1
Editorial................................................................................................................................4
RobertSong,CovenantandCalling:TowardsaTheologyofSame-Sex
Relationships(London:SCMPress,2014),110pp..................................................5
MarianneMeyeThompson,John.ACommentary(NTLseries;Louisville:
WJK,2015)532pp.............................................................................................................8
PeterOakes,Galatians(PaideiaCommentariesontheNewTestament;
BakerAcademic,2015),240pp..................................................................................11
CharlesA.WanamakerTheEpistlestotheThessalonians(NIGTC;Eerdmans,
2015),344pp....................................................................................................................12
MichaelBird,Romans.TheStoryofGodBibleCommentary.(GrandRapids:
Zondervan,2016),576pp............................................................................................13
N.T.Wright,PaulandhisRecentInterpreters(London:SPCK,2015),379pp.
..............................................................................................................................................16
N.T.Wright,ThePaulDebate(London:SPCK,2016),110pp...........................16
WalterBrueggemann,FromWhomNoSecretsAreHid:Introducingthe
Psalms,ed.byBrentA.Strawn.(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,
2014),224pp....................................................................................................................18
StephenNWilliams,TheElectionofGrace:ARiddlewithoutaresolution?
(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2015),221pp..............................................................20
CliffordBAndersonandBruceLMcCormack(eds.),KarlBarthandthe
MakingofEvangelicalTheology(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2015),237pp.22
JohnBThompson,SharingFriendship:ExploringAnglicanCharacter,
Vocation,WitnessandMission(Farnham:Ashgate,2015),198pp.................24
DerekJ.Tidball,BrianJ.HarrisandJasonS.Sexton(eds.),Revisioning,
Renewing,RediscoveringtheTriuneCenter:EssaysinHonorofStanleyJ.
Grenz(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2014),460pp...........................................................26
DanielCastelo,Pneumatology:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:
BloomsburyT&TClark,2015),144pp..................................................................27
KellyKapic(ed.),Sanctification:ExplorationsinTheoryandPractice
(DownersGrove,IL:IVPPress,2014),275pp.......................................................28
JasonA.Fout,FullyAlive:TheGloryofGodandtheHumanCreatureinKarl
Barth,HansUrsVonBalthasarandTheologicalExegesisofScripture
(London:Bloomsbury,2015),222pp.......................................................................29
JoshuaMcNall,AFreeCorrector:ColinGuntonandtheLegacyofAugustine
(Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,2015),329pp................................................33
SimonGathercole,DefendingSubstitution;AnEssayonAtonementinPaul
(GrandRapids:Baker,2015),128pp.......................................................................34
StanleyHauerwas,SanctifyThemintheTruth:HolinessExemplified(New
Ed.,Cornerstoneseries;London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2016),280pp. 36
2
ScottW.Bullard,Re-memberingtheBody:TheLord’sSupperandEcclesial
UnityinFreeChurchTraditions(Eugene,OR:CascadeBooks,2013),175pp.
..............................................................................................................................................37
WesleyVanderLugt,LivingTheodrama:ReimaginingChristianEthics
(Ashgate,2014),241pp................................................................................................39
LaurieGreen,Blessedarethepoor?Urbanpovertyandthechurch(London:
SCM2015),240pp..........................................................................................................41
LeeBeach,TheChurchinExile:LivinginhopeafterChristendom(Downers
Grove,IL:IVP,2015),240pp.......................................................................................42
GeneGreen,StephenPardue,K.K.Yeo(eds.),JesusWithoutBorders,
ChristologyintheMajorityWorld,(GrandRapids,MA:Eerdmans,2014),
193pp..................................................................................................................................44
CathyRossandStephenB.Bevans(ed.),MissionontheRoadtoEmmaus:
Constants,ContextandPropheticDialogue(London:SCM,2015),280pp...45
GraceDavie,ReligioninBritain:apersistentparadox(2ndEd.;Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell,2015),280pp..................................................................................47
EileenBebbington,APatternedLife:FaithHistoryandDavidBebbington
(Eugene,OR:WipfandStock,2014),145pp..........................................................49
StanleyK.Fowler,RethinkingBaptism:SomeBaptistReflections(Eugene
Oregon:WipfandStock,2015),62pp......................................................................50
ZoëBennett,UsingtheBibleinPracticalTheology:Historicaland
ContemporaryPerspectives(Farnham:Ashgate,2013),150pp......................51
NigelWright(ed.),TruthThatNeverDies:TheDr.G.R.Beasley-Memorial
Lectures2002-2012(Eugene,OR:Pickwick,2014),222pp..............................52
3
Editorial
ThiseditionofRegent’sReviewsbeginswithareviewofRobertSong’sCovenant
andCalling.Withthequestionofhowthechurchrespondstosamesexmarriage
stillverymuchapressingone,Song’sbookseekstofindathirdway.Forthis
reasonitisworthyofourattention.
Therestoftheeditionoffersonceagainamixtureofthemostrecentbiblical,
theologicalandpastoralscholarship.
AndyGoodliff
Editor
4
RobertSong,CovenantandCalling:TowardsaTheologyofSame-Sex
Relationships(London:SCMPress,2014),110pp.
Ofthewritingofbooksthereisnoend,andthewritingofbooksonthequestions
ofhumansexualityandtheChristianfaithcontributesnotinsignificantlytothat
endlessstream.Thisishardlysurprisingsincethishasbecomeoneofthemost
challengingofconversationsforthechurchinourday,and,attimes,oneofthe
leastinterestingandproductive.IsaythatdespitehavingchairedtheBaptist
Union’sworkinggrouponhumansexualityfromitsinceptionuntilitendedwith
somethingofawhimperhavingfulfilledatleastsomeofitsambitionsin
producingthecurrenttrainingprogrammeinhumansexuality,andmy
continuingtodeliverthatprogrammeafewtimeseachyear,thefruitofwhich
hasgenerallybeenreportedtomeasbeneficial.
Onereasonforitschallengeisthefactthatinmanywaysthisisnotsomucha
conversationaboutsame-sexrelationshipsasoneabouthermeneutics.Howare
wetoreadScripture,andwhatdoesithavetosayaboutthekindofsame-sex
relationshipsthatsomeinthechurchwishtoaffirm:thatis,faithful,
monogamousandloving—preciselythosequalitiesthatthechurchwishesto
commendinmarriage,butfindsitselfconflictedaboutwhenitcomestosamesexrelationships?Ontheonehandtherearethosewhoprivilegea‘plain’
readingofScripture,andinterpretcertainpassagesintheOldTestament
(particularlyinLeviticus)andafewinthewritingsofStPaul,thatcan,quite
reasonably,beconstruedasreferringtohomosexualacts(albeitineuphemistic
fashion),or,inStPaul’scase,coiningaGreekwordtobeasynonymforthat
sameLeviticaleuphemism.Thattranslatorsconfidentlytranslatethosewordsor
phrasesas‘homosexual’confersonthem,inthemindsoftheuntutored,atleast,
asensethatthisiswithoutcontroversy:thematterissettled.
Ontheotherhand,therearethose(andIwouldcountmyselfamongthem)who
wanttoaskafewquestionsofthatconfidenttranslationbeforecommendingit
unreservedly.Evenifthesenseofthetranslationisacceptable(andIwould
suggestitis),aretheactivitieswhosemeaningthosewordswishtoconvey,or
therelationshipsthattheydescribe,thesameasthecontemporaryexperienceof
thosewhocontractfaithfulandlovingsame-sexpartnerships?WhenPaul
includesarsenokoitaiandmalakoiamongthosewhowillnotinherittheKingdom
ofGod(1Corinthians6:9–10)doeshehaveJohnandJimorJaneandJennyin
mind,whoareexclusivelysame-sexoriented,andwhohavefoundineachother
alife-longandcommittedpartner,expressingalovingrelationshipthatmirrors
therelationshipofmarriageasbetweenamanandawoman?OrisPaulthinking
ofthoseRomanandGreekpracticesthatallfourindividualstodaywouldfindas
morallyreprehensibleashedidinthefirstcentury?
IntothiscontestedgroundstepsRobertSong,ProfessorofTheologicalEthicsat
DurhamUniversity,andamemberoftheChurchofEnglandHouseofBishop’s
WorkingGrouponHumanSexuality.Hehaswrestledwiththequestionsaround
humansexualitynotonlyintheacademy,butalsointhelifeofthechurchinits
attemptstodiscernthemeaningofScripture,thelimitsofacceptablehuman
conductandtherelationshipbetweentraditionandculture.
5
However,thisisnotsimplyarehearsaloftheargumentsabouthermeneutics,
althoughhedoesreviewthoseinchapter4,andthereheconfesses‘NothingIam
goingtosaydependsonradicallynovelorunconventionalexegesesofindividual
texts.’Heispreparedtoacceptthat‘whateveritwasthatbiblicalwriterswere
referringtoinrelationshiptosame-sexsexuality,theytookthemselvestobe
opposedtoit.’(62)Heis,therefore,noadvocateofeitheraradicallyrevisionist
readingofthetexts,norofastraightforwardeditingoutofthosetextsfromthe
argumentsonthegroundsthatourculturefindsthemoffensive.Hetakes
Scriptureseriously,butalsowantstodrawa‘contrastbetweenthesurface
meaningoftextsandthedeeperstructureofthebiblicalstory.’(63)Thatstoryis
onethatheelaboratesinthefirstthreechaptersofthisbook:astoryofcreation,
covenant,Christ,resurrection,eschatologyandecclesiology.
So,whatarethosearguments?FromGenesis’storyofcreationwediscoverthe
goodsoffaithfulness,permanenceandprocreation.Thosegoodsfoundin
marriagearewaysinwhich‘humanbeingsmayreflectandparticipateinthe
divinelife’(13)However,thiscreatedsetofgoodsbecomesredundantinthe
eschaton:ifmarriageis,inpart,theanswertotheproblemthatpeopledie,inthe
resurrection,wheretherewillbenomoredeath,thereisnolongerthenecessity
forprocreation,andsopeople‘intheresurrectionfromthedeadneithermarry
noraregiveninmarriage’,orsosaysJesus(Luke20:34)Thissetsupatension
betweenthecontinuinggoodsofmarriageinthisagecharacterizedbydeath,and
theimmortalityoftheagetocome:soStPaulcommendsmarriage,inthe‘now’,
whileclearlypreferringcelibacyinitspointingtothe‘notyet’oftheagetocome.
Procreationisanecessityinthisageinawayitisnotintheagetocome(who
knows,perhapsitisimpossible?)‘Theearlypost-apostolicChurchthoughtthat
renunciationofmarriageandthefamilywasaneminentlyappropriatewayof
pointingtotheradicalnatureoftheneworderinstitutedintheresurrection,’
(19)—andnote,theNewTestamentnowhereencourageshavingchildren,even
ifJesuswelcomesthem.
So,whiletheNewTestamentdoesnotabandonmarriage,ithardlyunequivocally
celebratesitastheidealhumanstate.Songturnstothecategoryof‘calling’to
resolvethetensionbetweentheclaimsofmarriageandthoseofcelibacy.All
Christiansarecalled,orhaveavocation,andsomefindthatinmarriagewhile
othersdosoinacelibatelife.Thefactthatourmodernagefindsthelatter
strangeshouldnotdeterthechurchfromarguingforitsvalidityanditspointing
towardsthecomingKingdom.But,heasks,doesitfollowthatthosearetheonly
twocallings,ormighttherebeathird?
Songarguesforathirdvocation,onemarkedbypermanence,faithfulnessandby
kindsoffruitfulnessotherthanbiologicalprocreation.Suchrelationshipsneed
notbehomosexual,butinprinciplecouldbe.Heiscautiousofattemptstoescape
theverymaterialgivennessofcreation(asavowedbyvariousgnosticand
spiritualizingmovements)bypointingtotheinstabilityofsomesexualidentities,
becauseitdoesnotdosufficientjusticetothestatement‘maleandfemalehe
createdthem’,amongothergrounds.Infactifwearetocharacterizesame-sex
relationshipsassimplyanalogoustomarriage,butwithoutthepossibilityof
6
procreation,thenitgivesconsiderablegroundsforclaimingthatsame-sex
relationshipsarereallysecond-classorillicitafterall.Simplyelidingthequestion
ofprocreationdoesnotresolvethematter.
So,Songarguesthatwhilesame-sexrelationshipswillsharecertainfeatures
withmarriage,theyarenot,theologicallyspeaking,thesamethingatall.
Incidentally,thisisonereasonwhytheBaptistUnioninitssubmissiontothe
HomeOfficeconsultationrunninguptotheSame-sexmarriagelegislation’s
enactmentopposedtheideaofsame-sexmarriage.Thesearecategoryerrors.So,
forchildlesscouples,orthosewhomarrylate—beyondthewoman’schildbearingyears—thenothergoodsoffruitfulnessmustbesoughtotherthanthe
birthofchildren.Thosegoodsshouldbeeschatologically-oriented,pointingin
theirverynaturetotheclaimsofthecomingKingdom—freedfromtheburdens
ofchild-raisingtobe‘anxiousabouttheaffairsoftheLord’,opentoothersand
bearingespeciallythefruitofhelpingoneanother.Alternatively,whilenotgiving
risetochildrenbornoftheirunion,theymightfosterchildren,orshapetheir
homelifetothenurtureofothers’children.Suchacovenantpartnershipwould
beavocation,differenttothatofmarriagewherechildrenissue,andalsothatof
celibacy,butbynomeansinferior.Thequestionthisraises,ofcourse,iswhether
same-sexcouplesmightparticipateinthisthirdvocation?‘Couldtheyalsobear
eschatologicalwitnesstothegoodsoffaithfulness,permanenceandfruitfulness,’
andthusparticipateinthevocationofbearingwitnessto‘creation’sfulfilmentin
thecomingKingdom.?(36)
Therefollows,inhisargument,twoquestionsinchapter3.Whatarethereasons
formaintainingthatmarriageasacreationordinancemustbeheterosexual,and
secondly,mustsexbealwaysopentoprocreation,ormightitberelatedtoto
othergoods.Heaffirms,inadenselyarguedchapter,thatthegoodsofmarriage
arenotinherentlyheterosexual,northatsexislimitedtothegoodstowhichit
contributesinprocreation,thuscontradicting,especially,RomanCatholic
teaching.Thisraisesthepossibilitythatsame-sexrelationshipsmightbeaform
ofthatthirdorderofvocationfortheChristian.
So,SongturnstoScripture,andthefamiliarargumentsaboutLeviticusandPaul.
HehelpfullyarguesthebiblicalcasenotjustfromthoseScriptureswhichseem
explicitaboutsex,butfromtheargumentsaboutwar.Whyisitthatwar,
seeminglyprohibitedbythewordsofJesus,‘loveyourenemies’,hasbecome
acceptable,whilesame-sexrelationships—whichpointmoreobviouslytothe
questionofwhoonemaylove,hasnot(atleasttotheconservativesideofthe
debate)?WhatSongcallsfor(asIhavesoughtwheneverIhavetaughtthe
Baptistcoursetochurches)isoneconcessionfromthosewhomaintaina
conservativeposition,‘namelyarecognitionthatthosewhoareexploring
alternativepositionsshouldnotquicklybecondemnedforsimpledisobedience
totheplainmeaningofScripture,butmaythemselvesalsobeseekingto
interpretScriptureinawaymorefaithfultothetrajectoryofthetextsthan
traditionalreadingshaveallowed.’(80)
Intheend,whatisatstakeiswhetherthechurchcanreimaginetherelationit
bearstocultureandretainitsdistinctivevoice.Suchre-imagination
7
‘emphaticallydoesnotmeanendorsementofcurrenttrends’(97),lestthereader
sensesomeformof‘sellingout’tothecurrentsexualcontext.But‘ifthechurches
aretobeheraldsofgoodnewsinachangedworld,theirtonecannotbeoneof
increasinglyshrillandbitterdenunciation.’(98)Rather,thequestionisoneof
discerningwhatinthetimesmightbeofvalue.LetSonghaveaclosingword
beforeevaluatingthiscontributiontothedebate.
‘theChurchonlyhasoneLordandoneWordofGod,whichit
hastohearandwhichithastotrustandobeyinlifeanddeath.
Butequallyinthetasksofmoraldiscernmenttowhichweare
calledinourtimeandplace,wearealsorequiredtotestthe
spirits,toseewhichareofGod.Andthatinturnrequiresan
opennesstobeingtransformed,totherenewingofourminds
aswepresentourselvesasofferingstoGod,memberstogether
ofthebodyofChrist.’(99)
Thisisanimportantcontributiontothedebate,andIfindmuchinthearguments
Songproposesthathelpusbreakoutoftheendlessdebatesaboutthisorthat
interpretationofthisorthatScripture.Herearetheologicalethics,rightly
informedbyScripture,butnotheldprisonerbythe‘concordance’approach—
onethatattendsprimarilytothosetextsthatareabouthomosexualityofan
indeterminatecharacter.Thisfocusesnotsomuchuponwhatcertainpeopledo
withtheirgenitalia,aswhatitmeanstoliveinrelationshipsthatareorientedto
bothcreationandtheeschaton.Iwonderifintheend,forallthestrident
denunciationofsamesexpractice,andourclaim,“Lord,Lord,didwenothold
fasttotruthforyourname”,whetherwestandinriskofhearinginresponse,
“departfromme,youevil-doers.Ineverknewyou.”Inotherwords,webecame
sofocuseduponwhathumanbeings(especiallythosedifferenttothemajority)
shouldnotdo,weentirelylostthevisionofwhatintimatehumanrelationships
signifyandmean.ListeningcarefullytothevoiceoftheSpiritbecomesthetask
athand,asiteverwas.
PaulGoodliff
AbingdonBaptistChurch
MarianneMeyeThompson,John.ACommentary(NTLseries;Louisville:
WJK,2015)532pp.
TherearemorecommentariesontheGospelofJohnthananyoneofusneedsto
studyit,atwhateverpointofentrywechoose.Ihaveashelffullof12
commentariesandabout20monographs,andthatexcludesbooksI'veborrowed
fromlibrariesovertheyears.AndIamstillintriguedbyfreshwork,new
scholarshipandalltheundiscoveredcountryofthisfamiliar,strange,demanding
andperplexinglyprofoundbook.Despitealltheearlyscholarlyinkandpapyrus,
theplethoraofacademicpaperandprint,theoceanofdigital,electronicand
onlineresources,theFourthGospelcontinuestospeakdeeplyandclearlyto
8
thosewhoreadJohn'sGospelitselfwithuncomplicatedfaithandreadinessto
listen.
ThislatestsubstantialcommentarywaspublishedafewmonthsagoandIreadit
eachdayAdventthroughEpiphany.Itisreadable,learned,thoughtful,writtenby
anauthorwhowritesforchurchaswellasacademy,anddoessooutofherown
confessionalcommitmenttotheChristianfaith.Thatmakeshernolessascholar
withacriticalmind,reverentandrespectfulofthetextandthereforenot
preparedtoshortchangethisGospelbyforeclosingonproblems,avoiding
questionsorclaimingmoreinterpretiveauthoritythantheevidenceallows.
MarianneMeyeThomsonhasworkedonthiscommentaryfor17years,whichis
alargechunkofherprofessionallife.InaninterviewheldatFullerTheological
SeminarywheresheisProfessorofNewTestament,shespokeopenlyaboutthe
joys,demandsanddisciplinesofwritingacommentary.Sometimesthosewho
writecommentariesarecriticisedfornotcoveringalltheissuesofbackground,
socialcontext,textualdevelopmentsandpre-history,rhetoricalstrategy,
theologyandreceptionhistory,whilealsointeractingwiththewaterfallof
monographsandothercommentaries.InherinterviewThompsonconceded
therewouldbethoseintheacademydiscontentedthatthecommentaryisnota
vademecumofrecentscholarship;butheraimistowriteforstudentsand
pastor-preacherswhilealsomakingacontributionthatotherJohanninescholars
willalsoappreciate.
