{"id":5549,"date":"2010-02-20T14:53:43","date_gmt":"2010-02-20T14:53:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html"},"modified":"2010-02-20T14:53:43","modified_gmt":"2010-02-20T14:53:43","slug":"saturday-afternoon-book-review-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html","title":{"rendered":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Marcus Maher"},"content":{"rendered":"

Marcus Maher, an M.Div. student who blogs at Zetountes<\/a>, writes this review on a most important book and an increasing, relational trend in Paul’s soteriology. One thing I hope you observe in this review is his fair-minded description and his charitable approach to disagreement. <\/p>\n

  \"Gorman.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology<\/a>\"\"
\n<\/strong><\/em> is a very provocative work from the pen of Michael Gorman. Over the span of the book he unpacks two major ideas, justification by co-crucifixion (JCC) and that cruciformity is theosis (becoming like God).<\/p>\n

In his introduction, Gorman presents his main claim, that cruciformity is theoformity (2) and alerts us to the path that he will take in support. Along the way he begins to lay the groundwork by stressing the importance of ‘participation in Christ’ for Paul (3-7) and giving it a new twist. ‘For Paul, to be one with Christ is to be one with God; to be like Christ is to be like God; to be in Christ is to be in God’ (4). At the end of the introduction, Gorman gives his full definition of theosis, ‘Theosis is transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected\/glorified Christ’ (7).<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n


\n<\/p>\n

The first main chapter is a detailed analysis of Philippians
\n2:6-11, the hymn that Gorman calls, ‘Paul’s master story’ (12). He makes a key
\nobservation when discussing verses 6-8, noting an ‘although x<\/i>, not y<\/i>, but z<\/i>,’ pattern. Although<\/i> Jesus was God (in status) he
\ndid not<\/i> exploit that status, instead<\/i> he emptied and humbled himself
\n(11, 16-20). The next move Gorman makes is very interesting. He analyzes the
\nGreek word, hyparchon<\/i>, translated
\n‘although,’ and concludes that while lexically ‘although’ seems to be the best
\ntranslation, it also carries ‘because’ as part of its meaning (20-25). Thus,
\nthe pattern Gorman identified earlier, ‘although x, not y, but z can also be
\nrendered, ‘because x, not y, but z.’ Because Jesus was God he did not use his
\nstatus for his own advantage, but emptied and humbled himself. Jesus’ emptying
\nand humiliation, including his death on the cross, revealed what it means for
\nJesus to be God. It was the way in which Jesus most truly and fully exercised
\nwhat it meant for him to be equal with God, turning the normal notion of
\ndivinity on its head (25). Gorman claims, that, far from being an emptying of
\ndivinity, the incarnation and the cross show us that the core attribute of God
\nis humble self-giving. Another important claim of Gorman’s is the popular one,
\nthat Paul expresses his gospel in counter-imperial terms, that calling Jesus
\n‘Lord’ was in direct opposition to Caesar’s claim to be ‘Lord.'(12, 15).<\/p>\n

Towards the end of the chapter, Gorman provides some
\nreflections on the theological implications of his conclusions. Key for him is
\nthat theology and ethics are inseparable. Our union with God will cause us to
\nreflect his cruciform character in the way we relate to the world, and not as
\nisolated individuals but as the collective people of God. Gorman claims that
\nthis will cause us to reject the normal means to power, and to recognize that
\nthe normal god of civil religion, combining power and patriotism, is an idol
\n(32-33). True power is power in weakness (34). We most fully conform to the
\nimage of God when we too are counter-imperial, being humble in a world, ‘where
\npower is manifested in self-assertion, acquisition, and domination’ (37).<\/p>\n

In the second chapter, which is more than a third of the
\nbook, Gorman provides us with his understanding of the doctrine of
\njustification. He names his proposal justification by co-crucifixion (JCC). The
\ndoctrine of justification has been a source of contention throughout the last
\nseveral centuries. Gorman attributes this in part because some have, ‘become
\nenamored with cheap justification…justification without justice, faith without
\nlove, declaration without transformation’ (41). Gorman sets out to correct
\nthis. Part of the source of the problem is that many see two distinct
\nsoteriological models in Paul; one a juridicial model, and the other
\nparticipationist (42). Before moving into this detailed analysis, on pages 45
\nthrough 47 he provides us with a summary of his methodology:<\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>We must let Paul, himself, define his key
\ntheological terms<\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>We need to connect the dots of Paul’s thinking,
\neven if he didn’t<\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>While Paul’s writings may be filled with
\nantithesis, we have to avoid making false either\/ors<\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>We need to recognize the experiential character
\nof Paul’s theology<\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>We should try to balance careful exegesis of the
\ntext while still attending to the bigger picture.<\/p>\n

