I have to disagree with your philosophy of translation here, Ben. I think when we render the μορφὴ θεοῦ as the “nature of God” we are imposing a theological debate on this passage that does not belong here. Paul is constructing (or more probably quoting) a hymnic liturgy and we should not assume that he is writing a Christological treatise that would prophetically speak to Arius and Nestorius like Athanasius and company tried to force it to.
Sure, the more likely translation “form” may leave us a little uneasy theologically, but that is when the role of theologian and pastor becomes more important in rightly determining and proclaiming the theological ramifications of this passage as it relates to the nature of Christ.
Completely valid point, and one I’m going to take into serious consideration. Since I didn’t pull out my full lexicon on this one, I went with what I thought was the safe choice: nature. How do you think the rest of the verse came out?