M Wadsworth | MA Dissertation | Oct 2020 |
A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF MICHAEL GORMAN’S PORTRAYAL OF PAUL AS A CRUCIFORM APOSTLE
Michael Wadsworth
Dissertation submitted for the degree of Master of Arts at the University of Chester in part fulfilment of the modular programme in “Kingdom Theology” at Westminster Theological Centre.
October 2020
This study offers a critical analysis of Michael Gorman’s portrayal of Paul as a cruciform apostle, outlining the central tenets of his thesis, evaluating his ideas in light of wider scholarship and the biblical text, addressing some potential challenges levied against his project, and considering some of the implications of his conclusions for certain practices within the modern Charismatic Evangelical church. The study concludes that whilst there are elements of Gorman’s portrayal of Paul that require further development and explicit clarification, and some limitations to its application, it nonetheless constitutes a cogent and compelling, defensible portrayal of Paul that has much to offer academically to the field of Pauline Studies and much to offer formationally to individuals and churches looking to develop a faithful Christian spirituality.
The work is original and has not been submitted previously in support of any qualification or course.
Word count: 16,402
I would like to thank my family, friends, housemates and The Source community for the support they have given me throughout the duration of this course.
I would also like to thank Community Church Derby, Fusion and the Methodist Connexional Team for generously giving me time to focus on my studies; I am particularly grateful to Simon Shaw, Rich Wilson, Luke Smith, Mark Huskisson, Jane Bingham and Dave Friswell for their committed, compassionate and careful line management over the past three years.
My thanks also go to the staff and faculty at WTC who have made this MA a hugely enjoyable and life giving experience.
Special thanks go to Lucy Peppiatt for her supportive supervision and Michael Gorman for providing such a compelling and provocative subject for this thesis.
Extra special thanks go to Jen Smith for acting as critical sounding board, proof-reader, cheerleader, and - when necessary - procrastinator-in-chief. I’m not sure I could have done it without you!
Finally, I would like to thank God, for His continued faithfulness to me, for moulding and shaping me and revealing Himself to me throughout this season. In spite of all the questions, frustrations and bumps in the road I continue to believe that You have the words to eternal life. I pray that You continue to take me as I am, and ask that You continue to lead me, by Your Spirit, down that narrow, cruciform path.
Chapter 1: Michael Gorman’s Portrayal of Paul as a Cruciform Apostle 10
1.1: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality 10
1.2: Paul’s Cruciform Theology 12
1.3: The Pattern’s of Paul’s Cruciform Life 17
1.4: Paul’s Cruciform Apostleship 21
1.5: Summary: Paul the Cruciform Apostle 25
Chapter 2: A Critical Evaluation of Gorman’s Portrayal of Paul 26
2.1: The Strengths of Gorman’s Thesis 26
2.2: Challenge One: A Misguided Goal? 30
2.3: Challenge Two: An Unbalanced Schema? 35
2.4: Challenge Three: A Pastorally Abhorrent Spirituality? 39
2.5: Summary and Conclusions: A Defensible and Compelling Portrayal 44
Chapter 3: Some Implications and Limitations of Gorman’s Portrayal of Paul 46
3.1: Gospel Preaching 46
3.2: Apostleship / Leadership 51
3.3: Church Community 54
3.4: Biblical Study 58
3.5: Summary: A Helpful Evaluative Lens 60
Appendix 1: Gorman’s Translation of the Christ Hymn (Phil 2:6-11) 68
Appendix 2: The Thirteen Themes of Gorman’s Pauline Theology of the Cross 69
The letters of Paul the Apostle reveal a man who deliberately and consistently sought to pattern his life around a particular vision of “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). Paul’s understanding of the multifaceted nature of Christ’s death on a cross provided a paradigmatic framework that shaped his writing and ministry.[1] The self-enslaving, others-regarding love he saw in Christ became Paul’s “...fundamental ‘self understanding’, [his] mode of existence… his modus operandi...”.[2] It was the why behind how he lived and acted, what he taught and how he taught it, informing his entire life ethic. At least, that is the argument strongly put forward by Michael J. Gorman. Beginning with his magisterial work Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, and then in a series of subsequent publications, Gorman has outlined ‘cruciformity’ as a unifying lens through which Paul’s writings, ministry and spirituality might best be understood.[3]
The aim of this project is to critically evaluate Gorman’s thesis. This is a worthwhile undertaking for two reasons. Firstly, Gorman’s work has received some appreciation within the academy. However, whilst it has been reviewed by some scholars and some of its elements have been critically engaged with by others, it has not yet, as a whole and to my knowledge, been the subject of the kind of focussed, in depth analysis I offer here. Secondly, I have personally found Gorman’s thinking to be compelling and influential for my own theology. I believe his thesis has much to offer, by way of insight and challenge, to the church contexts in which I have worshipped and ministered. It is prudent, therefore, to critically examine and assess Gorman’s claims as part of my own ongoing formation.
This study is broken down into three main chapters. Chapter 1, offers an overview of Gorman’s portrayal of Paul, outlining some of Gorman’s key terminology, highlighting how it influences his interpretation of some key areas of Pauline theology, and explaining the way he characterises Paul’s spirituality and apostleship. Chapter 2, considers the strengths and weaknesses of Gorman’s thesis, drawing upon wider scholarship and the biblical text. It also addresses several key critiques that might be, or have been, levied against Gorman’s work. Namely, that his aim to offer a unifying lens for understanding Paul’s writing is misguided, that his portrayal of Paul is unbalanced and that his encouragement to believers to adopt a cruciform spirituality is pastorally abhorrent. Chapter 3, then suggests several ways in which Gorman’s conclusions offer constructive and insightful critique to certain practices in the contemporary church - particularly my own Charismatic Evangelical tradition. It also briefly examines the limited application of Gorman’s thesis in biblical study. I then end this study with some broad conclusions regarding the scope, clarity and significance of Gorman’s portrayal of Paul.
Before commencing, a number of parameters need to be noted. First, the vast majority of my analysis of Gorman’s portrayal of Paul is based on Cruciformity (2001), as this is his first and most extensive book on the subject.[4] Second, my engagement with biblical texts is largely limited to Paul’s ‘undisputed letters’ as Gorman limits his own study to these texts.[5] Third, space is not sufficient to consider every aspect of Gorman’s thesis, every possible critique that it might attract, or every possible way it might challenge the church today. This is not an exhaustive study of Gorman’s work, but I believe it constitutes an accurate representation of his core ideas and addresses some of the primary questions and challenges that they raise.
It is my hope that this project will not only provide a helpful evaluation of Gorman’s work, but also act as an appraisal of it. I believe there is much to commend Gorman’s cruciform portrayal of Paul as a substantial contribution to the field of Pauline studies as well as a valuable resource for individual and ecclesial spiritual formation. As I seek to demonstrate this in what follows, I hope that a wider audience will reach the same conclusion.
The aim of this chapter is to outline Michael Gorman’s thesis: that Paul had a ‘narrative spirituality’ based on the Christ-event that provided the framework for his life, writing and ministry; a spirituality which Gorman calls ‘cruciformity’. I shall begin by explaining how Gorman developed this understanding of Paul. Then, I shall highlight how his thesis relates to, and impacts, his interpretation of some key areas of Pauline theology. Next, I shall give a more detailed explanation of what Gorman believes Paul’s cruciform spirituality entails. Finally, I shall map some of the ways that Gorman sees Paul embodying cruciformity in his apostolic ministry.
The task of offering a unifying schema for Paul’s writing and ministry requires a wide and deep analysis of his corpus in order to find and map the consistent patterns and ideas that emerge throughout. Gorman’s cruciformity schema is based upon his identification of Paul’s frequent and wide ranging allusions to, what he calls, the ‘narrative’ of Christ: passages where Paul either (explicitly or implicitly) refers to the cross, and where Jesus is portrayed as “fulfilling the linguistic role of ‘actor’ and the narrative role of protagonist.”[6] According to Gorman, in almost every case Paul’s allusions to the cross of Christ are used as explanatory reasoning for a particular ethic or course of action: Paul deploys them in order to encourage, challenge and shape his audience’s spirituality.[7]
Gorman contends that the most quintessential and prominent telling of the ‘narrative of Christ’ by Paul is the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2. He regards this hymn as Paul’s “Master Story” believing that it represents not just a Christophany - a revelation of the true nature of Christ - but also a theophany, ecclesiophany and anthrophany - a revelation of the true nature of God, the Church and humanity.[8] Gorman continually returns to this hymn as a key proof text for, and the example par excellence of, cruciformity.[9] Due to its underlying significance in Gorman’s thesis, I have included Gorman’s own particular translation of this hymn as an appendix.[10]
Within this hymn and Paul’s other allusions to the ‘narrative of Christ’, Gorman identifies thirteen distinct, yet interrelated ‘themes’ which, taken together, he believes offer a comprehensive view of Paul’s multifaceted understanding of the cross.[11] Gorman groups these themes together into four unifying and overlapping ‘patterns’ of the ‘cruciform’ life:
We shall explore these ‘patterns’ of the cruciform life in more detail later in this chapter. Here, however, we must begin by observing Gorman’s basic argument that these themes were the foundational, paradigmatic, normative principles for Paul’s theology, life and apostolic ministry. Also, that Gorman contends that Paul believed these ‘patterns’ of the Christ narrative should become the patterns of a Christ-follower’s life.[13] Paul’s aim was to see himself and others formed and reformed by this multifaceted understanding of the cross - to become cruci-formed: a “...living exegesis of [the] narrative of Christ, a new performance of the original drama of exaltation following humiliation, of humiliation as the voluntary renunciation of rights and selfish gain in order to serve and obey.”[14] This ‘re-performing’ of the Christ drama is what Gorman means by the phrase ‘narrative spirituality.’ The particular characteristics of this performance - the patterns of faith, love, power and hope it expresses - is what Gorman summarises in the term ‘cruciformity’.
Gorman believes that his particular cruciform portrayal of Paul provides a unifying lens through which Paul, his writing and ministry is better understood. To evaluate this claim, we must consider some of the ways in which Gorman identifies these cruciform patterns and themes at work in Paul’s theology, life and apostoliship.
As space only allows for a brief examination of the way in which Gorman has applied the cruciform lens to his interpretation of Paul’s theology, I will focus my attention on two key areas: Paul’s proto-trinitarianism and Soteriology. Some aspects of this overview are presented in objective, point-of-fact terms; it should all, however, be read and understood as an articulation of Gorman’s own particular and subjective presentation of Paul.[15]
Gorman begins Cruciformity with an explanation of Paul’s understanding of the Trinity.[16] He accepts that Paul did not have a fully developed trinitarian theology. However, like other scholars, Gorman sees Paul offering a clear expression of the ideas that would later lead to that doctrine.[17] Following Meyer and Hays, he suggests that Paul experiences God as trinity, and describes cruciformity as a “Trinitarian Spirituality.”[18] For the purposes of this study, there are two important aspects to Gorman’s argument:
Firstly, “...when Paul encountered Jesus, his Jewish experience of the faithful, righteous, and merciful God of Israel was deepened and broadened.”[19] Gorman suggests that although Paul never fully identifies Jesus and the Father as one and the same, in his articulation of Jesus as the Son of God he implies belief in a “family resemblance” between them: “The Father was like the Son, and vice versa.”[20] In his most recent book, Gorman unpacks the significance of this resemblance in a helpfully succinct way:
...Christ did what he did not merely in spite of being in the form of God and equal with God but also precisely because he was in the form of God and equal with God. The poem tells us something profound not only about Jesus and what it means to be the Messiah but also about God and what it means to be divine. God, it says, is by nature self-emptying (kenotic), self-humbling, self-giving - vulnerable and “downwardly mobile.”[21]
In short, the Christ event is theophanic and Paul’s revelation of Christ crucified led him to a renewed understanding of the identity and character of the Father as a cruciform God who expresses love, power and faithfulness exclusively in cruciform patterns.[22]
Secondly, cruciformity is only made possible by the indwelling of the cruciform Spirit.[23] “For Paul, cruciformity cannot be attributed to human effort. There is a power at work within him and within the Church that, he claims, produces Christ-like qualities.”[24] It is the Spirit who cruci-forms the believing community, that enables their re-enactment of the narrative of Christ. For example, it is only through their “sharing of the Spirit” that the Philippian Church were able to adopt the same loving and obedient mindset as Christ (Phil 2:1-5). Further, the Spirit provides and represents the assurance of resurrection and is therefore the basis of cruciform hope.[25] Crucially, the Spirit brings “power” to the apparent weakness and folly of cruciformity, enabling the “...paradoxical symbiosis (union) of power and weakness…”[26] Given the Spirit’s central role in Gorman’s thesis, cruciformity can only be properly understood as a theologically charismatic spirituality.[27]
Having established the theophanic and charismatic nature of cruciformity, Gorman boldly and carefully goes on to suggest that cruciformity is also, for Paul, the means and end of salvation.[28] The starting point for this argument is Paul’s regular use of participatory “in Christ” language. Following Käsemann and others, Gorman acknowledges that Paul's “experience of being in Christ is... the heart of [his] theology”.[29] Gorman develops this idea by suggesting that life ‘in Christ’ can also be understood as both life “with Christ” and life “for Christ”.[30] Participation in Christ is only made possible by two things: first, Christ’s obedient and apocalyptic work on the cross, and second, the indwelling of the Spirit. Following Hays, Gorman argues that through cruciform obedience (or faithfulness) even to the point of death on a cross (Phil 2:7), Christ has completed the previously unfulfilled covenantal requirements of Israel, overcome the evil ‘powers’ of Sin and Death and inaugurated a new eschatological age.[31] All this was achieved by God on behalf of humanity, who could not achieve this for itself due to its enslavement by the powers. Now free from that enslavement, humanity has been given the Spirit in order to “override, [and] replace, the power of… sin (Rom 7:17-20).”[32] In this important sense then, salvation is both the gracious work and gift of God for humanity. This is critical as Gorman uses this point to minimise any potential criticism that he is postulating a works-based soteriology.
That said, Gorman suggests that humanity still has an active part to play in the soteriological process. Whilst participation in Christ is enabled by the work of Christ and empowered by the work of the Spirit, it still requires a believer’s own ongoing reciprocal act of cruciform faith.[33] For Paul, “faith” is a polyvalent term.[34] It has a cognitive element: the affirmation that the content of the gospel is true, including its outrageous, paradoxical life-through-death, power-through-weakness claims.[35] Yet, this cognitive affirmation, if properly made, will also always be followed by willing, Spirit-enabled obedience, fidelity, submission, and commitment to a life of Christ-like, cruciform faithfulness.[36] To be clear, the work of Christ and the Spirit open up the possibility of believers’ incorporation into the life of Christ, emancipation from the powers of evil and inauguration into the new eschatological age, but it is believers' free choice to commit to the cruciform life that actually effects their incorporation and emancipation.[37] As such, one might go as far as to summarise Paul’s soteriology as “we are saved by co-crucifixion alone”.[38]
Having argued that Christ’s cruciformity makes humanity’s salvation possible, and that humanity’s reciprocal cruciformity constitutes the acceptance of that salvation, Gorman is able to conclude that cruciformity is, therefore, the means of justification.[39] Additionally, as believers adopt the narrative-posture of cruciformity, continually and faithfully expressing Christ’s obedience to God by also offering themselves to Him through the power of the Spirit, they undergo sanctification; that is, they grow in their holiness and dedication to God.[40] This sanctification is empowered by the work of the Holy Spirit who is also received as a “down payment”, a promise for a future glorification, in which believers will re-narrate Christ’s resurrection with their own.[41] Crucially for Gorman, this glorification is dependent upon a life of cruciformity: “Conformity to Christ - ‘to the image of [God]’s son’ - in resurrection is the logical and guaranteed sequel to a life of death to self and of suffering for the gospel that corresponds to the narrative of Christ’s dying and
rising.”[42]
Gorman’s cruciform Soteriology is a fresh and bold development of traditional soteriological models, and is matched by Gorman’s equally bold claim that, by addressing the particular concerns of their various perspectives, his model has brought together and synthesised the ‘Apocalyptic’, ‘Participationist’ and ‘Justification by Faith’ schools of soteriological thought.[43] I would also claim that it holds together some often polarised models of atonement, incorporating aspects of Recapitulation (Themes 1 and 8), Christus Victor (Themes 10, 11 and 13), Substitution (Themes 4, 5 and 12), and Moral Example (Themes, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9) into one schema.[44]
Given that Paul understood cruciformity as both the ends and means of salvation, it is also unsurprising that he sought and taught its wholesale adoption by believers, and adopted it himself as the modus operandi of his own life and apostolic ministry. We shall now explore the places in which Gorman identifies this cruciformity in Paul’s living and ministering.