Working from this methodology, Gorman defines justification
\nas, ‘the establishment or restoration of right covenantal relations – fidelity
\n<\/i><\/b>to God and love<\/b> for neighbor
\n– with certain hope<\/b> of
\nacquittal\/vindication on the day of judgment’ (53 – emphasis his). Thus, for
\nGorman, justification is theological, covenantal, juridicial, and
\neschatological (54). The just are those who are vindicated as being part of
\nGod’s covenant people, being in Christ (54). Gorman defends a strong covenantal
\nunderstanding of justification by appealing to Romans 5:1-11 and 2 Corinthians
\n5:14-21 and concludes that, for Paul, justification: <\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Has Christ’s death as its objective basis <\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Requires a  <\/span>subjective response, namely pistis <\/i>or faith<\/p>\n

?      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Has substantive content which include
\nreconciliation, participation, and transformation (56-57)<\/p>\n

In the next section Gorman tackles the meaning of pistis<\/i>. Like a growing number of
\nscholars, Gorman understands pistis
\nChristou<\/i> as subjective genitive, meaning ‘the faithfulness of Christ’
\nrather than as an objective genitive, ‘faith in Christ.’ As an example, Gorman
\ntranslates Galatians 2:20 as, ‘and it is no longer I who live but it is Christ
\nwho lives in me. And the life I know live in the flesh I live by the faithfulness
\nof the Son of God who loved me by giving himself for me’ (60). This distinction
\nis very significant as it opens up a covenantal understanding of justification.
\n‘Christ’s death on the cross…was a unified act of vertical and horizontal
\ncovenant fulfillment, of love for God and for neighbor’ (61). Thus Christ’s
\ndeath is not substitutionary only; it’s a covenantal act that expresses love
\nthrough an act of faithfulness (62). <\/p>\n

Gorman moves on, then, to tackle a key passage for his
\nunderstanding of justification, Galatians 2:15-21. The key question related to
\nthis text, is how 2:19-20 fits into the flow of 2:15-21. He believes that Paul
\nis redefining justification, that we are justified not by law keeping but by
\nfaith, by co-crucifixion (64-69). Our justification is not wrought by us and it
\nis participatory. Co-crucifixion is not a one-time act, either, it is an
\nongoing death that allows us to live for God, which means that our
\njustification is not forensic only; it is also transformative. We enter the covenant
\nby co-crucifixion, and we stay in the covenant by co-crucifixion (70-72).<\/p>\n

There’s one additional distinction that we should make.
\nGorman does not see us proleptically on the cross when Jesus died. Rather, ‘it
\nis the resurrected crucified Christ<\/i>
\nwith whom believers are initially and continually crucified’ (71 – emphasis
\nhis). Here he ties this material back to chapter one. Since Christ is by nature
\ncruciform, indwelling him means being continually cruciform ourselves. <\/p>\n

The other passage that Gorman deals with at length in this
\nchapter is Romans 6:1-7:6. Typically scholars have seen Romans 5-8 as
\ndiscussing the consequences of justification. Not so Gorman; he thinks that
\nPaul is defining justification in these chapters (73). Much of what Gorman goes
\non to do in the ensuing pages is to rehash and further develop material similar
\nto what we have previously discussed. At the end of the section he does draw
\nout one important implication of his view: baptism, justification, and
\nsanctification are coterminous (79).<\/p>\n

In the remaining portion of the chapter Gorman fleshes out
\nhis concept of faith, situates his proposal within the current debates
\nsurrounding justification and offers some practical reflections. One point of
\ninterest is that he expands the typical Protestant understanding of faith to
\ninclude faithfulness toward God. To be faithful toward God includes trust and
\nalso love for others (79-80). Gorman clarifies, though, that, ‘this
\ninterpretation of faith is not about merit, or “salvation by works,” but about
\nwhat actually constitutes participation in Christ’s loving and faithful death’
\n(80). Additionally, Gorman rejects the doctrine of imputation as a legal
\nfiction and sees texts used to support imputation as participatory rather than
\ntransactional (82-83). In his conclusion he states that he sees justification
\nas a performative utterance, ‘an effective word that does not return void but
\neffects transformation’ (101).<\/p>\n

