Cruciformity: The Fundamental Option of Israel (part 2)

The Fundamental Option serves as an appropriate heuristic in that it reasonably recounts the commitment that Israel was to have with YHWH. Israel’s most basic formulation of the Shema (Deut. 6.4) not only declared that YHWH was one, but intimated fidelity in that Israel was to have no other gods. Implicit in this was that both the construction and worship of idols was forbidden in the people of God. Rather Israel’s FO was bound up in YHWH’s own steadfast love and compassionate faithfulness, which in turn required Isreal’s response of undying love and faithfulness within a covenant that Hosea likened to one of marriage. Thus the Shema was always to be a proclamation of devotion and love to the one incomparable God. Thus for Israel, according to the scriptures of Israel, love for God was a total, complex response to God’s initiative. It had both an affective and an ethical (even political) dimension, the former consisting of self- abandonment, devotion, and trust, loyalty and obedience. Gorman notes that the love of YHWH is thus a politic idiom, in that it requires the pledge to the policies of YHWH, thus to love God is to refuse every other ultimate love or loyalty. In sum, Gorman concludes that to love God is to trust and to be faithful.

In using the rubric of FO Gorman is giving us a helpful heuristic in what can already be seen to anyone with a basic understanding of the writings of the NT as the great continuity of thought with the scriptures of Israel; namely trust and faithfulness.

Technorati tags: cruciformity, Faith, Trust, Faithfulness, Fundamental Option, Michael J. Gorman

Cruciformity: The Cruciform Power of the Spirit

Gorman sets up his discussion of the Spirit of God by noting that it is usually associated with power: the power of creation, of spiritual and moral transformation, and ultimately of new creation. This context is extremely important to keep in mind in the following discussion.

Gorman’s rather catchy description of Paul as an uncharismatic charismatic is not only clever it is very interesting. He takes the two meanings of the term charismatic namely, someone with a magnetic personality and one who is dynamic in leadership, and someone who is possessed by the Spirit of God. In terms of the former Paul is a self assessed uncharismatic (presumably Paul must be speaking of his style in public speeches, because his letters show at least a semblance of rhetorical sophistication). In terms of the latter Paul is charismatic, in that his ministry was driven by his Spirit inspired gifts. Where the term uncharismatic charismatic becomes interesting (and not just clever anymore) is Gorman’s ability to show the interconnectedness of spirit and power.

For Gorman it is in Paul’s experience and his resulting understanding of the Spirit which is the key to understanding the paradoxical symbiosis of power and weakness.

There is more to say on the Spirit and Gorman certainly does, but if I have any hopes of finishing this series the post have to be rather short.

On another note Michael Gorman is flirting with his own blog!

Technorati tags: Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity, Spirituality, power and weakness

Cruciformity: In Christ Mysticism and Pauline Spirituality

Albert Schweitzer’s book The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul dared to argue that ‘justification by faith’ was not the center of Paul’s theology, but rather a subsidiary to the more important mystical doctrine of redemption through being-in-Christ. This point was taken up and modified slightly by E. P. Sanders some 40 years later and propagated as the center of Pauline theology and termed it participationist eschatology; essentially ‘participation in Christ.’ It is Gorman’s task in the second half of this chapter (3) to unpack exactly what Paul meant by the term ‘in Christ.’

The vast majority of the time the ‘in Christ’ phrase, Gorman argues, refers to existence in Christ, a spatial existence within the sphere of influence of Christ. ‘‘In Christ’ means to be under the influence of Christ’s power, especially the power to be conformed to him and his cross, by participation in the life of a community that acknowledges his lordship.’ It is important to note that in this definition spirituality for Paul is not solely a private affair but rather a thoroughly communal one.

This ‘in Christ’ spirituality is further unpacked by adding the narrative elements of the life and self-giving love exemplified in the crucified Christ. Thus Cruciform spirituality is a life-style of love and humility, in fact the ‘narrative of the crucified and exalted Christ is the normative life-narrative within which the community’s own life-narrative takes place and by which it is shaped.’