It has already been stated that, for Gorman, the Christ Hymn is not only a Christophany and theophany, but also an ecclesiophany and anthrophany. That is, it reveals what the church is meant to be and what it means to be truly human. It has also been stated that Paul believed the life of a Christ-follower should re-narrate the narrative of Christ by living in a way that embodies the same four-fold patterns of cruciform faith, love, power and hope found within that story. Before we consider how Paul embodies these patterns in his own life and ministry, it is helpful to restate their definitions and consider how interrelated and inseparable they are.
The examination of Soteriology above identified the importance of cruciform faith: that which corresponds to the same covenant-fulfilling, obedient - even to the point of death - faith of Christ. The substance of this ‘posture’ of cruciform faith is a life of cruciform love. Rightly expressed, a believer’s love, their behaviour towards God and the community, re-expresses Christ’s own faithful, covenant fulfilling love as quintessentially demonstrated in the cross. Cruciform love and cruciform faith are, therefore, inseparable realities.[45] Gorman puts it this way:
[Love] is what ‘counts’ (Gal 5:6), as it puts faith, one’s fundamental posture toward God, into action towards others… [it] is absolutely essential because it fulfils the will of God expressed in the Law and… embodied in Christ… Love, then, is the evidence (and, by implication, the test) of the presence of Christ by his Spirit in a person or community.[46]
Cruciform love became Paul’s primary guiding ethical principle.[47] The desire to see this pattern of cruciformity outworked in the life of the Church sits behind much of his writing (consider Rom 15:1-3, 1 Cor 10:33, Gal 5:13, Phil 2:1-3, 1 Thess 4:12-14).[48] Cruciform love has a “two-dimensional character”: negatively, it involves renouncing rights and status - it is kenotic ( themes 6 and 7); positively, it involves “seeking the good, the advantage, the edification of others” ( themes 3, 4 and 5).[49] Gorman writes, “[s]o radical is this ethic of concern for others that one ought to be willing to forgo one’s rights completely for the sake of the other… Such is love as Paul understood it.”[50] Two things become apparent here. First, that cruciformity is about ‘the other’ and is, thus, “...in substance... irreducibly communal or corporate in character.”[51] Second, cruciform love can only be properly expressed when a cruciform attitude towards power is embraced.
There are several elements to Gorman’s understanding of the pattern of cruciform power requiring careful explanation. First, we must define power itself, which Gorman describes as “the ability to exercise significant control or influence, either for good or for ill, over people and/or history”.[52] Second, we must recognise that God’s most significant means of ‘exercising control and influence’ within his creation is through the crucified Christ: “...Christ as the crucified Messiah - and only as the crucified Messiah - is the power of God.”[53] Third, we must appreciate that God’s exercising of power through the apparent weakness of the crucified Messiah is, counterintuitively, the way He achieves victory over the powers and principalities, releasing humanity from its slavery to sin and death.[54] This victory through death turns the human understanding of power and weakness on its head: “God gets things done not by a conventional human use of power, by displays of force, impressive signs or sophisticated wisdom. He achieves salvation through an act of what to human eyes is powerlessness on the cross…”[55] This display of true, divine power is, like cruciform faith, characterised by and inseparable from its loving nature.[56] It was also characterised in the life of Jesus by a humble, ‘kenotic’ forgoing of rights and status (Phil 2:6-7) which can be seen as antithetical to the usual approaches to lordship within the Greco-Roman world.[57]
Gorman suggests the pattern of cruciform power is “encountered” in the life of the believing community, by means of their cruciformity, in four distinct ways.[58] First, it involves the receiving of the power of the Spirit, including the transference into the new eschatological age and the transformational empowerment the Spirit enables.[59] Second, it involves the redefinition of power and the obligation to faithfully re-narrate the humble, kenotic, posture of Christ.[60] Third, it involves resistance in spite of the experience of weakness and suffering to the coercive nature of the ‘powers and principalities’ who continually exercise power through strength and domination. Like Christ, believers can paradoxically re-narrate Christ’s victory over these forces by refusing to revert to such means themselves.[61] Fourth, the believing community adopts a responsible approach to power, through the demonstration of cruciform love in acts of self-sacrificial care for the poor and weak.[62]
When considering these four ways the community encounters cruciform power, the charismatic nature of the cruciform life is made clear.[63] The Spirit is the power that ‘exercises significant control or influence, for good, over believers and history’.[64] The Spirit brings about the moral transformation of the believer and cultivates care for others in them.[65] The Spirit is the one who transfers individuals into God’s new age. The Spirit invokes a new community where status differentiation may still exist but is no longer considered the definition of value or power; instead, power and value are bestowed upon all through the giving of spiritual gifts to all (1 Cor 12:7-14).[66] In short, the Spirit brings divine power into what would otherwise simply be earthly weakness.
Finally, the fourth pattern of the cruciform life is that of cruciform hope. This is also a work of the Spirit and strongly linked in Gorman’s thinking both to suffering and eschatology.[67] Gorman argues that Paul builds upon the Jewish trend to describe the goodness of God through “patterns of reversal”; God opposes the arrogant, exalts the humble, vindicates the suffering righteous, and raises the dead.[68] What Paul sees in the Christ event, and what he clearly expresses in the Master Story of Philippians 2, are two such reversals: death leading to resurrection and humiliation leading to exaltation (Theme 13).[69] Quoting Neyrey, Gorman suggests that Paul sees “a ‘new map of time’ in the believer’s symbolic universe, a map that should be ‘replicated in the map of life time of each follower’.”[70] Essentially, in order to attain the hope of future resurrection and exaltation, believers must re-narrate Christ’s cruciform death and humiliation in the present.[71]
It is important to note how significant this hope is for Paul’s spirituality. Paul’s goal for his cruciform spirituality is “to know Christ... [and] the power of his resurrection…” (Phil 3:10b). He wants to become like Christ in his death so that he might somehow also attain the resurrection of the dead (Phil 3:10b-11). He appears to believe that without the hope of future resurrection and exaltation, the cruciform life becomes worthless: ...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied… If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. (1 Cor 15:17-19, 32)
Resurrection then, is the reward for the actualisation of cruciform faith through cruciform love. It validates the life of kenotic self-humbling, paradoxically reconstituting it as power. That said, Gorman states that cruciform hope is about more than simply an individual’s anticipated resurrection and is not just a future experience. For the Christ event inaugurated the new eschatological age and initiated the ongoing redemption of all things which can be experienced in the present (Theme 11).[72] Additionally, even within their experiences of suffering within the present, Paul and other believers re-narrate the sufferings of Christ that were the embodiment of God’s love for the world. As such, these present sufferings can, counter-intuitively, offer a hopeful reminder to the sufferer of the loving faithfulness of God and His power to vindicate them, at the very least, with resurrection at the Parousia.[73] This is why, when reflecting on the Christ Hymn, Paul can state “...even if I am being poured out like a drink offering...I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me” (Phil 2:17-18).
Having outlined the four patterns of cruciformity in more detail, we can now consider the ways in which Gorman identifies Paul embodying them in his own apostolic ministry.
In Gorman’s view, Paul is best understood as a spiritual leader and practitioner who adopted a cruciform spirituality in the belief that it constitutes the faithful following of Jesus. As an apostle, Paul also sought to form this particular spirituality within the churches to whom he wrote. The intention of his apostolic letters is to “mould behaviour, to affirm or - more often - to alter patterns of living, patterns of experience...”, to bring about cruciformity in the lives of others.[74] Gorman sees Paul as adopting cruciformity as his apostolic modus operandi, but in what ways specifically is the Christ story re-narrated in Paul’s ministry? Gorman suggests there are five defining “dimensions” to Paul’s cruciform apostolic praxis: (i) renouncement of apostolic rights, particularly the right to financial support, (ii) adaptability to the needs of others, (iii) pastoral care and activities, (iv) suffering for the sake of the Church and (v) the decision to “...[choose] life over death for the sake of those to whom he ministers.”[75] Here, we briefly explore what Gorman says about each of these dimensions of Paul’s ministry.
(i) Paul’s decision to forgo his culturally assumed apostolic right to financial support and instead make tents in order to fund his ministry appears to have been a contentious one. This trade was well below the privileges and possibilities afforded Paul by his social status to the extent that it appears to be a source of embarrassment to the Corinthian church (2 Cor 12:11-15).[76] Paul’s reasoning for this decision appears to be threefold: first, he did not want to be a “burden” to anyone (2 Cor 11:9, see also 1 Thess 2:9). Second, it provided a means of ‘reaching’ and ‘winning’ those of lower status (1 Cor 9:22).[77] Third, it relieved the Corinthian church especially of the possible temptation to boast in their generosity (2 Cor 12:14-16a). By forgoing these rights and taking on menial labour, Paul can be seen as renarrating the status-forgoing, kenotic self-enslavement of Christ.[78]
(ii) This self-enslavement also involved Paul adapting himself to the situation he was in for the sake of those he ministered to: “I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22). Gorman interprets this as an expression of kenotic, status-renouncing love.[79] He comments, “[T]he pattern of [Paul’s] adaptability is thus ‘although I was not bound to conform to the group, I did so anyhow for the sake of the gospel.’ Paul urges his churches to have a similar adaptability in their communal life. When addressing the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols in Corinth, he suggests that the objectively acceptable actions of those who consume such meat are subjectively unacceptable as they are causing ‘weaker’ believers to stumble (1 Cor 8:4-13). Paul’s conclusion is that those who are ‘stronger’ and who have ‘understanding’ - whom he himself identifies with - should nevertheless cease to exercise their rights or preferences and instead prefer the needs of those who are weaker or think differently (1 Cor 8:9-13, cf Rom 14). This is a strong example of Paul’s application of the ethics of cruciform love mentioned above. Gorman also sees this ethic at work in Paul’s letter to Philemon, interpreting it as urging a resolution based on Christ-like, rights-renouncing love.[80]
(iii) In demonstrating the pastoral nature of Paul’s ministry, Gorman analyses a number of different letters and highlights statements that concur with his broader cruciform reading of Paul’s apostleship. In 1 Thessalonians 2:7-12, Gorman highlights Paul’s familial characterisation of his ministry: presenting himself as operating as a young child and nursing mother (both images of vulnerability and low status), as well as a brother (one of level status) and comforting father (rather than an authoritarian leader).[81] Similarly, Gorman highlights Paul’s choice to adopt a ‘meek’, rather than controlling, stance in relation to the Corinthians: “I myself, Paul, appeal to you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ…” (2 Cor 10:1).[82] This theme is further highlighted in the correspondence with Philemon where Paul again uses familial terms, this time paternalistic language (v10, v19), and again seems to avoid using authoritarian measures to bring about a healthy resolution to a situation (vv8-10). Intriguingly, Gorman relates this posture of non-authoritarian, pastoral care to the narrative example of Christ by identifying a particular syntactical correspondence between the Christ hymn and these passages (among others). In the letter to the Philippians Paul says of Christ that: “[Al]though [x] he was in the form of God, he did not [y] regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but [z] emptied himself, taking the form of a slave....” (Phil 2:6-7). Gorman suggests that Paul adopts the use of these key words ‘although’, ‘not’, and ‘but’ to set up logical stages of argumentation when describing his own apostolic praxis.[83] Whilst this exact phraseology does not appear in each of these passages, Gorman believes that the use of this x, y, z parenthetical structure demonstrates that Paul not only deliberately mapped his own apostolic posture after the kenotic, cruciform love of Christ, but deliberately presented it as such in his writings too.[84]
(iv) The suffering Paul underwent during his ministry is well catalogued in 2 Corinthians (6:4-5, 11:23-28), but particularly stark is the way in which Paul boasts in these sufferings. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Paul openly rejects the idea of boasting in anything other than his sufferings and weakness, counting all the usual things that might otherwise afford him social standing as ‘nothing’ (2 Cor 11:17-23a, 12:1-11; Phil 3:4-8). Unsurprisingly, Gorman suggests Paul’s decision to boast exclusively in his sufferings and weakness stems from his belief that perseverance in spite of suffering constituted a renarration of Jesus’ own kenotic, obedient, even to the point of death (Phil 2:7) faithfulness. Gorman concludes that “...‘to spend and be spent for you’ function[ed] as a motto of Paul’s apostolic existence.[85]
(v) In what Gorman finds the most poignant outworking of that motto, at a time when Paul was suffering to the point of desiring death, he appears to have chosen the less preferential option of life so as to help his churches continue to progress in their faith (Phil 1:23-24). Quoting Droge and Tabor, Gorman writes, “the real sacrifice for Paul was remaining alive.”[86]
In these five ways, Gorman argues that Paul demonstrates a faithful narration of cruciform love that observes a cruciform attitude to power and is propelled by cruciform hope. Further, Gorman suggests Paul sees this narration as the essential duty of his ministry: in doing so he sets an example of cruciformity for others to imitate: “He offers himself… as a narrative continuation of the cross of his Lord, and he invites others to join in the story that his ministry continues to unfold.”[87] The validity of this claim is most apparent in Paul’s use of imitation language. Paul encourages the Corinthian church to “be imitators of me as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1) and then goes on to describe his own embodiment of the cruciform principles of “denying one’s ‘rights’ for the edification, or love, of others.”[88] Paul’s autobiographical account in Chapter 3 of Philippians can be understood as an intentional parallel to the Christ Hymn of chapter 2, which seeks to demonstrate how Paul has mapped his own life after Christ’s.[89] Paul concludes this comparison between himself and Christ by again encouraging imitation of him: “Join together in following my example, brothers and sisters...” (Phil 3:17a).
This chapter has offered an overview of Michael Gorman’s portrayal of Paul as a cruciform apostle. It has argued that, in Gorman’s reckoning, Paul’s theophanic, ecclesiophanic, and anthrophanic interpretation of the Christ-event led him to develop and adopt a narrative spirituality. In his life, writing and ministry, Paul sought to re-narrate Christ’s paradigmatic cruciform expression of faith, love, power and hope. I have explored how Gorman perceives this spirituality as experientially trinitarian, theologically charismatic, and the ultimate means and end of the soteriological process. I have also mapped the places and ways in which Gorman sees Paul as embodying and imploring cruciformity throughout his corpus. Having outlined Gorman’s thesis, we can now critically evaluate it in light of wider scholarship and the biblical text.
The aim of this chapter is to evaluate Gorman’s portrayal of Paul in light of wider scholarship and the biblical text. Gorman’s thesis is broad and deep; he intends it to encompass and relate to the full scope of Paul’s ministry and writing. It also exists within the densely populated field of Pauline studies. Unsurprisingly therefore, it has many potential facets to evaluate and many potential conversation partners to analyse. My particular evaluation considers three possible challenges. First, is Gorman’s goal - to formulate a unifying schema for understanding Paul - misguided? Second, does Gorman’s focus on Paul’s cruciformity present an unbalanced portrayal of the apostle’s spirituality? Third, does Gorman’s suggestion that cruciformity is (for Paul) the only appropriate spirituality for believers inadvertently foster abuse and martyrdom? Before we consider these critical questions however, it is worth first stressing the significant strengths of Gorman’s work.
