THEOLOGY,ETHICSAND PHILOSOPHY
ProclaimingtheScandaloftheCross:ContemporaryImagesofthe Atonement,MarkD.Baker(ed.),Baker,2006(ISBN0-8010-2742-X),204 pp.,pb£11.99
Inthisfollow-uptohispreviouseffortwithJoelGreen, Recoveringthe ScandaloftheCross (DownersGrove:InterVarsity,2000),MarkBaker assemblesnineteenvignettesonthecrossselectedfortheirabilityto assistministry.Bakerexplainsthatwhilemanyreaderswerestimulated bythefirstbook,hereceivednumerousenquiriesrelatedtopreaching andevangelism.‘Thisnewvolume’,hedeclares,‘ismyresponsetothose questions’(p.14).So,whereashispreviousworkwithGreenwasan argumentforthecontextualizationofatonementtheology,thisbookis theactualexercise,anattempttomatchthevarietyofbiblicalimagesfor atonementwithhumanity’snumerousneeds.Eachchapterbeginswith theeditor’sintroductionofboththecontributorandthecontribution.
Baker’sintroductorychaptermakesitclearthatthisnewworkshares oneofthekeylaborsofthefirstbook,namely,tosupplantpenalsubstitutionaryatonement.Indeed,hespendsagoodbitofspacecounteringtheview,reinterpretingkeyScripturalpassagesthoughttosupport it,andansweringcriticswhowoulddisagreewithhisrejectionofit. Adheringtothismodelhasbecomesomethingofascandalitself. Accusedofbeingmorallyreprehensible(seeJ.DennyWeaver, The NonviolentAtonement [GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2001];andDarby KathleenRay, DeceivingtheDevil [Cleveland:Pilgrim,1998]),theologicallyawkward(seePeterSchmiechen, SavingPower [GrandRapids: Eerdmans,2005]),andbiblicallyinaccurate(seeGreenandBaker, RecoveringtheScandal;andS.MarkHeim, SavedfromSacrifice [Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2006]),penalsubstitutionaryatonementhasbeen roundlydismissed,denounced,anddenigrated.‘Thisbook’,saysBaker, ‘willprovideexamplesofalternativesandthushelppeoplemove beyond[thedilemmaof]knowingwhattheydonotwanttodo,butnot knowingwhattoreplaceitwith’(p.27).Yet,withgenerosity,healso
ReviewsinReligionandTheology,15:2(2008) ©2008TheAuthors.Journalcompilation©2008BlackwellPublishingLtd.,9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ, UKand350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA.
admitsthatthosewhoagreewithpenalsubstitutioncanbeenrichedby encounteringotherbiblicalimages.
Thesubversionofpenalsubstitutionisalmostomnipresent.The summaryofC.S.Lewis’sfictionaldevelopmentoftheatonementinhis TheLion,TheWitch,andtheWardrobe,forexample,promptsBakerto comment:‘Heoffersanexplanationandimageofsubstitutionaryatonement[...] differentfromtraditionalpenalsubstitution’(p.41).His applicationofMatthewes-Green’sessaybegins:‘Forthoseaccustomed tohearingtheatonementportrayedasatransactioninwhichJesus’ punishmentonthecrosssatisfiedGod’srequirementsforjustice, Matthewes-Green’sgraphicimageryoftriumphandreleaseisstartling initsdramaandcelebrationofvictory’(p.45).IntroducingDebbieBlue’s pieceBakerstates:‘Unfortunately,manyofushavereadtheBible throughthelensofpenalsatisfactiontheoryforsolongthatthebiblical teachingontheatonementhasbecomeone-dimensional’(p.62).Commentingonhisowncontribution,Bakerremindsreadersthat‘[a]central purposeofthisbookistoprovideexamplesofalternativeimagesofthe atonement[...] Unless,however,thereisproclamationwithimages andstoriesthatcommunicatenonpenalunderstandingsoftheatonementthemajorityofChristianswillcontinuetobeshapedonlyby imagesofpenalsubstitutionthatassumeadivineneedtopunishmust besatisfied’(p.84).WhatisthevalueofChapters9and10?They‘offer examplesofhowonecanproclaimasubstitutionaryatonementwithout ithavingapenalcharacter’(p.109).BrianMcLaren’ssermonmoves readers‘outsidetheparametersofpenalsubstitutiontheory’(p.110). MikeMcNicholsis‘applauded’for‘reinterpretingratherthandiscardingsymbolsofpenalsubstitution’(p.152).Thissamebenefitisfoundin GwinyaiMuzorewa’ssermonwhich‘provide[s]alternativestothepenal satisfactionunderstanding’(p.164).Becausethisbookproffersother models,Bakerexplainsthatweneedthesealternativestobecastinto poemsandsongsfordisbursementandconsumption.‘Unfortunately’, helamentswhileintroducingLuciShaw’spoem,‘manypeopleinterpret mostallpoeticimageryofthecrossinpenalcategoriessincetheyviewit throughthelensesofpenalsatisfaction’(p.160).
Giventhepervasivenessofthisonslaught,onemightconcludethat Bakerlostsightofhisgoalsofcontextualizingthecrossandofdevelopingalternativeimages,confusingthemwiththeoverthrowofpenal substitutionaryatonement.Thedecisiontotreatthebookasanattempt atunderminingthistheoryisasquestionableastheresultisdistracting. Additionally,thereareprobablyonlythreeserious‘alternatives’to penalsubstitutionfoundinthesepages:(1) ChristusVictor;(2)René Girard’stheoryofmimeticviolenceandsacrificialscapegoatingwhich S.MarkHeimhasdevelopedatlengthinhis SavedfromSacrifice;and(3) variationsonthemoralinfluencetheory.Thesearefairlyfamiliartoday, andsoonewonderswhyanotherbookwasrequired.
