Frank Macchia’s Justified in the Spirit, reviewed by John Poirier
Frank D. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 360 pages, ISBN 9780802837493.
Justified in the Spirit is a sophisticated attempt to do what its title suggests: to find an increased role for the Spirit within the Christian doctrine of justification. The book represents a bringing together of a number of different perspectives—including those that derive primarily from centuries of tradition, along with more recent insights from biblical scholarship. The book moves through discussions of the shape of soteriology within different streams of tradition (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Pentecostal, etc.), and combines these with significant contributions from well known theologians. Although Macchia is a theologian himself, he pays more attention to the fruits of New Testament scholars than many other theologians working today.
One of the book’s main arguments is summed up on p. 53: “Participation in Christ is first and primarily a pneumatological reality as believers are caught up in the communion of the Spirit with Christ and, through Christ with the heavenly Father.” This sentence says a lot. One of the book’s main aims seems to be to forge links between aspects of soteriology and Trinitarian language.
Many of the main features, it must be said, are indicative of the age in which this book was written: it is certainly vogue to be “broadly Trinitarian, ecclesiological, and eschatological” (a description found on the back cover). While there may a proper place to be “Trinitarian”, the way in which that call has been handled in recent years has been a little over the top, as it sometimes seems as if one’s handling of any given doctrine can somehow be graded on how great a role it assigns to each member of the Trinity. It is almost as though theologians are afraid to leave out one of the members of the Trinity in any given discussion, even when the topic (e.g. hermeneutics) does not have a natural bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity. This danger seems to be somewhat greater among Pentecostals, as some appear to have a strong desire to bring the Spirit into doctrines in which the Spirit arguably does not belong.
Does Macchia do that here? It is difficult to say. His discussion is at all places carefully researched, and his arguments are never fleeting or forced. Although he never gives the keys (so to speak) to NT scholarship, he does listen to it intently and with a genuine openness. And yet the question remains whether Macchia accomplishes a pneumatological orientation of the doctrine of justification simply by construing “justification” more broadly than others do, by allowing it to include (rather than lead to) the fruit of the spirit-filled life. The same could be said of how Macchia achieves his heightened emphasis on the role of the spirit-filled community. Both of these concerns naturally belong within a theology, but are they really a part of justification per se? Macchia evidently disagrees with the habit of identifying “justification” with a forensic aspect of salvation, and identifying the other aspects of salvation with other terms. Yet he writes as if the term “justification” must apply to all aspects of salvation—including justification per se, sanctification, and redemption. (See esp. pp. 204–5.) Macchia is not alone in this, but it is still unfortunate that he does not explain why he takes this approach.
Macchia’s expanding use of the term “justification” could be both good and bad. It is good in the sense that Macchia isn’t forcing pneumatology in where it doesn’t belong (as I think others sometimes do), but it’s bad in that it relies a little on a trick of the light in order to do what the book claims to be doing. It appears that Macchia doesn’t so much find an increased role for the Spirit within the Christian doctrine of justification, but rather that he increases the territory covered by that doctrine until it includes the Spirit. There is one significant exception to this: where many Pentecostal scholars construe the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 2 as an empowerment for mission, Macchia takes a more traditionally Protestant approach by linking the gift of the Spirit in that context more directly with justification. Unfortunately, Macchia does not admit to the reader that he is in this sense being less representative of Pentecostalism. In fact, he hides from view the fact that a debate over Acts 2 even exists.
These quibbles do not detract from what is otherwise a fine book. The reader will learn a lot about the differences between historic theological traditions, as well as the contributions of a number of important theological figures. The reader will have to look elsewhere, however, to find a true “Pentecostal” discussion of Acts 2.
Reviewed by John C. Poirier
Publisher’s page and preview: www.eerdmans.com/Products/3749/justified-in-the-spirit.aspx
Macchia hides nothing. Poirier must not be familiar with Macchia's earlier work in 2006, Baptized in the Spirit, where Macchia has already written a whole book dedicated to addressing all of Poirier's concerns (which Macchia points to his earlier work for further clarification in Justified by the Spirit). So, Poirier's critique is due to his lack of familiarity with Macchia's previous book.