Herapproachissuccinctlystated:‘Ihavenotendeavouredtoreconstructorpass
judgementonthehistoricityofevents,wordsoraccountsinJohn.John’sGospel
isassuredlyaselective,interpretedaccountofsomeofthethingsthatJesussaid
anddid;itpresentsJesusandhisworksandwordstobethelifegivingdeedsof
theoneGodofIsraelforalltheworld.Thegoalofthecommentaryistoillumine
thewitnessofthatnarrative’(p.23).
Thisclarificationisimportant,ensuringthereaderisawareoftheauthor's
statedpurposesandintentionalomissions.Thompsonmakesnoattempttocarry
onamulti-sideddialoguewithallthesecondaryexegeticalandhistorical
literature.Sheseldomengagesinprolongeddiscussionwithothercommentators
exceptwheretheyaddfurtherinterpretiveclaritytothetextinhand.Footnotes
arerichinadditionalinformationandcomment,andarethemorevaluablefor
beinglimitedinnumber,reservedforthemoreimportantmatters.Thatsaid,
thereareapproximately1100footnotes,andshespokeruefullyofthelargefile
offootnotescutfromthetexttokeepthevolumewithinthepublisher'sword
count!Someofuswouldliketoseeandfollowthosescholarlyfootprints!
TherearenineExcursesandeachisarichlytexturedessaysoncrucial
theologicalandhistoricalissuesinJohn,asforexamplethesigns,theIam'
sayings,faithanddiscipleship,andtheonesheconfessesshestruggledwith
most,"TheJews"intheGospelofJohn.Readingtheexcursesisaminicourseon
Johanninetheologyandhistory.TheExcursusonthewomantakeninadulteryis
anexemplarypieceoftextualcriticisminwhichthepericopeisnotseenas
original,butisneverthelessexpoundedinanexerciseofcanonicalexegesis.A23
pageBibliography,andaround82pagesofindicesenhancetheusefulnessofthe
9
volume,pointingthereadertofurtherresourcesandgatheringpagereferences
toahostofsubjectsastheyaretreatedthroughoutthecommentary.
Thewaterintowinepericopeisafavouriteofmine,andoneIhavepreachedon
severaltimesandstudiedandreturnedtoeversinceCKBarrettandRaymond
BrownshowedmewhatcouldbedonebydiggingintotheOldTestamenttexts
andestablishingbridgesbetweenJohn'sstorytellingandtheJewishandGrecoRomanworldoutofwhichsuchwritingcame.Herexegesisislacedwithcross
referencestotheOTandotherSecondTempleliterature,iswritteninlucidand
imaginativeprosewithaneyetothetheologicalpayload,sothatshebringsa
freshnessand,onoccasion,asurprisinglighttobearonanalreadywellworked
text.LikewiseherunderstandingofthestoryoftheTemplecleansingisto
respectJohn'schronologyinplacingitatthestartofJesusministry,butalsoto
acknowledgetheSynopticaccountmaybethemorehistoricallyplausible.Rather
thanseektoharmonise,sheworksatexplainingwhatJohnwasabout,andwhy
theTemplecleansingsetsofffoundationshakingChristologicalreverberations.
Thesearetwoexamplesofherapproach.
IhadoccasiontopreachonJohn14.7-11,atypicalpassageofJohanninetheology
suggestiveoflongruminationonthemeaningoftheWordmadeflesh,andhow
theonewhowasclosetotheheartofGodistheonlyonewhocanmakeGod
known:"HewhohasseenmehasseentheFather"isastatementthattakesthe
readertothehighestridgesofJohannineChristology,andcontaininingideasfar
seeingintheirsuggestionofanascentTrinitarianism.Thompsonshirksnoneof
thehardquestionsinexploringtheidentityofJesustheSonandhisrelationship
toGodtheFather.InacoupleofparagraphssheunravelsJohn'smeaningswith
theclarityofascholarwhopreviouslypublishedtwosubstantialmonographson
GodinJohn'sGospel.Sheisareliableguideandagoodcommentatoronthe
theologicallandscapeofJohn.
TheNTLcommentaryseriesisintendedtobemediumsized,midrangeanddeal
withparagraphsandflowofthoughtratherthantreatingthetextinthemore
atomistic,comprehensiveanddetailedanalysesoflargerscholarly
commentaries,suchasKeener,MichaelsandfromapreviousgenerationBrown
andSchnackenburg.Thisisacommentarywhichsitsalongsideitsnearest
competitorsLincoln,BeasleyMurray,Ridderbos,Moloney,andCarson.Iwould
compareitinquality,freshnessandusefulnesstoGailO'Day’sfineworkinthe
NewInterpreter'sBible.
InherpracticeofexegesisThompsonhaslittleinterestincompetingorarguing
withotherwritersforthesakeofshowinghercontrolofthefield.Ofcourseshe
isofteninconversationwithotherscholars,andthereiswideanddeeplearning
informingthisvolume.Herconcentration,however,isonthemeaningofJohn's
narrativeandwitness,whichisunbrokenthroughoutassheopensupthe
messageoftheWordmadeflesh,dwellingamongsthumanity,anddisplayingthe
gloryofGod.Thepivotalverseforheris,‘Inhimwaslifeandthelifewasthelight
ofallpeople.’
10
Herowntranslation(afeatureofthisseries)issupportedbytextualnotes,and
inworkingatitshewasaimingforidiomaticEnglish,butstayingasclosetothe
actualtextaspossible.Sheisbothmodestandsensibleinacknowledgingthat
justasJohnhadtoselect,chooseandomitmaterial,shehadtodothesamein
ordertokeepthecommentarywithintheparametersoftheseries.Indoingso
shehasproducedacommentarythatwillbeofgenuineusefulnessandstimulus
forpreachersandstudents.Scholarswilllikewiseencounteracommentarythat
hasdeeprootsinbothlearningandfaith,andwhichoffersanengagedand
energeticwrestlingwiththiscomplex,infuriating,comforting,disturbingbut
intentionallytendentioustext.
Thompsoniscautiousintheuseofcriticismbuthonestaboutwrestlingwiththe
text;readytooffernewconclusionsbutrarelyspeculative;herwritingis
readable,whichistosayIamreadingitthroughoverseveralweeks,andattimes
havebeendrawntoreadonfurthertofollowtheflowofawellwrittenexegetical
narrative.I'vewaitedeagerlyforthisbooksinceThompsonwasannouncedasits
author.Thisbookwasworththewait.Thetimetakenhasresultedinamature,
lucid,authoritativecommentary,qualitativelydifferentbecausethewriterhas
demonstrablylivedwith,andwithin,thistext.
JimGordon
Aberdeen
PeterOakes,Galatians(PaideiaCommentariesontheNewTestament;
BakerAcademic,2015),240pp.
HavingappreciatedPeterOakes’incisivethinkinginReadingRomansinPompeii,
whereOakesrevealedhisabilitytogroundthePaulinelettersintheearthy
realityoffirstcenturyculture,Iwaslookingforwardtoreadingthis
commentary.Iwasnotdisappointed.Throughoutthiscommentaryitisperfectly
obviousthathehaspaidcarefulattentiontothefeaturesofthecultureofGalatia.
Wethusbecomeawareofthepossiblewaysinwhichwemightinterpretthe
letterpayingdueconsiderationtothesedetails.Moreover,aswithReading
RomansinPompeiiOakesarguesthatitismostunlikelythatthereadersin
GalatiawouldbecognizantwiththeHebrewscripturesandthereforeoneneeds
tounderstandthatmostlikelyPaulwrotewiththisinmind(14).
ForOakes,thisletterisaboutunity(7)withtheappealforloveandmutual
support(8).IndiscussingthechallengetoPeterand‘thetruthofthegospel’
(2:14)Oakesasserts‘InGalatians,unityinChristisacrucialelementintheidea
ofsalvation’(77).Theroutetothisunityis‘trustinChrist’(126)and‘thelifeof
lovingunity,isexemplifiedbyJewsandgentileseatingtogether’(95).
Oakesengagesintypicallycarefulandextensivediscussionsonthekeyissues.So
forexample,whendiscussingthemeaningofIoudaïamos(1:13)hehelpfully
suggeststhatitisbestunderstoodas‘awayoflifecharacterizedbypracticesthat
Jewsgenerallysawasbeingproper’(53).SotheJudaizers(2:24)are‘asserting
thattheculminationofsalvation…canonlybeattainediftheexcludedChristians
11
changetobecomelikethosewhoareexcludingthem’(80).Oakesbringshis
assessmentrightuptodatewiththecritique,‘Thechurchhasconstantly
forgottenthatPaul’svisionisofgentilesasgentilesandJewsasJews,unitedin
allegiancetoChrist’(163).
Aswemightexpectthereisalengthydiscussiononthemeaningofpistis
Christou.OakescritiquesHay’sviewofpistisChristouaspotentiallythefaithof
ChristinGod,withtheassertion,‘inGalatians,Christisnotdescribedasacting
towardGod’(89),andadds,‘…pistisChristouisprobablylocatedinthesphereof
therelationshipbetweenChristiansandChrist.’90.But,evenmoreinterestingly,
Oakesspeaksoffaithasareciprocalrelationship(108);‘theideaofreciprocal
fidelitybetweenthebelieverandChrist/Godisapowerfulone’(88).
However,inaffirmingthatPaulreceivedhisgospel‘directlyfromGod’(57)and
agreeingwithSeyoonKimthat‘muchofPaul’stheologycanbelinked,oneway
oranother,tothatevent’(93)areferencetothedramaticexperienceonthe
Damascusroad,Idon'tthinkthatOakesanywherepinneddownandclearly
articulatedthedetailsofPaul’sgospel.AlthoughOakesdoesrepeatedlyand
helpfullyemphasisesthethemeofunityandlove:‘Loveisthevirtuethatseeks
thekindofpracticalunityexpressedinmutualconcernandsupportinand
amongthehousechurches’(176).
Thiscommentaryisnotablandrepetitionofotherscholars’views,farfromit.
Oakesmakesclearwhathethinksinchallengingnormsandtraditions.‘My
conclusionfromresearchsofaristhat,howeverwonderfulPaul’smessagemay
beinmanyways,heultimatelytakesalinethatwillremaindivisive,exceptin
anyworldthatunanimouslyacceptstheChrist-basedpaththathehasmarked
out’(116)and‘itlookscleartomethatChristianityisonereligionamongmany,
andthatPaulineChristianityisone(key)versionofthatreligion.Claiming
otherwiseis,initself,aradicalformofChristianexceptionalism’(98).
EdPillar
EveshamBaptistChurch
CharlesA.WanamakerTheEpistlestotheThessalonians(NIGTC;Eerdmans,
2015),344pp.
Today,perhapsmorethanever,weneedtopayattentiontotheletterstothe
Thessalonians,whichasWanamakermakesabundantlyclear,hasatitsheart
thatclashofideologies–Christianvs.Imperial.InthededicationWanamaker
states‘TheChristiansatThessalonicachoseJesusastheirLord,notCaesar,and
sopaidthepriceforrejectingtheideologyofthedominantculture.’
WhileWanamakermayattimescomeacrossasconservativeinhisviews,for
exampleadmittingfavouringa‘moretraditionalunderstandingofPauline
chronology,’hefollowsT.W.Manson(St.PaulinGreece’)inarguingforthe
priorityof2Thessalonians.Wanamakerdetailshisargumentdrawingonliterary
12
argumentsandrhetoricalanalysisinanexcellentIntroductionandsuggeststhat
thecomplexitiesoftherelationshipbetweenthetwoletterscanmostlybe
resolvedifoneassertsthepriorityof2Thessalonians.Inmakinghiscasehe
step-by-stepdismantlesRobertJewett’sproposals(Thessalonian
Correspondence)foranalternativecase.
However,oneofthemostinterestingandworthwhilefeaturesofthis
commentaryisWanamaker’sfocusofthesocio-religiousbackgroundagainst
whichthelettersareset.Asaresultofthedearthofinformationregardingthe
congregationalsituationinThessalonicawearebest,saysWanamaker,to
developarenewedinterestintheimmediatefirst-centuryGreco-Romanworld.
Examplesofacoupleofpassages,whichbenefitsfromthisapproach,are
mentionedbelowbutthereisacaveathere.Wanamaker’sinterest,doesnot(in
thisreviewer’sopinion)alwayscomeoffwell.Anexampleofthiswouldbethe
wayinwhichhefollowsJewett’sproposalofsimilaritiesbetweenthefigureat
theheartoftheCabiruscultandPaul’sChrist(12).Therealityisthatscarcityof
literaryandarchaeologicalevidencefortheCabiruscultshouldencourage
greatercaution.
OneofthepassagesinThessaloniansthatgarnersmostattentionisthe
controversialsectionregardingthepersecutionbeingexperiencedbythe
believers(2:14-16).Wanamakerdoesnotshyawayfromacknowledgingthisas
anti-Jewishrhetoric,butarguesthatthisisanexampleofvituperatio–which
expressesandreinforcesdifference(118).Nonetheless,Wanamakermakesclear
thatsuchrhetoricrepeatedtodayisacauseforshame(119).
Anotherchallengingpassage–1Thess.4:13-15–isseenprimarilyabout
consolationforamainlypagancommunitywhohadbeen‘forcedtoassimilatean
entirelynewunderstandingoftheworldwhentheybecameChristians’(176).
AlthoughWanamakerdoesthenthinkitunlikelythathavingbeen‘caughtupon
cloudstomeettheLord’thebelieverswillthenreturntoearth.Morelikelythese
versesarereferencinganassumptiontoheaven(175).
Readerswhomightbeputoffconsideringthiscommentarybecauseitisthe
GreekTestamentCommentaryneednotworry.Wanamaker(orperhapsavery
thoughtfuleditor)bracketstheEnglishtranslationimmediatelyfollowingthe
Greektextthatisbeingconsidered.
EdPillar
EveshamBaptistChurch
MichaelBird,Romans.TheStoryofGodBibleCommentary.(GrandRapids:
Zondervan,2016),576pp.
AsachildIroamedaroundmyfather’sbookcasereadingwhateverwasthere.
Aroundage10Ifoundabookwiththestrangetitle,Annapurna,byamanwitha
strangename,MauriceHerzog.NoIdidn’treaditcovertocover,Idippedin,read
13
paragraphsthatwerenailbitinganddownrightterrifyingaboutthedangersand
exhilarationofmountaineering,survivalbyteamwork,andwhatitmeantand
feltliketotackletheglaringwhiteprecipicesofan8,000metrepeakin1950
withnothingbutrope,pitonsandiceaxes.Itisn’tabaddescriptionofwhatit
mustfeelliketostandbeforetheglaringwhiteprecipicesofPaul’slettertothe
Romans,andstartwritingacommentary.
Thatletterhasprovokedsomeofthegreatestexegeticalachievementsinbiblical
scholarship,andhasbeenatextualpivotonwhichthefateandfutureofthe
churchhasturned.FromAugustine’simpetustoconversiononhearingitread,to
Luther’sreorientationofconscience,theologyandfaith,toWesley’sheart
strangelywarmedandBarth’s‘throwingthefurniturearound’,andKasemann’s
apocalypticGospelofthein-breakingGod,Romanshasbeensourceandresource
oftheChurch’srenewal.
Sothereareshelvesofcommentaries,andinthepast30yearsaveritable
industryofPaulineexegesishaspouredoutmonographs,essaysandyetmore
commentaries.CranfieldandDunn,FitzmyerandByrne,MooandSchreiner,
JewettandWright,KruseandWitherignton,TalbertandMatera,area
representativedozenwhichreflectReformed,Catholic,Baptistandmainstream
criticalpositions.Sowhymorecommentariesstillforthcoming?Longenecker’s
longawaitedstudyoftheGreektextinTheNewInternationalGreekTestamentis
dueinMay2016,PaulFiddesisscheduledtowritetheBlackwellcommentary
RomansThroughtheCenturies.AndMichaelBird’svolumejustpublished,which
isthesubjectofthisreview.
WritersofTheStoryofGodBibleCommentaryworkwiththreeoverallaims:
listentothetext,explainthetextandlivethetext.Basedonthe2011NIVthese
commentariesintendtoengagethereaderbypayingattentiontothe
overarchingstoryofGodfromcreationtonewcreation,andplacingeach
passageinthecontextofthattheologicalnarrative.Whatthetextsays,whatit
meansinthelightofitsoriginalmeaning,andhowthistextisnowtobelivedin
theperformativeactivitiesofthepeopleofGodandtheBodyofChrist;theseare
thedriversofthisparticularcommentaryseries.Writersworkwithinthese
broadparametersbutallowingfortheirowntheologicalandscholarlyfreedom
astheyexploreandexplainthetext.
MichaelBirdisstillayoungergenerationNewTestamentScholarbutwithan
alreadyimpressivepublishingrecord,andmuchofitpertinenttotheissuesand
interestsofthisNewTestamentAnnapurna!HisTheSavingRighteousnessofGod
isanimportantgroundclearingandsynthesisingstudyoftheold,newandpostnewperspectivesonPaul.TheeditedcollectionofessaysonTheFaithofJesus
Christ(onthecontestedtranslationof“pisteosIesouChristou”),anotherareaof
controversyonPaul’stheology,istheoutcomeofaninvitationtoadiverserange
ofscholarstoair,argueanddiscusstheirdifferences,refereedfairlybyBird
himself.Inarticlesandessayshehasinteractedwiththeverysubstantialplayers
inthecontemporaryfieldofPaulinestudiesincludingEdSanders,JDGDunn,N
TWright,DouglasCampbellandFrancisWatson.
14
Allofwhichmeansthereadercanhaveconsiderableconfidencethatdeepand
articulatescholarshipunderpinsthiscommentary.AfterreadingchunksofitI
canseetherationaleforcommentarieslikethisonapreacher’sshelf.The
threefoldaimsarewellfulfilled,thecommentaryisbyturnsinformative,
provocative,freshinargumentandsomewherebetweenformaland
conversationalinstyle.Buttherelaxedstylenotwithstanding,theseriousnessof
thescholarship,thealertnesstotheologicalconcernsandimplicationsofthe
text,thefairnessofthepresentationofotherviewsandapproaches,andinthe
livingthetextsections,richlyveinedtheologicalreflections;theseareallfeatures
forwhichpreacherswillbegrateful.
Theexegesisisreadable.Thisisnotabanalorfatuouscomment.Amajor
strengthofBird’swritingisitsreadability.Withoutsacrificingdepthor
complexityinhisexegesis,Birdgenuinelywrestleswiththenextstageof
bringingthistextintoourtimeandplaceasarelevantanddisruptivewordfrom
God.Thatdoesn’tmeanIalwaysagreedwiththemovefromexegesisto
application.OntheissueofsamesexrelationshipsBirddoeshisbesttobeboth
traditionalandpastorallysensitivebutintheendIdoubtifeithersideinthis
debatewillbesatisfied–buttheywillhavebeenmadetofacethescandalofthe
textandthepressuresofcontemporarychurchlife.
Romans8.38-39werethefirstversesIlearnedbyheart,andintheAV!Bird’s
expositionofthischapterdisplayshisexegeticalskillandhisowntheological
startingpoint.HeisReformedinhisunderstandingoftheunholytriumvirateof
law-sin-death,andofthegracethatreignsthroughChrist.Aschaptereight
movestoitsclimaxGod’ssavingworkinChristisrootedevermoredeeplyin
grace,andthengrowsintoasanctifiedlifebytheenergisingandenliveningof
theSpirit.Eveninthefaceofpersecutionandthreatofdeath8.28soundsGod’s
overallprovidencewhichleadsinexorablyto8.38-9withitssymphonicclimax.
HereisBirdinfullflowasheexplainsPaul’sargument:
TheclusterofdichotomiesthatPaulconstructsbetweensinand
righteousness,lawsandgrace,anddeathandlife,cannotgoonforeverin
somekindofinfinitetheologicaltango.Paul’sopeningwords,“Therefore
thereisnownomorecondemnationforthosewhoareinChrist
Jesus.”….Fromnowon,thedominatingpointofviewiswhatitlookslike
fromthevantagepointofChrist’sdeathandthegivingoftheSpirit.(P.