Yet,itdoesgiveproclamationsofthecrossthataredifferentthan thosecommoninconservativechurches.Inthisregard,RichardHays’s sermonisworthmentioning.HesurfacesthreewaysinwhichcontemporariesoughttobereprogrammedbyPaul’sunderstandingofthe cross:(1)recognitionofoursinfulsituation;(2)recognitionthatour sinfulsituationisnothopeless;and(3)realizationthat‘itistheobedienceofJesusChristonwhichoursalvationhangs’(p.100).Inexplanation,Haysgivesananalogy:
[W]eareadysfunctionalfamily,caughtincyclesofmisunderstanding, infidelity,conflict,andabuse.Jesusarrivesinthemidstofourdomestic troubles–asamysterious,long-lostolderbrother–andtransformsthe familybylivinganewself-givingway.Hetherebyastonishinglychanges thedestructivedynamicsandrefocusesthefamilyontheloveofGod.His faithfulnessnotonlymodelsadifferentpatternoflifebutalsoactually createsanewkindoffamily.(p.101)
Certainly,Haysprovidespreacherswithanalternativeproclamation.
CurtisChang’s‘HeSharedOurAches’isquitecreative.Insteadof simplyexpositingthefactsabouttheGospel,Changdramatisesthem bytransposingthemintoanexperiencetowhichmanyhumanscan relate:adoctor’sdiagnosisandtreatmentofaseriousillness.Humans sufferfrom‘ChronicAlienation’,alienationfromGod,fromeachother, fromourselves,andfromthecreatedorder.Afterdescribingthesymptoms,Changexposesthedeadlyeffectsofthesinvirus.Butthedoctor bringsgoodnewsintheformof‘God’sTreatmentPlan’whichconsists oftheincarnationwherethevirusisingested,thecrucifixionwhich achievesthecure,theresurrectionwhichreleasesthecure,andnew creationwhichisfullhealing.Bytranslatingtheatonementinto medicalidiom,ChangmodelsthesortofcontextualizationBakeris seeking.
Similarly,DanWhitmarshrecountsthetimehehadhisyouthgroup actouttheatonement.Byusingthecommonscenarioofaphysical fight,Whitmarshillustratedthespiralingeffectsofviolence.Theatonementisperformedbyhavingathirdyouthenterbetweenthetwo fightingpartnersjustastheydealeachotherthedeathblow.Then,the thirdyouthrisesfromthedeadandoffersforgivenesstotheothertwo. Thiscompassionateactofatonement,explainsWhitmarsh,turnsthe violenceofthefightonitshead,issuingforthinreconciliation.Whitmarsh’sdramagivesotheryouthministersideasabouthowtomove beyondmereexplanationtowardrelevantillustration.
ParticularlynoteworthyisBaker’sinclusionofchildren’sministers whoareperhapstoday’smostmarginalizedintheologicalreflection. Whileclassmaterialssuchascoloringbooksanddevotionalsabound, fewtheologiansareinqueueatthepublishinghousewithmanuscriptsthatdotheologyfromthisperspective.Sotheirinclusionisa
meritofBaker’swork.However,thecontentofthisbookisrather stunted.Theexamplesareoftenlessthanprofound,thealternativesset fortharefairlycommonintheexistingliterature,andthecontextualizationisratheruncritical.Readerssearchingforhelpinapplyingand proclaimingthecrossdobettertoconsultL.GregoryJones’s EmbodyingForgiveness (GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1995),thethreegemsfrom MiroslavVolf– ExclusionandEmbrace (GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 1996); FreeofCharge (GrandRapids:Zondervan,2006);and TheEndof Memory (GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2007)–StanleyHauerwas’s CrossShatteredChrist (GrandRapids:Brazos,2005),andthesermonsof FlemingRutledgein TheUndoingofDeath (GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 2002).
JamesR.A.Merrick King’sCollege,UniversityofAberdeenKarlBarthandEvangelicalTheology,SungWookChung(ed.),Baker Academic,2006(ISBN978-0-8010-3127-4),xx + 282pp.,pb$27.99
EvangelicalshavenotalwaysbeenkindtoKarlBarth.CorneliusVanTil setthetonebytreatingBarthasadangerousfriend–orperhapsa deceptivelyfriendlyenemy.ForVanTil,Barthusesorthodoxterminologyinadecidedlymodernway.VanTilthoughtBarthwastooshaped byexistentialismtoappreciatethehistoricalobjectivityofrevelation. CarlF.H.HenryfollowedsuitbylabelingBarthanirrationalist.Henry thoughtBarthdistortedthemeaningofGod’sfreedombyworkingto detachrevelationfromhumanwordsandconcepts.Revelationfor Henryiscognitiveinnatureandpropositionalinform.Whatrevelation wasforBarthwasmuchharderforevangelicalstofigureout.
Inretrospect,adialoguebetweenNorthAmericanProtestantEvangelicalsandKarlBarthseemslikeoneofthosegreatmissedopportunitiesofmoderntheology.Nonetheless,ifeverythinghasitsseason, thennowistherighttimefortheengagementtobegin.Evangelical theologyhascomeofage,andBarth’spositioninthetheologicalfirmamentissecure,sothereislittletoloseandeverythingtogain.This collectionofessaysshowsthatsomeofthebestevangelicalscholarscan writesomeofthebestessaysaboutBarth.
Thequalityoftheseessaysisconsistentlyhighandworthreadingby thoseinterestedinevangelicaltheologyorBarth.However,onedoes notgettheimpressionfromthemthatBarthiantheologywillbecome centraltoevangelicalconcernsanytimesoon.Barthisstillsocloseto
evangelicalsthattheywillprobablyneedmoredistance–andmore yearstocome–tograsphisstrengthsandweaknessesasasympathetic sojourner.Still,an‘evangelicalBarth’hasatleastasmuchifnotmore claimforscholarlyattentionasapostliberal,postmodern,orplainold radicalBarth,whichleavesmehopingformorevolumesalongthisline inthefuture.