My desire to evaluate Gorman’s work stems from a belief that it is highly compelling and has much to commend it. Gorman’s aim has been to provide a unifying lens through which Paul might better be understood and I have certainly found that his work has brought greater clarity and focus to my own reading of Paul’s letters. I am not alone in my appreciation of Gorman’s thesis. Gorman is held in high regard by a range of his academic peers due to the wide ranging relevance of his schema, the apparent clarity it brings, and his careful exegesis and engagement with wider scholarship. Michael Bird regards him as “one of the leading Paul scholars of our time” and Gupta names him as “America’s leading Pauline theologian.”[90]Joel Green has described Gorman’s work as “[deserving] the widest possible
readership.”[91] Various peer reviews of Cruciformity are equally complimentary. Cummins describes it as “rich and stimulating” adding “[n]early anyone interested in Pauline theology will want to reckon seriously with this work.”[92] Miller calls it a “...cogent, compelling reading of Paul... [which deserves] wide use in seminary classrooms... [and heavy use by] many a pastor...”[93] Gorman himself notes that his work, particularly Cruciformity, has been “...nearly universally well received....”[94] This is not to deny Gorman has his detractors. However, in discussing the compelling nature of his work it is important to note that he is not a lone voice; rather, his thesis has been well appreciated as a significant contribution to the field of Pauline studies.
One of the most compelling features of Gorman’s thesis is that it accounts for, and sheds light on, many of the core subjects in Paul’s writing. It offers a particular way of understanding Soteriology (including the contested subject of justification) as well as Paul’s language of participation, his discussions about personal and communal ethics, Christology, Pneumatology and Ecclesiology and even the way Paul describes himself. Cruciformity not only speaks into these aspects of Paul’s writing, but adeptly brings them into conversational and ideological relationship with one another as a unified “narrative spirituality.”[95] Gorman has arranged the pieces of the Pauline puzzle together in a way that seems intuitive and has managed to underpin his arrangement with consistently careful and in-depth exegesis.[96]
Another compelling feature of Gorman’s work is its quality of engagement with wider scholarship. It builds upon and synthesises the work of many significant, sometimes disparate, theologians. Notably, influential Pauline scholars such as Barclay, Bauckham, Dunn, Fee, Hays, Johnson, Martin, Witherington III and Wright are drawn into harmonious conversation with the ethical theologies of Hauerwas, Yoder and Furnish, the pastoral theology of Bonhoeffer, the spiritual theology of Wink, and even the work of reformed theologians like Luther.[97] Of course, Gorman uses their work selectively, seeking to highlight how and where they concur with one another and with his thesis. However, he also regularly, humbly and openly engages with his own detractors - a particularly astute move on Gorman’s part. Rather than present his ideas in such a way as to leave possible question marks in the minds of his readers, he is quick to highlight and then addresses anticipated counter-arguments to his thesis directly, giving his work an apparent roundedness.[98]
A third compelling feature of Gorman’s thesis is that it has continued to speak relevantly into the rapidly developing field of Pauline studies since its publication, receiving corroboration from various more recent, acclaimed studies. For example, his potentially controversial statement that the Christ-event is a gracious work of God that is not initially dependent upon, but nevertheless warrants, a reciprocal narration of cruciform faith by the believer is well supported by John Barclay’s magisterial pronouncement that such an “obliging” version of grace is “entirely comprehensible in ancient terms.” Barclay states, “Paul has provided a parade example of this phenomenon, since he simultaneously emphasises the incongruity of grace and the expectation that those who are ‘under grace’ (and wholly refashioned by it) will be reoriented in the obedience of faith…”[99] He later adds that grace “...creates new modes of obedience to God…” but does not offer any particular thoughts on what that ‘new mode of obedience’ might entail.[100] Gorman’s work, helpfully fills in this gap in a complimentary way with its definition of cruciform faith expressed through cruciform love.
Similarly, Cruciformity’s characterisation of cruciform “faith” as a re-narration of Christ’s posture of cruciform love towards God and people expresses the same conclusions as notable scholars who have recently reexamined Paul’s use of
pistis.[101] In Salvation by Allegiance Alone (2017) Matthew Bates argues (much like Gorman) that ‘justifying faith’ is that which involves actively demonstrating one’s allegiance to Christ in a way that corresponds to Christ’s own demonstration of allegiance to God.[102] Jeanette Hagan Pifer’s Faith as Participation (2019) also agrees with Gorman that faith for Paul is “a continuing mode of existence” entailing a “consistent identification with the crucifixion and resurrection… [that involves] renouncing previous symbolic capital of human wisdom, social status, and power… and sharing in [Christ’s] cross…”[103] The similarities between Bates’, Pifer’s and Gorman’s conclusions are stark. Whilst neither Pifer nor Bates adopt the language of cruciformity, Gorman’s work is certainly corroborated by their studies.
The influential work of those writing prior to Gorman also resonates well with his portrayal of Paul’s spirituality. In particular, Victor Paul Furnish’s magnum opus Theology and Ethics in Paul (1968) concludes that the ethics of Paul are thoroughly ‘Christological’; that is “Christ’s death…. reveals the love that is to be the content of the obedience to which believers are summoned.”[104] To imitate Christ is to “be conformed to Christ’s suffering and death in the giving of one’s self over to the service of others.”[105] Bonhoeffer describes grace as a ‘costly gift’ and suggests the goal of the believer is to become “shaped into the entire form of the incarnate, the crucified, and the transfigured one.”[106] He also remarks that this reshaping only happens via the indwelling of the Spirit.[107] Beverly Gaventa observed , fifteen years prior to the publication of Cruciformity, that Paul uses autobiographical language paradigmatically in order to exhort his readers to renounce “...human conventions, commitments, and values, and [instead take up] ‘the faith of Jesus Christ’.”[108] Once again, it is easy to identify the corroborating parallels between Gorman’s thesis and the earlier works of these influential scholars.
Finally, it is not insignificant that Gorman’s reading of Paul is commensurate with some of the broader theology of the New Testament. His call for cruciformity is entirely congruous with the gospel writer’s claim that “Whoever wants to be [Christ’s] disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily…” (Luke 9:23) and that “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all” (Mark 9:35). By providing a defining shape and activity to the notion of faith it also sheds light on enigmatic parables such as ‘The Sheep and the Goats’ (Matt 25:31-46) and helps explain apparent contradictions between biblical statements such as “a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16) and “a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).
This said, Gorman’s thesis contains certain elements and presumptions that are open to challenge. He builds some aspects of his schema on controversial exegetical interpretations.[109] He also, as explored in Chapter 1, draws extremely heavily on the Christ Hymn as the key interpretive lens for understanding Paul which, some suggest, amounts to him establishing a ‘canon within the canon’ - or corpus within the corpus.[110] Given the breadth of his aim, perhaps a certain amount of interpretive presumption is understandable and excusable. However, such emphasis and presumption does not go without critique. We now turn our attention to a series of three substantial challenges to Gorman’s thesis and consider whether his writing can withstand the objections of each.
A foundational critique of Gorman’s work is that his very goal - to provide a unifying lens through which Paul can be better understood - is itself misguided. H Rӓisenӓn suggests that the internal inconsistencies in Paul’s writing precludes it from being construed as having a consistent theological basis.[111] Other scholars, such as J. Paul Sampley, are in favour of finding some level of coherence in Paul’s views but still reject the notion that there is a single unifying principle to his thoughts. Sampley argues, “because Paul’s thought is cast in balances and not isolated ideas, the nuclear model with its single ‘centre’ is not adequate.”[112] In regards to Cruciformity it is interesting to consider that Gorman follows Sampley in resisting the idea of a ‘centre’ to Paul’s spirituality, suggesting the metaphor of ‘centre’ is, itself, problematic.[113] Further, he argues that the occasional nature of Paul’s letters requires a resistance to the use of one particular explicit Pauline concept - such as Justification by Faith, or even the cross of Christ - as a primary interpretive lens for all others.[114] Gorman’s outlining of a ‘narrative spirituality’ or ‘master story’ is methodologically more akin to Witherington’s or Hays’ approach to identifying a unifying narrative - rather than a unifying concept - in Paul’s writing.[115] However, whilst Gorman might not consider cruciformity the ‘centre’ to Paul’s thought, he still presents it as the gravitational principle around which all Paul’s writing coalesces.[116] Additionally, whilst he does well to demonstrate the ways in which certain patterns - such as the although [x], not [y], but [z] formulation - appear throughout Paul’s writings, he still, arguably, utilises the Christ Hymn as a primary lens for interpreting the rest of Paul. So perhaps he strays closer to the issues he identifies with ‘nuclear models’ than he might wish to acknowledge.
I am, however, persuaded that there is an internal integrity to Paul’s writing; some underlying ideas through which a strong level of ‘coherence’ can be identified across Paul’s ‘contingent’ letters.[117] I am also persuaded by Hays and Witherington - as well as by Gorman - that a narrative approach to Paul offers a more precise and effective means of arranging the many ideas in his letters than the elevation of one particular idea to primacy over all others. Their linking of Paul’s thinking and exhortation to the story and symbol of the crucified Christ seems more consistent with Paul’s intent.[118] Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with Wright that “...theology is all about the great wholes, the single worldviews that determine and dominate the day-to-day handling of various issues.”[119] If we hold to a belief in the canonicity of the Bible we should anticipate that there is a certain level of coherence even within the disparate, sometimes even apparently conflicting or contradictory views, of its various authors.
This is not to say that the identification of coherence is simple or straightforward. Achtemeier writes “If we seek the underlying coherence of Pau’s ‘theology’, we must recognise that finding it will be a complex procedure.”[120] Sampley, too, states “...we cannot even begin a reconstruction of Paul’s thought until we have analysed each letter.”[121] As we have seen, Gorman has been commended by his peers for the diligent exegesis underlying his schema. However, does his portrayal of Paul reflect all of Paul’s writing or are there elements for which it fails to account? In Cruciformity, Gorman appears hesitant to explore the idea of an individual’s culpability for sin and the need for personal repentance, two themes which can be found within Paul’s letters (see, for example, Rom 2:4, Rom 3:23, 1 Cor 8:12, 2 Cor 12:21) and which some would argue are key to Paul’s writings.[122] I’d argue that an understanding of these themes are implicit within Gorman’s writing, but more work is necessary to explicitly address them.[123]
There is also the question of whether Gorman’s characterisation of Paul’s ministry fully accounts for what we know of it. For example, is Paul always as pastoral and non-imposing in his writing as Gorman describes him? Does Paul’s own narration of his conflict with Peter in Galatians 2 not suggest that at times he is perfectly comfortable speaking forcibly? Surely phrases such as “...if I come again, I will not be lenient…” (2 Cor 13:2b) imply that Paul would, at times, ‘throw his apostolic weight around?’[124] These inconsistencies have led some, such as David Horrell, to suggest that there must be “factors other than a christologically patterned self-giving for others [that] play a part in Pauline ethics.”[125] Gorman concedes that, occasionally, Paul is “...consciously willing to exercise power…”[126] However, he adds that Paul’s wielding of power still contrasts significantly with the often self-seeking, arrogant and oppressive use of power that Paul critiques and remains fundamentally cruciform in character.[127] It is important to recognise that Paul sees his apostolic role as being an arbiter of the truth and a staunch defender of the gospel of Christ crucified (cf Rom 9:1, Gal 1:6-7, 2 Cor 4:2, 2 Thess 2:13). At times, therefore, it is understandable that he responds to challenges to that gospel strongly. Horrell himself observes that Paul’s “harshest criticism” is often reserved for those propagating a different gospel to the one he has preached (cf. Gal 2:11-14, 3:1-3; 2 Cor 11:3-5).[128] I agree with Gorman that passages of fierce rhetoric cannot be fairly construed as examples of Paul operating in an un-cruciform manner.[129] Paul’s rhetorical purpose is not to elevate himself above others or commend himself as a more senior authority. Rather, he seeks to point back to the authoritative ‘truth’ of the crucified Christ and deconstruct any ideas or practices that distort or misinterpret that truth (cf Gal 3:1-3, 2 Cor 13:4-10).[130]
In summary, despite the scepticism of some scholars, Gorman has successfully outlined a schema in which much of Paul’s writing is effectively unified. It also resolves some of the apparent tensions or contradictions that have been previously divisive such as the drawing together of the often disparate Justification by Faith, Participation and Apocalyptic accounts of soteriology. There are, however, some elements of Paul’s writing that may need to be more explicitly addressed in order to demonstrate the ways in which they fit into Gorman’s schema. I do not believe such demonstrations could be fairly accused of attempting to force Paul into a predetermined, anachronistic framework, rather I would suggest that the implications of Gorman’s work are far reaching enough that it will be a while yet before the entire Pauline Corpus can be properly critically evaluated through his cruciform lens.[131]
Another challenge levied against Gorman’s portrayal of Paul’s spirituality is that it is too one sided; placing too much emphasis on the cross of Christ and not giving proper attention either to Christ’s resurrection, or the work of the other persons of the trinity. In his pointedly titled article Inhabiting the Resurrectiform God, Andrew Boakye suggests that Gorman ‘marginalises’ Christ’s resurrection in his work: “It seems to me, precisely because power comes from weakness… life from death… and victory from suffering… emphasizing crucifixion over resurrection… creates a hierarchy that Paul never intended.”[132] He concludes that it is better to speak of Paul’s writing and ministry as ‘resurrection shaped’ rather than cruciform.[133] Lucy Peppiatt raises similar concerns about the overemphasis of death within
cruciformity.[134] Further, she suggests that schemes such as Gorman’s can fail to account for the distinct, life-giving work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Following Berkhof she contends:
...The Spirit ‘creates a world of his own…’ A world of conversion, experience, sanctification; of tongues, prophecy and miracles; of mission; of upbuilding and guiding the church, etc…’ This is all the work of the Spirit - more than an instrument and more than just a function of the risen Christ.[135]
Peppiatt and Boakye’s critiques are shared by Cummins who concludes his review of Cruciformity saying “...it is not clear that this completely accounts for the transformative, life-giving and eschatologically oriented work of the Spirit of Christ… one can still ask whether Paul’s understanding of Christ and conformity thereto is entirely exhausted by reference to cruciformity.”[136] Here, I shall address, in turn, Boakye and Peppiatt particular arguments against Gorman’s weighting on the cross of Christ as the driving force behind Paul’s spirituality .