256)
Andsothroughoutthevolume.OnRomans12.1-2onnon-conformitytothe
world,butconformitytoChristthroughaChristomorphictransformationboth
dynamicanddecisive,BirdexplainsPaul’sweldingoftheologyandethicsintoa
lifewhollygiveninholinessandworship.
Onchapters9-11Birdisathisbest;thisisamature,carefulandseriouspieceof
exegeticaldiplomacy,anddiplomacynotinthesenseofinconclusiveniceties,but
inthesenseofonefullyawareofthesensitivitiesofspeakingtruththatwill
changethewaywethinkofourselvesandothersfromnowon.
15
‘Thesethreechaptersformanolivegrovechapel,biddingChristianstoprayto
GodthroughtheMessiahbecauseofIsraelandforIsrael….God’ssaving
righteousnessisforeveryone,notdespiteIsraelbutpreciselybecauseofIsrael.’
(304-5)
AwareofrecentstudyofPaulandhisrelationshipto,andattitudeto,theRoman
Empire,BirdsensesinPaulanacknowledgedandsubtletensionbetween
obedienceandsubversion.Onthecontestedinterpretationsof13.1-7Bird
reviewstheoptionsandconcludeswithJohnStott,“Wheneverlawsareenacted
whichcontradictGod’sLaw,civildisobediencebecomesaChristianduty.”(450)
HoweverasafinalexampleofBirds’styleofexplication,hereisthesame
thoughtinhisownwords:
Whereveramenacingempirecastsitsshadow–whetherfromtheeastor
fromthewest–Christianshavearesponsibilitytoordertheirlives
aroundthestoryandsymbolsofJesus.Wearetoliveourlivesas
exemplarycitizens,andwemustyetletitbeknownthatourloyaltyis
owedfirstandforemosttothetrueLordoftheWorld.Christiansareto
makeanuisanceofthemselvesbysettingupabenevolentalternative
societytothetyrannicalonethatsurroundsthem.(p,449)
Thefootnotesindicatesupplementarymaterial,pointtofurtherresources,give
voicetoalternativeviewpoints,andevidencetherangeofBird’stravelsin
seekingexegeticaloptions.ThereisafullScriptureIndexandindicesofsubjects
andmodernauthors.TheBibliographyisbriefandhelpfullyfocused–a
multitudeofotherbibliographicguidanceisgiveninthefootnotes,andtherefore
intheplacewheretheyarerelevantanduseful.
Thisisanenjoyablecommentarytouse.Iwouldn’twantittobetheonly
commentaryonRomansIused;someofthosementionedatthestartofthis
reviewhaveequalclaimtobereadandconsulted.Butitisacommentarywritten
bysomeoneimmersedincurrentPaulinestudies,inconversationwiththe
significantvoicesincontemporaryNTscholarship,andwrittenwithverveanda
spiritedenjoyment.IstillwantCranfield,Dunn,FitzmyerandWrightatleast–
butBirdbringsanunmistakablesenseofexcitement,evenfun,tothehardwork
ofexegesisonitswaytoexpositionwhichaimsatperformativeresponsiveness
toPaul’sgreatestletter.
JimGordon
Aberdeen
N.T.Wright,PaulandhisRecentInterpreters(London:SPCK,2015),379pp.
N.T.Wright,ThePaulDebate(London:SPCK,2016),110pp.
Whilstwritinghisbook2-volumebookonPaul(PaulandtheFaithfulnessofGod),
WrightalsowrotePaulandhisRecentInterpreters,whichishisinterpretationof
otherPaulinterpreters.TheotherbookunderreviewhereThePaulDebateisa
16
generalresponsetothereviewsofPaulandtheFaithfulnessofGod.Ifyou’re
counting,WrighthasnowwrittensevenbooksonPaul’stheology!
PaulandhisRecentInterpretersseesWrightengagewithallthemajorplayersof
Paulinestudiesinthelast40years–Sanders,Dunn,Hays,Watson,Käsemann,
Beker,Martyn,DeBoer,Campbell,MeeksandHorrell.Thebookisdividiedinto
threesections.ThefirstsectionexploresthosewhohaveexploredPaul’s
theologythroughthelensoftherelationshipbetweenJewsandGentiles.The
secondsectionexploresthosewhoseePaulasanapocalypticthinkerandthe
thirdsectionthosewhostudiedPaulintermsofhissocialworld.
ThemostimportantsectionisWright’sengagementwiththeapocalyptic‘school’
andinparticularthetwochaptersonfirstJ.LouMartynandMartinusDeBoer
andthesecondontheworkofDouglasCampbell.Isuggestthisisthemost
importantsectionbecausethecurrentdebatewithinPaulinescholarshipis
betweenWrightandtheapocalyptics,focusedprimarilybetweenWrightand
Campbell,whichisprobablyexplainswhyWrightgivesawholechapterjustto
addressingCampbell.Incidentallythisisthefirsttime,Wrighthasspecifically
engagedwiththeapocalypticschool,andonthatbasisalone,thisbookisworth
reading.(AlthoughMartyn’sfamouscommentaryonGalatianscameoutin1997,
itisonlywiththelikesofCampbell’sTheDeliveranceofGod,publishedin2009,
andalsorelatedworksbyBeverlyGaventaandDouglasHarinkthataapocalyptic
hasbecomemoremainstreamandstartedtochallengemoredirectlyWright.)
ThedebateisoverhowwereadPaul.Broadly,Wright’sworkseesJesusasthe
‘climaxofthecovenant’(toborrowatitleofaearlierWrightbook)andsotends
toreadforwardfromIsraeltoJesus.Campbellandothersarguethateverything
muststartwithChristandthereadoutwardsfromthere,theyreadbackwards,
orinBarthianlanguageread‘afterChrist.’Thecriticismoftheapocalypticschool
istheydon’tanythingtosayaboutIsrael,thecriticofWrightandthesalvation
historyschoolistheydon’thaveenoughtosayaboutJesus.Anotherwayof
readingthedebateisbetweenhistoryandtheologyandtowhichisgiventhe
mostweight.
Wright’scriticisminPaulandtheRecentInterpretersofMartyn,deBoerand
CampbellisachallengeoftheirhistoricalaccountofJewishapocalyptic
literatureandfromthishethinksalotoftheirreadingsunravel.Itisahistorical
criticism.IntermsofCampbellspecifically,Wrightclaimshefailstomakeany
historicalcaseforisuseofapocalyptic.Ofcourse,Campbellwouldcontendthat
thelanguageofapocalyptic,asheandtheothersareusingit,isprimarily
theological.OnCampbell,Wrightbeginswithagoodjoke,Campbell’sThe
DeliveranceofGodistooshort!(Thebookisovera1000pageslong).Thetone
thenchangestoamuchmoreheavilycriticalone.InfairnessCampbellonWright
adoptsasimilartone.Havingsaid,Idon’tthinkweareyettothelevelofthe
‘BarthWars’,betweenBruceMcCormack,PaulMolnarandGeorgeHunsingeryet,
whichhasbecomedecidedlyunfriendly.
Idon’tneedtosaythatWrightisagoodwriter,agoodstory-teller,ismany
worksbeartestimonytothatandsoPaulandHisRecentInterpretersgivesthe
17
WrightversionofthestoryofPaulamongstAnglo-scholarship.Heisagood
guideandgivesspacetoengagewithallthebigthinkers,towhichtheywouldall
probablywanttorespond!ThebookisworthhavingtoseewhereWrightboth
positionshimselfandhowhereadshiscontemporariesinthefield.Thereisa
textbookfeelinhowheofferstheyoverview,butthisisnodisinterestedsurvey.
TheshorterbookThePaulDebatepicksmoreclearlyfiveareasinwhichWright
hasbeenquestionedinPaulandtheFaithfulnessofGod(PFG)–PaulasJewish
thinker;Paul’sdivineChristology;therelationshipbetweencovenantand
apocalyptic;justification;Paulandmission.Ratherthanofferareplytoeach
review,hewritesthisasageneralresponse.Althoughthedifferentreviewsof
PFGarelistedattheendofthebook,ThePaulDebatehasnofootnotesand
Wrightdoesnothighlightwhereheisrespondingtothisorthatparticular
review.ThispitchesthebookatabroaderaudiencethanPFG–itis10%ofthe
length!Inotherwords,forthoseforwhomPFGistoodauntingorforwhom
therearejustnotenoughhoursindayoryearsinalifetime,ThePaulDebatesets
outthemainwaysWrightreadsPaulandwhy.
ManywhowillreadThePaulDebatewillnotgetaroundtoreadingthereviews
ofPFGtowhichheisresponding.LikePaul’sletters,manywillonlyreadthe
Wright’sresponse.Onthisscore,IthinkthosewhoarereadingPaul
apocalypticallyshouldnotsoeasilybedismissed,butthisissimplytosaythe
Pauldebatewillcontinue,astheforthcomingcollectionofessaysfromtwoSBL
seminarsin2014onPaulandtheApocalypticImagination(Fortress,2016)with
chaptersbyWright,Campbell,Gaventa,deBoerandothers,willsurely
demonstrate.
ThereisagenerationofChristians,thoseinministryandnot,whoaregrowing
uponthescholarshipofTomWright.WherepreviousgenerationslookedtoJohn
StottorWilliamBarclay,wehavebeengivenTomWright.Muchofthisisallto
thegood,thereismuchtobenefitfromhisenormousoutput.Hehasgotpeople
readingtheBibleagain,hehaschallengedpopularevangelicalideas,revealing
theirlackofbiblicalsupport.ReadingThePaulDebate,orthelargerPaulandHis
RecentInterpreters,willcontinueWright’smissiontoseebothacademyandthe
churchtakeseriouslytheinterpretationofscripture.ThisiswhereThePaul
DebateendswithasectionwhereWrightarguesforlargeboldhypothesisof
howwereadPaul,buttheymustchecked‘ruthlessly’againstthe‘rawdataofthe
text’(p.105)–Wrightbelieveshehassucceededinboth.
AndyGoodliff
BelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea
WalterBrueggemann,FromWhomNoSecretsAreHid:Introducingthe
Psalms,ed.byBrentA.Strawn.(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,
2014),224pp.
18
ReadersofBrueggemannhaveoftenfirstencounteredhisworkthroughThe
MessageofthePsalmsanditscycleoforientation,disorientationandnew
orientation.Howeverthosewhostartandfinishtheirencounterwith
BrueggemannandthePsalmswithTheMessageofthePsalmsmissagreat
opportunitytoprobethecontemporarypotentialofthePsalmsthroughthe
breadthofBrueggemann’sworkonthesetexts.Brueggemann’swritingonthe
Psalmsisprolific,asisdemonstratedbythecomprehensivebibliographyonthe
subjectattheendofthisvolume.FromWhomNoSecretsAreHidoffersanext
stepintothissubject,asitintroduceshisreaderstomanyofthethemesofhis
widerworkonthePsalmsandisintendedtoassistthosewhoworshipGodas
theyexplorethefullrepertoireofPsalmsandhumanemotion:‘avoicingthatis
indispensableforthesocialandeconomichealthofthebodyoffaithandthe
bodypolitic’(p.xi).
Thiscounterculturalactionofutteringthesecretsofthehumanheartinspeech
andsongtoGodinthepresenceofthecommunityisthefocusofthevolume,as
suggestedbythetitularquotationoftheAnglicancollectforpurity.Thevolume
isintroducedwithachapteronFrankWarren’sPostSecretProjectbytheeditor,
whichdemonstratesthetherapeuticpotentialofdisclosingsecretsinabroader
context.ItisfollowedbysixteenchaptersbyBrueggemannofvaryinglengths
coveringallthemajorgenresofpsalms,beforeconcludingwithareprintofhis
1980articlePsalmsandtheLifeofFaith.
Thevolume’smajorthemesandtermswillbewellknowntothosefamiliarwith
Brueggemann’swork:poeticimaginationandworldmaking,psalmsasprotest,
doxologicalabandonment,abrasivetruth-telling,dependenceonGodandthe
importanceofrelationship.Withacharacteristiccloseattentiontothebiblical
text,thesethemesareexaminedbymeansofastudyofawiderangeofpsalms
whichoffersadepthofinsightthatisgreatlyvaluableeithertopersonalstudyor
publicpreachingandworship.Theeditorialchoicetoexcludefootnotes,in
favourofbrieflistofimportantbooksusedoralludedto,preventsthereader
frombecomingdistractedbytherangeofvoiceswithwhichBrueggemann
interacts.However,itmayalsodissuadethereaderfromdelvingmoredeeply
intoBrueggemann’ssourcesandotherworksonspecificpointsofinterest
derivedfromthisvolume.
Brueggemanninviteshisfellowinterpreterstobringthetextintoconversation
withtheircontemporarysituation,encouragingthemtosubversiveactionas
inspiredherebythepsalmswhichgiveswitnesstoaGodwho‘isnotthebenign
objectofcustodialreligioninwhichwespecialize,butisaCharacter,anAgent,
andaForcewhooperatesinfreewaysthatdisturbandinterrupt’(p.9).Thisis
theGodwithwhomthereaderengageswheninterpretingthebiblicaltext;the
reminderofwhichishelpfulwhenstudyingtextssuchasthePsalmsthatoften
losetheirpowerthroughoverfamiliarity.
Thisbook’sreminderofthefrequentlychallengingnatureoflifeinrelationship
withGodandwithotherpeople,andoftheimportanceofexpressingthefullness
ofhumanexperienceinthatrelatednessthroughacarefulengagementwiththe
19
biblicaltextisonethatshouldchallengearangeofreaders;whethernewto
studyingthePsalmsorsteepedintheirpoetryandpotential.
HelenDare
BroadHavenBaptistChurch
StephenNWilliams,TheElectionofGrace:ARiddlewithoutaresolution?
(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2015),221pp.
ProfessorWilliamsspentabriefspellinOxfordpriortogaininghischairin
systematictheologyatUnionTheologicalCollege,Belfast,wherehehasclearly
thrivedjudgingbythequalityandregularityofhispublications.Theserevealthe
widthofhisinterestsandexpertise,includingvolumesonJohnLocke’s
philosophicaltheology,Nietzsche’scritiqueofChristianity,andothersreflecting
bothphilosophicalandtheologicalexpertise.HehasbecomeamajorBritish
theologicalauthor,inparticularintheReformedtraditionandverymuchfrom
deeprootedWelshPresbyterianism.
Hislatestbookonelectiontacklesadifficultquestionandmanagestobringto
bearahumanelightnessoftouch,atonetomatchhismessageinmanyways,
avoidingrigidityincontentandlookingtoconnectthethemetoparticularity,the
humanpredicamentandprivilegeoffaith.
Iconfesstoforgettingthephilosophicaldifferencebetweenapuzzleandariddle,
Iseemtorecallthatoneremainedperplexingwhiletheotherhadasolution,like
Rubic’sCubeperhaps.Ihaveafeelingthattheriddleremainspuzzling,andthat
thepuzzlecanbe‘workedout’howeverpuzzling!Anyway,Williams’subtitle
workswellindeconstructingthenotionthatwecansomehowgetontopofthe
issueofdivineelectionandworkoutasystemofhow‘itworks’.
Thebookarosefromasetoflecturestheauthorgaveandthesehaveclearly
beencarefullycraftedintothispublishedform.Thefourchaptersare‘Electionin
theOldTestament’,‘NewTestamentElection’,‘DogmaticLimits’and‘Dogmatic
Difficulties’,withafifthchapter,calledanappendix,‘KarlBarthonElection’.The
bookisrefreshinginitsuseandinterpretationofScripture,thisisunashamedly
theological,seekingtotravelwithgreatthemesoftheBibleandassumingthe
unityofthetextsasawhole.Williamsoftenreferstospecialistbiblical
commentersbutalsototheologiansandmissiologistsfortheirinsights.Lesslie
NewbiginplaysquiteapartinthechapterontheOldTestamentthemeof
election,discussingelectionasresponsibilityandthenatureofprivilege.
Individuals,tribes,Israelandnationsareallobjectofelectionwithdiffering
dynamicseachaccordingtoitskind,allentailingfaithandobedience.Electionis
concreteandhistorical,notmetaphysicalormeta-creational.Williamswantsto
exploreelectionalongitsnarrativelinesinScripture,inthevastarrayof
diversity.‘Wedonothelpreligioustrade’,saysWilliams,‘ifweriskexchanginga
senseoftheprivilegeofspecialcommunionforasenseofthebreadthofGod’s
universalconcerns.Eachistooprecioustobesocommodifiedintheological
barter’.TheprophetIsaiahreceivesimportantattention,sovereigntyandgrace
20
beingfoundattheheartofelection.TheOTneedstobeunderstoodonitsown
terms,notChristologicallyprematurely,keepingthetensionaliveforIsraeland
thenations.NotwithstandingthisrejectionofBarth’sOTreading,Williamsends
thischapterwithBarthontheriddleofIsraelasaneschatologicalriddle,
pointingbeyonditself.Williamsdoesnotventureintothepoisonedwatersof
contemporaryfearandloathingofthestateofIsrael,andfashionable‘antisemiticanti-Zionism’,perhapswisely.
NewTestamentelectioncontainsanespeciallyusefultreatmentofPauline
understandingofelection,themysteryofIsrael’srejection.Romans9-11of
coursegetsparticularfocusandthediscussionofGodhardeningtheheartsof
thosewhodonotacceptChristasagainstthisbeingaself-hardening,orindeeda
mutualmappingofthetwo.TheLambonthethroneisthecentreofall
theologicalthinkinghere,heistheLordandrevealsGodaslight,inwhomthere
isnodarknessatall.Alltalkofelectionmustneverdepartfromthistruth.
CharlesSimeon,aCambridgevicar,isaverysurprisingfigureinthedogmatic
chapter,acontemporaryofWilberforceandtheAnglicanEvangelicalmovement,
SimeonhaslongbeenakindofworthyfigureofthepastforAnglican
Evangelicals,butIhavenotseenhisthoughtdiscussedinthecontemporaryera
andamgratefultoStephenWilliamsforpresentingthistous,asignofhis
originalityinresearch.Simeondistrustssystematisersandwishestoput
CalvinistandArminiantogethertoshowhoweachneedstheotherinthegospel.
WilliamshasapageofimaginaryconversationbetweenSimeonandWesley,
demonstratingtheironenessinthegospelanddependenceonChristfor
salvation.ThisreallyusefulmaterialshouldbemadeknowntotheAnglican
theologicalcollegesandcourses,thankstoourWelshPresbyterianProfessor!
WecannotgraspthetruthofelectionasifsolvingFirmat’sTheorem,therealis
graspedinexistentialform,andinprayer,forSimeon,thediversityofour
fragmentedexperiencesisbestpondered–thoughnotasifinsomeinfallibly
clarifyingmethod,weremainfallible‘Prayerisnottheguaranteedsecureplace
oftheologicalinsight.Yet,itisaplacewherethehumanspiritismostprofoundly
awarebothofitsresponsibilityandofGod’ssovereignty’–howeverlittlewe
knowofhowtheseinterweave.
Thebookends,priortotheintriguingappendix,withLutherandsufferingasthe
truecontextforponderingelection,andWilliamssoberlyconcludesthatwestern
Christianityissurelyapproachingthisplace,theplacetorelearn‘thatwecannot
thinkaboutelectionintheabsenceofsufferingandthecross,forallour
theologicalsophistication,onlythenwillwelearntoappropriateelection
existentially.
TheappendixconcernsBarthandhisfamousrepresentationofelectioninChrist.
WilliamsdidhisdoctorateunderHansFrei,oneofthegreatBarthscholars,and
hislongappendixisworththepriceofthebook.HeengagesBarthcritically
especiallyonhishermeneutic,thatishisdecisiontoreadScripture
ChristologicallybeforegainingthatmodeofreadingfromScriptureitself.Also
WilliamsrejectsBarth’srejectionofnaturaltheology.ButWilliams’book
containsmanyinsightsconsonantwithBarthandclearlyacceptshimasafellow
21
Reformedtheologian,whileendingwitharesoundingrejectionofBarth’s
judgementthat‘thechoiceofgodlessmanagainstGodisvoid’.