In chapter 3, Gorman discusses holiness. There are two major
\ngrounds for Gorman’s understanding of holiness. One is that the crucifixion
\nreveals the cruciform character of God and the second is that we are called to
\nbe holy through our co-crucifixion with Christ (106). Thus holiness is about
\ntheosis, which is cruciform in nature. Gorman notices that Paul was preoccupied
\nwith holiness and he believes this is so because Paul did not see justification
\nand sanctification as being separate as most Protestants do (107-111).
\n‘Holiness is not a supplement to justification but its actualization’ (111), and
\nit is the work of the Spirit to bring about holiness in us (114-118). A key
\npoint that Gorman makes throughout the book is that Christianity is communal.
\nWe are united in Christ together. Thus since holiness is cruciformity, it is
\nnot a solo pursuit. ‘Cruciform holiness is inherently other centered and
\ncommunal’ (126). Gorman closes the chapter by challenging us that, as we live a
\ncruciform existence that is by definition countercultural, among other things
\nour sex lives and political lives should look radically different than those of
\nthe world (126). Sex and politics should be all about self-giving, not
\nexercises in power (127-128).<\/p>\n

The last main chapter deals with a major objection that some
\nmight have. Can theosis incorporate violence and make it sacred violence (129)?
\nUnfortunately, that has been attempted far too often in the history of the
\nchurch. Gorman takes an interesting angle in the way he deals with the problem.
\nHe looks at the conversion of Paul. Before his conversion, Paul was a violent
\nreligious zealot as a Jew (130-137). It was the way he pursued the holiness of
\nIsrael, a la Phineas (134-137). After Paul’s conversion, he renounced his
\nformer violent ways, because he saw that God’s work on the cross was a work of
\nlove in which he died for his enemies rather than killing them (143-145). At
\nthis point, though, the objection still may remain that the cross was still a
\nviolent event and we have all of this language referring to God’s judgment and
\nhis wrath in Paul’s letters. Here Gorman provides a helpful qualification, that
\nwhile God’s cruciform character ‘does in fact express<\/i> the divine identity it does not exhaust<\/i> it’ (158 – emphasis his). God can and will judge his
\nenemies, but is not a role that we can take on.<\/p>\n

In his concluding chapter, Gorman addresses eschatology and
\nmakes some concluding observations. Philippians 2 shows that the Christ story is
\ntwo stage, humiliation and exultation (167). Our theosis is similarly two
\nstage; ‘Full and total participation in the glory of God still awaits us’
\n(167). On the other hand, we still, through the Spirit, participate in and
\nexperience the power of the life of the risen Christ in part here and now
\n(167). Gorman closes the book by giving us, with some hesitation, his final
\nconclusion, ‘theosis is the center of
\nPaul’s theology’ <\/i>(171). <\/p>\n

There are several bases on which to praise Inhabiting the
\nCruciform God. One of Gorman’s biggest strengths is his ability to synthesize.
\nWhile I do not know if I am convinced that theosis is the center of Paul’s
\ntheology, the question of which is one of the thorniest issues in Pauline
\nscholarship, I do think that his suggestion has a major strength in that it
\nties together both the doctrinal and ethical sections of Paul’s letters. It
\neven provides an avenue for incorporating, in a significant manner, a letter
\nsuch as Philemon into a discussion of Pauline theology. Additionally, I think
\nhe’s barking up the right tree in attempting to hold together both
\nparticipationist and juridicial sotereological models. Too much theology has
\nemphasized one to the detriment of the other. Any way forward in the debates
\nsurrounding justification must make sense of both categories.<\/p>\n

I also appreciated Gorman’s eye for the practical. The first
\nchapter, discussing Philippians 2:6-11 in particular was very helpful. It
\nopened up my understanding of the character of God by showing that at his core
\nGod is self giving. I appreciated how he then took time to open up some of the
\npractical implications of his suggested reading of the Philippians passage. He
\nhas an eye to the church and wants to see people be cruciform like God is
\ncruciform. It is always refreshing to see top rate scholarship combined with
\ndeep concern for God’s people.<\/p>\n

