Campbell.
Please do send me the Martyn text you mention.
God's richest blessings!
Craig
I finally finished Campbell's "Quest" just after our initial dialogue. Since then I have had a chance to reflect and also to talk to Richard Hays and Tom Wright about it. I update this thread now to share with your their views as of this week, as well as to qualify my own earlier remarks.
My own reflections: I am enthused - very enthused - about DC's overall project. I spoke to him last week and he will share with me a draft of his forthcoming book on justification in the next few months. I will be sure to share with those of you who have an interest. In particular, I think his synthesis of the PPME and SH models is very helpful to practicing theology, and his critique of the JF model is quite compelling. I acknowledge that I began my read with a strong bias against the JF model, having written a paper striving to demonstrate how it leads to an anemic ecclesiology and defanged priesthood this Spring.
I also note that Hauerwas and Milbank/Ward/Pickstock reach theological results similar to those that flow from the PPME model via Barth/Yoder and philosophy/ontology. That is, like Doug's reading of Paul, they similarly emphasize a theology that is Participatory, Pneumatological, and Eschatological and which points towards an understanding of "church" as a robust "communitas."
That said, I was disappointed in two chapters. His case study on gay ordination was for me the weakest part of the book. I had the impression that he began with a conclusion and tried to reason towards it. However, I do believe his reading of Paul - in particular his emphasis on a realized eschatology that takes seriously the new creation - raises questions about the boundaries we define on the basis of sexual identity. If Foucault is wrong and there is indeed a reality that is called sexual identity - that is, if we become persuaded that there is indeed a genetic ordering of same sex sexual preference in some of us - then it seems that the PPME model challenges us those boundaries. So his reading has shifted me back into the camp of those who feel we have a lot of discernment still to do on that question. And, I must confess that I am alert to the possibility that those who reject Campbell's quest as "heretical" do so precisely because they see its potential implications for this question in order to avoid serious engagement of their investments in a theology that forbids same sex partnering.
I was also disappointed in Doug's last chapter in which he recounts his theory about Romans 1:18-3:20. I find his theory fascinating and potentially of great value, but I can't yet accept the idea that no one else had discerned Paul's used of irony in presenting the Teacher's position. I want to be persuaded, but that part is for me too great a stretch right now - too much conjecture.
I asked Tom Wright about the Romans exegesis last week. He called it "odd" and clearly is unpersuaded. He is a fan of Doug's, however, and has enough humility to remain open to the possibility that Doug is right. That humility comes from previous experience with similar discoveries that first seemed over the top.
Here is Richard's response:
"As you might surmise, I am strongly supportive of many of Campbell's positions. But I find his treatment of Romans 1-4 problematical and insufficiently argued at the exegetical level. I am not aware of any major critical reviews that engage his argument, but I have not looked for them. I am not at all sure why DC thinks he has to do away with what he calls the JF and SH models. Surely a more nuanced approach would be to show how each of these models identifies facets of Paul's complex thought."
Bravo, Dr. Hays. I've often wondered, while arguing with TJ, precisely the same thing: why the haste to dispense with the other "models," if one might rather incorporate them into an all the richer exegetical whole?
A recent Archbishop, in the midst of a great book defending "evangelical catholicism," on JF:
"Justification by faith is never a solitary relationship with a solitary Christ. The man who is justified is an individual, but the Christ who justifies is one with His people as His body; and the act of faith, in releasing a man from self, brings him into dependence upon his neighbors in Christ. Faith and justification are inseparable from initiation into the one Body."
--Michael Ramsey, "The Gospel and the Catholic Church"
I read that yesterday and couldn't help but think of many of the concerns raised in this discussion about JF and individualism.
[Craig, read what follows in a playful tone]
So Craig, you're suspicious that DAC's chapter on homosexuality starts with a settled conclusion; but you're also suspicious of conservatives who let their settled conclusions about sexuality determine their exegesis of Paul. Can we, then, expect shortly your great, and not in the least tendentious, account of what St. Paul really thinks?
[Remember, playful tone]
Phil,
I am glad you found RHays’ comments helpful. So, too, is Ramsey’s comment you share (thanks!).
