Customer Reviews

Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In this study of Pauline soteriology, Gorman focuses on Paul's "grand narrative" of kenosis, justification, and theosis as key themes for understanding Paul's view of salvation in Christ. The key text for explicating the narrative is Phil 2:5-11, where the kenosis and exaltation of Christ form the key movements in the description of Christ's incarnation. For Gorman, this narrative is key to understanding Christ, and salvation, and even more, it is key to understanding God. He sets as one of the book's key agendas the claim that "cruciformity is theoformity, or theosis," built on the foundational claim that "kenosis (self-emptying) reveals the character of God" (2). This key element of the thesis is worked out in the first chapter of the book, with a careful study of Philippians 2 and it's implications for Paul's master story. He then turns to an extended study of justification as co-crucifixion, a participation in the life and death of Christ, and specifically in Christ's covenant fulfillment. (Thus, the pistis christou debate features prominently in the chapter, as the subjective genitive reading there is an important element in the argument, though it doesn't stand or fall solely on that point.) He then turns to holiness as the actualization of justification (not some subsequent and separate movement) and closes with an argument for nonviolence as an essential part of Paul's entire viewpoint.

I greatly enjoyed Gorman's important work. It is well written and clearly argued throughout, and he demonstrates a thorough familiarity with Paul and his letters. I am extremely sympathetic to the core theological argument of the book, that kenosis not only pertains to Christ but also reveals something of the character and manner of working of God the Father as well. His chapter on justification is likewise illuminating, and I think he is convincing that theosis (as he carefully defines it) is an element in Paul's soteriology, one that is often neglected in the Western tradition. Whether "justification by co-crucifixion leading to theosis" is the one soteriological model for Paul is most certainly a more difficult argument to pull off, but at the least Gorman has demonstrated how the "crucified with Christ" language and thought patter is an important one for Paul. His chapters on holiness and nonviolence are similarly thought-provoking and challenging, and I have no doubt that this work overall provides an argument to be reckoned with. Gorman constantly brought me back to the text of Paul's letters to notice details I had previously missed while at the same time making a synthetic argument for an overarching framework that is helpful in thinking like Paul thought. So while I may not agree with him in all particulars, this is clearly a great work, and I am glad to recommend it.

This is a solid book. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and as a former Lutheran (LCMS), I have seen two poles of Pauline soteriology expounded from the scriptures, one focusing upon the ontological union of `in Christ' and his Church through his victory over death (which is another way of saying `theosis') and the other `Christ for us' as the ransom from sin death and the devil. While not mutually exclusive by any means, one could argue that Western theology, and Protestant theology in particular, has been a bit myopic when it comes to reading St. Paul, a reading that often has more to do with Augustine, Luther and Calvin and less to do with St. Paul and the liturgy of the faithful. This book serves as a useful corrective by showing that Paul's understanding of God in Christ is ontological, kenotic and plurotic: In God's self-emptying in Christ we are raised into his life (which is what Orthodox mean by grace). In the words of St. Athanasius, that great defender of Christ's person and natures, "God became man that man might become God." Of course this is shocking language to many, but understood scripturally the concept gives full value to the incarnation, which is the center not only of our own personal histories but of History itself, and written in the heart of God before the foundation of the world.

Karl Barth wrote in his Dogmatics that all the dubious features of Calvinism come from the fact that, in the end, he separated God from Jesus Christ. I believe this to be very true of most `theology', if the term can even apply. It begins with unrecognized philosophical presuppositions that are read into the text of scripture rather than being read as it is within the context of the liturgical community, which I would argue is the most accurate method of exegesis.

Other books of interest may include: Fellow Workers With God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (Foundations), The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford Early Christian Studies), One with God: Salvation As Deification and Justification (Unitas Books), Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, On The Incarnation, Christ Present In Faith: Luther's View Of Justification, Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine and Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. John Behr's The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death is essential reading in understanding history and theology "in the crucified Lord of glory". Of course, a reading/praying of the liturgical texts of the Christian tradition make very plain that Gorman is more than onto something- he is rediscovering for the West what was at the heart of the early church's experience of God in Christ and the Spirit.

Gorman is one of the few theological writers I have encountered who can combine high theology with understandable language, a remarkable feat in itself. In this seminal work - I believe that this work is truly a seed that will grow into a larger body of work - Gorman explores in a new and profound way the nature of the God revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. In approaching this work the reader must be prepared to encounter a God who has has been stripped of any vestige of triumphalism. What emerges from this work is a fresh vision of Jesus' God, a God far removed from the vengeful God of childhood Christianity, a God who makes us like unto him. Gorman has revealed in a clear and concise language the salvation found in the cross.

I really like this book. It stands alone but is surely best understood when read in conjunction with others of Gorman's books, especially Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Eerdmans, 2001). Gorman writes with clarity and economy. He's well-versed in current Pauline scholarship and the broader theological world, yet this book is also quite accessible.