Perhapsthemostseriousobstacletoanevangelicalappropriationof Barthconcernshisunderstandingofrevelationingeneralandscripture inparticular.Appropriately,thosearethetopicsofthefirsttwoessays. GabrielFackrecorrectsVanTil’schargeofsubjectivism,buthedoesnot letBarthoffthehookaltogether.HesuggeststhatBarth’s‘actualism’ stillhasrootsinexistentialism,andheresurrectstheoldchargeof occasionalism,whichmeansthatBarthmakesnocoherentaccountof thecongruencebetweenthemediaandthecontentofrevelation. Unlessthischargecanberesolved,evangelicalswillalwayskeepsome healthydistancefromBarth.
KevenJ.Vanhoozersoftensthischargewithoutresolvingit.Hetraces thehistoryofBarth’sreceptionintheevangelicalcommunity,fromthe chargethathehasanessentially‘adoptionist’viewofbiblicalauthority toBernardRamm’sconsenttotheideaofa diastasis (ordistance) betweentheWordofGodanditslinguisticexpression.Vanhoozeralso referstoBruceL.McCormack’simportantworkdefendingBarthfrom misunderstandingsofhisideathatScripturehasitsbeinginbecoming. Thisistrue,McCormackhaswritten,notjustofscripturebutofeverything.McCormackarguesthatGod’swillmakestheBiblewhatitis essentially,sothathearersoftheWordwhochoosenottoobeyare rejectingonlywhattheythinkistheBible.WhenGodchoosestomake theBiblebearwitnesstorevelation,theBibledoesnotbecomesomethingotherthanwhatitalreadyis.Itbecomesexactlywhatitalreadyis. McCormack’sclarificationsarethebesthopeforaconvergence betweenevangelicalandBarthianunderstandingsofscripture.Vanhoozertravelsdownthesamepathbyappropriatingordinarylanguage philosophy,inthehopethat‘theBarthianlionmightonedayliedown nexttotheevangelicallamb’(p.58).
AnotherareaofcontroversyinBarthianscholarshipconcernshis doctrineofelection.SungWookChungagreeswithMcCormack’s interpretationofBarthonthispoint–thatelectionisthekeytoBarth’s entireproject.Barth’sworkonelectionisrightfullydescribedasinnovative,buttheideathatJesusChrististheobjectofGod’selectionraises someverycomplexproblemsabouttheprimacyofChristandthe temporalityoftheincarnationthatthischapterdoesnotexamine.Other chapterscomeclosetosomeoftheseissues.OliverD.Crisplooksatthe wayBarthChristologizescreation.Oneofthemostpuzzlingfeaturesof thismoveistheextenttowhichtheincarnationcanprovidecluesfor howtoconceiveofthenatureofGod’screativeact.‘Barthbelieves,’
Crispwrites,‘thatthefactoftheincarnationshould“control”whatis believedabouttherelationofGodtotimeinthisrespect,suchthat creationisunderstoodasatemporalactofGod’(p.90).Thismeansthat, insomesense,Godexistsintime(inexaltedtime)beforethebeginning ofcreatedtime.Butiftimeprecedescreation,thenwhataboutspace? ThisraisesthequestionofthenatureoftheeternalChrist,atopicupon whichI,forone,eagerlywanttoreadmorefromCrisp.
HenriA.G.BlocherdemonstrateshowBarth’santhropology(which canbe,ashesuggestivelynotes,locatedintheScotisttraditionof FranciscanChristologywithitsemphasisontheprimacyofChrist)is also‘basedonBarth’saffirmationoftheeternalpre-existenceofthe manJesus’(p.103).BarthgoessofarinreversingourordinaryunderstandingoftheincarnationthathecanportraythefirstAdamasalready asecondAdam,evenatthetimeofhiscreation.Thisconnectionof election,pre-existence,andanthropologyseemstometobesoimportantandsoessentialtotheChristianmysterythatIamsurprisednot morehasbeendonewithit,butanyoneinterestedinitwoulddowell toreadBlocher’schapter.
Finally,AlisterE.McGrathcontributesacomprehensivetreatmentof Barth’sunderstandingofthedoctrineofjustification.Foranyonewho wantstosortoutjustwhere‘themodestyofBarth’ssoteriological interests’(p.183)partscompanywithLuther,thisisamustread. Indeed,alloftheseessaysstandalonefortheirinterestandinsight,and addedtogether–thoughImustsaythatIwasdisappointedtherewas noessayonBarthandpolitics,surelythemostpressingengagement evangelicalscanhavewithBarthatthepresenttime–compriseavery importantandusefulvolume.
StephenH.Webb WabashCollegeJohnRuskinandtheEthicsofConsumption,DavidM.Craig, UniversityofVirginiaPress,2006(ISBN978-0-8139-2558-5),432pp.,hb $60.00
JohnRuskinwasaVictoriangiantwhoselifestraddledmostofthe nineteenthcentury.Aswriter,artcritic,moralist,andsocialcommentator,hebroughtaneducatedeyeandadeepreligioussensibilitytothe manyissuesthatclaimedhisprodigiousenergiesuntil,inhislong twilightyears,heembracedthesolitudeoftheEnglishLakeDistrict, wherehewascaredforbyhiscousinandherfamily.Despiteanarrow
evangelicalupbringingandafailedmarriage,helivedapassionatelife: atOxford,hewontheprestigiousNewdigateprizeforpoetry,butitwas theworldofpaintingthatmadehisreputation.His ModernPainters had theostensiblepurposeofchampioningtheworkofTurnerbutinits scopeandscholarshipitdevelopedintoaspiritualhistoryofEurope witharrestinginsightsintoeveryphaseofmoralsandtaste.Hebecame thecriticofthedayand–foratime–amoralguideorprophet.He remainedconvincedthatthedutyofthepriestandthepoetwas‘to enablepeopletosee’but,likemanyprophetsbeforehim,hewasmisunderstoodandmarginalized.Inthesecondhalfofhislife,hetransferredhisinterestinarttothesocialinjusticeandhumansqualorthat constitutedtheregrettableconcomitantsofanunbridledformofcapitalismthatlackedaguidinghandormoralrestraint.Hisattackonthe lawofsupplyanddemandin UntoThisLast (1860)gaveriseinthefirst instancetopublicoutcryandlateracontemptuousrejectionofthe socialeconomicsadumbratedinitsmildlyrevolutionarypages.Ruskin wasmortified:heturnedhisattentiontothelaboringclassesbuthis elevatedthoughtsprovedtoomuchformanyofthem.Hebecamea forlornfigure,woundedbytheworld’sapparentindifferencetohis wisdom,itsmiseryandhisinabilitytoalleviateit,yetstillprepared todivesthimselfofconsiderablewealththroughnon-profitmaking projectsthatcontributedtohumanwell-being.