AnotherfinevolumefromWilliams,andcertainlyamustforministersacrossthe
denominations.
TimothyBradshaw
Regent’sParkCollege,Oxford
CliffordBAndersonandBruceLMcCormack(eds.),KarlBarthandthe
MakingofEvangelicalTheology(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2015),237pp.
ThetitleofthissetofessaysisexplainedbyEvangelicalTheology,whichrefersto
thebookarisingfromlecturesBarthgaveonhisonevisittotheUSAin1962,one
ofhislateproductionsandhighlyvaluedasawayintohistheology.Theeleven
authorstaketheseAmericanlecturesasthetriggerforexploringBarth’s
theologyinseveraldimensionsinafiftyyearperspective.
Theeditorsintroducethesymposiumwithbang.Barth’spost1945refusalto
attackcommunismashehadNazismdidnotplaywellintheUSA.Herefusedto
hitchthechurchtoananticommunistbandwagon,andwasseenbysomeinthe
USAaslackinginsupportforthepersecutedchurchesinthecommunistbloc.
TheNewYorkTimespublishedanarticlecriticalofBarthentitled‘Swiss
TheologianAssailstheWest’.BarthdidnotwishtobeassociatedwithNiebuhr
andhispoliticalrealism.TheeditorsalsonotethebitterattacksonBarth
theologicallybyCorneliusvanTil–althoughhedidattendBarth’s1962lectures!
Thehistoricalcontextof1962alsohasBarth’sbitterdisappointmentthathis
successoratBaslewasnotGollwitzer,wholeanedtothepoliticalleft,butOtt–
aftertheformer’scandidacyhadbeenquestionedonpoliticalgrounds.Barth
tookthisasa‘dishonourabledischarge’fromhistheologicalhomebase.
Thisvolumekeepsthe1962visitinfocus,andincludeshisvisittothree
Americanprisons,Chicago,SanQuentinandRikersIslandNewYork.Jessica
DeCouwritesofBarth’shorrorattheChicagoprison,admirationforsomeofthe
programmesatRikersIsland.BarthfamouslypreachedinBaselPrisonregularly,
andwantedtoviewAmericanfreedomfromthesocialunderside.Thisisan
excellentprobingofsociety,thenandnow,withAmericanprisonfilledto
overflowing:howshouldthegospelbearonthisdeepproblem.1962intheUSA
wasatimeoftheologicalliberalism,Tillichbeingthemanofthemoment.David
Congdon’sessayengageswithBarthandhisengagementwiththeexistential
traditionofTillichandBultmann,andsuggeststhatBarthdidnotinfactfully
overcomethistraditioninhisdoctrineofelection.Hans-AntonDrewes,aformer
directorsoftheBartharchives,suggeststhatanewlookbetakenatBarth’s
earlierworkinrelationtohislatewritingssuchasEvangelicalTheology.The
connectionsarestrongerthanisoftenthought,conceptsheusedinhisearlydays
weredevelopedandmademoreChristologicallyconcretelater,contrarytomuch
receiveopinion–butnotofcoursetothatofBruchMcCormack!
22
KevinHectorfromtheUniversityofChicagoaskswhetherBarth’sneedfor
prolegomenainthisdogmaticworksshowsthedifficultyofstartingwith
‘content’without‘method’.Hefurthersuggeststhatthisshowsthathewasless
thantotallyopposedtoSchleiermacherthanherealised.Theirmutualviewsof
thetheologicaltaskislesscontradictorythanwemightthink,andweshould
takeanotherlookatthispairoftheologicalgiants.
GeorgeHunsingerprobesBarth’stheologicalanthropologyinCDIII/2‘The
PhenomenaoftheHuman’.Barthacceptsthatnontheologicalphilosophiescan
provideinsights,andHunsingerexploresthecriteriaforsuchotherideologiesas
helpful.GeraldMcKennyconsidersBarth’sethicalteachingandthecriticismthat
itisacommandstructureandnotcompatiblewithvirtueethicsofbeing.
McKennyfindsthatBarth’slaterwritingsgetthebalanceofhumananddivine
agencyandmeritjustaboutright.Covenantmakespossibledivineandhuman
agencyasbothfullyauthentic.DanielMigliorefromPrincetonpondersWarfield
andBarthonScriptureandpresupposition,alsoonthevalueofotherdisciplines
assupportivetotheology.
CambriaJanaeKaltwasserdescribesBarth’sfriendshipwithJohnMackay,a
ScottishtheologianwhohelpedBarthwiththeEnglishlanguageandwasa
lifelongfriend.HebecameprincipalofPrincetonReformedSeminary,and
KaltwasserdetectsBarthiantonesinhiswork.MartinLutherKing,pastorand
civilrightsorganisercaughtBarth’sattentionandadmiration,andtheyfleetingly
metduringBarth’s1962USAvisit.PeterJParis,whoteachessocialethicsas
Princeton,ponderstheirtheologiesofpropheticchurchdenunciationofinjustice
inanimportantnewlight.
KatherineSonderegger,professoroftheologyatVirginiaSeminary,considersthe
stateofthechurchnowinitsapparentdeclineandweakness.Whiledoctrineand
demographicsaresignificantfactors,sheechoesBarth’switnesstoGodasjudge
andrejectionof‘success’inworldlyterms.Thepastor’sexistencemustfocuson
Godratherthansocio-pyschodesperatewaysofbecomingfashionable.The
symposiumisconcludedwithanessaybyAdamNeder,‘TheSunBehindthe
Clouds:someBarthianthoughtsaboutteachingChristiantheology’.The
temptationsofChristianteachersandlecturersareprofoundandsubtle,andthis
isanexcellentandastringentessaywarningusagainstseekingwhatisnotofthe
kingdombutratherusingitforourownselfpublicityandgain,akindof
embezzlementofgrace.ThepenultimatepageisveryinterestingtoaEuropean
reader.IthasaphotooftheSpanishsoccergeniusAndresIniesta,thediminutive
midfielderwhowonSpainthefootballworldcupwithhispenalty.Afterthatact
herippedofhisshirttoshowthewordsDaniJarquealwayswithus–atributeto
ateammatewhohaddiedthepreviousyear.ProfessorNederusesthissporting
acttoshowthatIniestapointedawayfromhimselfatthismomentofsupreme
sportingglory,tohisfriend.Christianacademicsnotabene.
Thisisareadablebook,withagenuinelynewangle,andtheologyasrelatedto
therealitiesofChristianandsociallife.Itstrikesmeasbeinginasimilar
categorytoamuchearliersetofessaysinacontext:OnReadingKarlBarthin
SouthAfrica1988byCharlesVillaVicencio,abouttherelevanceofBarthinthe
23
apartheidregime.HisinsistentChristologicalfocusalwaysprovesitselfdeeply
seriousanddeeplychallenging.
TimothyBradshaw
Regent’sParkCollege,Oxford
JohnBThompson,SharingFriendship:ExploringAnglicanCharacter,
Vocation,WitnessandMission(Farnham:Ashgate,2015),198pp.
Sharingfriendshipisaphrasewhich,perhapsdeliberately,rathercamouflages
thecontentofthebookwhichisreallyecclesiology.Itisinaseriesentitled
‘ExplorationsinPractical,PastoralandEmpiricalTheology’leadingmeto
anticipateasociologicallydrivenstudyofatypicallyliberalAnglicankind,
especiallyonnotingthattheauthorisanAnglicanbishop.Butthebookpostsan
endorsementbyStanleyHauerwas,anddescribesitselfasa‘postliberal
approachtoecclesiology’,andmyfearsofyetmoresocio-psychoanalysisofa
postmodernkindfromAnglicandignitarieswerefastbeingallayed.Thepreface
encouragedthisprocessof‘de-cynicification’–tocoinaterriblephrase–as
Thompsonexplainshisownexperienceasavicar,educatorandtrainerover
twentyfiveyears.HesaysthatAnglicanshavesomethingdistinctiveto
contribute,andthattheyhavelostmuchconfidenceintheirroleandmodeof
beingChristian,especiallyinthelightofthedrawofmoreimmediateanddirect
waysofexpressingthegospeltoday.HisthesisisthattheAnglicanwayisaway
offriendshiptothestranger,andthatthisisaJesuslikemodeoflifetowardsthe
‘parishioner’,theparoikos,who‘isliterallytheneighbourorwandererwedonot
yetknoworwhohasbecomeestrangedfromusthroughpastenmity,
circumstanceorillness.’Loveforthisstrangeris,forThompson,theAnglican
distinctiveforchurchandmission.IconfessthatIfindthistobesomethingofa
shiftoffocuswhenlookingintoEnglishAnglicanhistoryandtheestablished
church,althoughprobablymoreconvincingforAnglicanismanywhereelseinthe
worldwhereitisbutanotherdenomination.RichardHooker’swonderful
EcclesiasticalPolityandhiseffortstoarticulateanon-sectarianvisionofabroad
roomfortheChurchofEngland,hometotheCalvinistsandtheCatholics,is
reallythesamevisionasachurchonthelookouttheoutsider,therewasno
outsiderinChristendom–astheJewsdiscovereduntilCromwellinvitedthem
back.ButThompsonisworkingwithecclesiologyasinfluencedbyHauerwas,
andthatisnoteasytofitontoptheclassicChurchofEnglandfoundations,orfit
inwiththeQueenandBishopsintheLords.TheSalvationArmyinfacthasbuilt
upadeservedreputationforbeingopentothestranger,notablyafter1939
whenJewishrefugeesfromHitlerneededtobegivenjobsandsponsorsas
conditionsofentry.ButThompson’svision,whilehardtofitontohisdesired
Anglicanhistory,iscertainlyattractivenow–althoughmayentailaneedfor
somekindofdisestablishmentattheupperechelonsifnottheparishlevel.
Itmightalsobeworthaddingthatloveforthestrangerdoesneedacongregation
todotheloving,itneedsaconvertingimperativethereforeifitisnottoendorse
thecurrentimageofwaffly,aestheticagnosticism.Thompsonisnot,Istress,
encouragingthisformofquasifaith,thefadingsmileonthefaceoftheCheshire
24
Cat.Thesubstanceofthebookprovestoberichlytheologicalanddeeply
concernedwiththegospel.
Thebookisdividedintosectionsonpractice,reflection,andchallenge.
Thompsonengageswithveryimportanttheologiansinarticulatingtheformsof
friendshiphedetectsintheAnglicanway.OliverO’Donovan,AnthonyThiselton,
JohnMilbank,RowanWilliams,DavidFordandDanHardy.StanleyHauerwas
andhisfocusoncharacterasthebaseofChristianethicalbehaviourcomesinat
theverystartofthebook.Thislistalonegivesthefeelofthequalityofthe
discussionandtheseriousnessofthebook.Thompsonwantsanarrative
ecclesiology,puttingusintotheflowofthebiblicallife,andconnectsthistothe
majorAnglicandistinctiveofreadingscripturealotinitspublicworship.
Thebookclosesonchallenge,notablysocialfriendshipandfreshfriendshipwith
‘freshexpressions’asaformofmission.PeteWardoncelebrityandGraham
WardofOxfordonurbanisation.KennethLeechiscitedarguingthatthechurch
isfacedwiththefalsepolaritiesofghettoorsurrender,heroicsectofbelieversor
vaguewoollypseudo-community.Thompson’sthesisisakindof‘keepcalmand
carryon’beingAnglicanChristians,concernedforothers,beinghospitableand
trustingthatGodwillgivefaithtosuchstrangersfindingacceptancebythe
churchcongregation.Myownpastoralexperiencehasshownmethatoftenthis
isthecase:peoplewhofindnoacceptancebysocietydofindaplaceinchurch
lifeanddothrive.InfactthishaslongbeentheevangelicalAnglicanmodel:a
coreofbelieversandafringeofsympatheticfolkandcontactswhocanbedrawn
tofaithandfriendship.Iwasnottotallyclearthatthefaithcentrehassufficient
place,orrathersufficientattention,inThompson’svision.AsDavidMartinsays
inhisTonguesofFireontheLatinAmericanPentecostalmovement:‘Thechurch
hasoptedforthepoor,butthepoorhavetheirownoptions’,thatisLiberation
Theologyhasmadethischoice,butthepoorhavechoseninlargenumbersto
taketherouteofcommitmentinfaith,radicalPentecostalism.
Givenhownewthebookis,Iamalittlesurprisedthatmoreattentionisnot
giventothemulti-faithandmulti-culturaldimensionofBritish,especially
English,society.Islamisclearlylayingdownitsownlegal,institutional,social
andmoralways.RowanWilliamsasArchbishopfamouslyendorsedelementsof
ShariaLaw.Theestablishedchurchissupposedtobethespiritualglueofthe
nation,andyetnowitisclearlyaminoritywiththisgrandbutempty
superstructure.Anditismoreandmoreplayingtherole,atcentralnational
level,ofakindofministryofcultstousetheFrenchkindoflanguage,fightingthe
cornerofallthefaiths.PerhapsThompson’svisioncantakeaccountofthis
dramaticallychangingsocio-religiousmoresofEngland,butonlyatthepriceof
becomingthateverfadingsmilewithlessandlessChristiansubstance?
TimothyBradshaw
Regent’sParkCollege,Oxford
25
DerekJ.Tidball,BrianJ.HarrisandJasonS.Sexton(eds.),Revisioning,
Renewing,RediscoveringtheTriuneCenter:EssaysinHonorofStanleyJ.
Grenz(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2014),460pp.
StanleyGrenzdiedin2005aged55.HewasaleadingevangelicalandBaptist
theologianandauthorofnumerousbooksandessays,amongstwhichhisone
volumesystematictheologyTheologyfortheCommunityofGodisperhapsmost
well-known.Thiscollectionofessayshavebeengatheredatwhatwouldhave
soonbeenhis65thbirthday.Theeditorshavegatheredasuitablecrowdof
contributorsincludingStanleyHauerwas,PaulFiddes,EllenCharry,Kevin
Vanhoozer,WilliamAbraham,DavidCunninghamandStephenHolmes,to
honourandengagewiththecontributionGrenzmadetothestudyandpractice
oftheology.ThebookisorganisedarangeofthemesthatGrenzgaveattentionto
–theTrinity,community,eschatology,scripture,traditionandculture.
Themoststand-outchaptersincludedtheeditorstheologicalbiographyofGrenz.
Herehewalkedthroughhiscareer,butalsosomeofhiskeyworks,including
whyhewenttoBaylorandthenleftafterayear;hisrelationshiptoPannenberg;
andhisworkofseekingtorenewandrevisionevangelicaltheology.Vanhoozer’s
chapteroffersasurveyofdifferentTrinitariantheologies,includinghisownand
Grenz’s.AsaBaptist,thetwochapters,byFiddesandHolmes,grabbedmy
interest.FiddesputsBaptistandCatholickoinoniaecclesiologiesinto
conversation,inparticularthatofJosephRatzingerandStanleyGrenzandinthe
backgroundaretherecentBWA-RomanCatholicconversations,whichFiddes
chaired.HolmeslooksatGrenz’sbookonhomosexuality,showinghowGrenz
wasaheadofhistime.Atthesametime,Holmesbeginstooffer,herefairly
briefly,hisownreadingofthepressingquestionsofhomosexualityandgender
thatthechurchfaces.Holmeshasanotherchapterlengthpieceonthesameissue
inpresstoappearlaterthisyear.JonathanWilsonengageswiththegrowing
workinapocalyptictheologyinthecontextofmission.DavidCunningham’s
chapter,likeanotherbookunderreviewinthiseditionofRegent’sReviews,puts
thedoctrineofthechurchandrevelationinconversationwithdramaand
theatre.Finally,DerekTidballexploresthefutureofevangelicaltheologypostGrenz.
Thisisasomewhatunevenfestschrift,whichisnotuncommonforthegenre.A
fairnumberofchaptersIskimmedover.ItsstrengthistoshowthatGrenzwasa
theologian,bothevangelicalandBaptist,whoisworthengaging.Thegreat
sadnessbeingthathewasjustbeginningtoengageinprobablywhatwasand
wouldhavebeenhismostinterestingworkwhenhedied.Thisbook,alongside
JasonSexton’srecentbookonGrenz’strinitariantheology(reviewedinlastissue
ofRegent’sReviews),willcontinuetomakeGrenzatheologianworthreadingand
helpfultothetheologicaltask,especiallyamongstthosewhoidentifyas
evangelical.
AndyGoodliff
BelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea
26
DanielCastelo,Pneumatology:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:
BloomsburyT&TClark,2015),144pp.
ThisbookisoneofaseriesbyBloomsburythatoffers‘clear,conciseand
accessibleintroductions’toavarietyofthinkersandsubjects.DanielCastelois
theauthorforthisbookonpneumatologyandrightfullyhighlightshowdeeply
challenginganystudyisonthePersonandworkoftheHolySpirit,seeingthis
book,notasanexhaustiveaccountofpneumatology,butacollectionof“working
papers”thatoffersusaglimpse(atunder150pagesitcanonlybeaglimpse)at
whatheseestobe‘themostpressingconcernsassociatedwithit.’(pxii)
Thebookisdividedintosevenchapters,thefirstseekingtohighlightsomeofthe
challengesandexpectationswithinthisfieldoftheologicalwork.Thefollowing
twochaptersgiveusaBiblicalandhistoricaloverview,exploringhowtheHoly
SpirithasbeenunderstoodfromaChristianandBiblicalperspective,giving
examplesfromScriptureandthechallengesfacedwithinterpretation,andthen
highlightinghowsomeoftheChurchFathersapproachedpneumatology.The
followingthreechaptersexamine,inCastelo’sopinion,themainareasof
theologicalchallengefortheChurchtodayinthis‘sub-areawithinthedoctrineof
God’(p.5),andthefinalchapterseekstohelpthereaderinhowwemightlive
andbe‘shapedbytheSpirittodiscernthewaysofGod’(p.134).
Castelobelievesthat,withinChristianspeechandthinking,particularlyamong
thelaity,theChurchis‘pneumatologicallyanemic’,andsothisworkis,insome
way,toenablea‘greaterappreciationandurgency’(pxiv)inourwork,speech
andstudyoftheSpirit.
Manyofthechallengesfacedtodayintheareaofpneumatologyis,Castelo
thinks,relatedtoChristologyinthathebelieveswearemuchmoreinterestedin
thePersonandworkofJesusthanweareoftheSpirit.Hebelievesthatwehave
oftenfavouredChristologyoverpneumatologybecausewecanrelatetoJesusas
ahumanbeinglikeus.CasteloarguesthatpneumatologyratherthanChristology
couldbeourmosthelpfulresourceinleadingChristiancommunitiesin
faithfulnessandhopefulnessandunexpectedpromise.Hebelieves
pneumatologyoffersusa‘grandChristianvision’(p18)ofliveslivedandmade
possibleincommunionwithGod.
ItisabookthatIbothenjoyedandgotfrustratedwithasIoftenfeltthefocus
waswrong(biblically,historically,theologically).WithoutdoubtCastelo’sdesire
toencourageustoengagemorefullywithpneumatologyisonetobeapplauded,
andcertainlythebookisnotanattempttocovereverything,butiswrittento
creategreaterawarenessanddesiretoengage,andthisitdoeswell.But,because
ofCastelo’sconcernsoverChristology,Jesusisveryabsent.Ofcoursethisisa
workonpneumatologynotChristology,butforChristiancommunitiestobe
‘shapedbytheSpirit’surelyaSpiritshapedJesusethicshouldbeapproachedina
worksuchasthistohelpusunderstandwhatthatmeans?Afterall,Jesussaid,
‘TheSpirithasanointedmeto….’