He sees Philippians 2 and its affirmation of the centrality of Jesus' self-giving in its view of God's involvement in the world as a key element "Paul's master story." And at the heart of this story we find a view of God that sees the best understanding of God being one wherein God is self-giving-not simply Jesus. Along with seeing God as self-giving and vulnerable, Gorman argues strongly for an understanding of Christian faith where the believer identifies so closely with Jesus (and God) that it is most meaningful to think not so much in terms of belief or even following so much as participation, sharing life with-even to the point of sharing in Jesus' crucifixion (hence, the term "cruciform").

When we share in God's self-giving, we share in the life of God ("theosis"). And this takes the form of self-giving love. Gorman's understanding of God is determined in large part by his understanding of Jesus. And his understanding of Jesus centers on Jesus' self-giving love described in Philippians 2 and manifested most fundamentally in Jesus' way of life that led to his crucifixion.

Gorman takes the social and political implications of Paul's theology quite seriously. The central "political" message Gorman sees in Paul is the message of nonviolence. His fourth chapter, "`While We Were Enemies': Paul, the Resurrection, and the End of Violence," is a tour de force. Better than anyone I have read, Gorman helps us understand Paul's own journey from sacred violence as a persecutor of Jesus' followers to a powerful advocate of the way of peace.

Along with his forceful argument for Paul as a pacifist, Gorman helps us understand Paul's integration of theology and practice more generally. Paul's pacifism links inextricably with Paul's affirmation of Jesus' divinity--and with Paul's portrayal of God's own cruciformity (that is, God's own nonviolence).

My only hesitation with this book is Gorman's use of key terms such as "cruciform" and "theosis." Before reading this book (and his others) I would have more often associated these words with apolitical and even otherworldly piety and spirituality. Gorman goes a long way toward redeeming this language, but I still wonder if he makes his presentation a little too jargonish and insiderish and less accessible to those who don't know these words. If one follows Gorman's own use of his key terms, though, one will be left with a clear sense of a gospel that fully engages this world we live in, and engages it with a transformative message of peace.

I was assigned to read Gorman's book and write a critical review for a Romans exegesis course. This is it - note that all the parenthetical citations refer to _Inhabiting the Cruciform God_, while all other works are noted).

In his book Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology, Michael J. Gorman is looking for continuity, and attempts to find continuity within the process of theosis. Within theosis lie several ideals such as: kenosis (as portrayed in Phil 2:5-11, as well as in the life of Paul), justification (with particular interest given against a plurality in Pauline soteriology), and holiness (or co-crucifixion as an ongoing endeavor). Gorman confidently finds the continuity of these terms, and explains how we, as having adopted a cruciform Christian nature, are to live in light of this continuity.

First, Gorman finds continuity within the realm of theosis in general. In arguing for his definition of theosis, he states

For Paul, to be one with Christ is to be one with God; to be like Christ is to be like God; to be in Christ is to be in God. At the very least, this means that for Paul cruciformity - conformity to the crucified Christ - is really theoformity, or theosis. (4)

and theosis "... is transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ." (7) To be cruciform is also to adapt to various cruciformal qualities, including "... faithfulness, love, power, wisdom, and so forth." (Gorman, Cruciformity, 18n29) The continuity that Gorman seeks is not necessarily housed within the realm of what is done, but conversely, is housed within what is not done that becomes something done (the counterintuitive position). The basis of Gorman's argument here lies in the understanding of Phil 2:6 as concessional and causal. A concessional understanding would render verse six "although he was in the form of God" while a causal understanding would render the same verse as "because he was in the form of God." (10) Gorman finds resolution between these two different renderings by explaining the usage typical of Paul in these concessive/causal situations. By highlighting 1 Thess 2:6-8 and 1 Cor 9:12-18 Gorman explains that,

... when Paul says he did not exercise his apostolic authority or rights he is saying that he acted in this way (1) although he had certain rights by virtue of his status as an apostle, and (2) in spite of normal expectations of apostles, but also (3) because he is an apostle of the self-giving and loving crucified Lord... Paul is acting in character, not out of character as an apostle. (23-24)

Gorman elaborates on the kenosis of Christ, particularly that "Kenosis, therefore, does not mean Christ's emptying himself of his divinity, but rather Christ's exercising his divinity, his equality with God." (28) As John J. Collins notes, this is indeed unique behavior for one of divine status: "... an important cultural context for such imagery is traditions about the typical ruler who is violent and who presumes to take a divine role. Verse 6, therefore, means that, although Christ had a divine form, he did not attempt to make himself equal to God, unlike the typical arrogant ruler." (Collins, King and Messiah, 115) This also seems to argue against the typical "Son of Man" figure attested in Second Temple Jewish literature. As found in The Similitudes of Enoch, the Enochic Son of Man was glorified, given divine status, then, in a sense, de-glorified, after his appointed time was over. In our case here, the opposite is occurring: Christ de-glorified, de-exalted himself. God was in fact God's agent for renewal. Concerning this point further, Gorman notes a short-fall of the typical Son of Man status: "... we must especially avoid the conclusion that God the Father is here portrayed as "promoting" Jesus by virtue of his self-emptying and self-humbling." (30) Gorman argues well for a modified explanation of kenosis, and how it is directly involved in God's cruciformity, and Christ's theosis.