Inthisintriguingwork–thefirstbookonRuskinbyascholarof religionandethics–DavidM.Craiginvitesafreshevaluationofthis Victoriansage’spoliticaleconomyandhiswide-rangingexplorationof beauty,work,nature,religion,politics,andeconomicvalue.IfRuskinis ignoredtodayorfounddifficulttoreadbecausehisinsightsandstyle donotsitwellwithaculturepredicatedonself-determinationand individualrightsandfreedoms,thisinnowayvitiateshislasting importanceforanycontemporarydebateconcernedwithvalueand humanflourishing.CraigconcedesRuskincanappeartooelitistand prescriptiveinhiselucidationofhowourlivesshouldconformtohis visionofthegoodlifeandthecommongoodandalsorecognisesthat fewintheacademywillbefavorablydisposedtohisethicsormetaphysics.Thismuchgranted,however,CraigportraysRuskinasbotha trenchantcriticofanyconsumeristculturethatneglectswideror deeperconsiderationsconcerningwhathumanbeingsare ultimatelyfor andathinkerwithmuchtoofferusbywayofwhatCraigdescribesas his‘moralvocabularyofthevirtues’(p.3).Inbothsensestherefore, Ruskinisforandagainstourtime,challengingus,ontheonehand,to examinethewaysinwhichourendeavorsandchoicesasconsumers, enhanceordiminishourcharacterandourcapacitiesformoralexcellenceand,ontheother,toseekouttheactivitiesandjustrelationships thatpromoteanabundantlifeforothersandnotjustourourselves. TherearemultipleechoesinRuskin’swritings–wecanhearSwift,
Tolstoy,Dickens,andF.D.Mauriceinthebackground–butnoneof thesecommandstherangeofRuskin’sanalysisofwhatneedstobe doneinatimeofeconomicpestilenceortheacuityofhisinsightsthat leadshimconsistentlytoaskwhatpeoplemightachieveintermsof virtueandwhatdesiresinformtheirchoicesasconsumers?Notsurprisingly,givenwhatwehavebecome,Ruskinnowappearsstartlingly relevant.Becauseherefusestoseparateethicsfromconsiderationsof character,cultureandcommunity,hisneglectedvoiceneedstobe heardagainwhenconsumerchoiceiselevatedaboveanynotionof commonpurposeandscantregardisgiventotheremoteconsequences ofourpurchasesorourresponsibilitiesforthem.
CraigpresentsRuskinasa‘practicalcritic’(p.11)bothintermsofthe deftnessofhisanalysisandhisinsistencethatconsumptioncannotbe regardedsolelyasaformoflifethatisonlyeveraboutourtastesand desiresandhowwesetaboutsatisfyingthem.TherehastobejudgementordiscernmentandwhatAugustinecalled‘therightorderingof ourdesires’Intheclamorofthecontemporaryworldwhereglobal capitalismstillshoutsloudest,Ruskincanstillspeakwithaquietif neglectedauthority.DavidCraigdeservesourthanksforbringingan eminentVictorianintoviewagaininallhispristinemoralstrengthand brilliance.Aseriousandchallengingreadforanyonewhoremains committedtotheviewthatthemoralimaginationstillhasaparttoplay inshapingandquestioningwhodoeswhattowhomandforwhat purposeinthemarketplace.
RodGarner DioceseofLiverpoolBarthandSchleiermacherontheDoctrineofElection:A Systematic-TheologicalComparison,MatthiasGockel,Oxford UniversityPress,2006(ISBN0-19-920322-9),viii + 229pp.,hb$85.00
Withthisbook,MatthiasGockelhasaddedanimportantvoicetothe growingconversationabouttherelationshipbetweenKarlBarthand FriedrichSchleiermacher,and,inparticular,thepotentialsimilarities betweenthem.Gockel’sentréeintotheconversationisthroughthe doctrineofelection.ThisrepresentstheworkdoneforGockel’sdissertation,whichhasnowbecomethisimportantbookcomparingthe expressionofthedoctrineinthetheologiesofSchleiermacherandBarth. Thebookisstructuredintofivechapters,thefirsttwofocusingon SchleiermacherandthelastthreeonBarth.Thegeneral,overriding
thesisisthatthereareimportantsimilaritiesbetweenSchleiermacher’s andBarth’sviewsonelection,whichevenBarthhimselfdidnotrecognize.Gockelgivesfairtreatmenttobothfigures,makingeveryeffort nottoreadSchleiermacherthroughtheeyesofBarth–arealtemptation forthosewhohavestudiedBarthclosely.