In this chapter the reader is shown the impact of Paul’s Damascus experience and shown how Paul conceives of life as being ‘in Christ.’ It must be noted that the key to Paul’s conception of ‘in Christ’ spirituality is the exalted Christ. Cruciform spirituality would make little sense if it was not the exalted Christ who indwells or is indwelt.

While I have given you a brief account of this chapter, I must tell you that this brief summation doesn’t really do the chapter justice, you really ought to read it yourself.

Technorati tags: Albert Schweitzer, Michael J. Gorman, E. P. Sanders, Cruciformity, Spirituality, Exalted Christ, In Christ

The Exalted Crucified Messiah: Conversion or Call?

In the third chapter of Gorman’s work on cruciformity he deals with many contentious issues of Pauline theology in an effort to explain how Paul could contend that the crucified Christ was synonymous with the living Lord.

Gorman does this by first examining Paul’s encounter with Jesus, taking up the debate in Pauline Theology of whether or not Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus constitutes a conversion experience or whether it is more appropriate to speak of it as a call to a new vocation (namely to be the apostle to the nations).

I have always tended to play up the call aspect of Paul’s Damascus experience, namely because he is still firmly embedded in Judaism, albeit a different sect so to speak. What I dislike most about calling Paul’s encounter with Jesus a conversion, is the modern introspective claims that are usually applied to such an encounter. In such a retelling Paul is made to look like a modern guilt ridden man, stuck in a legalistic religion trying to work his way to God, feeling empty and desperately trying to fill that God shaped hole in his heart, bam, he encounters the living Lord, and experiences true religion… Now this picture rarely comes up in scholarly discussions, but it does tend to find its way in to far too many pulpits.

Gorman does a good job navigating through this discussion, seeing Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus as both a conversion and a call (also seeing in it a commission). Following Alan Segal’s penetrating work he sees enough evidence to call Paul’s apocalyptic encounter with Jesus a true conversion (in the context of antiquity of course). He explains that this conversion is not from one religion to another, but rather from one sect to another. This helps to contextualize the term conversion to help correct those who see Paul finally converting to the ‘true’ God. For Paul his encounter with Jesus was not information to learn, but rather a claim to be embraced.

Gorman goes on to explain how this encounter continued to shape Paul’s theology and ministry. Elucidating another big controversy in Pauline theology, namely Schweitzer’s “in-Christ mysticism”...

Technorati tags: Cruciformity, Conversion or Call, Pauline Theology, Michael J. Gorman, Krister Stendahl, Alan F. Segal, Albert Schweitzer

Cruciformity: The Cruciform God (part 2)

On the basis of the Christ event, Paul infers not only the depth of human lostness . . . but also the depth of divine grace and love. . . . [God] does not wait until he can let the principle of poetic justice rule. Rather, according to Paul, his nature consists in re-creating the unlovely so that under his love they become lovely, in turning enemies into reconciled people, in giving worth to the worthless. This is the self characterization of the Father of Jesus.[1]

The section I found to be the most interesting in the first chapter was Gorman’s teasing out what it means to say that ‘God is for us’. Essentially God is for us because God loves us, and this love is God’s way of being, and it corresponds to the self giving love of Christ on the cross. Gorman explains this further by relating the relationship between God and Jesus to the proverb ‘like father, like son’. Its reflexive: if Jesus is like God, then God is like Jesus.

‘For Paul, there was a necessary ‘family resemblance’ between the Father and the Son. The Father was like the Son, and vice versa. If the Christ of Paul’s experience was the faithful, obedient Son of God, then he acted in life and especially in death according to the will and character of God. That is to say, the Son’s act on the cross was an act of ‘family resemblance’ of conformity to God. If so, Paul would have reasoned from his experience of Christ, God must be a God who by nature wills and does what the Son willed and did. God is, in other words, a god of self-giving love whose power and wisdom are found in the weakness and folly of the cross.’

The powerful implication for those who seek to follow the crucified One is that all praxis must now pass the test of conformity to the cross of Christ.