My interest in Boakye’s critique is that his objection appears to be semantic rather than conceptual. His argument is that Paul often uses life-death language concurrently, usually as a provocative metaphor for stark contrasts or reversals of experience.[137] He concludes that the intertwined nature of Paul’s death-life lexicon and the fact that Paul often describes life with Christ as a contrast to and reversal of death (see, for instance, Gal 2:19-20), implies it is more appropriate to speak of Paul’s spirituality using life related terminology such as “resurrectiform” rather than death related terminology such as “cruciform”.[138] However, I do not believe such language accurately reflects the hermeneutical implications of Paul’s writings. For example, the internal logic of the Christ Hymn and Paul’s self-comparison to Christ in Philippians 3 resist Boakye’s insistence on life-based language. The two stanzas of the hymn set out two stages of Christ’s ministry in which his cruciform life is shown as a necessary precursor to his resurrection and glorification.[139] Likewise, therefore, Paul states that his present focus is on becoming like Christ in his death (Phil 3:10b), so that he might attain resurrection glory at the future Parousia (v11). Resurrection is Paul’s ‘goal’ (vv 12, 14) - not something yet attained but rather a future glorification he anticipates (v20).[140] A ressurectiform life would have been unimaginable for Paul this side of the Parousia. Instead, he encourages his churches to live up to what they have already obtained (Phil 3:16): the justification that comes from their cruciform re-narration of Christ’s life and the cruciform Spirit which enables such a renarration. By pointing to the selfless, status forgoing and obedient - even to the point of death - examples of Timothy (Phil 2:21-22), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25-30) and himself (Phil 3:4-10), Paul clearly substantiates that believers are to have the ‘mind’ of the kenotic and cruciform Christ - not the resurrected and glorified One. Boakye is right to consider Gorman’s arguments “hermeneutically sound.”[141] I would argue that his semantic choices are equally so. Boakye himself finally concedes that the term “revivification” rather than “resurrection” is perhaps more suitable to Paul’s
spirituality.[142] I would argue the notion of revivification is already prevalent in Gorman’s schema via his emphasis on the essential empowering role of the Spirit.[143]
This brings us to Peppiatt’s critique of Gorman. Unlike Boakye, rather than suggest a certain phraseology that clarifies a ‘correct’ emphasis in Paul, she urges readers to “...accommodate a much more complex picture in which we encounter a world of tension and contrasts that are not easily explained.[144] Peppiatt’s concern is that Gorman’s portrayal of Paul correctly identifies his promotion of self-giving service, but fails to appropriately balance that with his emphasis on desiring the gifts of the Spirit. Therefore, she claims that Gorman “subordinates the charismatic narrative” to his broader cruciform lens.[145] This point is well made. In his chapter on the Spirit, Gorman is far more concerned with describing the Spirit’s role in circumcising human hearts, empowering righteous living, guaranteeing resurrection, and bringing about adoption into God’s family.[146] He does acknowledge that “...to experience the Spirit is to experience power” in the form of mighty works and miracles, but his argument is preoccupied with insisting that these must be cruciform in nature.[147]
However, I am not sure if this implies, as Peppiatt suggests, that Gorman is “...nervous of the strong exhortation from Paul that also comes out in this letter to ‘eagerly desire the spiritual gifts…”[148] I suspect this diversion is more a result of differing agendas. Gorman writes as an American evangelical biblical scholar seeking to address Paul’s particular theology and counter what he sees as dangerous trends of self-aggrandisement and the seeking of power in his context.[149] Peppiatt, meanwhile, writes as a British, charismatic and systematic theologian seeking, among other things, to postulate a more canonical Pneumatology and defend and impress the distinctiveness of the Spirit and the importance of charismata. I believe her call for a complex and nuanced understanding of the Spirit is a necessary one and affirm her critique of Gorman outlined above. Gorman’s work is highly pneumatological - indeed, it is fundamentally charismatic in terms of its theology - but it does not say much about the Spirit’s more overtly manifest or experiential activity.[150] It would certainly be strengthened by a more developed and explicit discussion of spiritual gifts and the miraculous. At the same time, I do still think that Gorman’s point is equally well made. Even as Paul affirms these gifts and miracles (1 Cor 12:4-11), he is very clear that they are to be expressed in a cruciform manner (1 Cor 13:1-7, 14:1, 14:12) and highly critical of those who do not express them this way (consider his critique of the ‘super-apostles’ in 2 Cor 11-12). On this, Peppiatt agrees with Gorman, acknowledging that “[t]he world of the Spirit cannot be a world that is inconsistent in any way with the kingdom inaugurated by Christ.”[151] If that Kingdom is a cruciform kingdom then even the sensational manifestations and experiences of the Spirit’s power must be evaluated on the basis of their cruciformity. As Fee comments, from Paul’s perspective, “the Spirit is the experienced, empowering return of God’s personal presence in and among us, who enables us to live as eschatological [read ‘cruciform’] people in the present world... All the rest, including fruit and gifts.... serve to that end.”[152]
Both Boakye and Peppiatt’s critiques raise a further question that is worth some attention. Each suggests that Gorman’s work on Paul offers an insufficient Pneumatology as far as the whole biblical witness on the subject is concerned. I would agree, but attribute that to Gorman’s aim to provide insight into Paul’s specific thought world rather than a systematic account of the full canon’s portrayal of the Spirit. Gorman’s study is restricted to the uncontested Pauline corpus. Boakye, meanwhile, admits that “...no undisputed Pauline text speaks of Christians being raised in the here and now....” and so relies on deutero-Pauline texts to build his arguments.[153] Peppiatt’s work, quite reasonably, draws more broadly from the gospels, Acts, and other Epistles to defend her broader pneumatological concerns. Whilst Gorman’s thesis could be considered unbalanced in systematic terms, I would argue that it nonetheless constitutes an accurate Pauline pneumatology. It is essential to remember that, as influential as Paul’s voice may be in the biblical canon, it is only one. As such his letters should never be considered a complete summation of Christian theology. This is an important reflection we shall return in Chapter 3 as we evaluate Gorman’s work.
A third important critique of Gorman’s work pertains to its potential use to abuse or subjugate others.[154] Gorman’s portrayal of Paul places strong emphasis on the kenotic nature of cruciformity - which he describes variously as self-emptying, self-abasement, self-humiliation, self-sacrifice, self-giving, and status
renouncement.[155] He also states that a lifestyle of kenosis is a soteriological requirement.[156] It must be acknowledged that this interpretation, if twisted and enforced on others, could become a tool of manipulation and exploitation. Hampson and Peppiatt raise concerns to that effect. Hampson writes, “...if the doctrine of self-sacrifice and the paradigm of powerlessness are held up as exemplary before those who are struggling to change their lot, it may serve to undercut them. For resistance to injustice then comes to look un-Christ-like.”[157] Similarly, Peppiatt writes, “The picture of the kenotic Christ can be and is used as a weapon against powerless groups to keep them in subjection and subordination and should be treated with caution.”[158] I do not, for a moment, believe or suggest that it is Gorman’s intent or desire for his portrayal of Paul to be applied in this way. It is important, therefore, to address the challenge of whether cruciformity is a pastorally abhorrent spirituality.
Hampson’s and Peppiatt’s concerns suggest two related problems: firstly that kenosis - or cruciformity - might be wielded as a weapon by those with power and means for subjugating those without. Secondly, that it glorifies suffering in a way that might encourage victims of oppression to passively accept it or even seek it out as martyrs. I would argue that neither of these are valid applications of Paul as Gorman portrays him. Rather, they are only possible where kenosis is misconstrued and the nature of God, Christ and true humanity are mischaracterized.
Kenosis is an enigmatic and much debated concept that has been variously understood throughout Christian history. Sarah Coakley has helpfully catalogued six different understandings that can be broadly categorised as either ‘metaphysical’ or ‘ethical’ interpretations.[159] Metaphysical interpretations ask questions of Christ’s ontology: how does kenosis relate to his hypostatic or pre-existent nature? Ethical interpretations ask questions of Christ’s example: how does Christ’s kenosis relate to discipleship? Coakley suggests that neither of these understandings allow for either the weaponising of kenosis or unnecessary martyrdom.[160] She concludes that kenosis, properly understood, expresses something of the divine nature that rejects worldly conceptualisations of power as bullying or dominance, and instead reforms it as vulnerable and non-abusive and offers her own nuanced interpretation of kenosis that encapsulates this understanding.[161] Carolyn Chau helpfully summarises Coakley’s view:
She [Coakley] observes that neither the metaphysical version nor the ethical version of kenosis in New Testament scholarship are identical to the object of Hampson’s criticism: there is no suggestion that self-emptying is to be a model for human action in the metaphysical version, and the ethical version does not speak of divine power in the way that Hampson claims is implied in kenosis. Rather, the self-emptying of Christ reveals divine humility. From the New Testament possibilities for an ethical reading of Christ, Coakley opts for the understanding of kenosis as choosing never to have certain forms of power.[162]
In this interpretation, any potentially abusive application or enforcement of kenosis are ‘upended’ as anti-Christ, anti-God, and anti-human approaches to power. This is synonymous with Gorman’s view that the Christ hymn - including and especially Christ’s kenosis - is not merely a Christophany but also a theophany and anthrophany; revealing something of the true nature of both the divine and the human made in the divine image.[163] Following Coakley, I would argue, therefore, that cruciformity, properly understood, ‘upends’ false, worldly assumptions about divine and human power and challenges the possibility of oppression rather than giving rise to, or passively accepting, it. It is worth noting, however, that Gorman himself spends little time defining his interpretation and application of kenosis and only briefly acknowledges its potential abuses.[164] This is an oversight, which does leave his work open to critique. In defence of Gorman, I will briefly highlight two ways in which I believe his writing does address the possibility of it being misapplied oppressively.
Gorman’s particular interpretation of the Christ hymn considers kenosis as having two layers of meaning owing to the polyvalent nature of the Greek participle hyparchōn (“being”) which he notes can be translated concessively (as ‘although’) or causally (as ‘because’).[165] Rather than choose between these two translations Gorman observes them both, concluding that Christ emptied himself even though he had equality with God and, at the same time, precisely because he had equality with God.[166] These two layers of meaning suggest two reasons why cruciformity cannot be weaponised. Firstly, ‘true power’ is characterised by kenotic love. That is, it is only identified by its kenotic nature. That is why, although Paul is an apostle, he chooses not to ‘throw his weight around’.[167] To act in an exploitative or oppressive manner is to fail to properly empty oneself of dominant strength or status and as such is to fail to properly enact cruciformity. Secondly, it is those who already possess power, status or means who are expected to divest themselves of such commodities.[168] This expectation can be seen in Paul’s addresses to the ‘strong’ in Rome and Corinth; because they possessed strength they were to ‘empty’ themselves on behalf of the ‘weak’ (Rom 15:1-3, 1 Cor 8:9-13). Paul does not place the same expectation on the weak (even though he encourages the same fundamental posture).[169] Indeed, such an expectation would be nonsensical; one cannot empty oneself of what one does not have to begin with. The kenotic dimensions of cruciformity can never rightly be forced upon those who are already oppressed or in need. Gorman even suggests that those who are already ‘weak’, oppressed or in need, already instantiate elements of cruciformity by virtue of that fact.[170]
Cruciformity also cannot be accurately characterised as encouraging martyrdom. Gorman himself remarks, “The God who justifies by means of the cross does so to liberate people from the violence that enslaves them, not to endorse it.”[171] Two points are worthy of note here, both relating to the communal dimension of cruciformity.[172] First, the kenotic demands of cruciformity are placed on a community rather than individuals.[173] Gorman implies that in order to enact kenotic love within its own life and follow Jesus’ example of extending that love to the world beyond itself, the cruciform community has a missional imperative to decry and - where possible - peacefully deconstruct unjust systems and structures of power and oppression as part of God’s wholesale renewing of creation.[174] This is part of the Church’s ‘ambassadorial role’ (2 Cor 5:18-20). A consequence of this sort of ‘political’ engagement in the world can be persecution and oppression of individuals and communities.[175] Gorman does not suggest these consequences should be sought out, rather they should be weathered, with Christ like, kenotic obedience, if and when they come.[176] At the same time, Gorman states that enduring suffering that can actually be avoided “is not an act of suffering love but… complicity with the powers of the old age.”[177] That is not to say that victims of violence are to blame but simply that if a way out of such violence is available they should be helped by the cruciform community to take it and not accept abuse as a twisted form of virtue.
In conclusion, Hampson’s and Peppiatt’s concerns are important to acknowledge; kenotic or cruciform spiritualities can (and have been) misapplied in oppressive ways. However, Gorman’s interpretation of Paul neither allows for or encourages oppressive applications as it does not consider the weaponising of kenosis or the pursuit of martyrdom as appropriate expressions of Pauline cruciformity. Gorman himself notes, “...cruciformity is not the problem, misunderstanding it is.”[178] Rightly understood and applied, Gorman’s cruciformity does not seek out suffering or endure it unnecessarily. Rather it simply anticipates potential suffering as a consequence of its counter-cultural nature conflicting with worldly powers and principalities (most notably, in Paul’s case, Rome and Hellenstic culture) and refuses to respond to those powers in kind.[179] Unfortunately, this is not a point that Gorman makes explicitly or at much length and his thesis would be stronger had he done so.
This chapter has considered Gorman’s thesis in light of wider scholarship and the biblical text. It has noted a number of significant strengths to Gorman’s work, including the respect it has garnered, the way it has been corroborated by others both past and present, and the way in which it is consistent with scripture beyond the Pauline corpus. It has also considered a number of challenges that might be levied against Gorman’s work. I have concluded that Gorman has effectively achieved his goal of providing a unifying lens through which Paul’s contingent writing can be seen as consistently coherent and unified. However, I have also suggested that there are aspects of Pauline theology that might need further engagement in order to demonstrate how they fit into Gorman’s schema. I have also shown that Gorman’s thesis is more balanced than some might suggest although, again, there are elements to Paul’s writing which require further or more explicit exploration (such as a discussion on charismatic giftings). In addition, I noted that it is necessary to remember that Gorman’s portrayal of Paul should not be taken as (and is not intended to be) a fully canonical systematic theology, rather it is a portrayal of Paul’s particular writings which must still be read alongside the other Biblical texts. Lastly, whilst acknowledging that at times certain kenotic spiritualities have been misapplied or appropriated abhorrently, I have argued that - rightly understood - the kind of cruciform spirituality Gorman propagates does not actively support the oppression of others or unnecessary self-martyrdom.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is fair to conclude that although Gorman’s thesis would benefit from further development and more explicit engagement with certain criticisms, Pauline concepts, and pastoral concerns, I have demonstrated that it offers a cogent, compelling and defensible portrayal of Paul’s spirituality. Given that Gorman’s work is generally sound and persuasive, it is worth considering what it has to offer, by way of challenge, provocation and insight, to those wishing to live as faithful disciples today. In my next chapter, I shall consider several examples of just how Gorman’s insights on Paul might inform, challenge or shape the spirituality of modern Christian communities.
Having discussed the merits of Gorman’s thesis and defended it against some possible criticisms, we now consider its practical implications for the contemporary Church. As stated in Chapter 1, Paul was a pastoral theologian aiming to form and shape communities around his vision of Christ crucified. It is fitting, therefore, to consider how a renewed understanding of that vision might shape the Church today. How might reading Paul’s letters through Gorman’s lens enable us to receive his words afresh for a modern context? I will limit my exploration here to three significant facets. First, the implications of cruciformity for the ‘gospel message’ that is preached.[180] Second, the implications of Paul’s cruciform ministry for modern church leaders and apostles. Third, the implications of cruciformity for Christian community and ecclesial gatherings. In each of these lines of enquiry I shall make use of Gorman’s cruciform lens, applying it to Paul’s letters and certain observable practices in my own Charismatic Evangelical tradition, corroborating my reading with wider scholarship and making tentative recommendations about what more cruciform - and by extension, more Pauline - Christian practices might look like.[181]
Gospelling was Paul’s fundamental mission.[182] We do not have access to the precise gospel that Paul delivered; we do however have access to fragments and hints of it through his letters.[183] Many of these seem to have been occasioned by, or contain within them, concerns that the principles of his gospel are being forgotten (Rom 1:11,15; Gal 1:6-7; 1 Cor 15:1-2, Phil 2:1-2, 12). In Chapter 1, I outlined Gorman’s reading of Paul’s soteriology, noting a couple of significant features. Firstly, that, salvation is by co-crucifixion: a person is saved by their ongoing renarration of Christ’s own posture of faithful obedience to God. That obedience is worked out in kenotic love towards God and the world. In Chapter 2, we considered that this understanding of salvation, while controversial, is nevertheless gaining traction in the academy, with scholars such as Bates and Pifer concluding similarly within their own work. It also correlates very strongly with Jesus’s words as recorded in Matthew that to follow him requires one to take up their own cross (Matt 16:24). Secondly, we noted that the life of cruciformity is dependent upon the work of the Spirit: cruciformity is a charismatic spirituality. It is my observation that these two essential features of salvation can often be missed out of modern gospel messages.