Chapter1addressesSchleiermacher’sviewofelectionasoutlinedin hisessayonelection.ThemostimportantfeatureofSchleiermacher’s workhereishispositionthatelectionandreprobationarepartofa single divinedecree.Thisisanimportantrevisiontopriorunderstandingsofelectionandreprobationwhichyieldedtwonumberedgroups ofhumanbeings,eachindividualhumanbeingdestinedforonegroup ortheother.Nolongerdoestheideaofadivinedecreeautomatically excludethenotionofageneralredemption.Gockelpointsoutthat Schleiermacher’sperspectivehereislargelytheocentric,withverylittle relatingofthedoctrineofelectiontothepersonofChrist.
Chapter2looksagainatSchleiermacher’spositiononelection, thistimeasitisrepresentedin TheChristianFaith.Gockelrecognizes someminorchangesbetweentheearlieressayandSchleiermacher’s magnumopus,butpointsoutthat,forthemostpart,theposition offeredremainsbasicallythesame.Here,Gockelgivesusasenseof howelectionfitsintoSchleiermacher’slargersystem.Hehighlights someotherkeydoctrineswhichhaveanimpacton,orareimpacted by,Schleiermacher’sworkonelection.Hefocusesondivinepreservation,originalperfection,sin,redemption,andeschatology.He hitsthemajorpointswithoutprovidingthereaderwithunnecessary exposition.
Chapter3turnstoBarth.Here,GockelworkswithBarth’srevisionof thedoctrineinhis CommentaryonRomans.Thischapterandthenext representGockel’sinterpretationofBarth’searlierwork.Hewillmake adistinctionbetweenBarth’sfirstrevisiononthedoctrineofelection, seenhereinhisearlierwork,andBarth’ssecond,christologicalrevision foundin ChurchDogmatics.Mostnotableishisrevisionoftheconcept ofdoublepredestination.LikeSchleiermacher,Barth’sviewofelection atthispointlargelydealswiththeconceptofGod,andisnotchristologicallyfocused.
Chapter4examinesBarth’spositiononelectioninthe Göttingen Dogmatics.Thereareonlyminorchangesbetweenthedoctrineofelectionassetoutintheselecturesandthewayitisdescribedinthe CommentaryonRomans.Again,thedoctrinemovesfromitseffecton individualbelieverstowhatitsaysaboutwhoGodis.ItisGod’sactof electingandreprobatingwhichrevealsGod’smercyandrighteousness, ratherthantheactualpeoplewhomakeupthecategoriesofelectand reprobatewhorevealthis.GockelreferstothearticulationofthedoctrineofelectionduringthisearlyperiodasBarth’s‘Schleiermacherian reconstruction’(p.156).
Chapter5takesacarefullookatthesecond,christologicalrevision Barthmakestohisdoctrineofelection,particularlyasfoundin Church Dogmatics II/2.GockelhasofferedmoreextensiverehearsalofBarth’s earlierperspectiveonthedoctrineduetothelackofscholarlyattention tothetopicofelectioninthatperiod.Thislaterrevisionhasreceived muchmoreattention,sohereGockeltakestheopportunitytomarkthe changestoBarth’searlier,Schleiermacherianrevisionofthedoctrine, andthen,finally,todealwiththeconsequencesofBarth’ssecondrevisionasopposedtohisfirst,andthecriticismsthathehasreceived.
Bywayofconclusion,GockelmakestheclaimthatBarth’ssecond, christologicalrevisionofthedoctrinemarksacontinuationof,and notabreakfrom,Schleiermacher’swork,takingwhatwasthere andimprovinguponit.Gockelseeshisworkasacontributionto thelargerclaimthatthedifferencesbetweenSchleiermacherandBarth donotrepresentan‘irreconcilableopposition’(p.203)asiscommonly thought.Gockelcallsforothercomparativestudiesofthethoughton thesetwogiants,alludingtoecclesiologyinparticularasanareawhere suchastudymightbefruitful.PerhapsthisisaprojectGockelwilltake uphimself?
ThisbookisanimportantcontributiontoEnglish-languageworkon SchleiermacherandBarth.Atthesametime,itmakesuseofmanyand variedGermantextswhichaddssignificantlytothelevelofscholarshiprepresentedhere.Thenotesthroughoutthebookarethorough andfullofusefulinformation.Thestyleisclearandconcise.Hedoes notwastewordsinlengthyexplanation,nordoesheneedto.Gockel’s bookisavaluableresourceforanygraduatestudentinterestedin Reformeddoctrine,particularlystudentsinterestedinthemainfeaturesofthisbook–thedoctrineofelection,FriedrichSchleiermacher, andKarlBarth.
ErinKestersonBowers PrincetonTheologicalSeminary
ToRwandaandBack,LiberationSpiritualityandReconciliation, MaryGrey,DartonLongmanandTodd,2007(ISBN978-232-2664-6), xviii + 228pp.,pb£12.95
AninvestigativevisittoRwandamustbeaprettygruelingexperience. Inpart,thisbookresultedfromsuchavisittenyearsafterthegenocide there.ProfessorGreywasamemberofaWorldCouncilofChurches teamoftheologiansaskedtoprepareapaperforameetingofthe
Council.Isay‘inpart’becauseherbookisaseriesofreflectionsinthe lightofthatexperience.Butherexperienceprovokedhertodelvemore deeplyintoherpreviousthinkingandtakeitfurther.AlthoughMary Greydescribesalittleofthegenocide–andwecannotbesurprisedto learnitimpacteddeeplyonher–shedeliberatelydoesnotdwellonit. Thebookhasamuchlargeragendaandsweep.Somemayevenquestiontheappropriatenessofusingsuchatitleinconnectionwiththe largercanvasshecovers.Thetitleofthebookmayevenbeamisleading marketingploy.Butperhaps,havinglivedfortwoyearsalongsidea womanwhohidinarooftoescapethegenocide,Iamoversensitiveto suchthings.
AllGrey’sreflectionsaretodowithjusticeandreconciliation.They aresearchingandhonest.Greywritesasawell-knownfeministRoman Catholictheologian.Herreflectionsareprovocative,testingand–to someatleast–controversial.