27
IntheacknowledgementsCastelopaystributetoastudentofhiswhowasshot
deadbyagunmanwhoopenedfireatSeattlePacificUniversity.Throughthis
tragedyCastelowasacutelyawareofhowthethemeofthisbookgainedgreater
significanceasmanyofthemlearnedtobeapeopleoftheSpiritinthemidstof
suchpain.Jesus’ethicofpeaceandforgiveness,anointedbytheSpirittodeclare
inwordanddeed,ismissingfromthisbook,andisamuchneeded
pnuematologicalstudy,onethat,inlightofthistragedy,IhopeCasteloisableto
writeaboutinthefuture.
JoeHayward
ThisHopeBaptistChurch,Newton-Abbot
KellyKapic(ed.),Sanctification:ExplorationsinTheoryandPractice
(DownersGrove,IL:IVPPress,2014),275pp.
Oneessayistdescribeshiscontributiontothiscollectionnotasa‘destination’
butas‘somecrucialcoordinatesforthevoyage.’(Horton,p.149).Thissumsup
wellthecollectionasawhole,whichsetsoutnottoofferfirmconclusionsornew
schoolsofthoughtonthistopicbutrathertoopenitupforthepurposesof
furtherthoughtanddiscussion.Assuchitisaworthyandimportant
contributiontoasubjectthatcanoftenbeatworstoverlookedbyChristiansor
atleastill-definedandhazyinourunderstanding.
ThiscollectioniswrittenlargelyfromaReformedperspectiveandisintendedin
partasaresponsetothedominancetothedoctrineofjustificationamongst
ProtestantChristians,intendingperhapssomethingofarecalibrationofthe
relationshipbetweenjustificationandsanctification.Kapic,intheintroduction,
alsohighlightsthedifficultythatmanyevangelicalChristianshavewith
sanctification,particularlyintermsofhumanagencyanddivinegrace.Indeed
thesetwothemes-therelationshipbetweenjustificationandsanctification,and
theroleofhumananddivineagencyinsanctification-provideasignificantfocus
inmanyofthecontributions.
Thebookisdividedintothreesections,thefirstbeingverymuchintheterritory
ofthetheoryofsanctificationandbywhatmeansitoccurs.Aswouldbeexpected
fromacollectiondominatedbyReformedtheology,God’sgraciousinitiativeand
ourresponseinfaitharethemajorconceptshere,butwithsomeinteresting
nuances.TheroleofChristintheworkofsanctificationandtherelationship
betweenChristandthebelieverareexploredinthissection,alongwiththe
intriguinguseofBarthandWesleyasconversationpartnerswho,arguesBruce
McCormack,convergeintheirunderstandingofsanctificationintheideaof
ChristianPerfectionaspossiblerealityinthehereandnow.
Inthesecondsectionofthebook,whichfocusesuponsanctificationandethics,
MichaelHorton’sessayexplorestheroleoffreewillinsanctification,arguing
againstpredestinationandforGodworkingwith,ratherthanagainst,our
creatureliness,throughtheHolySpirit.Theimplicationhereisofarelationship
28
betweenCreatorandcreatedwhichechoesthatoftheTrinity-notastruggle
betweenopposingentitiesinwhichonepartyissubjecttowhatisdonetothem
butadynamicflowmadepossiblebecauseoftheGod-made-fleshrealityofthe
Incarnation.Wearenotmerelypassivereceiversofsanctificationbut
participatorsinit.Thisideaofhumanagencywithinsanctificationisalsopicked
upinJamesEglinton’sessay,whichusesthetheologyofDutchneo-Calvinist
HermanBavinckasalensfortherelationshipbetweensanctificationandethics.
Thethirdandfinalsectionofthiscollectionconcernsthepastoralimplicationsof
sanctification.Thereareinterestingreflectionshereonourparticipationin
holinessduringourearthylives,unitywithChristandadoption,andtheroleof
preachingasexhortationtoholiness.Ofparticularinterestinthissectionis
Kapic’sowncontributionconcerningtherelationshipbetweensufferingand
sanctification.Thisisperhapsthemost‘practical’ofofferings,beginningasit
doeswithapersonalaccountofaparticularexperienceofsufferingthenopening
outintoaseriesofreflectionsonfaith,hopeandlovewithinthiscontext.Kapic
pointstotheimportanceofthecommunaldimensionatworkinsanctification.
Thisidea,afeatureofotheressaysinthecollection,isanimportantcounterpoint
totheconceptofsanctificationasanindividualphenomenonratherthanone
intendedfortheBodyofChrist.
Thiscollection,helpfullygroupedaroundthreethemes,iswellworththeeffort.
Ifpushedtoofferacriticism,itwouldbethatpracticaltheologyperhapsremains
thepoorrelationtotheoryandIwasleftwiththesensethatsanctificationis
moreofanabstractconceptthanalivedreality.However,thisbookgoessome
wayaddressingourneedtograpplewiththiscomplexdoctrineandbeginsto
exploreitspracticaloutworking.
HannahBucke
Southend-on-Sea
JasonA.Fout,FullyAlive:TheGloryofGodandtheHumanCreatureinKarl
Barth,HansUrsVonBalthasarandTheologicalExegesisofScripture
(London:Bloomsbury,2015),222pp.
WhatonearthwouldpersuadesomeonetoengagewithKarlBarth,HansUrs
VonBalthasar,andmultiplebiblicalvoicesincludingtheExodustraditions,Paul
andJohn,withinthetheologicallycontestedfieldsofdivineglory,human
freedomandtherelationofeachtotheother?Itisn’toftenthatabookattempts
suchanintriguingexplorationoffundamentaltheologyandendsupwith
significantpastoralandspirituallyrewardingexcursionsandconclusions.
Foutbeginsbyacknowledgingandinsomesensesrevellinginthetension
betweenthegloryofGodandhumanagency,divinepowerandhumanfreedom.
ThispromptsquestionsabouthowthesovereigntyofGodaccommodatestoa
formofrelatednessbetweeneternalcreatorandtemporalcreaturethedivine
purposeofsuchrelatednessbeingtheevocationoflovingtrustandgrateful
obedience.BehindthesequestionsisthetensionbluntlystatedbyKathryn
29
Tannerinthetitleofherbook,GodandCreationinChristianTheology:Tyranny
orEmpowerment?IsGod’sgloryoverpoweringorempowering?IsGodutterly
otherorrelationallyopen?Isobediencegratefulresponsetogloryorlinearnonnegotiablesubmissiontocommand?
WhileengagingwithBarthandVonBalthasarastwoexemplarsoftheologians
whoemphasisethegloryofGodasGod’sfreedom,Foutintendsacritiqueoftheir
doxologicaltheologyandarestatementwhichisequally,andperhapsevenmore,
congruentwiththebiblicalwitness.OnelongquotationfromFoutexemplifies
thetheologicalintensity,conceptualplayingfieldandpastorallyfocused
anthropologywhichinformstheentirevolume:
Imeantoarguethatthefullnessofhumanagencyismadepossible
throughtheoverflowofjoy,love,honour,giftandgracethatisGod’s
glory.Thefullnessofagencymaybecharacterisedbydiscernment,
judgement,faithfulquestioning,explorationofmeaningsand
considerationoffaithfulmeansofperformance;itwillbemarkedby
excess,overflow,creativity,eagernessandboldness.Itisalwaysawareof
itsowncontingencyandgratefulforGod’sgraceandgift,yetisnot
contentinpassivityorself-bracketing.Althoughhumanagencyandbeing
areradicallycontingentonGod’spriorandsimultaneousgiftandgrace,
thishumanagencyinthelightofGod’sglorymaybeconsidered
dialogical,asGodallowsforcreaturelyresponse,leadingtosomething
likeconversationwiththecreation(p.3).
Followingachapterreviewingcurrentaccountsofdivineglory,includingsuch
unlikelysourcesasTomSchreiner,JohnPiper,WolfhartPannenbergand
EdmundSchlink,FouthastwochaptersonthegloryofGodaccordingtoBarth.
ThecomplaintaboutPiperisthedangerthatGod’sgloryissoemphasisedand
exclusivethatiteclipsesallotherreasonsforGod’sownfreedomandagencyin
relationtocreation.WithSchlinkthedangeristhatGod’sgloryisso
overwhelmingthatthehumanresponseisde-selfed,andthehuman“I”is
negated.WhatFoutwantstoargueisthatthegloryofGodde-centresthehuman
selfbutdoesnotde-selfthehumanperson.Ratherthanthedivineglorybeingso
overpoweringitdispenseswiththehumanself,thedivinegloryisitselfglorified
inconstitutingaselfwhichiscapableofglorifyingGod.
ThetwochaptersonBarth,examinecloselyBarth’streatmentoftwoofthe
divineperfections,honourandglory,astheseimpingeoncreationandthe
humanperson.CentraltoFout’scontentionisthesearchforanaccountofdivine
glorythatallows,indeedenables,a‘non-heteronomousdependence’.WhatFout
intendsbythattermisbestexplainedinhisownwords:
Ishalluseheteronomousinanegativesensetorefertothosenotionsof
divineglorywhicharepresentedasexcluding,bracketingoutor
overwhelminghumanagency.,whichthereforedefeattheattemptto
learnaboutlearning.Againstthis,thoughIplacenotautonomy,butrather
‘non-heteronomousdependence’,arelationalitywhichadmitsthatthe
individualisnotself-constitutedbutdependentonothers(particularly
30
God)yetisconstitutedasathinkingandactingcreatureinthatnon
heteronomousdependence.
ThefirstBarthchapterisanengagementwithBarth’streatmentofthedivine
perfectionsinDogmaticsII.1,inparticularhisexpositionofloveandfreedom,
andhisuseofthebiblicalimagesofhonourandlight,andtheextra-biblical
conceptofbeauty.Fout’sconcernisthatBarthsopreservesthedivine
perfectionsthathumancreaturelyresponsivenessasacorrespondingandvalid
desideratumoftheCreator,is‘bracketedout’aslikelytocompromisethe
sovereignfreedomandaseityofGod.ThesecondBarthchapterexploresthe
divinegloryasexpounded,decadeslater,inIV.3.1.HerethegloryofGodisthe
overflowingofGod’sfreedomandlove,andFoutisdeeplyappreciativeofBarth’s
dynamicvisionofoverflowingfreedomandlove,theinnerjoyofGod,andthe
gladobedienceofthecreature:Foutcelebratesaconceptionof“human
obediencetothecommandofGod[which]freesthecreature,allowshertobe
whosheismeantbyGodtobe,andpermitshertoglorifyGod’(p.92).
ButFoutdiscernsinthatsamegenerosityatheologicalscruplethatretainsthe
vocabularyofcommand,revelationasgivenandfinalandonlytoberepeatedas
given,notquestionedbyfaithfulquestioning.Whiledeeplyappreciativeof
Barth’srichexpositionofthegloryofGodinthelove,freedomandjoyofthe
CreatorandRedeemer,FoutneverthelessstronglyquestionsBarth’sportrayalof
humanagencyasinevitablyoverandagainstGod.Butisitnotpossible,heasks,
tothinkofdivinegloryandhumanagencyinadifferentway,construingthe
divineglory,infreedomandlove,asenablingandestablishinghumanagency
that,inresponsetothedivineglory,glorifiesGodinareciprocalprocessof
revelationandadoration?
“Whymightnotthishumanagencyoffaithfulquestioning,discernment,
judgmentandsoforthbedonespecificallyandintentionallyinGod,not
apartfromGodbutbeforethefaceofGodandintheshadowof
Scripture?...whymustGod’sgloryandtheglorificationofGodonlybeseen
asbracketingoutthisagencyandnottrulyestablishingit,notresponding
inamannerthataccordswiththeoverflowofGod’sglory?”(p.103)
AndsotoVonBalthasar.FoutbuildsontheearlyrelationshipofBarthandVon
Balthasar,andthedebtVonBalthasar’sGloryoftheLordowestoBarth’svolume
II.1.VonBalthasar’sembraceoftheanalogiaentisallowedhimtomapacloser
correspondencebetweenearthlybeautyanddivineglory,andthusbetweenthe
creatureandthecreator.InaninsightfulcommentFouthelpsexplainthe
affinitiesanddisparitiesbetweenBarthandVonBalthasar,andsuggestsaclueto
theirlifelongprofoundrespectfortheworkofeachother:
AlthoughbothBarthandVonBalthasarseeGod’sgloryasexpressingthe
identityofGod,particularlyconveyedbyGod’s(mutuallyimplied)
freedomandlove…VonBalthasartendstoresolvethispairinfavourof
love,whereasBarthtendedtofavourfreedom.(pp.142-3)
31
ButFoutremainsdeeplycriticalofVonBalthasar’saccountofhumanagencyin
responsetothedivineglory.TheformofJesusChrististheformGod’sgloryhas
takenintheworldandisdescribedbyVonBalthasarintermsofself-emptying,
self-dispossessionandobedience.Hischaracteristicemphasisonkenosisis
linkedtoMarythemodelofhumanresponsiveness,abracketingoutofcommon
humanagency;hisviewofsinasessentiallyhumanassertionandnoncompliancewiththecommandandcallofGod,instarkcontrasttoMary,whois
privilegedinVonBalthasar’stheology.Onceagaindivinegloryismadeabarrier
toafullanddivinelyintendedhumanagency,which,foralltheirprofoundand
persuasivetheologicalaccountingoffreedomandlove,leavesFouttheologically
dissatisfied.TurningtotheBibleheseeks
“thepossibilityofopeningupthese(mostlypromising)accountsof
divineglorytounbracketedhumanagency,inpartthroughagreater
emphasisonGod’sgloryasGod’shonourandpraiseworthiness,thusto
showthatthefullnessofGod’sgloryisnotincompatiblewithafullnessof
humanagency.”(p.143)
Thebiblicaltexts(Exodus,2Corinthians,GospelofJohn)arewellchosenas
dialoguepartners.WhatisclearfromFout’sexaminationofallthreeistheplace
ofhumanagencywhenconfrontedbythedivineglory.Farfromoverwhelming
thecreature,FoutfindsthatinthesetextsGod’sgloryenables,transformsand
establishesaresponsivenessthatglorifiesGodinthefulfilmentofdivine
purposesforcreationandcreatures.“God’sglorybegetsananalogousgloryin
creation.”Thisisnotahumanachievement,oracreaturelyclaimondivine
blessing,butthegloryofGodworkingtofulfilmentincallinganddrawing
disciplesintoaprocessofbeingconformedtotheimageandgloryofChrist,in
whichhumanresponsivenessandagencyisbroughttoproperfruitionin
glorifyingthefreedom,loveandmercyofGod.
HumanagencyinlightofGod’sgloryisnotstraightlineobediencebut
responsiveandcreative;thathumanitybeforeGod’sgloryisnotde-selved
butconstitutedtoactinaccordwithGod’sglory;andthathumanagency,
inGod,istransformedaccordingtothelogicofGodtooverflowinlove,
honouringandglorifyingotherstothegloryofGod,andthisina
relationshipofnon-heteronomousdependenceonGod.(pp.191-2)
AfterthissustainedjourneythroughBarth,VonBalthasarandScripture,Foutis
contenttore-affirmthewordsofIrenaeus,“thegloryofGodisthelivinghuman,
andthelifeofthehumanisthevisionofGod.Andinthatre-affirmationheseeks
tocorrectperceivedimbalancesintheotherwiserichexpositionsofthegloryof
GodtobefoundintwoSwisstheologianswhoseaccountsrespectivelyofthe
DivinePerfectionsandthethreeTranscendentalsareAlpineinscaleandvision.
ThecritiqueofBarthandVonBalthasarispursuedbyFoutthroughatheological
readingofScripture,usingthosebiblicaltraditionswhich,whenread
theologically,revealamoredynamic,relationalandpermissiveconstrualofthe
gloryofGod.Thusthedivinegloryoverflowsinthefreedomofalovethatevokes
praisetowardstheonewhoispraiseworthy,andinvitesifnotcompelsadoration
32
totheonewhoseglorydrawsfromthehumanheart,mindandwill,the
obedienceoffaithandtheserviceoflove.
Ifoundanumberoftyposthroughoutthetext,mostlyinfootnotes.Iwillnote
thesetothepublisherforcorrectioninanyreprint,hopefullypaperbackandata
muchmoreaffordableprice.Thisisaveryworthwhileread,abookwitha
relevanceandpastoraltonebeliedbyafirstencounterwiththefulltitle!
JimGordon
Aberdeen
JoshuaMcNall,AFreeCorrector:ColinGuntonandtheLegacyofAugustine
(Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,2015),329pp.
ColinGuntonhadhisreservationsaboutSt.Augustine’stheology.ForGunton,
Augustineoverstatedthedivineunityanddiminishedthethreepersons;held
thatthetimelessandtheimmaterialweresomehowmorerealormore
importantthanthetime-boundandthephysical;anddisplacedSpirit-enabled
Christologicalmediation(essentially,theFatheractsintheworldbyhis‘two
hands’,theSonandtheHolySpirit)bypositinganumberofinsubstantial
intermediaries,includingthedivinewillandthehumansoul.Thesealleged
shortcomingsfoundinevitableexpressioninEnlightenmentand(post-)
modernistthought,promptingGuntontodevelopmuchofhisownconstructive
theologyinresponse.ThusGuntonwasnotsomuchconcernedwithAugustine’s
thoughtpersebutwithhis‘afterlife’orlegacy,theappropriationofAugustine’s
theologybylaterscholars.
JoshuaMcNall’sAFreeCorrector(thetitleborrowsfromAugustine’sTheTrinity),
anexpandeddoctoralthesis,isahelpfulcontributiontoagrowingbodyof
commentaryonGunton’stheologytakingissuewithhisoften-glibanalysisof
Augustine.ButMcNall,perhapsrecognisingthatdrawingattentiontoGunton’s
uncharitabletakeonAugustineishardlyinnovative,distinguisheshisaccount
fromothersbycontendingthatGunton’sreadingswerenotcompletely
inaccurateorunjustified.OfparticularimportanceisMcNall’sobservationthat
Augustine’sdecisiontoequatetheimagoDeiwiththeimagoTrinitatis,andthis
withthehumanmind,didlikelyinfluencetheindividualismandrationalism
fosteredbyRenéDescartesandsoreadilyembracedbylaterthinkers.Here,
McNalldisclosessomethingofhowselectivityandcontextualisationsignificantly
affectthewayaperson’sthoughtisfilteredthroughsubsequenttraditions.When
laterscholarsfoundthemselvesinspiredbyAugustine’searlierworks,and
especiallytheConfessions,theyweremorelikelytopropagateinsufficiently
theologicalideasaboutGodandtheworld.TheproblemwithGunton,McNall
suggests,isthathewasjustasselectiveasothers,choosingtocontesttheearly
Augustinewhileoverlookinghismaturepositions.Moreover,ashetendednotto
examineAugustineasachildofhispost-Arianisttimes,Guntonfailedto
appreciatetheoccasionsbehindAugustine’stheology.ThusGunton’sselectivity
anddecontextualisedevaluationsofAugustineliebehindhisreadingofthe
33
historyofWesterntheology–although,asalreadystated,Gunton’saccountof
Augustine’slegacywasnotentirelygroundless.
ThisbasicargumentofAFreeCorrectorisdevelopedoverthecourseofeleven
chapters,eachrelativelyshortbutsharpinanalysis.McNallcoversalotof
ground:heoutlinesGunton’sowntheologyandinfluences;summarisesthe
issuessomemoderntheologianshavewithGunton’sinterpretationofAugustine;
identifieswhereGunton’sanalysisofAugustinewasflawedandcautiously
suggestswherehewaslikelyright;andexploresAugustine’sreceptioninthe
thoughtoftheologiansrangingfromBoethiusandGregorytheGreattothe
aforementionedDescartesviaThomasAquinas,MartinLuther,andJohnCalvin.
TwochaptersalsoconsiderGunton’sadvocacyofIrenaeusofLyonsandthe
Cappadocianfathersas‘antidotes’toAugustine’smonisticanddualistic
imbalances,thoughMcNallisfarlessconvincedthanGuntonthatthe
Cappadociansweresufficientlydistanced(theologicallyspeaking)from
Augustinetobeaneffectivecorrective.