1. Your reliance on them raises an important point about this debate regarding JF. Both Hays and Ramsey (judging from his quote) are atypical in their versions of JF. Both strive to articulate a theory of justification that presupposes the primacy of the collective. Hays, for example, says “individuals have nothing to do with their own justification“ because the fact of their justification is objective and was achieved through the faithfulness of Jesus the Christ on the Cross. Hays stresses Bonhoeffer’s ”Life Together“approach to ecclesiology, agreeing with Hauerwas that soteriology and ecclesiology are inextricably intertwined, so that ”participation“ in the community pledged to Christ is our essential response to the gospel. He does not speak of salvation as a status achieved merely through subjective faith of individuals. Thus, when Hays speaks of ”justification by faith,“ he does so polemically, saying that we rightly speak of ”rectification“ and not ”justification.“ So Hays moves a bit away from the juridical version of JF that DC dismisses. His approach, in other words, is to nuance the common JF understanding rather than to dismiss it.
2. You render a challenge to me. Let me first note the nature of your challenge. Once again you offer a strategy of misdirection by confusing and conflating two separate streams of thought in a way that misrepresents the views of the one you oppose. That is of course a technique that a famous Louisiana trial lawyer and governor, Huey Long, used to marginalize his opponents. State things in such a way that the non-alert auditor is led to believe the opponent has endorsed things he never actually endorsed. It is dishonest, but it is unfortunately an effective way to manipulate voters.
To avoid such manipulation, let’s unpack your challenge. First (A) you note my concern that Doug seemed to begin with his conclusion and then tried to construct a case to support it. Then, (B) you note my concern about the possibility that conservatives may dismiss Doug’s exegesis solely because it opens the door potentially to ordination of those with a same sex sexual preference. And then (C) you challenge me to offer an account of what Paul actually said. The implication to the trusting auditor is that the subjects in (A), (B), and (C) are the same. Indeed, the implication is that I have arrogantly dismissed the accounts of Doug and conservatives of ”what Paul really said,” and presume to know better than both of Paul’s subjective intent.
But the subject in (A) is not “what Paul really said.” The subject in (A) is Doug’s methodology in the case study in which he seeks to apply his exegesis of Gal 3:28. In an earlier post, I believe I made it clear that I strongly endorse Doug’s exegesis of Gal 3:28. Thus, the subject in (A) is neither “what Paul really said” nor Doug’s account of Paul, but rather Doug’s methodology in considering ordination of gays.
Nor is the subject in (B) “what Paul really said.” Rather, the subject is the willingness of conservatives to let the text speak for itself. My concern, justified by specific experience, is that conservatives may shutdown all conversation about “what Paul really said” (declaring Doug a ‘heretic’) because they are afraid that serious listening to Paul’s account of the gospel will subvert ethical positions they long ago sanctified and fortified. Notice, again, the subject is not “what Paul really said” nor conservative’s account of Paul but rather an attitude of openness to hear the text together and to engage its implications in our context without fear.
The subject in (C) is “what Paul really said.” Since in (A) and (B) I never dismissed Doug’s nor conservative’s account of “what Paul really said,” this seems to be a rhetorical ploy to make auditors believe that “what Paul really said” is at issue rather than one’s openness to Paul’s gospel, whatever that may be. Of course, all our talk of sola scriptura is a sham if conservatives are afraid to engage what Paul really said.
As far as my offering my own account of “what Paul really said,” I have already indicated that I find Doug’s account of the PPME model, supplemented by the SH model as he suggests, quite compelling. I have made clear that I am uncomfortable with Doug’s methodology in presenting his case study, but that I see and embrace how his exegesis challenges my own stance with respect to ordination and marriage of homosexuals. I have said I feel further discernment in communion is necessary for us on that cluster of issues. And I have said I am unpersuaded by his exegesis of Rom 1:18-3:20 and look forward to his forthcoming book. What more do I need to say?
I wonder if DC's quest for die Sache of Paul makes him unable to maintain what RBH calls "a more nuanced approach."
And I have to say that no matter how much I agree with him, that is quite loaded language that Richard uses, implying that complexity is somehow inherently more academically rigorous: a thicker account is not always right, though it does take longer to make.
Post a Comment
<< Home