Chapter1describes‘thedynamicsoftheRwandangenocide’,and opensupnotjustthestoryofthepast,but remembering thepast:howwe doit,howselectiveweare;howthefactthatdeadpeopletaketheir memorieswiththemskewsthe‘public’memory,andsoalsothepublic reaction,includingthatofthechurch(andshedescribesatlengthhow thechurchwasimplicatedintheoriginsofthegenocide).Butshesees thattruthful(thewholetruthandnothingbutthetruth)memoriesare necessaryforrealhealing.Indeed,memoryisattheheartoftheChristian(andJewish)faith.ItiswiththisinmindGreydiscusseshow memorycanbe‘metanoic’.
Thus,thebookbeginstomovetowardoneofitsprincipalconcerns: thenatureandmeaningofreconciliationandwhenandhowreal, legitimateforgivenessispossible.Thisinturnleadsintothequestion ‘WhydidJesusdie?’(p.33ff.).Toooften,shesuggests,‘Jesusbeing “handedover”bytheFathertoaviolentdeathhasseemedtolegitimise paperingovercracksofinjustice’(p.53).Greywantstorescuetheevent –inChristianRwandaandelsewhere–fromwhatsheregardsas relativelyeasyandunsatisfactorytheology.(Bonhoeffer’s‘cheapgrace’ comestomind.)
Thefollowingchaptersearchesforatheologyofcompassionand care.Atthetimeofthegenocide,GreysaystheworldfailedRwanda. NowsheseekstodiscoveranddescribewhatcompassionmosttruthfullymeanstoaChristian.Here,Grey’stheologyexplicitlygrowsoutof herspiritualityasamother.
Thisleadsintoachapteraboutcommunitiesofreconciliationand,as apossiblewayforwardforthechurches(inRwandaandelsewhere), takesfordiscussionfivemodelsoriginatingfromaRwandanjournalist andtheologian,TharcisseGatwa.Grey’sreflectionshereleadherto interpretChrist’scross(not,shenotes,theprimarysymbolofthefaith inthefirstdaysofChristianity)notintermsofsacrificeandexpiation
©2008TheAuthors.Journalcompilation©2008BlackwellPublishingLtd.
butratherashis‘identityinlove,andareadinesstosharethesame vulnerabilitythatafflictedthepeopleheloved’(p.103).
Thefollowingchapterwidensthediscussionoutto‘listentocrying oftheearth’–thenonhumancreation.Thisisatimelydiscussionin viewoftheecologicalandeconomicissuesfacingtheworldatthe moment.Greyiscriticalofhumanhubrisandlamentsthelossofthe conceptof‘theCommonGood’.Shestrugglestofindaconvincingway ofexpressinganethic(whichisitselfconvincing)topeoplelikethoseat theWorldBank.Andsurely,thereistherub.‘Toreplaceanthropocentricethicswithanecocentricororganicmodel’(p.131):Greymovingly seeswhythismustbethecase.Buthow?Howto‘bringbackbeauty?’ (GerardManleyHopkins’cryisinvoked.)Readerswilldifferabout whetherher political casewillwork.
Inherfinalchapter,herbookmovesmoreandmoredeeplyinto spirituality.Thisisnaturalenough.AndGreybecomesmoreandmore autobiographical.Adeeplysearchingheartandmindbecomesapparent–searchingratherthanfinding.ShequotesPéguy:‘Allthingsbegin inmysticism,endinpoliticsonlytobeginagain’.
Sadly,Isuspectthepeoplewhoreallyneedtoreadthisbook–the politiciansandbigbusinesspeople,whoareplacedtomakechanges–willnotdoso.Theywillnotevencomeacrossit.Yet,theagonywhich hasfuelledherinsightsissurelygenuine.(Nor,Mary,isitonlyshared bywomen.)
JohnArmson HerefordshireTheBarthLectures,ColinGunton,P.H.Brazier(ed.),Continuum,2007 (ISBN978-0-56703140-2),xxiv + 285pp.,pb$39.95
WhenGuntondiedsuddenlyin2003attheageofsixty-two,hewas widelyrespectedandremarkablyinfluentialwithintheBritishtheologicalcommunity;itisatestimonytothepowerofhispersonalitythat hisstudents’monographsarenowregularlybeingpublished;thatthe InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology andtheSocietyfortheStudy ofTheologyhaveinstitutedanannualColinGuntonMemorialEssay Prize;andthatposthumousbooksbyhimcontinuetobepublished,on thebasisoftalks,essays,andnowlectures.Further,formerstudents andcolleaguestoapersontestifytohispersonalwarmth,energetic manner,andpastoralsensibility.Soitmakessense,withinthiswide circleofcontinuingappreciation,forthisvolumetoappearnow.But
makenomistake:thismaybe TheBarthLectures,butthisbookisinfact atributevolumetoColinGunton(comparetheshortbibliography devotedtoBarthwiththecomprehensiveonecoveringGunton’s authorship!).
TheBarthLectures arejustthat–transcriptsfromGunton’slecture courseonKarlBarth,recordedandeditedbyPaulBrazier,aformer student.Inthem,Guntongivesawide-rangingsurveyofBarth’sdevelopmentandthinking,withofcoursespecialfocusonthemassive landscapesofthe ChurchDogmatics.Gunton’sdoctoraldissertation,on HartshorneandBarth(BecomingandBeing:TheDoctrineofGodinCharles HartshorneandKarlBarth,OxfordUniversityPress,1978),markedthe beginningofacareer-longengagementwiththeSwisstheological giant,thoughGuntonrarelywroteonBarthdirectly,andhisappreciationofthelatter’sthoughtshiftedmarkedly.Throughout,healways preferredtothink with Barth–tobeempoweredbyhim,ashesaysin thelectures,toexplorethevistasheunderstoodBarthtohaveopened upincontemporarytheology.AlthoughheintendedtowriteamonographonBartheventually,hisprematuredeathprecludedsuchapossibility,and TheBarthLectures iswhatwegetinstead.