I find Macchia's actual arguments in this book, Justified in the Spirit, compelling. Poirier is also wrong about Macchia, when he says, "It appears that Macchia doesn’t so much find an increased role for the Spirit within the Christian doctrine of justification, but rather that he increases the territory covered by that doctrine until it includes the Spirit." It's just the opposite (and I don't see how Poirier missed this), its precisely because Macchia finds an increased role for the Spirit in the doctrine of justification (in Scripture, and some significant theologians in the past have as well–which he demonstrates), that he increases the territory covered by that doctrine (traditional Catholic and traditional Reformed formulations) until it includes the Spirit!
Not quite sure that the critique is offered from a lack of knowledge, but again the author may do a much better job explaining why…
Monte Lee Rice wrote: "If I have more immediate time, I would write a more 'pro-Macchian' review on Frank Macchia's book, but nonetheless, John Poirier's review provides some opportunity to hear and dialogue with a more critical yet thoughtful perspective."
We are pleased to hear from Frank Macchia, who responded to Monte Rice's comment about the review by John Poirier:
"Thanks for posting this Monte; I wasn't aware of it. The author asks thoughtful and legitimate questions. His two main concerns seem to be: 1) Do I 'hide' from the reader the significance of 'subsequence' with regard to Spirit baptism? 2) Do I expand the terrain of justification too broadly? As to the first, I do not gloss over the issue of subsequence; I deal with it. My only point is that an emphasis on this issue often serves to 'hide' a deeper distinctive that I myself was somewhat surprised to find in my research, namely, how fundamentally pneumatological pentecostal soteriology was from the beginning (including how Pentecostals tended to write about justification). Spirit baptism ends up casting its light backwards and forwards so as to enlighten how Pentecostals viewed the entire Christian life (as a life turned into a vessel of the Spirit in the world). Second, I do not so much expand justification as resist the compartmentalization of various soteriological categories; they are all overlapping and mutually enlightening. Barth has influenced me to think in such expansive theological categories. But my case is most basically informed exegetically (as the author of the review admits and likes). So I guess if someone disagrees, they will need to do so by dealing with my exegesis. Of course, I am happy to have this conversation."
It is a real privilege to hear back from authors and PneumaReview.com invites readers to join the conversation.
I posted the below comment on Facebook last month regarding this very limited effort at a book review. I don't believe the reviewer grasps the significance of the Macchia book, especially its subtle role as a refined bridge to ecumenical dialogue, grafting a brilliant pneumatological perspective into the long standing theological debate on justification within Christian churches.
I wrote: The review might have been more positive, especially when one considers comments of scholars, such as….University of Tubingen theologian Jurgen Moltmann who commented, "it is a necessary and new perspective to see the justification of the sinner embraced by the life-giving Spirit. Frank Macchia's book is a great step forward toward a full Trinitarian concept of salvation….A rich book full of solutions to old theological problems." Macchia also secured three other systematic theologians to add comments pointing to a bridge and portent of a Spirit oriented theology of justification securing a solution to the old justification problem which divides and defines both Catholic and Protestant doctrine. Pentecostal, Veli-Matti Karkkainen from Fuller and Helsinki, Lutheran, William G Rusch from Yale Divinity, and Catholic, Ralph Del Colle are three systematic theologians who offer very positive reviews too. Honestly, I think this book is one of the best bridges to a Pentecostal theology, which of course means experience, that I've seen in decades. So, I am quite taken at the failure of the review to see this."
Lastly, I strongly urge scholars and thinkers on the fringe of the ever growing and wildly divergent Pentecostal-charismatic universe to give this book a shot. It communicates in an irenic vernacular, which joins the ancient intellectual struggle of the faithful to understand our relationship to All Mighty. Indeed, Justified in the Spirit will continue to have increasing relevance as these burgeoning movements of the Spirit mature.
Thank you for adding joining the conversation, Don Kammer.
I posted the below comment on Facebook last month regarding this book review. I don’t believe the reviewer grasps the significance of the Macchia book, especially its subtle role as a refined bridge to ecumenical dialogue, grafting a brilliant pneumatological perspective into the long standing theological debate on justification within Christian churches.