Let us consider, for example, the Roman Road and Four Points gospel formulations that were prolific in my professional experience as a youth and student minister.[184] Both these formulations set out a structured argument in which sin is identified as a personal problem from which Christ lovingly offers individuals forgiveness and freedom if they choose to exercise faith. I appreciate the desire to provide simple, memorable language with which Christians - especially young Christians - can understand and communicate a gospel message. I also appreciate that these formulations have provided the essential starting point for many Christians’ discipleship journeys. However a cruciform reading of Paul’s letters makes the insufficiencies of these formulations stark.
The required ‘response’ to the Roman Road formulation is based on Romans 10:9-13: “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved... Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” The emphasis here is placed entirely on an individual’s spoken acknowledgement of God’s love in sending Christ to die in order to save them from their personal sins. The proposed result of such a response is ‘peace with God’ (cf Rom 5:1-2). However, this reduces the polyvalent notion of ‘faith’ to simply cognitive assent. There is no articulation of the subsequent requirement for a cruciform renarration of Christ’s faithful obedience. Ironically, this is exactly where the logical flow of Romans leads. In 10:21, Paul quotes Isaiah, and suggests God bemoans extending His love to those who are disobedient. In 11:22, Paul ominously but emphatically states that Gentiles will be cut off from God’s covenant people unless they “continue in His kindness.” and therefore urges the whole church to “...offer [their] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God...” even adding that “...this is your true and proper worship” (Rom 12:1, emphasis added). Elsewhere in the letter he states that his mission is to “call the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (Rom 1:5, cf Rom 16:26). He also adds that believers are those who have become ‘slaves to obedience’ (Rom 6:15-18). Romans then, has a much more grounded, ongoing, ethical - or, as Gorman has argued, cruciform, view of Christian discipleship than the Roman Road gospel suggests.[185]
Similarly, the Four Points formulation suggests that the correct human response to God’s love in Christ means an individual choosing to ‘live their life for him’. However, it provides no guidance as to what that entails and certainly makes no suggestion that it requires the tenets of cruciformity as Gorman describes it.[186] As far as Gorman’s portrayal of Paul is concerned, the hoped for ‘response’ to a gospel message should be the adoption of a cruciform life.[187] It is my contention, therefore, that any presentation of the gospel must make clear the inherent requirement to take up one’s cross as an expression of covenantal obedience.
For the full significance of a cruciform response to Jesus’s death and resurrection to be understood, it is necessary to locate it within the broader covenantal narrative of the Judeo-Christian story.[188] A similar point has been emphatically made by Sanders and developed by many since - including Gorman.[189] Sanders’ core contention is that the covenantal narrative of the Old Testament provides the logical backdrop to Paul’s call for the Church to not be conformed to the pattern of the world but to be transformed into an obedient living sacrifice. It is noteworthy that, even when communicating with Gentiles, Paul still regularly references this Jewish covenantal story (consider Rom 3-4, Gal 3-4). Indeed, Paul states that what he passed onto the Corinthian church was an account of how the Christ event happened in accordance with the Jewish scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-5). My suggestion here, that the gospel needs to be told within its wider narrative context, might limit the ability of those offering ‘gospel messages’ to formulate pithy accounts. However, I think it necessary in order to avoid either an abstract gospel message that does not lead to cruciform discipleship or a bait-and-switch style sales pitch in which the undemanding promise of ‘eternal life’ or ‘peace with God’ is only later related to the requirement for a life of cruciform faith expressed in kenotic love.
A second key issue with the Four Points and Roman Road gospel accounts, is their failure to mention the fundamental role of the Spirit. They discuss the love of God, and the death and resurrection of Christ, but offer no account of the empowerment of the Spirit. This is certainly problematic. Paul writes that membership within God’s covenantal community comes about by the Spirit circumcising an individual’s heart (Rom 2:29). In fact, anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). For this reason, scholars such as James Dunn and Gordon Fee have suggested that Paul considered the reception of the Spirit as a soteriological necessity.[190] Interestingly, Dunn suggests that Paul actually considered the reception of the Spirit as an individual's proof of their faith in Christ; rather than the latter providing evidence for the former as is sometimes assumed. Paul certainly does appear to refer believers to such experiences as a means of reminding them about their faith (cf Rom 15;18-19, 1 Cor 1:5-7, 1 Cor 2:12, Gal 3:1-5, 1 Thess 1:5-6). Dunn therefore concludes that there is a reliance on “religious ‘experience” as the necessary “sign of God’s action on and in a life.”[191] He sketches a spectrum of ways in which, according to Paul, believers might experience or manifest the empowerment of the Spirit: from ecstatic and miraculous phenomena at one end, through emotional experiences, intellectual revelation and towards moral transformation at the other.[192] He adds that the test of whether any particular experience was the result of the action of the Spirit, was the extent to which the experience correlated with the character of Christ.[193]
As suggested in Chapter 2, Dunn goes further here than Gorman.[194] However, he still corroborates Gorman’s fundamental claim: cruciformity is a charismatic spirituality.[195] Given the essential role of the Spirit - even, perhaps, the necessary experience of the Spirit - as part of the soteriological process, surely it is fundamental for gospel messages to give an explicit account of the Spirit to those hearing? Otherwise, they will not have the necessary framework or grammar for understanding, expecting or explaining such religious experiences and so will not be adequately equipped to properly engage in the fullness of cruciform discipleship.
In summary, I believe Gorman’s reading of Paul suggests that Paul’s gospel would likely have included (a) an explanation of the Judeo-Christian narrative backdrop to the Christ-event (1 Cor 15:3-5), (b) the offering of the Spirit (cf Acts 19:1-6) and (c) the expectation of a response of faithful obedience to Christ that would manifest itself in cruciform terms. It is my observation that some gospel messages offered today miss out these vital elements and, therefore, fail to properly portray the true message of the gospel and the appropriate response to it. Gorman’s cruciform lens would suggest these elements were fundamental to Paul’s writing and they should, therefore, be core facets of the Church’s gospel.
In Chapter 1, I outlined five dimensions of cruciformity that Gorman identifies in Paul’s apostleship: (i) his renouncement of apostolic ‘rights’, (ii) his adaptability to the needs of others, (iii) his pastoral (as opposed to authoritarian) posture, (iv) his embrace of the suffering that his ministry brought, (v) his willingness to choose life over death for the sake of the Church. Paul’s writing strongly implies that these characteristics should be the measurement by which leaders are evaluated. In 2 Corinthians 11 particularly, he vitriolically deconstructs those presenting themselves as ‘super-apostles’, suggesting that the Corinthian church has been deceived by a worldly, rather than a Christ-like, view of power (2 Cor 11:3-4). Sadly, it is my observation that the same tendency to venerate worldly expressions of power and authority continues in churches today.
Paul Hertig observes that certain church leaders adopt a hierarchical approach to discipleship and “[borrow] from a control-oriented management approach, which focuses on motivating followers to accept decisions made by leaders.”[196] He adds, “[even] ‘servant leadership’ is often top down. Leaders who tell others that ‘I am your servant’ often maintain a ‘serve me’ posture to those whom they claim to serve.”[197] Anecdotally, I have certainly seen and experienced this leadership approach myself, in which leaders, titled ‘apostles’, assume a position akin to that of a CEO in a church hierarchy.[198] As such, they held the final say in matters of discipline, doctrine, and decision making, regardless of their expertise or gifting. They earned the highest salary by virtue of their position, relied heavily on their eloquence of speech as part of their leadership and had a tendency to self-aggrandise. This approach to leadership is surely not commensurate with Paul’s non-coercive, pastoral, status-forgoing (even finance-forgoing) posture and his insistence on only boasting in his weaknesses.
I would suggest that this approach to apostleship develops from a misreading of Paul’s letters. A good example of this can be found in a short book by C. Peter Wagner entitled Apostles and Prophets: The Foundation of the Church. Wagner is a significant figure within the so-called ‘New Apostolic Reformation’ - a Charismatic Evangelical movement that has influenced the networks within which I have ministered and worshipped. Wagner believes that apostles have five distinct characteristics: (i) anointing - which makes them leaders of “great magnitude”; (ii) an ‘apsotolic assignment’ - which provides them with a “deep assurance that they are obeying God and acting according to His will”; (iii) “extraordinary character” - which sets them apart as “considerably above average”; (iv) followers - whose “ongoing loyalty” serves as “affirmation” of their calling and authority; (v) vision or “direct revelation” regarding “what the Spirit [is saying] to the churches.”[199] Wagner links these tenets of apostleship to Paul’s writing.[200] However, it is striking to compare Wagner’s five characteristics of an apostle to Gorman’s own portrayal of Paul. Wagner’s list makes no mention of suffering whilst assuming a posture of authoritarian governance.[201] His book offers an aggrandised view of apostleship that fails to observe the kenotic, status-forgoing approach of Paul who, in contrast, describes apostles as “at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena… a spectacle to the whole universe… the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world” (1 Cor 4:9-13).[202]
Further, in Wagner’s framework, the evidence for the authority and authenticity of an apostle has no external barometer. If an apostle can convince their followers of their anointing, assignment, character and vision, they will be affirmed as legitimate and authoritative. In contrast, Paul’s writing suggests the nature of Christ is the essential external barometer for legitimate ministry. Therefore, when Paul has to defend his own authority he refuses to point to his personal exploits or status markers and instead points only to his weaknesses as a corroboration of his Christ-likeness (2 Cor 11:16-30, Phil 3:4-10).[203] Likewise, the other leaders he praises are often those who have demonstrated cruciformity in their ministry (Rom 16:1-4, 6-7, 10, 12; Phil 2:19-30). As Witherington notes, for Paul the greatest compliment or accolade that could be paid to him or any other believer is to say that they strove to emulate the story of the cruciform Christ.[204]
None of this is meant to undermine the beneficial role that apostolic ministries can play in the church today. Nor is it meant to completely vilify those leaders who have taken a CEO-like approach in their ministries. I appreciate that, much like those who have coined the Four Points or Roman Road gospel formulations, the work of many of these leaders is well intentioned and, to a certain extent, successful in developing disciples. I would, however, like to suggest that Gorman’s portrayal of Paul strongly implies that it is impossible to imagine this leadership framework as one that Paul would have recognised, encouraged or endorsed. Timothy B Savage describes the Corinthian situation as “a conflict between two opposing viewpoints: the worldly outlook of the Corinthians and Paul's own Christ-centred perspective, the so-called 'wisdom of this age' and the 'wisdom of God'.”[205] I would argue that the same conflict continues in parts of the Church today. Leaders and followers alike can evaluate authority “according to the self-exalting standards of their secular environment…” expecting leaders to be “...assertive, to boast of... personal exploits, to employ powerful speech, to draw comfort from financial security - in a word, to embody the self-regarding aspirations of their culture.”[206] Paul’s cruciform resistance to these expectations confused his followers, and even brought his authority into disrepute. Nevertheless, he maintained that the primary evaluative lens for the quality, legitimacy and worthiness of his or any other ministry was the extent to which it correlated with the image of the kenotic, status-forgoing, cruciform Christ. I believe this lens brings a significant challenge to certain parts of the Church and its leaders today.
In addition to the above discussion on cruciform leadership, it is important also to consider the challenge Gorman’s thesis holds for Christian communities themselves. In particular, I want to consider how those communities are shaped and fostered by their practices. Another weakness of the Four Points or Roman Road gospel is their individualistic focus; they are predominantly concerned with the justification of an individual before God. However, as already intimated, an individual’s salvation is inextricably linked to the story of God’s covenantal community; people are not saved into a private relationship with God, rather their salvation looks like a transference into God’s eschatological community. Further, as Hays notes, the task of exegeting God for the world, is a communal one.[207] That is why Gorman states emphatically that “in both substance and grammatical expression, Paul’s spirituality is irreducibly communal or corporate in character.”[208]
The notion that the Church is bound up together as a single entity is made explicit by Paul’s use of ‘body’ terminology to describe it (Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 12:12-26). It is also expressed in the other images he uses for the church such as a political colony (Phil 3:10), a household (Gal 6:10), and a family (1 Thess 2:7-12, 17).[209] These different metaphors all describe different facets of how the church should relate to one another and the wider world. Put together we have a composite picture that suggests a number of facets of a church’s communal life. First, no part or ‘member’ of a church’s body should consider themselves superior to, or better off without, another (1 Cor 12: 17-26). Second, the church is to become the primary community of belonging, allegiance and commitment of the individuals.[210] Third, the individuals in a church are expected to relate to one another with a familial love, seeking the advantage and development of all other members - especially the ‘weaker’ - for the good and unity of the whole (Rom 12:9-21, 13:10, 14:13-21, 15:1-6; 1 Cor 8:9-13, Phil 2:1-5, Philemon 1:16). Paul’s understanding of the unity of the church is based on his understanding that all believers share in the ‘one Spirit’ (1 Cor 12:13, Phil 1:27). Ultimately, each individual is to approach their church community with the same ‘mindset’ of the kenotic, loving Christ (Phil 2:5-11) as the cruciform Spirit will always lead them in that direction (Phil 2:1). Kenotic, loving unity, Gorman writes, is how the Church exegetes God for the world and becomes a living demonstration of the gospel.[211] This is not especially new revelation for churches today; much of this understanding may already permeate their thinking and discourse.[212] However, Gorman’s thesis is pointed enough to encourage a reevaluation of just how much the practice of individual communities aligns with this understanding. Here again, a couple of observations will help to illustrate my concerns.
The network of churches within which I have worshipped and ministered for much of my life has recently split over a number of doctrinal differences - particularly relating to the question of women in leadership. My personal views aside, I increasingly believe that disunity over such doctrinal or ethical matters is antithetical to Paul’s vision for the church. The unity of the church is amongst Paul’s fundamental passions; he mentions it in each of his letters (see, for example, Rom 15:5-6, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Cor 11:13, Gal 3:26-29, Phil 2:1-5, 1 Thess 4:9-10, Philemon 12-17).[213] He considers unification a core function of the Spirit and therefore unity serves as a litmus test for the spiritual health of a community and its individuals.[214] It is noteworthy that Paul, at times, addresses matters of doctrinal or ethical disagreement not by taking a side, but by permitting a variety of views, calling for unity and suggesting that the disagreement should be worked through in loving (kenotic) commitment to God and the community (1 Cor 3, 7-8, Phil 4:1-3).[215] The occasions when Paul does appear to choose a strong stance in a doctrinal debate almost always involve him writing against doctrines that are bringing division (consider, especially, Paul’s dispute with Peter in Gal 2:11-14).[216] Although there may be exceptional occasions when Paul encourages churches to disassociate themselves from individuals, I would contest that it is these individuals’ lack of cruciformity in their posture to God and community that leads to the rare judgement of excommunication (1 Cor 5, 2 Thess 3:14-15).[217] It is not uncommon for contemporary churches to draw divisive lines when they feel that the holiness or righteousness of the community is at stake. However, where all parties are genuinely seeking to honour God and one another in their posture, I believe Paul would encourage them to seek unity in the Spirit above and beyond establishing the correctness of their different positions. As Furnish writes, for Paul “...belonging to Christ and hence to one another is [to be] the presupposition and preorientation of all the believer’s choosing and doing.”[218] This may not be an easy pursuit, but such is the nature of cruciformity.