The Lectures weregiventobothundergraduateandgraduatestudents,andassuchconstituteanaccessibleandengaging‘Barth101’ introductorycourse;theyreflectGunton’scomprehensiveknowledge ofBarthwell.HebeginswithBarth’searlydevelopment,focusingespeciallyupontheBarth-HarnackcorrespondenceandBarth’sbookon Anselmaspivotaldevelopmentsbetweenthe‘dialecticaltheology’of DerRömerbrief andthatofthe Dogmatics,andmovesontosurveythe keythemesofthelatter.HisattentiontoBarth’sdebttoAnselmis particularlyfine.Inthecourseofhittingthehighlightsofthe Dogmatics, hediscussesBarth’strinitariantheology,histheologyproper(including Barth’sethicsandunderstandingoftheknowledgeofGod),andhis doctrineofcreationbeforespendingalargeamountoftime(itmust havetakenupnearlyhalfofthecourse)inthefameddoctrineofreconciliationinvolumeIV.Guntonhasakeensenseoftheorganicquality ofthedevelopmentofBarth’stheology,ofhisinfluencesbothpositive andnegative,andofthearchitectonicbeautyofhismaturetheologyin the Dogmatics.HecapturestheagilityofBarth’swritingandthought–thesimultaneoussingle-mindedfocusanddialecticalwilinessthatso characterizestherestlessproseofthegreattheologian.
ForthosewhoknowGunton’soeuvre,theselectionofthematerialis notsurprising:onecancertainlyguessthathisowncontinuingworkon thedoctrineofcreationandtheTrinitywereinspiredbyBarth’screativityinbothareas,andhemakesmuchonthetrinitarianframework atplayinvolumeIV.ThesearetheplaceswhereGuntonisstrong.But thisbeingGunton,hisweaknesses,whichplaguehisownwritingfrom thebeginning,arealsoevident:hisfrank(andirrational)dislikeof
AugustineandmuchoftheWesterntraditionoftheology;hisworries aboutanyformofPlatonismintheology(hespendsanentirechapter on‘PlatonismandExemplarisminBarth’sChristology’,evidentlydistraughtthatanyhintofauniversalisticchristologywouldconstitute aresidualplatonicelementinBarth’sthought);hiscaricaturesof theologicalopponents,whetherhisorBarth’s(heisfarmorefacile indiscussingSchleiermacherthanBarth’scomplexandambivalent relationshipwithhisgreatReformedpredecessorwarrants).Itis unfortunatethat,insuchplaces,itwillbeverydifficultforthosewho donotknowbothfigureswelltoseparateoutGunton’spointof viewfromthoseofBarth.EvencitationsfromBarth’sworksound morelikeGuntonthanBarthattimes(heobviouslyparaphrasedin lecture).
This,ofcourse,raisesthequestionoftheaudienceofthisbook. Nolessthanthreecommenders(Brazierwritesapreface,Christoph Schwöbelcontributesaforeword,andStephenHolmesoffersanintroduction)averthatthebookwillserveasanintroductiontobothBarth andGunton,givingglowingreminiscencesandaffectionatetributesto theparallelsbetweenthetwothinkers.Asonewhowasnotinthecircle ofGunton’spersonalinfluence,buthasonlyhisauthorshiptocontend with,Iamnotsosure–oneithercount.Thereisnodoubtthatthebook introducesBarthwellasfarasitgoes,butitisarguablyhobbledbythe factthatBrazierhastranscribeditsofaithfully.Thisismostcertainlynot acriticaledition:whileGunton’scolloquialstyle,extendedasides,and obviouslyexcitablemanner(heregularlyrepeatshimself,breaksoffa sentence,orjumpsfromonethoughttoanothermidstride)mayrightly beendearingtothosewhoknewhim,fortherestofusitmaycome offasmildlyrebarbativeinprintedform.Theunpolishededgesthat accompanyallofusintheclassroomdonotnecessarilymakeagood transitiontotheproseofamonograph.Moresubstantially,thebookcan beconfusingattimes–thisdisdainofAugustine,isitGuntonorisit Barth?ThisemphasisontheshortcomingofBarth’seschatologyor pneumatology–isitjustifiedorisitunfair(Guntonrepeatsmorethan oncetheuncharitableclaimofhismentorRobertJenson,that,evenif Barthhadlived,hecouldnothavecompletedtheplannedfifthvolume onthe Dogmatics oneschatologyandtheSpirit)?AndthissharpjuxtapositionofBarth’stheologywiththe(simplistic)renderingof‘middle class’nineteenthcenturyliberalProtestantism–doesthisdojusticeto Barth’sevolvingappreciationofhistheologicalteachersandpredecessors?Thatistosay,anothercasualtyofthetransitionbetweenlecture andprintisthekindofcarefulreferencingandexegesisoffiguresand themesthatwouldhavegivenjustificationforsomeofGunton’sfrankly sloppyassertionsattimes.
ThisisnottosaythatthisisabadbookonBarth;butIwillsaythatit is,forreasonsnotentirelyofGunton’sowndoing,abookthatonedoes
notquiteknowwhattodowith.Itispossiblethatthebookmightbe usedasupplementarytextinacourseonBarth,andinapinchitisnot abadplacetogotorefreshone’smemoryonaparticularmoveormotif inBarth’sthought.ButasGuntonhimselfsaysrepeatedly,whenit comestoBarth,itisperhapsbestto‘readthemanhimself’!