I wrote: The review might have been more positive, especially when one considers comments of scholars, such as….University of Tubingen theologian Jurgen Moltmann who commented, “it is a necessary and new perspective to see the justification of the sinner embraced by the life-giving Spirit. Frank Macchia’s book is a great step forward toward a full Trinitarian concept of salvation….A rich book full of solutions to old theological problems.” Macchia also secured three other systematic theologians to add comments pointing to a bridge and portent of a Spirit oriented theology of justification securing a solution to the old justification problem which divides and defines both Catholic and Protestant doctrine. Pentecostal, Veli-Matti Karkkainen from Fuller and Helsinki, Lutheran, William G Rusch from Yale Divinity, and Catholic, Ralph Del Colle are three systematic theologians who offer very positive reviews too. Honestly, I think this book is one of the best bridges to a Pentecostal theology, which of course means experience, that I’ve seen in decades. So, I am quite taken at the failure of the review to see this.”
Lastly, I strongly urge scholars and thinkers on the fringe of the ever growing and wildly divergent Pentecostal-charismatic universe to give this book a shot. It communicates in an irenic vernacular, which joins the ancient intellectual struggle of the faithful to understand our relationship to the All Mighty. Indeed, Justified in the Spirit will continue to have increasing relevance as these burgeoning movements of the Spirit mature.
Macchia hides nothing. Poirier must not be familiar with Macchia’s earlier work in 2006, Baptized in the Spirit, where Macchia has already written a whole book dedicated to addressing all of Poirier’s concerns (which Macchia points to his earlier work for further clarification in Justified by the Spirit). So, Poirier’s critique is due to his lack of familiarity with Macchia’s previous book.
I find Macchia’s actual arguments in this book, Justified in the Spirit, compelling. Poirier is also wrong about Macchia, when he says, “It appears that Macchia doesn’t so much find an increased role for the Spirit within the Christian doctrine of justification, but rather that he increases the territory covered by that doctrine until it includes the Spirit.” It’s just the opposite (and I don’t see how Poirier missed this), its precisely because Macchia finds an increased role for the Spirit in the doctrine of justification (in Scripture, and some significant theologians in the past have as well–which he demonstrates), that he increases the territory covered by that doctrine (traditional Catholic and traditional Reformed formulations) until it includes the Spirit!
We are pleased to hear from Frank Macchia, who responded to Monte Rice’s comment about the review by John Poirier:
“Thanks for posting this Monte; I wasn’t aware of it. The author asks thoughtful and legitimate questions. His two main concerns seem to be: 1) Do I ‘hide’ from the reader the significance of ‘subsequence’ with regard to Spirit baptism? 2) Do I expand the terrain of justification too broadly? As to the first, I do not gloss over the issue of subsequence; I deal with it. My only point is that an emphasis on this issue often serves to ‘hide’ a deeper distinctive that I myself was somewhat surprised to find in my research, namely, how fundamentally pneumatological pentecostal soteriology was from the beginning (including how Pentecostals tended to write about justification). Spirit baptism ends up casting its light backwards and forwards so as to enlighten how Pentecostals viewed the entire Christian life (as a life turned into a vessel of the Spirit in the world). Second, I do not so much expand justification as resist the compartmentalization of various soteriological categories; they are all overlapping and mutually enlightening. Barth has influenced me to think in such expansive theological categories. But my case is most basically informed exegetically (as the author of the review admits and likes). So I guess if someone disagrees, they will need to do so by dealing with my exegesis. Of course, I am happy to have this conversation.”
It is a real privilege to hear back from authors and PneumaReview.com invites readers to join the conversation.
Monte Lee Rice wrote: “If I have more immediate time, I would write a more ‘pro-Macchian’ review on Frank Macchia’s book, but nonetheless, John Poirier’s review provides some opportunity to hear and dialogue with a more critical yet thoughtful perspective.”
Not quite sure that the critique is offered from a lack of knowledge, but again the author may do a much better job explaining why…