Whilenotanexhaustiveaccount,McNall’sresearchprovidesenoughevidenceto
convincethatGuntondidmishandleAugustine’swritingsandtheresponsesto
themwhileseekingtoproveapoint.ThismishandlingarosefromGunton’s
decisiontofocusoncertaintextsattheexpenseofothers,andhisfailureto
accommodatethecontextsinwhichtheywerewritten.ButMcNallalsoprovides
evidencethatsuchmisconstrualshelpedGuntontocraftanIrenaenapproachto
atheologyofcreationthatpromisesitsowntheologicalafterlife.Soasidefrom
itsclearvaluetostudentsofGuntonandAugustine,AFreeCorrectormayalsobe
regardedmoregenerallyasaninsightfulcasestudyonhowtointerpret
responsestoaperson’sintellectualimpact,andonhowanymisreadings
(deliberateorotherwise)mightstillinspireandcontributetogoodtheology.If
so,thenMcNall’sstudyshouldleaditsreaderstoagreaterappreciationofthe
legaciesofbothGuntonandAugustine.
TerryJ.Wright
Spurgeon’sCollege,London
SimonGathercole,DefendingSubstitution;AnEssayonAtonementinPaul
(GrandRapids:Baker,2015),128pp
WeareallstillarguingaboutPaul.Heremains,formanyofus,theauthorized
interpreterofthelifeandworkofJesus.Thereforeourunderstandingofhis
lettersisvitalforthewayweapproachbothdiscipleshipandtheformulationof
doctrine.Paul’swritingsareourtouchstone.Wedefendourpositionsby
expoundingwhatweseeastheircorrectinterpretation,andweattackour
opponentsforofferingmisleadingexegesis,flawedunderstandingofcontextand
forunwittingly(perhaps)insistingonreadingPaulthroughthelensoftheir
traditionaldoctrinalpositions.Yes,wehavefundoingit,butformanyofusthis
stuffreallymatters.
34
Therearemanyareasofcontroversybutoneofourfavourites,fornowatleast,
isthedoctrineofatonement.Someofuswanttodefendtheideaofpenal
substitutionwhileotherswanttosendittoRoom101alongwithotherfailed
ideas.Gathercolehelpfullysticksapininthewordpenal,putsittooneside,and
addressestheideaofsubstitution.Thetwoareoftendiscussedasthoughthey
werejoinedatthehipbutthisbookhelpfullyremindsusthattheycanbe
consideredseparatelyfromoneanother.Furthermore,theauthorrefusesto
allowtheargumentthatwemustchoosebetweentheideathatChristdiedforus
asoursubstituteandthathediedasourrepresentative;thetwoarenot
necessarilymutuallyexclusive.
InhisintroductionGathercole,usingclear,thoughtfullanguage,helpfullydefines
thekeytermsandsetsuptheargumentofthebook.Then,inhisopening
chapter,heoffersahelpfuldiscussionofthreeapproachesthatchallengethe
viewthatPaulunderstandsJesusasasubstitute.Eachistreatedfairly,withits
strengthsbeingacknowledged.However,eachisshowntobedependentonthe
ideathatPaulseesJesus’sdeathashavinganeffectonSin,apowerorarealm,in
whichhumansasawholearetrapped,whiledownplayinganyeffectonsins,the
wrongthingsthateachhumandoes.ItisnotthatGathercolethinksthatPaul
doesnotaddresstheformer;heclearlydoes.ItisthatPaulisalsoconcerned
withtheimpactofChrist’sworkonthelatter.
Thenexttwochaptersofferexegesisofkeytextsthatdemonstratetheauthor’s
point.Thefirstis1Corinthians15.3wherePaulinsiststhathepassedon,asof
firstimportance,thetruththatChristdiedforoursins.Gathercoleoffersarobust
andconvincingdefenceoftheviewthatOldTestamentinfluenceisatworkhere.
Isaiah53,withitsreferencestovicariousdeath,isthedecisivepassage.The
authorthenanalyzesthepresenceofsubstitutioninbothtexts.However,itisnot
onlyJewishthoughtthatPauldrawson.Inthenextchapter,Gathercolediscusses
Romans5.6-8andsuggeststhatGreco-Romanstoriesofvicariousdeaths,
particularlythatofAlcestis,liebehindPaul’sargument.Paulisalludingtothese
storiestoestablishtheideathatsomepeoplemightdieforthosewhomtheylove
TheApostledoesthisinordertodemonstratetheexceptionalgenerosityofthe
onewhodiedforhisenemies.Thebookendswithabriefconclusionthatsums
upitsarguments.
Thisisashortbook.Ithasoneclearpurpose.Itaccomplisheswhatitsetsoutto
do.Itisarguedeffectivelyandsuccinctly.Ifyouarepartofthecontinuing
argumentaboutPaul,oryouenjoylisteningintotheconversation;ifyouthink
thatPaulhelpsustounderstandwhatJesushasaccomplishedandhowhe
shouldbefollowed,thenthissignificantcontributiontothedebateisdefinitely
worthreading.
StephenFinamore
BristolBaptistCollege
35
StanleyHauerwas,SanctifyThemintheTruth:HolinessExemplified(New
Ed.,Cornerstoneseries;London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2016),280pp.
BloomsburyT&TClarkhaveinitiatedanewserieswhichrepublishessignificant
volumesfromtheirbackcatalogue,mostwithanewforeword.SanctifyThemin
theTruthfirstappearedbackin1998,whenT&TClarkwasstillapublisherin
itsownname.T&TClarkwerepublishingtheScottishJournalofTheology
Lectures,whichHauerwasdeliveredin1997.Thebookisoneinwhich
Hauerwas,inthenewforeword,sayshefelt‘fellstillbornfromthepress.’
Hauerwashassaidthisaboutseveralofhisbooks,ChristianExistenceToday
beinganotherone.I’mnotsurehowtrueitis.
IdothinkthisisoneofHauerwas’mostinterestingandimportantbooks,bothto
understandhimandintermsoftheargumentshemakes.(Iratethisbook
alongsideThePeaceableKingdom,InGoodCompany,ApproachingtheEnd,The
WorkofTheologyasthebooksbyHauerwaseveryoneshouldread).Partsofthe
bookareanearlyattemptbyHauerwastotryandunderstandhimself,whichis
thefocusofhismostrecentcollectionWorkofTheology.Intwoessaysherevisits
hisdoctoralstudyCharacterandtheChristianLife.Inanotherchapterhereflects
onacommentfromNigelBiggarbackin1986ataconferenceonBarth,thatin
HauerwasworkGodwasstrangelymissing,whichanticipatesthecriticisms
morerecentlyofNicholasHealy’sHauerwasA(Very)CriticalIntroductionand
Hauerwas’responseinTheWorkofTheology.SanctifyThemintheTruthalso
addressestherelationshipbetweendoctrineandethics,gayfriendship,the
handicapped(sic)inconversationwithJeanVanierand,intrueHauerwas-style
anargumentfornon-violentterrorism.
Themostinterestingchapterisoneinwhichhereflectsongoingtochurch,in
thisparticularcaseAldersgateMethodistChurch.Ifthecriticismismadethat
thereisnotenoughGodinHauerwas’theology,itissurelyalsotruethatthereis
notenoughchurchinalotofothertheology.ThestrengthofHauerwas’work,
whatmakesitinterestingandimportant,isitisgroundedinpractice:
Christianityissomethingtobelived,notjustthoughtabout.
ForthefewministersandtheologianswhohaveneverreadHauerwasthisbook
isagreatplacetostart.Forthosewhomighthavemissedthisbookfirsttime
roundsimplybecausehepublishessomuch,youhavemissedagem.Alongside
theessaysalreadymentionedthebookendswithasetofsermons,something
Hauerwashascontinuedpublished,includingaexcellentreflectiononthe
practiceofpreaching.
AndyGoodliff
BelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea
36
ScottW.Bullard,Re-memberingtheBody:TheLord’sSupperandEcclesial
UnityinFreeChurchTraditions(Eugene,OR:CascadeBooks,2013),175pp.
Itisanoft-repeatedcriticismthatBaptistshaveapractisebutlackatheology
whenitcomestotheLord’sSupper.Toadegreethecriticismisfair.Thereis
certainlynotafull-orbedBaptistengagementwiththeLord’sSupperthat
correspondstothetreatmentgiventoBaptismbyGeorgeBeasley-Murray.And
yetIthinkitisbecomingincreasinglyunfairtosaythatBaptistslackatheology
oftheSupper.It’sjustthatourtheologicalengagementis,to-date,more
occasionalandepisodicthanintegrated.
ScottBullard’sbookisanexampleofBaptisttheologicalengagementwiththe
Lord’sSupperandinitheinteractswithotherBaptistwriters,notablyJames
McClendonandhisstudents,whohavesimilarlyattemptedtoarticulateaBaptist
understandingofthiscrucialpractise.Thebookisthesecondinanewseries
entitledFreeChurch,CatholicTraditionwhichattemptsto‘reconnectbelieversin
[thefreechurches]…withtheinsightsandwisdomofthechurchcatholic.’(p.x)
BullarddoesthisbybringingMcClendonintoconversationwithHenrideLubac
(RomanCatholic)andRobertJenson(Lutheran)andhisaimistoallowthese
otherwriterstofilloutMcClendon’sclaimthattheLord’sSupperisa‘rememberingsign’.BullardarguesthatwhileMcClendon’swritinghas‘mostof
whatisneededforanargumentforEucharisticunity’,heskimsovertheunifying
aspector‘failstofullycapitaliseuponhisunderstandingoftheSupperincalling
thechurchtobe“one”.’(p.4)Thereisnosensethathemeansthisina
disparagingway.BullardbelievesthatMcClendonhasdonemorethanmost
BaptistwriterstopointthewayforwardbuttorealisehisvisionBaptistswill
needtoseetheChurchasmorethanavoluntarysociety.
Thebookisdividedintofivechapters,thefirstofwhichisanintroduction,with
subsequentchaptersdealingwithMcClendon,deLubac,Jenson,andfinallya
selectionofBaptisttheologianswhoareattemptingtobuildonMcClendon’s
work.ThechapteronMcClendonisthelongestandrepresentsBullard’sattempt
toengagefullywithMcClendon’ssacramentalunderstandingoftheLord’s
Supper.HeidentifiesanumberofdimensionstoMcClendon’sthought.These
includethesignificanceoftheSupper(i)inmakingChristpresent,connecting
ChristianstothegreatnarrativestoryofScripture(p.30),and(ii)asa
reconstitutingpractise,thusre-memberingbybringingthechurchintothestory,
butalsointooneanother(p.37).ForMcClendontheLord’sSupperisa‘powerful
practise’,meaningthatitaffectssomething,butheisclearitismorethanjusta
meanstoanend.ItisbysharingintheSupperthattheChurchistheChurch
(p.39).BullardalsonotesMcClendon’sindebtednesstotheRadicalReformation,
whichleadshim(followingYoder)toaviewoftheSupperasoneofthefive
practisesofwitness,bywhichtheChurchrevealsthenewhumanityinthe
presenceoftheold(p.43).IncriticismofMcClendon’swork,Bullardnotesthe
observationofDomGregoryDixthatbyaffirmingtherealpresenceofJesusin
otherplaces,McClendonhasreducedtheSuppertoduplicating‘thefunctionof
non-eucharisticworship.’(p.48)Hemakesothercriticisms,notablythat
McClendonisambiguouswhenitcomestoagency(forAquinas,Bullardwrites,
Godisalwaystheprimaryactor,usingthesacramentasameansofgrace,but
37
thisisnotclearinMcClendon’sthought),andconcludesthatMcClendonhas
stoppedshortofaffirmingtheLord’sSupperastheheartoftheChurch,settling
fortheideathatitextendsthestory,alongwithbaptismandpreaching,asarememberingsign(p.58).
Inthethirdandfourthchapters,BullardturnstodeLubacandJenson,toshow
howbyengagingwiththehistorictraditionitispossibletodevelopatheologyof
theSupperastheessenceofChurchunity.DeLubac’scrucialclaim,accordingto
Bullard,isthatchangesinCatholicthinkingabouttheEucharistledtoaneglect
oftheChurchasthetruebodyofChrist,andtheroleoftheSuppertoaffectthis
change‘bypullinghergodwardandtogetherasthebodyofChrist.’(p.82)
BullardexploreshowdeLubacunderstandsthebodyofChristtohave3senses,
thephysicalbodyofJesus,themysticalbodythatistheEucharist,andthetrue
bodythatistheChurch.Over-emphasisonthewayinwhichChristispresentin
thebreadandwine,whichledintheeleventh-centurytothetransubstantiation
controversiesandtheCatholicteachingthatinitspractisetheChurchmakesthe
Eucharist,tooktheemphasisoffthewayinwhichitistheEucharistthatmakes
theChurch.ThisisthecontentionthatdeLubac’sworkdefends.Inthisthird
chapter,BullardalsohelpfullyintroducestheworkofWilliamCavanaugh,a
studentofdeLubac,andhisworkreflectingontheCatholicbishop’sresponseto
thetorturepractisedbythePinochetregimeinChile.Cavanaugharguesthatby
excludingthetorturersfromsharingtheEucharist,whichwouldincludesharing
itwiththeirvictims,thebishopsweresimplystatingbytheirpractisethe
separationfromthebodyofChristthatwastrueinfact.(Asanaside,
Cavanaugh’sbookTortureandEucharistalsocomeshighlyrecommended.)In
Jenson,BullardfindsaProtestantinterlocutorwhoseworkillustrateswhatis
possibleforBaptistwriterslookingtoexplorethesignificanceoftheSupperfor
ecumenism.Jensonisparticularlycriticalofthewaythatthewesterntendency
towardsprivatisingfaithhasmadeChurchintosomethingvoluntaryfor
Christians,withtheresultthatwetooeasilymarginaliseothers.Asaresult
JensonisveryclosetodeLubacwhenhesaysthatitisthemealthatmakesthe
community.Forjustasinbreadandwine,sointhebodiesofhispeople,Christis
madeavailabletotheworld(seepp.118-123).
ThefinalchapterofBullard’sworkthenlooksathowagroupof“newBaptist
sacramentalists”aretakingtheworkofMcClendonforwardsinwaysthat
resonatewiththeworkofdeLubacand,althoughlessso,Jenson.Althoughthere
areanumberofwritershespecificallyengageswithCurtisFreeman,Elizabeth
NewmanandBarryHarvey,andtheirwritingsinBaptistSacramentalismand
otherplaces.Bullardnotesthatallthreeoftheseauthorshavebeensignificantly
influencedbyMcClendonandcitehisworksoftenandlargelyfavourably.All
threenotethatasacramentalviewoftheSupperhasalonghistoryinBaptist
thinking,despitethepredominantemphasisonitbeingmeresymbol,butthey
attempttoargueforitslegitimacyprimarilyonthegroundsthatthis‘isfaithful
toScriptureandthebreadthoftheChristiantradition.’(p.133)Bullardnotesthat
despitethestronginfluenceofMcClendonthereisalsodisagreementwithhim.
Asanexample,HarveypicksupthedistinctionmadebyHerbertMcCabe
between‘signsof’and‘signsfor’,andcontendsthatwhileMcClendon’srememberingsignisanexampleoftheformer,hisviewisthattheEucharistisa
38
‘signfor’ecclesialunitybecausesharinginthebreadandwineconstitutesthe
ChurchasthebodyofChrist.InthisheismuchclosertodeLubac’sstatement
thattheEucharistmakestheChurchratherthansimplyextendsthestoryof
Christintothepresentday(p.156).
BritishBaptistswhohaveusedGatheringforWorshipwillbefamiliarwiththe
term‘re-membering’(fromoneofthepatternsfortheLord’sSupper)and
Bullard’sbookwillgivethemanintroductiontosomeofthetheologicalthinking
behindthisidea.Iftheydotheywillbeencouragedbythelengthstowhichallof
Bullard’ssubjectshavegonetogroundtheirthinkingintheBible.Ilostcountof
thenumberoftimesthat1Corinthians10.17wasreferredto,althoughnotcited
asaprooftext,butsimplyasakeyideatobebroughtintoconversationwith
bothScriptureandtradition.Itwillperhapsdisappointthem,however,that
BullardhasfailedtoengageanyBritishBaptistwriters,andinparticularPaul
FiddesandJohnColwell,becausebothhavewrittenhelpfullyandthoughtfullyon
thissubject.InTracksandTraces,forexample,Fiddeswritesatlengthon‘The
ChurchasaEucharisticCommunity:ABaptistContribution’(pp.157-192).Inthis
chapterFiddesaffirmstwotruthsfromaBaptistperspective:‘thatthesacrament
isameansofenablingthepresenceofChristwithhispeople,andthatsharingin
thetableidentifiesthemembershipoftheChurchofChrist.’(TracksandTraces,
p.157).ForBaptistsengagedinecumenicalconversationsthisbookwillbe
particularlyhelpful,asitremindsusthatwearepartofthesamebodybecause
weallsharethebreadandwine,andforthosewhoarenot,thisbookwill
challengeustothinkaboutourrelationshipswithotherswhoalsomeetatthe
Lord’sTable(despiteourmanydifferences).IaminnodoubtthatBaptistsneed
todomorethinkingabouttheLord’sSupperanditssignificanceasapractisefor
BaptistchurcheshereinBritain.Evenwithoutafull-orbedengagement,there
aregoodresourcesavailable,andBullard’sbookisdefinitelyoneworthspending
bothmoneyandtimeon.
AshleyLovett
SockettsHeathBaptistChurch,Grays
WesleyVanderLugt,LivingTheodrama:ReimaginingChristianEthics
(Ashgate,2014),241pp
Inthisbook,originallyaPhDcompletedatUniversityofStAndrews,VanderLugt
setsouttoexplorethe‘theatricalturn’withintheology.Drawingontheworkof
SamWells(inparticularhisbookImprovisation:TheDramaofChristianEthics)
andKevinVanhoozer(andhisworkincludingTheDramaofDoctrine)andwith
HansUrsvonBalthasar’smulti-volumeTheTheo-Dramaloominglargeinthe
background,VanderLugtprovidesanexerciseinwhathasbeensaidintermsof
atheatricaltheologyandhowitmightbedevelopedfurther.
Followingaprologueandachapterthatintroducesthelanguageofformation
andperformance,whichI’llreturnto,VanderLugtoffersasystematicaccountof
atheatricaltheologywithchaptersonGod,Bible,Tradition,MissionandCulture.
39
Thediscussionhereissorichandhelpful.HesuggestswethinkofGodas
playwright,protagonistandproducer(hearguesagainstdirector).Hediscusses
theBibleasscriptortranscriptandthechurchasacompanyofplayers.Heviews
traditionasofferingpastperformances,whichallowforrepetitionand
innovation.Missionisseeasofferaperformancealwayswithanaudiencein
mind,whichcanbetraditional,interactiveorexperimental,thatismissioncan
beto,amongorwithanaudience.Cultureremindsusthatalltheologyandany
performanceiscontextual,itspaysattentiontoplaceandenvironment.
LetmereturntoVanderLugtengagementwithformationandperformance.
Theselieattheheartoflifeinthetheatre.Thesetwoelementsarethetwo
movementsthatarealwaystakingplace.Formationrequiresadisponibility,
whichisatechnicaltermwhichcarriesthenotionofavailabilityorreadinessand
openness.VanderLugtwillgoontoexploretoseethisinatheodramaticasa
personbeingopen,readyandavailabletoGod,scripture,thechurch,tradition,
unbelievers,andlocalcontexts(p.44).Thechaptersthatfollowexploreineach
casewhatthismightlooklike.Alongsideformationasdisponibility,VanderLugt
seesperformancethroughfittingness.Fittingnessisthenotionofhowan
individualactionconnectswiththewhole,intermsoftheodrama,thisisplayed
out(again)intermsofChrist,tradition,bible,context,missionandchurch.