In his book Paul: A Very Short Introduction, E.P. Sanders makes a startling claim: "One sees that it is impossible to derive from Paul's letters anything approaching one single doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ." (Sanders, Paul, 96) Sanders cites two passages, which in concert, seem to prove his point. The first is Rom 1:1-6, which has been an aching backbone of Adoptionist Christologies:

For most believers, [sonship] entailed a different level of existence... For them, Christ was himself divine. Other Christians, however, rejected this claim and argued that Christ was a flesh and blood human being... adopted by God to be his Son and to bring about the salvation of the world. (Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 47)

The second verse Sanders cites is Phil 2:5-11, which draws sharp contrast to Adoptionism, and boasts of a Christ exercising "... voluntary self-humbling... verses 6-8 assert Christ's equality with God and narrate, both positively and negatively, his disposition toward that equality and the action he takes regarding it." (16) But, do these two accounts find a corollary in Paul's soteriology? If Jesus was in a sense adopted by God, it seems that a heavier emphasis would be related to the "works of Christ," rather than the theosis that Gorman argues for, emphasizing the "faith in/of Christ." Regarding these two soteriological notions, Gorman cites Tannehill and presses a singularity in Pauline Soteriology: "Although Tannehill does not use the precise language of co-crucifixion and co-resurrection, he clearly sees Paul articulating justification "from faith" in terms of participating in Christ's death and resurrection. Faith itself is being defined in a unique way as participation in Christ's death." (68) Thus, all the more important becomes Gorman's understand of justification as "... a rich, and potentially costly, experience of participating in Christ's resurrection life that is effected by co-crucifixion with him." (163) Gorman draws continuity between justification and theosis, because justification is theosis, and can accurately be described with one word: Holiness.

Thus far, we have followed Gorman as he has addressed theosis by way of kenosis and justification. If kenosis shows (remembering Collins and Collins) an antithetical ruling figure in Christ, and justification is the experience of JCC, then holiness is how we live in light of this new perspective. Holiness is the way in which the covenant will be maintained by God's covenant people (that is, those participating (justification) in the cruciformity of God/theosis of Christ). Gorman's Trinitarian participation is completed considering that the power of the Holy Spirit enables us to be cruciform. Further, justification finds room within holiness, and ultimately, you guessed it, holiness is theosis: "... holiness, or sanctification, is not an addition to justification but its actualization," (111) and even further defined, "Holiness is not a supplement to justification but the actualization of justification, and may be more appropriately termed theosis." (2)

Gorman has developed a strong argument for the Christ likeness of God (theosis), as well as the Godlikeness of Christ (cruciformity). I find fault with Gorman's fourth main chapter, that being nonviolence, and that theosis is exemplified in a nonviolent existence. If indeed nonviolence is an element of theosis, I wonder what we are to do with the Conquest Narratives and genocide. It seems that, all too often, these accounts (cf. The Book of Joshua) are provided undue padding. My initial response would be to see a limit on theosis. We cannot distance ourselves from the Hebrew Bible, nor can we distance ourselves from selected aspects therein. If cruciformity and theoformity are two sides to the same coin, I would like the cruciformity side to be facing up.

Overall, Gorman has argued in fine fashion that Christ (especially according to Phil 2:5-11) was a participant in theosis, and that in the same way, God was a participant in cruciformity. Our theosis is dependent upon our cruciformity, that, as we continue to participate in co-crucifixion, we will be co-resurrected as the Holy Ones of God. As Gorman notes, "That the Messiah, God's Son, was sent by God to be crucified, and then raised by God, meant that somehow God and the cross were inextricably interrelated." (Gorman, Cruciformity, 9)

First, let it be stated that I, like the other gentleman, am a convert to Orthodoxy from Protestantism. As such, coupled with the fact that I graduated from a conservative theological seminary, I am well aware of the Protestant position on these issues. This book, while well written and full of good material, is deceiving in one very important way: it is not a book about theosis. I understand that Gorman is a Western scholar and that writing about theosis is inadvertantly going to fall into Augustinian trappings, and even if the intention is to not do just that, Gorman ends up doing that anyway. No one embarks upon a study of theosis without interacting with a good number of Orthodox scholarly sources, but when you browse the bibliography at the back of the book, while we see a plethora of evangelical and liberal Protestant scholars listed (because they have always made theosis integral to theology and belief!), along with a few Roman Catholic folks, Gorman lists one single Orthodox theologian, Panayiotis Nellas (and the convert J.A. MacGuckin). Where are Christos Yannaras, John Zizioulos, Andrew Louth, and Paul Nadim Tarazi, or John Meyendorff, etc.? And what about St. Maximos Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas?! And what happened to Norman Russell? This is a book which appropriates the language of theosis in order to push the usual juridical garbage that we are used to hearing from Western Christian thinkers. The book is well written, the material is useful, but in the end it is a poor source for the topic which most people will pick it up for: theosis.