A second observation regarding the lack of cruciform community in certain churches, is the physical set up of various aspects of their gatherings. We need to take seriously the unconscious messages sent by physical set-ups (such as sitting in rows, facing a small collection of individuals on a stage leading through mostly stage-based liturgical rituals) and the obstacles these can create in compelling the community towards cruciform concern for one another. Particularly, where communion is facilitated as a self-service transaction, it may reinforce the idea that faith is predominantly about an individual’s relationship with God not the community. Paul’s teaching about communion is deeply concerned with the way that it encourages the church to engage with and honour one another, even through their disagreements and distinctions (1 Cor 11:17-22, Gal 2:11-16). Scot McKnight writes of the Eucharist that it “cannot be understood aright until it is seen as a fellowship meal… one that [brings] into visible reality the unity of the church and its constant need to feast upon the Lord’s atoning work”: that is, the story of Christ.[219] That cruciform love might exist and find expression in other parts of ecclesial life, such as house groups, does not necessarily mean that front led, performative services should not be reevaluated. The making room for one another, shared participation, and preferential care and service of others are all key concerns of Paul’s Ecclesiology (Rom 15:1-2, 1 Cor 14:21-26, Gal 6:2, Phil 2:1-5, 1 Thess 5:12-15, Philemon 12-17). If this is how the Church is to express the nature of God to the world, and if the church service is the primary window through which the world sees Christianity, perhaps churches need to think carefully about how their practices facilitate and demonstrate these concerns. As Parry, quoting LaCugna, puts it: we should “ask whether our institutions, rituals, and administrative practices foster elitism, discrimination, competition… or whether the church is run like God’s household: a domain of inclusiveness, interdependence, and cooperation, structured according to the model of perichoresis among persons.[220]
It must be acknowledged here that Paul was not writing to the modern, Western Church, parts of which are bound up with certain legal obligations, charitable statuses, dedicated buildings and organisational structures. Not that these were not features of the religious cults of Paul’s world, but his writing mostly addresses house churches that had alternative formats, structures and concerns. Therefore, there is a disconnect between Paul’s words and some modern expressions of church and heeding his words is not necessarily straightforward. I am not suggesting here that the institutional or organisational church should abandon its structures wholesale in order to return to a more simplistic house church model (as intriguing a possibility as that may be). However, I do want to suggest that a rethink of those structures and trappings is necessary, where and when they facilitate a more individualised faith or fail to foster a community of cruciform believers who express their faith by submitting to one another in kenotic love. I believe that, ultimately, this is what Paul would write to the church today, and Gorman has penned a pseudo-Pauline letter that argues much the same.[221]
Thus far I have sought to highlight some significant implications of Gorman’s thesis for the modern church, with particular reference to my own tradition. However, I also want to briefly highlight a limitation of its application. In Chapter 2, I stated that Paul’s letters need to be read in conversation with the other voices of Scripture, rather than being unduly privileged above them in the formation of theology. Stephen Fowl notes that this is a common mistake made when engaging the Bible.[222] This mistake can lead to the sort of unbalanced or un-nuanced theology that, as discussed, scholars such as Peppiatt are concerned about.
Gregory Boyd’s book Crucifixion of the Warrior God, is a good example of an over extension of a cruciform lens. Gorman and Boyd certainly share some theological convictions, but Boyd extends their implications much further than Gorman. He states that “[t]he driving conviction of [his particular] Cruciform Hermeneutic is that since Calvary gives us a perspective of God’s character that is superior to what people in the OT had, we can also enjoy a superior perspective of what was actually going on when OT authors depicted God engaging in and commanding violence.”[223] Boyd takes the theophanic nature of the cross and stretches it to suggest that any text depicting God in a way that does not align with the image of Christ crucified should be understood as a ‘literary crucifix’ upon which the kenotic God - who does not exercise coercive or controlling power - has allowed himself to die.[224] In suggesting this, Boyd subordinates any such texts to the ‘superior’ revelation of the cross rather than granting them and their authors their own voices.[225] Matthew Lynch points out that Boyd’s thesis is an example of perfectionism: extrapolating an idea to its most extreme form, often beyond the scope of intent of its original propagators, often at the cost of nuance and often in order to affirm a predetermined value system of conclusion.[226] Gorman, on the other hand, deliberately limits his arguments to the writing of Paul, mostly only utilising the undisputed letters to make his case for a distinctively Pauline Spirituality.[227]
We do not have access to the way in which Paul may have interpreted the passages Boyd seeks to disarm and, even if we did, Paul’s interpretation would still be but one voice within the Bible’s broader theological conversation. Therefore, Gorman’s cruciform portrayal of Paul should not be used to override or counted as superior to all other theologies in the Bible, nor become the single interpretive lens through which they are to be read or reevaluated. For those, such as myself, who have found Gorman’s portrayal of Paul influential, it is important to remember this.
This chapter has sought to critically engage with Gorman’s portrayal of Paul as a cruciform apostle by considering the implications his thesis might have for certain contemporary church practices. I have suggested that the fundamentally covenantal, charismatic, and cruciform elements of Paul’s spirituality should be present and prominent components of the church’s gospelling. I have proposed that those who lead churches, particularly those who adopt the title of ‘apostle’, should imitate Paul in adopting a cruciform framework as the primary evaluative tool for their ministry. I have also argued that the irreducibly communal nature of Paul’s cruciform spirituality mandates the need for greater unity within and between church communities in spite of potential theological disagreements. Further, church communities, like their leaders, should evaluate their own structures, services and spiritual health on the basis of how cruciform or cruciformational they are. Lastly, I have acknowledged that, as insightful and constructive as Gorman’s thesis is for highlighting possible areas of development within modern Christian spirituality, it is also limited. In particular, it cannot be used unscrupulously as a lens through which to read the rest of the Biblical canon - particularly the Old Testament. Such a move pushes Gorman’s thesis beyond its scope and intent.
Before drawing some final broad conclusions regarding Gorman’s thesis it is helpful to restate the various ideas and conclusions explored thus far. In Chapter 1, I outlined the primary facets of Gorman’s portrayal of Paul and mapped the places and ways in which Gorman sees Paul embodying and imploring a cruciform spirituality throughout his corpus. In Chapter 2, I evaluated Gorman’s portrayal of Paul in light of wider scholarship and the biblical text, addressing a number of key potential criticisms that might be levied against him. I concluded that Gorman’s cruciform portrayal of Paul offers a well-regarded, cogent, balanced, useful and defensible lens through which Paul and his writing can be better understood. However, I also noted Gorman’s thesis would be helped and developed by more explicit engagement with certain criticisms, Pauline concepts, and pastoral concerns. In Chapter 3, I suggested a number of ways in which Gorman’s portrayal of Paul might offer constructive challenge to various contemporary church practices, arguing that my own charismatic evangelical tradition needs to reevaluate some of its gospelling, leadership frameworks and approaches to community in light of Gorman’s cruciform interpretation. However, I also noted that it is inappropriate to apply Gorman’s cruciform lens unscrupulously in the study of the wider biblical canon.
To summarise I would argue that Gorman’s portrayal of Paul offers a highly compelling, well articulated, rich and valuable resource both for the field of Pauline scholarship and for individual and ecclesial spiritual formation. It is surprising to me therefore, that, although it receives approval within academic scholarship, Gorman’s work has not gained the kind of critical acclaim or broad readership it deserves.[228] Perhaps that is because, as stated in Chapter 2, much of his portrayal of Paul synthesises already established ideas.[229] So, although Gorman’s thesis offers a novel and innovative framework for interpreting Paul, its constituent elements are not, in and of themselves, academically ground-breaking. What it certainly does contribute to the academy though, is a unifying lens that incorporates and sheds light on many of the core subjects and debates within Pauline scholarship, such that it is both a very useful introduction to the field, as well as an authoritative voice within it.
However, I would argue that the primary gift of Gorman’s work, as outlined in Chapter 3, is the constructive critique it offers the modern church - particularly my own Charismatic Evangelical tradition. In this context, Gorman’s portrayal of Paul truly is ground-breaking. It is the refreshing contrast between Gorman’s portrayal of Paul and the image of Paul I was raised on that first arrested my attention and ultimately led to this study. Gorman offers a reading of Paul that reflects a man who is not proud, imposing, hierarchical or domineering and yet is no less authoritative and far more attractively Christ-like. His cruciform lens suggests Paul’s letters are far less concerned with church order and structure and far more concerned with communal harmony and flourishing; less about the establishment or fierce defence of doctrinal positions and more about the encouragement of a kenotic spirituality. This is a reading of Paul I wholeheartedly believe the Church needs to be aware of, and one I am convinced would bring valuable insight, change, and fruitfulness to the spirituality of individuals and communities.
Gorman’s portrayal of Paul is by no means the final word in the field of Pauline studies or the ongoing development of the church. There are questions still to be asked, debates still to be had, new scholarly insights yet to be unearthed, and ever-changing ecclesial cultures, contexts and challenges with which to contend. Gorman’s thesis itself, as intimated in Chapter 2, requires further development too. Helpfully, Gorman has released several publications since Cruciformity in order to refine his original thesis, make it accessible to a variety of audiences, and engage the shifting scholarly and ecclesial landscapes. It is my hope that, as he and others continue to write about cruciformity and receive academic appreciation for it, that this portrayal of Paul’s spirituality will gather reputation, influence and popularity within the Church, and be used more widely for reading and understanding Paul and his letters. As this happens, my prayer is that the Church will become increasingly cruciform. As Gorman himself concludes, “Cruciformity... is Paul’s spirituality, and it can be ours.”[230] I believe it should be, and that if it were, the Church and the world would be the better for it.
Achtemeier, P. “Finding the Way to Paul’s Theology.” Pages 25–36 in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by Jouette M. Bassler. Symposium Series. Society of Biblical Literature, 1994.
Barclay, John M. G. Paul and the Gift. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2017.
Bassler, Jouette M. Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Symposium Series. Society of Biblical Literature, 1994.
Bates, Matthew W. Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King. Baker Academic, 2017.
Beker, Johan Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Augsburg Fortress Publishing, 1984.
Boakye, Andrew. “Inhabiting the ‘Resurrectiform’ God: Death and Life as Theological Headline in Paul.” The Expository Times 128.2 (2016): 53–62.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol.4. Translated by Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
Boyd, Gregory A. The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2. Fortress Press, 2017.
Chau, Carolyn A. “‘WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE GIVEN?’: TOWARDS AN EXPLORATION OF KENOSIS AS FORGIVENESS-CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN COAKLEY, HAMPSON, AND PAPANIKOLAOU1.” Modern Theology, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2011.01723.x.
Coakley, Sarah. “Kenōsis and Subversion: On the Repression of ‘Vulnerability’ in Christian Feminist Writing.” Pages 3–39 in Powers and Submissions; Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender. Blackwell, 2002.
Cummins, S. A. “Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Book).” Review of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Douglas Geivett, R., and Holly Pivec. A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement. Lexham Press, 2018.
Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
Fee, Gordon D. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Baker Academic, 2011.
Fowl, Stephen E. “Engaging Scripture: Challenges in Contemporary Theology.” Blackwell Oxford, 1998.
Furnish, Victor Paul. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. First and Second Thessalonians. Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.
———. “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm.” Novum Testamentum 28.4 (1986): 309–26.
Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2016.
———. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.
———. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.
———. Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality. Baker Academic, 2019.
———. Reading Paul. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008.
Hall, Emily. “What Is the Romans Road to Salvation?” Salem Web Network, 25 February 2019. https://www.christianity.com/wiki/salvation/what-is-the-romans-road-to-salvation.html.
Hampson, Daphne. “On Power and Gender.” Modern Theology 4.3 (1988): 234–50.
Hays, Richard B. “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49.2 (1987): 268–90.
Hertig, Paul. “Fool’s Gold: Paul's Inverted Approach to Church Hierarchy (1 Corinthians 4), with Emerging Church Implications.” Missiology 35.3 (2007): 287–303.
Horrell, David. “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20.67 (1997): 83–114.
Long, David P. “Eucharistic Ecclesiology and Excommunication: A Critical Investigation of the Meaning and Praxis of Exclusion from the Sacrament of the Eucharist.” Ecclesiology 10.2 (2014): 205–28.
Lynch, Matt. “Crucifixion of the Warrior God, by Gregory A. Boyd - Review Part 3 (on Crucicentric Perfection) - Theological Miscellany,” 28 September 2017. http://theologicalmisc.net/2017/09/crucifixion-warrior-god-gregory-boyd-part-iii-crucicentric-perfection/.
McKnight, Scot. A Community Called Atonement: Living Theology. Abingdon Press, 2010.
———. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. Zondervan, 2016.
McNall, Joshua M. The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ’s Work. Zondervan Academic, 2019.
Miller, James C. “Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64.3 (2002): 573–75.
Parry, Robin. “Worshipping Trinity.” Coming Back to the Heart of Worship (2005): 1–16.
Paynter, Helen. “Crucifixion of the Warrior God by Gregory Boyd: Review,” 25 April 2019. https://www.csbvbristol.org.uk/2019/04/25/crucifixion-of-the-warrior-god/.
Peppiatt, Lucy. The Spirit of the Lord: Reflections on a Christomorphic Pneumatology in he Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics. Crisp, Oliver D., and Fred Sanders. Zondervan Academic, 2020.
Perkins, Pheme. “Philippians: Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma.” Pages 89–104 in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by Jouette M. Bassler. Symposium Series. Society of Biblical Literature, 1994.
Perriman, Andrew. The Future of the People of God: Reading Romans Before and After Western Christendom. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010.
Pifer, Jeanette Hagen. Faith as Participation: An Exegetical Study of Some Key Pauline Texts. Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
Sampley, J. Paul. “From Text to Thought World: The Route to Paul’s Ways.” Pages 3–14 in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by Jouette M. Bassler. Symposium Series. Society of Biblical Literature, 1994.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: 40th Anniversary Edition. Fortress Press, 2017.
Savage, Timothy B., and Savage Timothy B. Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Still, Todd D., and Bruce W. Longenecker. Thinking through Paul: A Survey of His Life, Letters, and Theology. Zondervan Academic, 2014.
THE4POINTS Ltd, n.d. https://www.the4points.com/uk/index.php.
Wagner, C. Peter. Apostles and Prophets: The Foundation of the Church. Baker Books, 2000.
Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph. Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.
———. The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Wright, N. T. Paul: Fresh Perspectives. SPCK Publishing, 2005.
———. “Putting Paul Together Again: Toward a Synthesis of Pauline Theology (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon).” Pages 183–211 in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by Jouette M. Bassler. Symposium Series. Society of Biblical Literature, 1994.
———. Simply Good News: Why The Gospel Is News And What Makes It Good. SPCK, 2015.
6[T]hough being in the form of God,
[Christ Jesus] did not consider his equality with God as something to be exploited for his own advantage,
7but emptied himself,
by taking on the form of a slave,
that is, by being born in the likeness of human beings.
And being found in human form,
8he humbled himself
by becoming obedient
to death -
even death on a cross.
9Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the title that is above every title
10that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend
in heaven and
on earth and
under the earth,
11and every tongue acclaim that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.[231]
This is a brief and adapted sketch of Gorman’s own, more detailed, overview of these themes. It has been adapted and shortened here for the sake of space. Given the importance of these themes in Gorman’s work, it is helpful to list them here in an edited format for reference:
[1] Gorman states “...the master narrative that shapes [Paul’s] spirituality is Philippians 2:6-11”. Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001), 92.
[3] Gorman’s subsequent works include Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009); Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2016); Michael J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (Baker Academic, 2019).
[4] Some of Gorman’s subsequent publications are referenced but only as supplementary material.
[5] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 7 n22. For clarity, the ‘undisputed letters’ are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. These are the specific books I refer to as Paul’s corpus’.
[6] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 77. A comprehensive list of these appearances of the Christ-story can be found in chapter 5 of Cruciformity pages 77-81.
[7] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 76.
As Gorman himself notes, ‘spirituality’ is a “slippery word”. His go-to definition of this word is “the lived experience of Christian belief” which he develops for his usage to mean “the experience of God’s love and grace in daily life.” It is important to note that Gorman specifically uses this term in place of the word ‘theology’ because his focus is not on what Paul thought about God but, rather, how he experienced God. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 92.
[8] Gorman coined this particular way of categorising the multifarious revelations within the Christ hymn in his most recent book Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality. For the particular discussion of these four elements of the Christ hymn see pages 29-52.