Thisbookdemandsrereading–afirstreadingoverwhelmswiththepossibilities
forunderstandingchurchanddiscipleshipthroughthelensoftheatre–
subsequentreadingswillofferachancetogiveattentiontothecarefulargument,
thatisgroundedinscriptureandinconversationwithotherswhohavegone
beforehim.AssomeonewhohasreadSamWells’Improvisationandfoundit
immenselyhelpfulinseekingtoframeandunderstandwhatministryistryingto
encourageandforminthechurch,VanderLugthasprovidedahelpful
developmentandextensionofWells’work.IntheopeningprologueVanderLugt
acknowledgesthelimitsofanymodel,atthesametimewonderingifthereis
somethingabouttheatricaltheologythatis‘comprehensiveenoughtoincludeall
othermodels?’(p.27).Whetherthatistrue,thereisenoughforthetimebeingin
themodeloftheodramathatcanhelpachurchseekingtofindalanguageto
understanditself.
Thestrengthoftheatricaltheologyisitbeginstoprovideameansofhelping
ChristianstoseewhatitistobeChristianthatiscentredonperformancein
conversationwiththeBibleandtradition,requiringimprovisation,thatis
ecclesialandbeforeawatchingworld.Hereisawaytotalkaboutdiscipleship.
HopefullyafuturepaperbackversionofLivingTheodramawillhelpitreacha
wideraudience.
AndyGoodliff
BelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea
40
LaurieGreen,Blessedarethepoor?Urbanpovertyandthechurch(London:
SCM2015),240pp.
Acolleagueundertakesmissionsinseveraldevelopingcountries.Theeventsare
wellattended,heavingattheseams,andpeopleareoftenhealedalmost
incidentallyofphysical,spiritualandpsychologicalproblems.'IfItrythisat
home',heremarks,'nothinghappens'.Attheministers'meetingthis
phenomenonwasturnedover,analysed,wonderedat.Butonceyou'veread
LaurieGreen'sbook,you'llunderstandwhy:Godisespeciallypresentwiththe
'poor'.
Green,aretiredAnglicanbishopwithapassionforthepoor,isdeeplycommitted
tothepracticeofreflectivetheology(seehistextbook,Let'sdotheology,for
example):westartwithhumanexperience,identifytheissues,andreflecton
theminthelightofthegospel.Fromthiswillemergeagodlyvisionforthenext
step,takingusdeeperintoourfaithandpractice.Itisanincarnationalmethod
thatcanbepractisedcompetentlybyanyChristian,notjusttrainedtheologians.
Greenusesthismethodtoshapethebook,whosestructurefallsnaturallyinto
fourkeymovements:hearingthestoriesandsettingthecontext;exploringthe
biblicalthemes;theologicalperspectives,andsuggestionsforaction.
GreenfirstgivesusthehistoricalcontextforthepoorintheUKtoday,focusing
onthosewholiveonurbanestates,butacknowledgingthatpovertyisfound
elsewheretoo.Why,wemayask,aretheresomanypoorpeopleonestates?
Greentellsthestory,asorryoneofsocial,politicalandeconomicmovements
thathaveledtothedegradationofstrongworkingcommunities,fragmenting
andmarginalisingthemattheedgesofaffluentpost-warBritishsociety.As
industrialisationflounderedandfailedunderglobalmarketpressures,sodidthe
unions,socialgroupsandcommunitasthatgavepoorerpeopleavoiceandan
identity.
Greenrecordsconversationsfromtheestates,lettingthevoicesspeakfor
themselvesinthesepages.Whatdoesitfeelliketobepartofacommunitywhere
thereislittleworkandlittlehope?Wheregangsrulethenight?Whereyouare
blamedforbeingpoor?
ThebiblicalreflectioncomesinitiallythroughanexplorationoftheLord's
Prayer,whichGreenusestoexposethedifferencebetween'kingdom'and
'opposing'values(manyofthelatterareendemicinmodernculture).Hethen
movesontothechallengeoftheBeatitudes:whatdoesitmeantobeblessed,and
whatdoesitmeantobeblessedasthepoor?Greennotesinparticularthe
importantfactthatJesusneverspeaksaboutthepoor,buttothemandwith
them,nevercommentingauthoritativelyonthesituationofthepoorfrom
outside,butenteringtheirlife.OurGodisaGodwhoisespeciallypresentwith
thepoor.Greenstopsshortofnamingthepoorassacramental,butthereisan
intuitiveconnection(seep.132).
GreenthenproceedstothepartofthediscussionIpersonallyfoundthemost
engaging:thepracticeofcultivatingahermeneuticofjusticeinplaceofthe
41
church'sexistingtendencytoahermeneuticoforder,quotingliberation
theologianBonino,'Thetruequestionisnot"Whatdegreeofjustice(liberationof
thepoor)iscompatiblewiththemaintenanceoftheexistingorder?",but"What
kindoforderiscompatiblewiththeexerciseofjustice(therightofthepoor)?".'
Greenarguesthatoncewestarttoadoptthishermeneuticofjustice,wemust
readtheBibleinnewways.
Theimplicationsforthechurchanditsstructures,compromises,andvaluesare
huge.'InthepasttheChurch...hasoftendelightedinexpectingtheprivilegeof
power',commentsGreen,notingthatintoday'ssocietythechurchisfarless
likelytobeaffordedthatprivilege-andperhapsthatwillbehersalvation.He
seesthegrowingdistrustoftheChristendommodelasakairosmomentforthe
church,butnotesthattoabandonthepaststructuresisanenormouschallenge
tothosewhohaveinvestedinthem.Heendsthebookwithsomestoriesofsmall,
incarnationalexpressionsofchurch-not,perhaps,entirelynewtous,but
comingfreshafterthishelpfulexploration.
ManyoftheideasandchangesGreenidentifiesshouldnotbeaproblemfor
Baptists-indeed,theyshouldbeinourDNA.Wearealready,ideologically,on
themarginsofthealreadymarginalChristianchurchintheUK-forweare
Dissenters.Yethowwewishtobebigandimportant!Wearealready
programmedtobeapeopleofjustice,yethowwelovethehermeneuticoforder,
andour'doingofgoodto'those'lessfortunate'.Wearealreadythosewho
respectthevoicefromthefloorinourcongregationalism,yethowweloveto
instituteprogrammesofmanagementandgrowthandstrategyfromthetop.
Itiscostlytohearapropheticwordofrevelationthatcomesfromthosewe
secretlyrelegatetothemargins:thepoor,theunder-resourced,thepoorly
educated.Torespondtosuchachallengemaymeangivingourselvesaway,and
givingawaychurchaswehaveknownandlovedit,forJesuswarnsusthat
discipleshipmeanslosingeverythingwethoughtmattered,inordertogainthat
whichreallydoes.
SallyNelson
NorthernBaptistCollege
LeeBeach,TheChurchinExile:LivinginhopeafterChristendom(Downers
Grove,IL:IVP,2015),240pp.
ThisworkbyLeeBeachofferstwomainarguments.ThefirstisthatbothOld
andNewTestamentssupportthecontentionthat‘exile’isanormativecondition
andexperienceforthepeopleofGod.AlthoughBeachdrawsonwidersocial
analysis,thebedrockofhisargumentisscriptureandtheappliedtheology
arisingfromthis.
42
Hebeginsbydescribingandexploringatheologyofexile.Thisisgroundedin
thestoriesofEsther,DanielandJonahandseenworked-outinBabylonand
Persia.Ineachcase,weareledtoenquirewhatmightbethesigns–sometimes
hidden–ofthepresenceofGodintheplaceswhereverHispeoplefind
themselves.ThesesignstendtosteerGod’speople’ssenseofidentity.Weare
theninvitedtoconsiderwhat‘holiness’mightappropriatelylooklikeineach
circumstance.Finally,issuesofmissionandpurposearediscussed,asthey
relatetothespecificplaceandthepeople.
Aswellasreadingthekeypassages,readersareinvitedtoenterintothe
accountsintheirimaginations,sincetheauthorarguesthattheexperienceof
exileas‘displacement’forGod’speoplemayassistustomakegreatersenseof
theculturalchangesaffectingthechurchinourdays.Indevelopingthistheme,
Beachturnsto1Peterandconsiderstheculturalpressuresonthe1stCentury
churchandtheapostle’sresponse.HesuggeststhatthepeopleofGodare,by
nature,exilic.Thisstatementstandsincontrasttooneofthekeythemesofthe
OldTestament–thatthereisaPromisedLand,whereGod’speoplehavea
permanenthome.IftheyareexiledfromthePromisedLand,itistheirdreamof
returningwhichmouldstheiridentity,theirholinessandtheirmission.
Thisisthesubjectoftheothercentralpropositionmadeinthiswork.Forsome
oftheexamplesusedbyBeacharenotsimplyfromthetimeofexilebutfocus
uponthosewhohavesettledandprosperedinthelandsoftheirconquerors.
BothEstherandDanielheldpositionsofinfluenceorresponsibilityandthere
seemslittleresonance,forthem,inbeingpilgrimsinforeignlandswhoawaitthe
return‘home’.Theyare,ineffect,adiaspora–whichisakeychangeofstanceif
theauthorinvitesthepresent-daychurchtooverlaythisexperienceand
worldviewonitssituation.Exilemaypresupposeareturnhome;diaspora
assumesthattherewillbenoreturntotheknownandsafeandthatadifferent
identitywillberequiredforpeopleintheirnewhomeland.
Ioftenencounter,talkingwithBaptistandotherChristianchurches,viewswhich
reflectthesetwopositions.Ontheonehand,therearethosewholookbackon
theirexperienceofchurchbeing(orbeingseentobe)nearthecentreofcivil
societyandwesternculture.Thismaybeamemoryinheritedasmuchfrom
theirparents’orpastgenerations.Thereisoftenbothanostalgiaforasenseof
somethinglostandafirmhopethatthechurchwillreturntoitsChristendom
‘home’beforelong–perhapswhenwhattheyunderstandby‘revival’comes
about.Thecontrastingpositionisheldbythosewhoaccept–reluctantlyorwith
delight–thatthechurchisnowheadingtowardthemarginsofsociety.For
them,theoldidentitiesandcertaintiesneedtobechallenged;theycannotsimply
transfertothiswhollynewcircumstance.BeachleansupontheActs10-11
narrativetoexplorehowPeterisledbytheSpirittodiscoverground-breaking
(foranorthodoxJew)newunderstandingsofidentity,holinessandmission.For
Peter,thesearehighlycontextualised.Theoutcomeofallthisisthatthe1st
centurychurchskidsuncomfortablyroundanumberoftheologicalcornersbut
staysonthetracksandcontinuesforward.
ItisforChristiansthatappreciatetheneedtodiscernanewidentity,anew
holinessandanewmissiontofittheirstatusasthediasporaontheedgesof
43
societythatthisworkwillbemosthelpful.Thereisatypicallyinsightful
introductionbyWalterBrueggemann,whichiswellworthreadingbefore
exploringthisworthwhile,thought-provokingandpracticalwork,whichI
commend.
IvanKing
ChurchfromScratch,Southend-on-Sea
GeneGreen,StephenPardue,K.K.Yeo(eds.),JesusWithoutBorders,
ChristologyintheMajorityWorld,(GrandRapids,MA:Eerdmans,2014),
193pp.
ThisbookisthefirsttobepublishedinthenewlyestablishedMajorityWorld
TheologyseriespublishedbyEerdmans.Thisbookdealswiththepersonand
workofJesusofNazareth,chosenbytheeditorsbecausethissubjectisbotheasy
andhard.ThesecondbookintheseriesconsiderstheTrinity,publishedin2015.
Theeditorsinformusthat70percentofChristiansliveintheMajorityWorldbut
thatmosttheologicalliteraturedoesnotreflectthis.TheyarecorrectandI
applaudthisinitiative.However,Iwassurprisedanddisappointedtonotethat6
ofthe11contributorsinthisinauguralvolumeliveintheWestandonlyoneisa
woman!Thisreallyisshamefulandiscertainlynotrepresentativeoftheworld
church.Ithinkweneedtomakesometoughchoiceshere.Ihaveamale
colleaguewhowillnotspeakatapubliceventunlessthereareroughlyan
equivalentnumberofwomen’svoices.Inourteachingwetrytoensureagood
numberofwomenwritersonthesubject–sometimesthisishardworkbecause
ofthewaytheworld,-andespeciallytheology-is.Sountileditorsand
publishersinsistonbalance,thingswillnotchange;wewilljustcontinueto
replicateandreinforcethisinjustice,imbalanceandscandalouslackof
representation.SoIfinditalarmingandworryingthatanewseriesproclaiming
itselfasaMajorityWorldTheologyserieshaslessthanhalfofitscontributors
fromtheMajorityWorldandonlyonewoman.
Thebookisdividedintotwosections:theologicalengagementsandbiblical
explorations.ChristologyisexploredfromAfrican,Asian,Palestinian,Latin
AmericanandNorthAmericanperspectives.Oceaniaismissing–acommon
oversightineditedbooksofthisnatureandnoticeabletothisreviewerwhois
fromAotearoa/NZ.TheauthorsofthebookwereaskedwhatChristologylooks
likeintheirregionandtodothistheyweretoinvestigatetherelationship
betweentheChristologyoftheChalcedoniandefinitionandtheirowncontextual
Christologicalinsights.Thismadeforsomefascinatingreadingandcomparisons
andIwillbrieflyreviewtwoofthechapters.TimoteoGenerfromthePhilippines
offersvariousnamesforJesusthatemergeoutofHinduandBuddhistsettings
suchasJesusasAvatara(incarnation),asEternalOm(logos),asCit
(consciousness),asapoormonk.Whilethesenamesarenotfreefromcritique,
evenwithinIndia,italertsustotheimportanceofrelatingtoJesusinwaysthat
emergefromtheculturalcontext.Inasimilarvein,ProfessorJohnMbitiofKenya
iscollectingAfricannamesforJesusandhasover300sofarthathavecomeout
44
ofthesoilsofAfrica.IntheMuslimcontext,Generremindsusofliving
ChristianlyalongsideMuslimsandnotonlydebatingandconversingaboutJesus
andIslam.HeclaimsthatlivingChristianlyamongMuslimsandtherefore
promptingthemtoaskquestionsisthemosteffectivewitnessinthiscontext.He
alsooffersfreshinsightsonPentecostalismandfolkCatholicisminthis
illuminatingchapter.
AidaBesançonSpencerwhohailsfromtheDominicanRepublicandnowis
ProfessorofNewTestamentatGordon-ConwellTheologicalSeminaryin
Massachusetts,USAhaswrittenanintriguingchapteronvenerationofMaryin
theLatino/acontext.Sheconcludesthatthisvenerationispartlyduetoan
inadequateChristologywhereJesus’divinitywasoveremphasisedwiththe
resultthatMarybecomesmoreapproachableandsympathetic.Sheprovidesa
surveyofLatino/aviewsofMaryandexplainsthatMaryisanimportantsymbol
forwomenandmothersintheirdailylivesinLatinAmerica.Sheexplainsthat
theroleofMaryisaproblemforministryinLatinAmericaasitisafineline
betweenoveremphasisingherimportanceanddiminishingorignoringher.
BesançonSpencerpraisesMary’shumility,herprayerfulness,herexampleasa
disciplebutbelievesthatMaryherselfwouldbehorrifiedatthevenerationshe
receiveswhichisreallyduetoherson,Jesus.
Ifindmyselfbetweenarockandahardplace.Thisbookoffersmanyinteresting
andimportantinsightswhichhavechallengedmeandIwillprobablyusethis
bookinmyteaching.Ofcourse,writersfromthenon-MajorityWorldhave
insightsandtreasurestoofferalso.MydiscomfortarisesfromtheselfproclaimedMajorityWordemphasisoftheseries,whichisonlyjusttrueinthis
firstvolumeandmoreparticularlyinthelamentableabsenceofwomen
contributors.
CathyRoss
RiponCollege,Cuddesdon
CathyRossandStephenB.Bevans(ed.),MissionontheRoadtoEmmaus:
Constants,ContextandPropheticDialogue(London:SCM,2015),280pp.
Oneofthegreatstrengthsofthiscollectionofpapersisthecontributionof
RomanCatholictheologians,ofwhomthewidestknownwouldbetheco-editor,
StephenBevans,andthewaythatthisisaccompaniedbycontributionsfrom
Anglicans(suchastheotherco-editor,andoccasionalRegent’sParktutor,Cathy
Ross),Baptists(JoKapolyoisministerofEdmontonBaptistChurch)—bothof
whomIcountasfriends—andPentecostal,inthepersonofKirsteenKim,
ProfessoratLeedsTrinityUniversityandparticipantinWCCmissionwork.This
isathoroughlyecumenicalexplorationofmissioninthe21stcentury.
Theintroductionsetsthescene,asRossandBevansestablishmissionas
propheticdialogue,‘withaheart“soopen”,asAfricanAmericannovelistAlice
Walkerdescribesit,“thatthewindblowsthroughit.’(xiv)Thisisaspiritual
45
disciplinethatdiscernsthedifferencebetweenpropheticresistancetoprevailing
culture,ordialoguewithit.
Theopeningchapterofpart1byVanthanhNguyenviewsthepropheticministry
ofJesus,andcallsformissiontodaytoemulatetheLuke4:16–21programmeby
(i)beingledbytheSpirit;(ii)byinauguratingthereignofGod;and(iii)by
conveyingthegoodnewsofsalvationtoall.(16).AmosYongfollowsthischapter
withonethatestablishesapneumatologicalapproachtoChristology,confirming
boththeuniquenessofJesusChristasMessiahandLord,andthepossibilityof
interfaithencounter.Dialogueinmissiondoesnotmeanwecompromisethe
basicChristologicalconvictionsoftheChristianfaith.KirsteenKimcompletes
thisfirstpartwithanexpositionofthemissionofJesusandtheHolySpiritin
LukeActs,anareaofenquirythatisparticularlywell-troddenbyboth
Pentecostalscholarsandothers,suchasJimmyDunnandMaxTurner.For
missiologistsunawareofthisdiscussion,Kim’schapterisafaithfulsummaryand
usefulwayin.
Parts2–5distinguishbetweenecclesiologicalconcerns,eschatological,
soteriologicalandanthropologicalones.EmmaWild-Woodconsidersmigration,
andthekindsofchurchesthatemergefromit.Shefavoursinterculturalchurch,
wherewealllearnwhatitistoberesidentaliens.CathyRossusesthemetaphor
ofthechurchasamotherwithanopenhearttoestablishhospitalityasacrucial
modeofmission.IguessIambiased,butIfoundthisoneofthemoststimulating
contributions,notonlybecauseIknowCathy,butalsobecauseithasbeensucha
strongthemeofmydoctoralsupervisor,LukeBretherton.Withhospitableeyes
weseetheother,offerthemnourishment,notjustactuallysharingmeals,but
alsointheEucharist,andcreatespaceforthem.DawnNothwehrlooksat
ecojustice,rootedincovenantandsacrament(andturningtosourcesthatI
wouldneverhadimagined—BonaventureofBagnoregio,JohnDunsScotusand
theFransiscantraditions—butthen,IamnotRomanCatholiclikeSisterDawn!);
TimNaishconsidermissionandissuesofsocialjustice;RobertSchreiterat
possibilitiesofreconciliation,withtheAfricanexperienceuppermost;Mark
Heimatsalvationascommunion,‘Wecannotseeksalvationapartfromhealing
thebrokenrelationshipsandstructuresthatconnectpersons.TheTrinitarian
communionwhichissourceandendfortheChristianpathisnotanidentityof
isolationorcontradictionbutofreconciliation.Thisisthedeepgrammarby
whichprophesyanddialoguearenecessarilywrittenintotheChristianmission’
(p.148);FrancesAdeneyexplorescontemporarywomen’scontributionto
propheticdialogueasmission;MariaCimpermantakeshopeasherwayinto
propheticdialogue;andJoKapolyolooksatthehumanconditionfromthe
perspectiveofAfricananthropology—andespeciallythatoftheBembapeopleof
whichJoisamember.