There was one main element of Gorman’s argument concerning
\nGalatians 2:15-21, which is one of the main hinges of the book, that I found
\nless than convincing and thus that needs to be defended more thoroughly. The
\nquestion is whether or not it is correct to claim that we are justified by
\nco-crucifixion. I pause on this point because it is so crucial to his overall
\nargument. For, Gorman then uses this idea in a very neat equation. We are
\njustified by faith and we are justified by co-crucifixion, ergo faith is
\nco-crucifixion. From there he redefines pistis<\/i>
\nto mean ‘faithfulness’ instead of the more traditional rendering, ‘faith.’ I
\nthink that there may be other ways of understanding how 2:19-20 work without
\ndownplaying their role in Paul’s overall argument. It may equally be that Paul
\nwas using the term ‘righteousness\/justification’ in 2:19-20 in an ethical
\nsense, where in the prior verses he used them in a judicial sense. Then Paul’s
\nuse of ‘righteousness\/justification’ in vs. 21 could be understood as being
\nused to incorporate both meanings of righteousness (see e.g., Longenecker’s
\ncommentary 94-95). Thus it may not be totally accurate to equate faith and
\nco-crucifixion, they may be two distinct aspects of a larger reality, where the
\nlatter flows out of the former.  <\/span>With
\nthat said, Gorman’s reading is possible and very well may be correct; I just
\nthink that given the novelty of his position and how critical this element is
\nto the overall argument of the book that it could have been discussed at
\ngreater length. If he’s correct here, though, it would be a monumental leap
\nforward in our understanding of Pauline soteriology.<\/p>\n

On top of my question as to whether or not we are justified
\nby co-crucifixion, I have one theological concern with this redefinition. From
\na reformed perspective this seems to emphasize our role in justification a bit
\ntoo strongly. While he does try to distance himself from the charge of
\npromoting justification by faith and works, I’m not sure if he is successful. Obviously
\none’s theological framework is not the final arbiter. I merely mention this for
\nthe benefit of those readers who too work out of a reformed framework as I do.
\nAdditionally, this view leads to a fusion of justification and sanctification
\nthat may be, in my opinion, unnecessary.<\/p>\n

I also wish that Gorman had discussed at greater length why
\nhe does not hold to the doctrine of imputation. It is quickly dismissed as a
\nlegal fiction. A longer argument would have seemed to have been in order, or at
\nleast appreciated, again for the benefit of his reformed readers.<\/p>\n

Overall Inhabiting the Cruciform God<\/i> was an excellent book. Students
\nand scholars will benefit from the freshness and the scope of Gorman’s
\nproposal, while pastors will appreciate the practical challenges and deep
\nconcern for proper theology. Rare is it than one can write a book that hits two
\ndistinct audiences so squarely. Gorman has done us all a great service in
\nwriting this book, and hopefully he will continue to expand the lines of
\nthought that he developed in these pages.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Marcus Maher, an M.Div. student who blogs at Zetountes, writes this review on a most important book and an increasing, relational trend in Paul’s soteriology. One thing I hope you observe in this review is his fair-minded description and his charitable approach to disagreement.    Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atonement"],"yoast_head":"\nSaturday Afternoon Book Review: Marcus Maher - Jesus Creed<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Marcus Maher - Jesus Creed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Marcus Maher, an M.Div. student who blogs at Zetountes, writes this review on a most important book and an increasing, relational trend in Paul’s soteriology. One thing I hope you observe in this review is his fair-minded description and his charitable approach to disagreement.    Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Jesus Creed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-20T14:53:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Gorman-thumb-333x219-4720.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Scot McKnight\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Marcus Maher - Jesus Creed","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Marcus Maher - Jesus Creed","og_description":"Marcus Maher, an M.Div. student who blogs at Zetountes, writes this review on a most important book and an increasing, relational trend in Paul’s soteriology. One thing I hope you observe in this review is his fair-minded description and his charitable approach to disagreement.    Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html","og_site_name":"Jesus Creed","article_published_time":"2010-02-20T14:53:43+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Gorman-thumb-333x219-4720.jpg"}],"author":"Scot McKnight","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html","name":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Marcus Maher - Jesus Creed","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Gorman-thumb-333x219-4720.jpg","datePublished":"2010-02-20T14:53:43+00:00","dateModified":"2010-02-20T14:53:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/19879975236b70da80f4cbea933c59d0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Gorman-thumb-333x219-4720.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Gorman-thumb-333x219-4720.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/02\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-5.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: Marcus Maher"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/","name":"Jesus Creed","description":"Scot McKnight on Jesus and orthodox faith for today","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/19879975236b70da80f4cbea933c59d0","name":"Scot McKnight","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/c10\/c10b0226ed6cfd8319b2b8742ac4088ax96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/c10\/c10b0226ed6cfd8319b2b8742ac4088ax96.jpg","caption":"Scot McKnight"},"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/author\/smcknight"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5549\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}