[9] Expositions and reflections on this particular passage are made in Gorman’s arguments on Cruciform Faith, Cruciform Love, Cruciform Apostleship, Cruciform Communities, Cruciform Power, and Cruciform Hope. See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (107-108; 186-188; 243, 256-259, 357-359; 278-280; 316-319).
[10] See Appendix 1.
[11] These themes are listed in Appendix 2.
[13] Gorman writes, ”For Paul, to ‘know nothing except Jesus Christ - that is, Jesus Christ crucified,’ is to narrate, in life and words, [these facets of] the story of God’s self-revelation in Christ” (Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 7).
[15] Presenting this in objective terms, saves the need to constantly caveat what is written with phrases like “Gorman argues”, “in Gorman’s thinking” etc. That this is all a presentation of Gorman’s thinking should be assumed.
[16] The first four chapters of Gorman’s first book Cruciformity consider Paul’s understanding of the Father, the Son and the Spirit, before drawing these arguments together with a discussion about Paul’s experience of the trinity, with the conclusion that Cruciformity is a trinitarian spirituality.
[17] Considerations of Paul’s ‘primitive’ (or ‘embryonic’, ‘conceptual’, ‘experienced’, and other semantic corollaries) trinitarianism appear in many works by leading Pauline scholars. For examples see N. T. Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives (SPCK Publishing, 2005), 98; Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God (Baker Academic, 2011), 38–39; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 264; Todd D. Still and Bruce W. Longenecker, Thinking through Paul: A Survey of His Life, Letters, and Theology (Zondervan Academic, 2014), 305.
[21] Gorman, Participating in Christ, 37.
[22] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 18. See also Gorman, Participating in Christ, 8-10. Gorman is careful to refer to the Father as cruciform rather than crucified, and in an extended footnote on these pages seeks to refute any suggestion that his schema strays into patripassianism.
[28] Gorman uses nearly a hundred pages of his first book, and the majority of his second, to develop this argument: See Cruciformity (2003), and Inhabiting the Cruciform God (2009) respectively.
[29] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 36 (emphasis added).
[31] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 102–121. Hays’ particular ‘objective genitive’ rendering of the enigmatic Greek phrase ‘pistis christou’ - attributing the word ‘faith’ to Christ’s own faithfulness rather than the believers own expression of belief - has been the subject of much debate in recent decades. Space does not permit a full engagement with this debate here. I can only note that Gorman finds Hays’ work on the subject convincing and formational for his thesis.
Gorman follows other scholars, particularly Walter Wink, in interpreting Paul’s use of the language of ‘powers’ as both political and anthropomorphic. See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 272–275.
[33] See the section entitled “‘The Obedience of Faith’: Faith as Daily Cruciformity” in Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 131–134.
[34] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 96. For the most concise overview of Gorman’s understanding of the different aspects of this polyvalent term see page 153.
[36] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 101. See pages 96 and 102 for the particular synonyms highlighted.
[37] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 130–131. Gorman suggests that baptism operated as the quintessential symbolic demonstration of that commitment, but does not believe that this act, in and of itself was essential: “What really matters is dying with Christ in reality, not in the ritual.” Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 135–137.
[38] This reads as a bold claim, and one that might be mistaken for a works-based soteriology. It must therefore be nuanced carefully. As outlined above, the Christ-follower’s ability to adopt this lifestyle is a charism of the Spirit, who both incorporates a believer into the realm of Christ, and empowers their cruciform behaviour. As such this is not a works dependent gospel, but an orientation or allegiance based one - an idea we will return to briefly in Chapter 2. Further, it remains a gospel that is based upon “divine initiative followed by human response rather than human initiative followed by divine response.” In keeping with his overriding schema of Paul’s spirituality, Gorman refers to this understanding of justification as “narrative soteriology.” A particularly nuanced and in-depth explanation of this can be found in the second chapter of Gorman’s second book, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (2009).
[40] For Gorman, justification and sanctification are actually distinct stages within a soteriological process, but two sides of the same soteriological coin. However, I have separated them here for explanatory purposes. See Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, 164.
[44] It is worth noting that the synthesis of these various models of atonement is not unique to Gorman. Similar projects have been convincingly undertaken by scholars such as Joshua McNall in The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ’s Work (Zondervan Academic, 2019) and Scot McKnight in A Community Called Atonement: Living Theology (Abingdon Press, 2010).
[48] Gorman provides an extended study of how the theme of cruciform love is addressed in Paul’s writing in Chapter 10 of Cruciformity (pages 214–268).
[50] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 182 (emphasis original).
[52] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 269. Gorman nuances this by stating later that whilst God also exercises power through creation, performing miracles, resurrecting Jesus, and the manifestations of the spirit, “...Paul never divorces these experiences of God’s power from the experience of the cross as the center of divine power” (Cruciformity, page 280).
[53] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 269. Emphasis of “only” original; emphasis of “is” added.
[54] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 269. Gorman here builds on Botlmann’s work in The Theology of the New Testament (1951).
[59] Gorman refers to this as “Power as Moral Transformation (Holiness).” See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 269.
[60] Gorman refers to this as “Power as Status Transcendence and Reversal.” See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 269.
[61] Gorman refers to this as “Power as Boasting and Victory in Suffering.” See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 269.
[62] Gorman refers to this as “Power as Cruciform Care for Others, Especially the Poor and the ‘Weak’.” See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 269.
[63] Gorman himself does not explicitly relate all these manifestations of power to the work of the Spirit, but I believe that is his thinking. He describes “Boasting in Suffering” more as a particular faith-outlook, a holding-on to the truth that “nothing can separate us from the love of God” (Rom 8:39) but it is the indwelling Spirit that inseparably connects the believer to that love. Similarly, Gorman describes “Care for Others” more as a particular ethical posture and activity, though elsewhere he states this posture and activity is an outcome of the moral transformation brought about by the Spirit.
[64] See Gorman’s definition of power above.
[71] This might read as a bold claim, but it is one Gorman more or less states exactly this way himself: Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 325. It is important to nuance this statement by revisiting what has already been outlined regarding Paul’s cruciform soteriology: that the empowerment for and salvific effects of cruciformity are results of the gracious work and gift of God. Cruciformity is, therefore, not a works-based requirement for earning God’s grace, rather it is the covenantal terms for accepting God’s grace.
[78] For an extended argument on the cruciform reading of Paul’s forgoing of apostolic rights see Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 185.
[81] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 197. See also Beverly Roberts Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians (Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 31–34.
[84] For example: [x] although we might have made demands as apostles of Christ, [y] we did not come with words of flattery or a pretext for greed, [z] but we were gentle among you like a nurse (1 Thess 2:5-12). See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 192.
[90] See the cover recommendations on the back of Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality.
[91] See the cover recommendation on the back of Michael J. Gorman, Reading Paul (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008).
[92] S. A. Cummins, “Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Book),” by Michael J. Gorman, Review of Biblical Literature, 2003, 5:458.
[93] James C. Miller, “Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64.3 (2002): 575.
[95] See discussion above in section 1.1 on Paul’s narrative spirituality.
[96] Cummins lauds Gormans “incisive exegesis [and] weighty theological reflection” (S. A. Cummins, “Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Book),” by Michael J. Gorman, Review of Biblical Literature, 2003, 5:458).
[97] See Cruciformity’s extensive bibliography for more details (pages 402-416). It is noteworthy that all of these scholars are men. Perhaps this highlights a possible bias in Gorman’s scholarship, though I suspect it has more to do with the lamentable historical dominance of men within the field of Pauline Biblical Studies.
[98] See, for example, the sections entitled “Objections to Justification by Cruciform Faith”, “Power and Love: Does the Apostle Betray His Lord” and “Challenges to Cruciformity.” Miller also cites this as a key strength of Gorman’s work: Miller, “Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross,” 574.
[102] Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Baker Academic, 2017), 44. Bates also writes “...it [the term ‘allegiance’] captures what is most vital for salvation - mental assent, sworn fidelity, and embodied loyalty.” There are strong ties between this and our outline of cruciform soteriology in Chapter 1 above. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King, 5.
[103] Jeanette Hagen Pifer, Faith as Participation: An Exegetical Study of Some Key Pauline Texts (Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 217.
[106] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol.4. Translated by Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 285.
[107] Bonhoeffer’s exact words are “[i]t is the holy Trinity who dwells within Christans, who permeates and changes them into the very image of the triune God,” but the similarities between this and Gorman’s charismatic cruciform spirituality are obvious, as Gorman himself notes: Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, 170.
[108] Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,” Novum Testamentum 28.4 (1986): 326.
[109] For example, his arguments regarding cruciform faith rely on the particular and contentious rendering of the phrase ‘pistis Christou’ as the faithfulness of Christ. See n31 above for a brief comment on the controversy of this rendering.
[111] NT Wright references Rӓisenӓn’s position in his essay “Putting Paul Together Again: Toward A Synthesis of Pauline Theology” in Jouette M. Bassler, Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Symposium Series (Society of Biblical Literature, 1994), 183.
[112] From Sampley’s essay entitled “From Text to Thought World: The Route to Paul’s Ways” in Bassler, Pauline Theology: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, 6.
[115] See Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). and Hays’ essay entitled “Crucified with Christ: A Synthesis of the Theology of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians, and Galatians in Bassler, Pauline Theology: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, chap. 15.
[116] Gorman writes: “Cruciformity is the all-encompassing, integrating, narrative, reality of Paul’s life and thought… [it] is, in sum, what Paul is all about…” See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 371.
[117] This particular phraseology, that of ‘contingency’ and ‘coherence’, belongs to J. Christiaan Beker. See his book Johan Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Augsburg Fortress Publishing, 1984). and later essay on the subject “Recasting Pauline Theology: The Coherence-Contingency Scheme” in Bassler, Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, chap. 2.
[118] It is noteworthy that in most of his correspondences, Paul draws on the image of Christ crucified as a key part of his argumentation (see, for example, Rom 8:11, 1 Cor 1:13, 2 Cor 5:14-15, Gal 2:19-21, 1 Thess 5:9-10).
[119] N. T. Wright, “Putting Paul Together Again: Toward a Synthesis of Pauline Theology (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon),” in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. Jouette M. Bassler, Symposium Series. (Society of Biblical Literature, 1994), 186.
[120] P. Achtemeier, “Finding the Way to Paul’s Theology,” in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. Jouette M. Bassler, Symposium Series. (Society of Biblical Literature, 1994), 25.
[121] J. Paul Sampley, “From Text to Thought World: The Route to Paul’s Ways,” in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. Jouette M. Bassler, Symposium Series. (Society of Biblical Literature, 1994), 9.
[122] Gorman prefers to speak in terms of sin as an oppressive external force to which humans have become enslaved. See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 108–109.. It is particularly noteworthy that in his thirteen themes of the cross, Gorman barely touches upon sin: whilst he does state that the cross was a sacrifice for sins, his explanatory emphasis there is on the sacrifice being God’s initiative. See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 84.. In a later work, Gorman does more explicitly discuss the need for forgiveness from individual sins (plural) as well as freedom from Sin (singular). However, he noticeably distances himself from a profession of substitutionary atonement by suggesting that Paul believed sacrifice was necessary because of “his worldview”; Gorman then moves immediately into discussing the essential role of the Spirit, further suggesting his hesitancy to emphasise personal culpability for sin. See Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, 49–51.
[123] While Gorman avoids the language of “repentance” in much of his writing, repentance is still clearly an assumed part of his soteriology. In his scheme, faith involves the reorienting of one’s life around the pattern of Christ’s cruciformity. Such reorientation clearly constitutes and expresses ‘repentance.’
[124] This is Gorman’s preferred paraphrasing of 1 Thessalonians 2:7a (see Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 192, cf 195, 298.
[125] David Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20.67 (1998): 108.
[128] David Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20.67 (1998): 108.
[129] Gorman concludes: “[Paul] consistently claimed to use his ‘weight,’ his status as apostle, with a power motivated only by love and shaped by Christ’s power in weakness.” Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 298.
[130] It is noteworthy that in his rebuking of Peter, Paul never denies or seeks to undermine Peter’s authority. Instead, he regards him as an ‘esteemed pillar’ or the church (Gal 2:9). Paul’s critique is not of Peter as a disciple or an apostle, and his aim is not to elevate himself above Peter as an authority, he is simply addressing a particular aspect of Peter’s practice which he deems as unacceptable. Paul’s refusal to elevate himself as an authority can be further seen in the Corinthian correspondences. In 1 Corinthians he refuses to engage in debates over who is the greater apostle, but instead points the church back to their shared existence in Christ (1 Cor 3). In 2 Corinthians Paul deconstructs the notion of ‘super-apostles’ by pointing not to his own strengths but rather to his weaknesses, arguing that this is the demonstration that the ‘truth’ of Christ is in him (2 Cor 11:1-13).
[131] It would be an interesting project to consider how Gorman’s portrayal of Paul, which has been so carefully formulated around the uncontested letters, may also be applied to deutero-Pauline literature. It might even offer a potential tool for reconsidering the authenticity of those letters.
[132] Quote from Andrew Boakye, “Inhabiting the ‘Resurrectiform’ God: Death and Life as Theological Headline in Paul,” The Expository Times 128.2 (2016): 55. The suggestion that Gorman ‘marginalises’ the resurrection can be found in Boakye’s conclusion on page 62.
[133] Boakye writes: “I propose that a simple survey of Paul’s death-life lexicon will elucidate just how resurrection shaped the life and ministry of Paul was, and how profoundly ideas of resurrection inform the lives of those rectified through faith in Christ.” Boakye, “Inhabiting the ‘Resurrectiform’ God: Death and Life as Theological Headline in Paul,” 55.
[134] Peppiatt presented a paper on this subject entitled ‘The Spirit of the Lord: Reflections on a Christomorphic Pneumatology’ at the LA Theology Conference in 2020 which is to become a chapter in a forthcoming book: Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders, The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (Zondervan Academic, 2020). In it she writes “I would suggest that a christomorphic pneumatology means embracing some form of kenotic and cruciform perspective alongside the language of filling and empowerment that is associated with the Pentecostal Spirit. I want to resist seeing one as a means to the other apart from the batpsimal progression of dying with Christ in order to be raised with him to new life. By which I mean viewing weakness as a means of power, suffering as a means of healing etc. Instead, I suggest that we simply have to acknowledge that both can be true in the same moment. We can experience emptying and filling, weakness and power, suffering and healing, death and life all at the same time.”
[135] Peppiatt in Crisp and Sanders, The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics.
[137] Boakye, “Inhabiting the ‘Resurrectiform’ God: Death and Life as Theological Headline in Paul,” 61–62.
[138] The word ‘resurrectiform’ is Boakye’s chosen word, not my own formulation.
[139] The conjunctive word ‘διό’, used at the start of stanza two (v9) clearly implies the glorification is the consequence or result of Christ’s kenotic obedience.
[140] Perkins writes: “the dominant image emerges in the chiastic pattern of vv. 10-11, where ‘knowing Christ’ is specified as knowing ‘the power of his resurrection.’ The concrete effects of that power are are defined as sharing in the present in the sufferings of Christ, even conforming to his death, in anticipation of sharing his resurrection.” Pheme Perkins, “Philippians: Theology for the Heavenly Politeuma,” in Pauline Theology, Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. Jouette M. Bassler, Symposium Series (Society of Biblical Literature, 1994), 99.
[141] Boakye, “Inhabiting the ‘Resurrectiform’ God: Death and Life as Theological Headline in Paul,” 53.
[142] Boakye writes: “Pedantic though this may sound, it makes consistent sense to refer to the now-time revivification of believers, and only their end-time resurrection.” Boakye, “Inhabiting the ‘Resurrectiform’ God: Death and Life as Theological Headline in Paul,” 54 (emphasis original).
[143] See the discussion above, in section 1.2, on the charismatic nature of cruciformity.
[144] Peppiatt in Crisp and Sanders, The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics.