---

[1] Jürgen Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, trans. O.C. Dean jr. (Louisville: Westminister/John Knox, 1993), 378-79.

Technorati tags: Cruciformity, God for us, Michael J. Gorman, Jurgen Becker, the Cruciform God

The Cruciform God: Chapter One (Part 1)

Gorman starts chapter one with a minor but very important point concerning the ‘new perspective’. He states that, ‘Knowing God – having an appropriately awe -filled yet intimate relationship, or partnership, with the creator, redeemer of Israel, and sovereign of the universe – is and was the life goal of faithful Jews.’

This is an important caveat in discussing Paul’s view of God, because often in such discussions where talk of Jesus and God take place it is the Jewish people and the Jewish God who are made into caricatures so as to show the greatness of the Christian god. Gorman takes pains to show what most biblical scholars concede, namely that Paul’s talk of God is within the scope of Judaism(s).

That caveat being made the purpose of this chapter is to show that for Paul, God and the cross were inextricably interrelated. It is not just Jesus who is defined by the cross, but also that God himself is defined by the cross.

Gorman argues this in a rather logical way (or perhaps linear is the better word here). Gorman sets up the reader with the understanding that Paul’s knowledge of God is shaped from beginning to end by Jewish categories. He does this by emphasizing the role of (a) the Shema (Deut 6.4) in Paul’s talk of God. (The Shema obviously focuses on the oneness of God) (b) the faithfulness of God to his promises (Rom 3.3-4), and (c) God as a relational God (Rom 1.8). Gorman offers plenty of proof from the Hebrew Scriptures to substantiate these claims about God, and elucidates the reader of how Paul used these same categories. Gorman then expands on point 1.c (God is relational) by focusing on Paul’s view of God as father, although there are places in the Hebrew Scriptures where God is seen as a father, Gorman makes the case that Paul is following Jesus’ own example here. Gorman expands this relational aspect by tying in the ‘Son of God’ tropes with Jesus’ own ‘Abba’ traditions, tying this in to the peculiar way in which Paul sees the followers of Jesus as children of God (obviously the rub here would be the fact that Paul included the Gentiles). Paul uses adoption language here to make his argument. This moves Gorman to his next position, namely that, God the father is for humanity.

Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross: Some Definitions

Michael J. Gorman’s book, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, was one of the few books that I read whilst working on my doctoral thesis that both made me understand Paul better and made me want to follow the Crucified Lord in a whole new way. I thought I would take some time to highlight some of the things I found really useful in this book.

The introduction of this book does a good job of laying out what exactly the author is trying to accomplish in this book focusing both on the early Christians experience and on what the modern interpreter can gain from focusing on the cruciformity. It is obvious that what can be found by both groups is that in the crucified messiah there is a model of humility, self sacrifice, and suffering worthy of imitation.

In the rest of the introduction Gorman lays out a series of definitions essentially exegeting the title of the book so the reader can have a clear idea of the terms involved in such a study, a couple of import include:

Spirituality:

Gorman describes this as the lived experience of Christian belief, or the experience of God’s love and grace in daily life. An experience that includes both receiving love and responding in love.

The purpose of Paul’s letters:

Gorman sees the various kinds of narratives within the letters of Paul, not as theology per se but rather as a means to mold behavior. The purpose of his letters, in other words, is pastoral or spiritual before it is theological.

Cruciformity:

Gorman defines cruciformity as conformity to the crucified Christ. He elaborates further stating, that this conformity is the dynamic correspondence in daily life to the strange story of Christ crucified as the primary way of experiencing the love and grace of God. Cruciformity is, in other words, Paul’s oddly inviting, even compelling, narrative spirituality.

Gorman closes that introduction stating, ‘For Paul, “to know nothing except Jesus Christ – that is, Jesus Christ crucified?’ is to narrate, in life and words, the story of God’s self-revelation in Christ. We attempt in this book, then, to understand Paul’s experience of God, mediated by the cross of Christ, as one of cruciform faith, love, power, and hope, and to do so with an eye on how that experience may challenge us today.’