Theclosingpartdrawsthesethemestogether,withJonnyBakerlookingat
pioneeringinBritainandpopularculture;andRogerSchroedertakinguponeof
thesixtheologicalconstantsthatheandStephenBevansproposedinConstants
inContext—namely,culture,‘fromtheperspectiveofinterculturality(which
movesmulticulturalco-existencetothemoreintegrativeintercultural,where
mutualityoftheprocessofculturalinteractionisemphasized.)Finally,Stephen
46
Bevanspicksupthethreadsofhissignificantcontributiontomissiology:
contextualtheology.
Thereismuchinthiscollectiontoinformandstimulatecontemporarymission,
and,asawayintomanyofthethemesofmissiologytoday,someofthe
contributorsprovidewhatImightdescribeasthebeginners’glimpseatmuch
widerlandscapes.Notsomuchfullmapsasanover-viewoftheterritory
sufficienttostimulatefurtherexploration.Iwanttoreadmoreabout
interculturalityandhospitalityandtheplaceofhope—thisisagoodplaceto
start,though.So,thankyouRossandBevansforeditingafascinatingcollection
ofpapersthatshouldbereadbyeveryministerialstudentwantingtoestablisha
missionaledgetotheheartoftheirministry(yes,thatshouldbeallofus),and
especiallybythosewhoengagewiththemessy,dynamic,thrillingcontextin
whichweexerciseministrytodayhereintheUnitedKingdom.
PaulGoodliff
AbingdonBaptistChurch
GraceDavie,ReligioninBritain:apersistentparadox(2ndEd.;Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell,2015),280pp.
GraceDaviepublishedherfirstsurveyoftheBritishreligiouslandscapein1994
underthetitle,ReligioninBritainsince1945:Believingwithoutbelonging-the
subtitletowhichhasnowpassedintogeneralchurchphraseologyaswellasinto
sociologicaldebateaboutreligion.Thisneweditiontakesdatafromrecent
censusandothersurveysandoffersmuchmorethananupdate.Davieaddresses
manynewdevelopmentsintheBritishreligiousscene,asamuchmore
consciouslyEuropean,multicultural,pluralistandpost-secularentitythanthe
countryofthefirstedition.Itisamasterfulsurveyandoffersplentyof
referencedmaterialforreaderstopursue.
Inadditiontothestatisticaldata,agoodproportionofthebook'scontent
addressesthemanychangestotheChristian'infrastructure'oftheUK.Although
churchattendanceoverallcontinuestodecline,Davieexplorestheplacethat
churchstilloffersinnationallife:anhistoricarchitectural,legalandcultural
background;aspaceforritualmoments;theshifttoreligionbeinga'choice'and
notaduty;andtheimpactofreligiousdiversification,bothasaresultof
immigrationfromnon-Christianareasandtheinternalgrowthofalternative
religiousandspiritualoptions.Thequestion:whatisbelief?runsasasubcurrent
throughthetext.
OneofthetechniquesDavieusesistoexaminekeymemorablenationalevents
asrevelatoryofunderlyingsocialattitudes.Onesuchexample,PrincessDiana's
funeral,demonstratestheincreasinglycommondesireforvicariousreligion.
Daviediscussesthewayinwhichasmallgroupofactivebelieversareperceived
to'hold'thefaithfortherest,whomayonlyaccessitattimesofneedsuchas
birthanddeath-althoughtheremayalsobeadeepinterestinthepublic
47
pronouncementsofseniorclergy,andanalmostcynicalinterrogationoftheir
conductandpersonalprinciplessimplybecausetheyarethereas
representativesoffaithtraditions(whichthecriticalmajoritymaynotpractise).
Theroleofministersinsuchareligiouslandscapeischallengingtosaytheleast.
OtherindicativeeventsexploredbyDavieincludethefalloftheBerlinWalland
theopeningupofcultures;andtheRushdieaffairoverTheSatanicVerses,
demonstratinganewinterestinreligion(notnecessarilyemergingsolelyfrom
Christianity).
AnaspectofthediscussionthatIfoundbothinterestingandchallengingwasthe
welldocumentedshiftto'marketdominated'religiouschoice.Throughcase
studiesandsurveydata,Davieexplorestheenormousdiversificationofreligious
possibilities-notjustwithinChristianity,butalsootherfaithsandnewspiritual
andreligiousmovements.Wecancertainlychoose!Manyofuswillknow
anecdotallythatcathedralsandcharismaticchurchesoftenthrive,whilemore
'everyday'examplesofchurchstruggleon.Daviebelievesthisisamarket
phenomenon,drivenbythefactthatbothcathedralandcharismaticoffermore
thanacerebralexperience(cathedralsbeingbeautiful,withmusicandliturgyto
engagetheeyeandear,whilecharismaticworshipisaboutsensationand
experience),butwithotherfactorsinfluencingtheirsuccess.Cathedralsoccupy
the'borderbetweenthereligiousandthesecular',whichpermitsthepracticeof
vicariousreligiondescribedearlier.InbothtypestheSundayexperienceis
aesthetically'other'.Perhapstheveryordinarinessforwhichmanychurches
havestrivenisinfactaput-offfactorfortheunchurchedmajority.
OneofDavie'sinterests,onwhichshehaspublishedelsewhere,isthe
relationshipbetweengenderandreligion.Itwillnotbeasurprisethatthe
statisticsshowthatwomenaremoreactivethanmeninthepursuitofreligionin
Britain.Therearesomeinterestingdataonnewspiritualitiesshowingthat
middleagedwomenfromthecaringprofessionsareparticularlyattractedto
them.Daviesuggestssometheories:isitaboutself-indulgence?About
combattingvictimhood?Aboutdevelopingpersonalpotential?Whatcould
churches,whooftensetwomentoworkinchildren'sministries,pastoralcare,
andcatering,learnfromthesestatistics?
Baptistsgetaspecial,passing,mentionasbuckingtheworstofthedeclinein
churchattendancewhencomparedwithotherFreeChurchdenominations
(thoughstillonadownwardpath).Daviebelievesthisisbecausewebridgethe
gapbetweenOldDissentandnewformsofchurch.Whetherthisisabout
transferduetodisillusionment,ortruegrowth,isnotclear.
Thebookdrawstoanendwithadiscussionoftheinteractionbetweenpolitics
andreligion-nolongeraretheynotmentionedinpolitecompany!Manyhigh
profilefiguresadmittoandevenutilisepersonalreligiousbelieftoendorse
policiesorbehaviours,somethingunthinkableinthemid-20thcentury.Davie
concludeswithsomehelpfulcommentsonthenatureofpost-secularsociety:no
longercanweescapetheintrusionofreligiousissuesintotheagenda,evenif
personallywedonotpractise.
48
Iwouldrecommendthisbookasbackgroundreadingforanyreflectiveproject
orresearchonreligionorChristianpractice,apologeticsormission:'Afirmand
necessarygraspofthesociologicalrealitiesisbutthebeginning'.Itwouldgivea
goodoverviewofthe'stateofthenation'fromwhichfurtherreflectioncan
develop.Themostdisappointingaspectofthebookwasthedifficultyofreading
thestatisticalcharts,colourcodedinshadesofindecipherablegrey.
Whataboutministry,then?'Workingoutappropriateministerialstrategiesfor
thiscontinuallyshiftingandI'll-definedcontextisthecentralandvery
demandingtaskofthereligiousprofessional',commentsDavie.Quite.
SallyNelson
NorthernBaptistCollege
EileenBebbington,APatternedLife:FaithHistoryandDavidBebbington
(Eugene,OR:WipfandStock,2014),145pp.
FormostofhisacademiccareerDavidBebbingtonhasworkedintheHistory
DepartmentoftheUniversityofStirling,latterlyasProfessor.Heisknownto
manyofusasadistinguishedandinfluentialhistorianespeciallyofevangelical
andnonconformisthistory.HisworkonVictoriannonconformityandon
WilliamEGladstonehasbeenwidelyacclaimed.The‘Bebbingtonquadrilateral’
thatheusedtodefineevangelicalismisnowacceptedasthemostaccurate
descriptiveframeworkinwhichtoplacethestoryoftheevangelicalmovement.
AsaBaptist,DavidBebbingtonhasbeenplayedhispartintherevivalofBaptist
historicalstudies,especiallythroughtheInternationalConferencesofBaptist
Studies,andtheScottishHistoryProject.Hehasbeenanencouragerand
doctoralsupervisorofseveralyoungerBaptistscholarsonbothsidesofthe
Atlantic.
EileenBebbington’saffectionatebiographyofherhusbanddescribeswellall
theseaspectsofadistinguishedacademiccareer.Butaswemightexpect,itis
alsofullofinsightintothebackgroundandhumanqualitiesofthemanbehind
thebooksandthelectures.Shemakesthepointthatthepost-waraccessby
meansoflocalscholarshipstotopschoolssuchasNottinghamHighSchool,and
thegrantsavailableforUniversitystudy,Cambridgeinthiscase,madethepath
ofthegiftedscholarforman‘ordinary’backgroundperhapseasierthanwouldbe
thecasetoday.
Perhapswhatimpressesmostofallinthisportraitisitsdescriptionofalifelived
asadiscipleofJesusChrist.WhetherthroughtheconcerntorelateChristian
faithtotheacademicstudyofhistory,orthepreachingandotherinvolvementin
thelifeofthelocalchurch,DavidBebbingtonemergesassomeonewhohas
activelysoughttoliveouthisfaithinthe‘patterns’ofhislife.
TherearethreeshortappendicesoflecturesandsermonsbyDavidBebbington
thatillustratetheseaspects.ThefinaloneusesPsalm119toreflecton‘The
49
ChristianScholarandtheScriptures’.TheChristianscholar,hesays,shouldbe
characterisedbygraceapologetics,communication,obedience,freedom,
confidence,delightandmeditation.‘Ifourscholarshipbearsthesemarksitwill
betrulyChristian’.Thisbooktellsthestoryofonewhohassoughttobesucha
scholar.
TonyPeck
EuropeanBaptistFederation
StanleyK.Fowler,RethinkingBaptism:SomeBaptistReflections(Eugene
Oregon:WipfandStock,2015),62pp.
Thissmallbookisbasicallyapopularexplanationofideasconcerningbaptismas
articulatedmorefullyinFowler’slargerwork,MoreThanaSymbol(Paternoster,
2002).Fowlerbeginsbyexplaininghispersonaljourneytoa‘sacramental’view
ofbeliever’sbaptism.Heexplains,expandsupon,anddefendsthisviewthrough
asurveyofexplicitNewTestamenttextsrelatingtobaptismandtootherNew
Testamentallusions.Baseduponthisevidenceheclaims,‘baptismisthe
normativewayinwhichfaithcomestotangibleexpression,andsalvation
becomesanassuredreality…Godintendsittoserveasadefiningmomentof
conversion,thewayinwhichthepenitentsinnerformallysaysyestothegospel
andreceivesthesalvationofferedbyGodthroughChrist.’(30).Intheconcluding
chapterheraisesandaddressesanumberofquestionswhichhethinksthathis
perspectivewillraise.Theseincludewhetheritdeniesthatpeoplearesavedby
gracealone,atwhatageapersonshouldbebaptised,andthesignificanceofthis
viewforchurchgovernanceifitmeansthatnewbelieverswillconstitutethe
membership.
Fowleriswillingtoadopttheterminologyofsacramenttodescribehisview
althoughrecognisesthatthisisitselfproblematicandthatitdependsontheway
inwhichonethinksthatbaptismactsasasacrament.Intermsofhisownview
hearguesthatbaptismisthedivinelyappointedwayinwhichpeopleexperience
‘thesalvationofthekingdomofGodthroughrepentance’.(13)Inthisrespect
‘faithandbaptismaretheinnerandouteraspectsofonereality’.(23)
Accordingly,‘wegetbaptizedbecausewearesinnersseekingChrist’andwith
thefaiththatsuchrequires‘unionwithChrist,theforgivenessofsins,andthegift
oftheSpirit’are‘benefitsreceivedthroughbaptism’.(28)Hisisa‘Reformed
BaptistsacramentalunderstandingofthemeaningofChristianbaptism’.(56)
TheabovestatementsmayindeedraiseanumberofquestionswhichFowler
goesontotryandanswer.Heisclearthatsalvationisnotdependentonbaptism
andtheuseoftheterm‘normative’createsthespaceinwhichexemptionscanbe
discussed.Hemakesmuchofbaptismandclearlywantstobringitclosertothe
eventofsalvationwhilestressingthatgraceisnotintheritualapartfromfaithin
theoneseekingsalvation.
InseveralplacesFowlerusestheterm‘experience’todescribehowbaptism
functions.Iwasnotclearwhathemeantbythatterminrelationtopeoples
50
appropriationofsalvationatbaptismorintheclaimthatsymbolshavethe
power‘totranslatementalcommitmentintoexperience’.(38)Inturn,Ithink
thathestruggledwithalwaysbeingconsistentinholdingahighviewofbaptism
withoutmakingitinsomewayessentialtosavingfaith.Heisclearlythoughtful
andgraciousinmanyofhisanswerstothequestionsheposes.Thissaid,Iwas
leftsomewhatcoldandsuspicioustohissuggestionthatthewayinwhichto
addresslessmaturemembersmakingupcongregationsistopushmore
decisionstotheleadership.Itisalsoclearthatattimestheaudienceheis
addressingrelatestoaspecificNorthAmericanconstituencyandsomeofthe
argumentsandresponsesareframedtoaddressaparticularapproachto
baptismwhichpositsitasmoreofan‘afterthought’thananeventofimportance.
IdonotthinkthatthelatteristypicalinmanyBritishBaptistscontextseven
thosewhichmaynotholdtoa‘sacramental’understanding.This
notwithstanding,thissmallbookinvitessomethoughtaboutthesignificanceof
baptismnotleastinrelationtothebiblicalwitnessconcerningthepracticeand
itscloserelationshiptoconversion.
StuartBlythe,
InternationalBaptistTheologicalStudyCentre,Amsterdam
ZoëBennett,UsingtheBibleinPracticalTheology:Historicaland
ContemporaryPerspectives(Farnham:Ashgate,2013),150pp.
TheAshgateseries‘ExplorationsinPractical,PastoralandEmpiricalTheology’
offersanumberofengagingvolumes,andZoëBennett’scontributionisa
welcomeone.Initshewrestleswiththequestionofhowthebibleistobeused
inpracticaltheology,andshedoessowithanawarenessofcontemporary
debatesontheologicalmethod,herownchangingexperienceasabiblereader
overmanyyears,andtheinsightsofJohnRuskin-theartcriticandpolymath-
whoprovesanunlikelybutfruitfulpartnerintheologicalexploration.
Thisbookisprimarilyabookaboutmethod,aboutwhereandhowwebegin
whenwethinktheologicallyinmediasres-inthemiddleofthings-assheputsit.
ManyofourevangelicalinstinctsdriveustoworkdeductivelyfromScripture(or
Tradition,forsomebelievers);someinsistthatweshouldalwaysbegin
inductivelywithexperience.Bennettbothchallengesthispolarisation,andyet
alsosubtlyaffirmstheinductiveapproach.Thechallengecomesinthe
recognitionthat,ontheonehand,wenevercometothetextofscripturewithout
somepre-understanding,andwithoutsomelifeexperienceshapingourreading
ofthetext;andontheotherhand,nothingisexperiencedwithoutsomekindof
assumedoradoptedinterpretiveframework.Inevitablywebegin,asitwere,
frombothendsatonce.DespiteBennett’srecognitionofthis,sheendsby
affirmingtheinductivemethodasappropriateforpracticaltheology.This
apparentcontradictionisallowable,Ithink,fortworeasons.First,eventhough
weappreciatethatour‘startingpoint’isdifficulttoidentifyinanysimpleway,
wecanrecognisethatwehavecertainpreferencesinapproach;second,toaffirm
51
aninductivemethod,forBennett,recognisesthatalltheologicalworkis
contextualandbiographical-itbeginswithus,whereweare.
Thebiographicalisanimportantelementinthis-andhereherownstory,andin
particularherownencounterswiththebibleandthewayithasbeenused
(especiallybyothers),isanimportantpartofheridentificationoftheissuesand
marshallingofargument.Reflectiononourown‘biblicalbiography’ishelpfully
encouraged.Butitalsoleadsintoacreativedialoguewiththebiography-thelife
andthethought-ofJohnRuskin,1819-1900.Ruskinlivedthroughatimeof
tumultfororthodoxChristianfaith,duringwhichthenatureofthebible’s
authoritywasaliveissue.Ruskin’sabilityto‘seewiththeheart,’andhisintuitive
useofthebibleheleantathismother’sknee,inrelationtothesocialand
intellectualissuesofhisdaystimulatesBennett’sownthinking.
Butwhilethisisabookaboutmethod,itisalsoverymuchearthed,practical.
Threecontemporarycontextsallowustoseewhatthisall‘means.’The‘Occupy’
protestsintheCityofLondon,andGilesFraser’sresignationfromStPaul’s;the
PalestinianChristians’Kairosdocumentof2009;andtheauthor’sownworkof
supervisingDMinstudentsdoingpracticaltheologicalreflectionintheirown
context.Thisisastimulatingandrecommendedread.
RobertEllis
Regent’sParkCollege,Oxford
NigelWright(ed.),TruthThatNeverDies:TheDr.G.R.Beasley-Memorial
Lectures2002-2012(Eugene,OR:Pickwick,2014),222pp.
ThissetofelevenlecturesoffersanexcellentexampleofBaptisttheologyin
honourofoneofmostreveredtheologians,GeorgeBeasley-Murray.BeasleyMurraywasaformerprincipalofSpurgeon’sCollegeandinresponse,underthe
auspicesofthethenprincipalNigelWright,arrangedthissetoflecturestoreflect
onBeasley-Murray’sworkforthepresentday.FirstdeliveredattheBaptist
Assemblybetween2002and2012,andsubsequentlysomepublishedinthe
BaptistQuarterlyandelsewhere,itisgoodtoallthelecturesgatheredtogetherin
onevolume.
ThelecturesincludeAnthonyCrossonbaptism,arguingthatBeasley-Murray
wasrightthenandstilltodaytoarguefortheimportanceofbaptismasan
evangelicalsacrament.DavidCoffeylooksbackonhistenureasGeneral
SecretaryoftheBaptistUnion(1991-2006)andthemovetoseetheUnionas
missionarybody.JohnColwellprovidesadiscussionofBaptistsandcatholicity
andconfessionalism,discussingtheDeclarationofPrinciple,andBeasleyMurray’scallforanewconfessionoffaith.StephenHolmesexploresthe
relevancyofpreaching.RuthGouldbourneaskswhatitmeanstobean
incompetentminister.BrianStanleyassessestheplaceofmissioninBaptistlife.
NigelWrighttakestheinfamousincidentoftheMichaelTayloraddressatthe
52
BaptistAssemblyin1971toreflectontheimportanceoffaithfulnessand
freedomindenominationallife.
Thiskindofproject,whichreflectsonthepast–inthiscasetheworkofGeorge
Beasley-Murray–withaeyetothepresentremainsavitalactivitysorelyneeded
amongstBaptists.Ifitwaspossiblethisisthebookandotherslikeit,shouldbe
atthecentreofconversationsamonglocalministers,withinassociationsandthe
widerUnion.ToooftenasBaptistswepaylip-servicebothtothepastandtothe
taskoftheology.Gouldbourne’schapteranticipatesmuchofthecurrentBaptist
UnionIgnitereportandwouldbeahelpfulmeansofreflectingontheissues.
Wright’schaptercouldbehelpfulinthecurrentdiscussiononhowwehandle
ourdifferencesongayandlesbianrelationships,withitsemphasison
faithfulnessandfreedom.Coffey’schapterandStanley’schaptercouldbeaplace
toaskifwearemissionaryUnionandwhatitmightmeantobeone.Thisbook
couldbearesourcetoourcurrentconversationsasBaptistsandinthiswayI
hopeitgetswidelyread.IalsohopeitmightstimulateSpurgeon’sandtheother
collegestoinvestinthiskindofpubliclecturesinthefuture.
AndyGoodliff
BelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea
53