[145] Peppiatt in Crisp and Sanders, The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics.
[148] Peppiatt in Crisp and Sanders, The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics.
[149] Gorman alludes to this contextual agenda in his final chapter in Cruciformity (see especially pp 381-399). For a particularly eloquent example of the way in which he has applied his scholarship to his American context see ‘Paul’s Letter to the Contemporary Church in North America’ Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality, chap. 10.
[150] Once again, see the discussion above, in section 1.2, on the charismatic nature of cruciformity.
[151] Peppiatt in Crisp and Sanders, The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics.
[153] Boakye, “Inhabiting the ‘Resurrectiform’ God: Death and Life as Theological Headline in Paul,” 54.
[154] Horrell writes that “while the imitation of Christ's self-giving may be a valuable ethical paradigm, it may also become an ideological tool for sustaining oppression and injustice, as for example in 1 Pet. 2.18-3.6, where the socially weak—women and slaves—are urged to bear unjust suffering in silence and submission, in explicit conformity to the example of Christ... It can become the basis for a psychologically and socially damaging pattern in which Christians, especially those who are already weak and vulnerable, believe that they have no 'rights', no right to assert their own needs or their own value, and sense that imitating Christ is akin to imitating a doormat.” Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1,” 108.
[155] For more on these and other synonyms see Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 156.
[156] See the discussion above, in section 1.2, on the soteriological nature of cruciformity.
[158] Peppiatt in Crisp and Sanders, The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics.
[159] Sarah Coakley, “Kenōsis and Subversion: On the Repression of ‘Vulnerability’ in Christian Feminist Writing,” in Powers and Submissions; Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender (Blackwell, 2002), 3–39.
[160] Coakley, “Kenōsis and Subversion: On the Repression of ‘Vulnerability’ in Christian Feminist Writing,” 31.
[161] Coakley, “Kenōsis and Subversion: On the Repression of ‘Vulnerability’ in Christian Feminist Writing,” 34.
[162] Carolyn A. Chau, “‘WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE GIVEN?’: TOWARDS AN EXPLORATION OF KENOSIS AS FORGIVENESS-CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN COAKLEY, HAMPSON, AND PAPANIKOLAOU1,” Modern Theology, 2012, 28:3, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2011.01723.x.
[163] Gorman writes succinctly in a later work: “...the human Messiah Jesus fulfilled what it means to be human, the image of God, by not misusing [his] God-given status… what Christ did is…, because of Christ’s equality with God, a manifestation of God’s character.” Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality, 36.
[164] Gorman’s understanding of kenosis is, characteristically, multilayered. He appears to draw upon both the metaphysical and ethical interpretations as well as Dunn and Wright’s view of the Christ-hymn as a deliberate allusion to the parallels between Christ and Adam. Gorman’s brief engagements with the various interpretations of kenosis and its potential abuses can be found in Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 107–108 278–280, 373.
[165] Gorman observes that it can also be translated temporally as ‘being’ or ‘while’. His outline of these three translations can be found in Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, 20.
[166] We explored in Chapter 1 that Paul appears to utilise an ‘although [x], not [y], but [z]’ pattern in various arguments so as to relate his teaching and praxis to the story of Christ who “Although, being in the form of God, did not consider his equality with God as something to be exploited for his own advantage but emptied himself...” (Phil 2:6-7a). Gorman further suggests that there is also a ‘because’ dimension to the [x] clause in this pattern: “...Christ’s status of being ‘in the form of God’... - his [x] - was most truly and fully exercised, not in exploiting that status for selfish advantage ([y]), but in the self-emptying and self-enslaving that manifested itself in incarnation and crucifixion ([z]).” For an extended discussion on this interpretation see Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, chap. 1.
[167] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 193–195.. See also, 1.4 point iii above.
[169] Horrell agrees that “...it is not insignificant that it is apparently the strong of the community whom Paul is urging in 1 Corinthians 8-10 to act with the interests of the weak in mind... Similarly in 2 Cor. 8.9-15 it is those who in Paul's view have a present abundance (v. 14) who are challenged to follow Christ's example and become poor that others might be enriched, and that there might be equality.” Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1,” 108.
[170] Quoting John Sobrino, Gorman states that “...‘this world is one gigantic cross for millions of innocent people’... Into a world of crucified peoples, the Church is sent as an instrument of mercy and love, which means working for justice…” Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 394.
[172] We observed in Chapter 1 (section 1.3) that cruciformity is an ‘irreducibly communal’ spirituality. We shall also return to this matter in Chapter 3.
[173] Hays writes, “The community as a whole is given [the] task of burden-bearing which corresponds to and at the same time fulfills the life-pattern of Jesus Christ as portrayed in Paul's kerygmatic formulations.” Richard B. Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49.2 (1987): 290.
[174] Gorman writes that “...the ekklesia now offers to the world the promises of the God of Israel: salvation, justice, peace and safety, as the prophets envisioned them.” He later adds that working for liberation and justice are a “necessity... for those who identify with the cruciform one.” Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 365, 394.
[175] I use the term ‘political’ here as it relates to Gorman’s clear belief that cruciformity is a theo-political spirituality. See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 351–363.
[176] These two ideas can be seen at work in Christ’s paradigmatic ministry. On some occasions he chooses to escape possible suffering (Luke 4:28-30, John 10:39). On other occasions, he experiences it but only as a consequence of his challenging the powers (Mark 15:1-15).
[180] By ‘gospel message’ I am referring to the common formulaic presentations of the ‘good news’ as a selection of pithy, often logically, progressive statements. Such presentations are particularly prevalent in modern, Western evangelicalism (for example, those propagated by influential ‘evangelists’ such as Billy Graham and those discussed below).
[181] It should, of course, be noted that those practices which are critiqued are not representative of the entire Church. The point I want to make here is that there are certain practices within certain parts of the church that should be reevaluated in light of Gorman’s research.
[182] By gospelling I mean the sharing of the ‘good news’ about Jesus Christ. Paul clearly saw this as his fundamental purpose. He more or less states this precisely in Romans 1:1-5.
[183] Scot McKnight makes a compelling case that 1 Cor 15:3-8 is the best glimpse readers have of ‘Paul’s gospel’ in his letters (Scot McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Zondervan, 2016), 46–49. However, it must be noted that Paul may well not have delivered his gospel in the form of a ‘gospel message’ as is common today.
[184] Despite attempts to find out, I do not know who first articulated or popularised these gospel formulations. However a quick Google search demonstrates their popularity and prevalence. See for example “THE4POINTS Ltd,” n.d., https://www.the4points.com/uk/index.php. and Emily Hall, “What Is the Romans Road to Salvation?” (Salem Web Network, 25 February 2019), https://www.christianity.com/wiki/salvation/what-is-the-romans-road-to-salvation.html.
[185] Gorman picks up and examines the language of being enslaved to God in Cruciformity (pages 126–129.
[186] See the explanation of the gospel on the website www.the4points.com.
[187] As noted in Chapter 1 this can often but does not necessarily have to involve the ritual of baptism.
[188] See Sanders’ magisterial work E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: 40th Anniversary Edition (Fortress Press, 2017). For examples of those who have developed Sanders’ thinking see Tom Wright, Simply Good News: Why The Gospel Is News And What Makes It Good (SPCK, 2015), McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited, and Andrew Perriman, The Future of the People of God: Reading Romans Before and After Western Christendom (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010). For a clear example of how Gorman’s own work builds on Sanders see Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 106–109.
[189] Sanders’ book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, caused a seismic shift in theology by demonstrating the continuity between the kind of faith described in Paul’s writing and that of the Jewish-Israelite tradition. Aspects of Sanders’ work have since been refuted or developed, but much scholarship today continues along the new trajectory that his initial thesis set.
[190] Dunn writes, ”Paul counted the beginning of his converts’ Christian life from their personal reception of the Spirit.” See James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (T&T Clark, 2003), 414. Fee, similarly states, “For Paul… whatever else happens at Christian conversion, it is the experience of the Spirit that is crucial; and therefore it is the Spirit alone who identifies God’s people in the present eschatological age.” See Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, 88.
[194] See the discussion in section 2.4 regarding Peppiatt’s critique of Gorman’s apparent hesitancy to explore spiritual gifts.
[196] Paul Hertig, “Fool’s Gold: Paul's Inverted Approach to Church Hierarchy (1 Corinthians 4), with Emerging Church Implications,” Missiology 35.3 (2007): 292.
[197] Hertig, “Fool’s Gold: Paul's Inverted Approach to Church Hierarchy (1 Corinthians 4), with Emerging Church Implications,” 301 n7.
[198] I am aware of and appreciate the debate over whether or not apostles exist today. There is not room to explore that question here. Given that there are those who do consider modern apostolic ministries to be legitimate and those who claim this title for themselves, it is still valuable to consider how Paul’s apostleship might serve as a plumb line in such instances.
[199] C. Peter Wagner, Apostles and Prophets: The Foundation of the Church (Baker Books, 2000), 40–56.
[200] Many of the supportive scriptures Wagner supplies for his views are from Paul’s letters, particularly 1 Corinthians 4, 1 Corinthians 12, 2 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4 and 1 Thesselonians 2. See again Peter Wagner, Apostles and Prophets: The Foundation of the Church, 40–56.
[201] Wagner does state that apostles need to be humble, and suggests that there is not a hierarchy of roles in the Church, but he betrays his inherent hierarchicalism by describing apostles as “high-ranking” and “first among Christian leaders.” Peter Wagner, Apostles and Prophets: The Foundation of the Church, 45. This observation is also made by Geivette and Pivec in their critique of the NAR movement: R. Douglas Geivett and Holly Pivec, A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement (Lexham Press, 2018), 81.
[202] There are numerous examples of Wagner’s implicit self-aggrandising in his book but perhaps the best example is the following quote: “we [apostles] have been “exalted” by God… here on Earth we have been given much more responsibility than the average believer. We are on the platform and they are in the audience. We write the books, they read them. We are household names within our apostolic spheres. God has made us the foundation of the Church” Peter Wagner, Apostles and Prophets: The Foundation of the Church, 178.
[203] As Gorman writes: “For Paul, the point of apostolic pride is his self-debasing, not self-exalting ([1 Cor] 11:7); his weakness, not his power (11:21-12:13, especially 11:30-12:9). His boast is his suffering for Christ, in which he is truly strong by the power of Christ (12:9). See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 60.
[204] Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (InterVarsity Press, 2001), 303.
[205] Timothy B. Savage and Savage Timothy B., Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 188.
[206] Savage and B., Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians, 187.
[207] Hays writes: “...what is it that Paul is seeking to foster[?] Is he, like the Stoic and Cynic preachers, commending personal moral uprightness and autonomy? Or is he instead urging the formation and preservation of a community which manifests the love of God? To ask the question is already to suggest the answer. The loving community, which is the focus of Paul's concern, finds its moral imperative in the story of the cross.” See Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” 290.
[208] Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 350.. See, also, the discussions above, in section 1.3 and 2.4, on the communal nature of cruciformity.
[209] Gorman notes that the undisputed letters contain over 100 references to “brothers and sisters”. See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 362.
[210] Over and above, that is, other communities of allegiance. In Paul’s day, that might apply to a believer’s membership within a particular family, guild, network or even their citizenship (Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 366.). In the modern world that might apply to a believer’s political or professional affiliation as well as their family. This might sound extreme to some, but it is certainly consistent with Jesus’ redefinition of family ties (Matt 12:47-49; Mark 3:32-34; Luke 8:20-21, 14:26).
[211] Gorman fully explores these various Pauline metaphors and their implications for the Church in Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 356–367.
[212] This is certainly true of those in which I have worshipped and ministered.
[213] Once again, here, I am holding to Gorman’s own parameters by referring only to the undisputed letters.
[214] Fee states that because “[t]he Spirit has made [believers] one body; true Spirituality will maintain that unity whatever else.” See Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, 70.
[215] Furnish writes: “...[Paul] does not presume to be saying the last word on any given issue. Christian moral conduct is not dependent upon total and uncritical adherence to the letter of the apostle’s exhortations. This is easily illustrated from 1 Corinthians 7 where, in the discussion of marriage, various different decisions and actions are seen as allowable…” Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 230. Gorman himself notes that “Paul is completely unwilling… to ‘control’ that about which he is unsure or that which does not matter… even [when] he thinks he has the Spirit of God on the matter (1 Cor 7:40).” See Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 297.
[216] Horrell, too, makes this observation: Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1,” 108.
[217] Those being excommunicated are those who are unapologetically bringing ill health, sin or disunity into the wider community. This community-minded interpretation of Paul’s use of excommunication is shared by Long and Edwards who write, “The method of excommunication operative in the New Testament was governed by family love.” David P. Long, “Eucharistic Ecclesiology and Excommunication: A Critical Investigation of the Meaning and Praxis of Exclusion from the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” Ecclesiology 10.2 (2014): 207–209.
[221] See Participating in Christ Today: Paul’s Letter to the Contemporary Church in North America. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality, chap. 10.
[222] Fowl writes: “...there seems to have been a basic pattern that biblical theologies this century have followed. A biblical theologian will posit that one or another theological view of biblical text is the controlling one that shapes and holds together all others. This is countered by another scholar who argues, instead, that a different concept provides the lenses which best unify the theological perspectives found in scripture. More recently, however, scholars will argue that to privilege one perspective over another established a canon within the canon.” See Stephen E. Fowl, “Engaging Scripture: Challenges in Contemporary Theology” (Blackwell Oxford, 1998), 18.
[223] Gregory A. Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2 (Fortress Press, 2017), xxxiv.
[224] Boyd Writes: “I believe the Cruciform Hermeneutic enables us to discern the beauty of the crucified God rising out of portraits of God that on the surface appear profoundly ugly. The crucified Christ, in short, gives us the “Magic Eye” to discern him in the depths of even the most horrifically violent portraits of God.” See Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2, xxxv.
[225] This is the criticism levied against Boyd by scholars such as Matthew Lynch and Helen Paynter. Paytner writes: “...even if we were to concur that the ‘New Testament God’ is utterly non-violent, there is a huge difference between claiming that such a revelation needs to condition our reading of the Old Testament, and claiming that the New Testament utterly trumps the Old Testament revelation.“ (Helen Paynter, “Crucifixion of the Warrior God by Gregory Boyd: Review,” 25 April 2019, https://www.csbvbristol.org.uk/2019/04/25/crucifixion-of-the-warrior-god/). Matthew Lynch describes these claims of Boyd as “hermeneutical tyranny” (Matt Lynch, “Crucifixion of the Warrior God, by Gregory A. Boyd - Review Part 3 (on Crucicentric Perfection) - Theological Miscellany,” 28 September 2017, http://theologicalmisc.net/2017/09/crucifixion-warrior-god-gregory-boyd-part-iii-crucicentric-perfection/).
[226] Lynch, “Crucifixion of the Warrior God, by Gregory A. Boyd - Review Part 3 (on Crucicentric Perfection) - Theological Miscellany.”. Lynch points out a key part of Barclay’s project in Paul and the Gift is re-nuancing what Paul does and doesn’t say, regarding the charism of God. Barclay’s work is a helpful example of how to recognise the subtleties and fallacies involved in perfectionism, and the importance of taking writers on their own terms, rather than subordinating their ideas to an anachronistic paradigm. For Barclay’s own words on his project see Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 66–78.
[227] To be sure, Gorman states that cruciformity can become the spirituality of modern believers, but he still considers it a fundamentally Pauline spirituality: Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 400.
[228] See discussion in Chapter 2, section 2.1 regarding the appraisal of Gorman by various peers.
[229] See discussion above in section 2.1 on the strengths of Gorman’s thesis.
[231] This particular rendering is found in Cruciformity: 90-91. Similar but subtly different renderings can be found in Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 11-12; and Apostle of the Crucified Lord, 103.
[232] A complete outline of these themes can be found in Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, 82-87.