TravisE.Ables VanderbiltUniversitySomethingThere:TheBiologyoftheHumanSpirit,DavidHay, DartonLongmanandTodd,2006(ISBN0-232-52537-0),xiv + 255pp.,pb £15.95
BycomparingspiritualitytodaywithsexualityintheVictorianera, zoologistDavidHaytakesonthedauntingand,perhaps,thanklesstask oftheempiricalstudyofspiritualexperience.Hemakesthecasethat thoseineffableexperiences,variouslycalledspiritual,transcendent,or religious,areuniversaltothehumanspecies.Assuch,theyareassociatedwithahumanbiologicalprocesswhichispresentinusalland whichisgivenexpressionthroughthelanguagesandimagesofour uniquecultures.Acknowledgingthathecomesfromapositionoffaith, Hayoffersaninsightfulanalysisofthereasonswhyspiritualexpression issooftensuppressedinWesternEuropeanandAmericanculture.Hay concludesbyofferingsuggestionsonhowspiritualawarenesscanbe revivedinoursociety.
Hay’sbookisamasterfulinterdisciplinaryblend,engagingand approachable,whichwillbeofinteresttoanyonewhocaresaboutthe spiritualstateoftheWesternworld.Haydemonstratesakeenknackfor history,placinghisbookwithinthecontextofpreviousstudiesfrom fieldsasdiverseasthepsychologyofreligion,neuroscience,and theology.MuchasWilliamJamesdidwith TheVarietiesofReligious Experience (TheGiffordLecturesonNaturalReligion,1901–1902),Hay presentsstatementsfromanumberofpersonsontheiruniquespiritual experiences.AportionofHay’sbookcouldbedescribedasamodern versionof TheVarieties inthatregard,andHaydoesoffersomemodest classification.However,unlikeJames,Haydiscusseshisparticipants’ statementswithinaculturalandhistoricalframework.
Hay’smajorcontributioninthisworkishismovementtowardan understandingofthebiologicalprocessassociatedwithspiritualexperience.TogetherwithhiscolleagueRebeccaNye,Hayintervieweda numberofchildrentoelicitspiritualexpression.Childrenwerechosen
forthestudyontheassumptionthattheywouldbelessinhibitedin theirexpressionthantheirparents.Fromananalysisofthechildren’s statements,Hayintroducestheterm‘relationalconsciousness’. Relationalconsciousnessisseenastheprimordialbiologicalprocess which,throughtheagencyofculture,leadstoreligiousandspiritual expression.
AsecondmajorcontributionisHay’sanalysisonthespiritualstateof theWesternworld.Onceagain,Hayweavesmultiplestrandsfrom history,philosophy,psychology,andeconomicsintoacompellingtapestrywhichillustrateswhysomanyofusareembarrassedbyour spiritualityandunwillingtodiscussit.Tracingdevelopmentsfromthe Renaissancetothepresent,Haydescribesourspiritualstateinaway whichwillresonateintheheartsofWesternreaders.Basedonthis history,andcoupledwiththeideaofrelationalconsciousness,Haythen offersastep-by-stepsolutiontotheproblemthatcouldpotentiallyform thebasisofanewspiritualenlightenment.
Thebook’smajorweaknessisinfailingtoaddresskeypointsinthe formationoftheconceptofrelationalconsciousness.Theseissuesmay havebeenaddressedintheoriginalresearch,butthisisnotclearfrom thepresenttext.Giventheimportanceofthisconcepttotheconclusions ofbook,itisaregrettableoversight.Inthedevelopmentofthisconcept, Hayandhiscolleaguehaveencounteredpitfallscommontothedevelopmentofanypsychologicalassessmenttool.
Theconstructschosenformeasurement–awarenessofthehere-andnow,awarenessofmystery,andawarenessofvalue–wereselectedonly partlyonthebasisoftheirassociationwithspiritualunderstanding. Theywerealsochosenonthebasisofassociationwithfeaturesof childhoodpsychologyandonthebasisoftheiravoidanceofspecifically religiouslanguage.Thisraisestheissueofvalidity,whichcouldhave beenaddressedinabriefparagraph.
Twocorecategoriesemergedfromtheresponsesofthechildren:one relatingtoan‘unusuallevelofconsciousnessorperceptiveness’and anotherexpressingthemannerinwhichthechild‘relatedtothematerialworld,themselves,otherpeople,andGod’.Thesetwoseparate outcomeswerethencombinedintothesummaryconstruct‘relational consciousness’.Itisnotclearfromthetextifafactoranalysiswas performed.Thisleavesopenthequestionofwhethertheresearchers werejustifiedinofferingoneconstructorifthedatasupporttwo constructs.Itcouldbethatsomechildrenexpresstheirspirituality throughheightenedawareness,whileothersexpressitthroughrelatedness.Indeed,thisfindingwouldbeconsistentwithdifferences observedbetweenspiritualpersons,forexample,betweenthose whofocusonprayerandmeditation(faith?)andthosewhofocus onservicetoothers(works?).Thetextaswrittenisinnocentofthis issue.
Hay’shistoricalaccountoftheriseofindividualismintheWestis brilliant.Hiscriticismofit,however,doesdeemphasizewaysinwhich individualismhaselicitedspiritualformation,whileemphasizingways inwhichithassuppressedit.This,perhaps,ismoreofanAmerican viewpointthanaEuropeanone.AsegmentoftheAmericanreadership willviewindividualismasastrengththathasallowedtheformationof multiplespiritualassociationstodevelopthroughouttheUnitedStates. Evengroupsthatformfornonreligiouspurposes,suchasAlcoholics Anonymous,speakofastrongspiritualcore.Thismultiplicityof expressionisseenbymanyAmericansascentraltothepursuitof spiritualtruths.
Itwouldnotbedifficulttoaddresstheseissuesinafuturepublication.Despitetheseconcerns,Hayhasproducedasolidandimportant book,advancingafieldofstudyinwhichoriginalandimportantworks arerare.Hissuggestionsarereasonableandpractical.ThoseinpositionsofspiritualleadershipthroughouttheWesternworldwouldbe wisetoconsiderHay’srecommendations.
MarshallH.Lewis ChicagoTheologicalSeminaryTheStateoftheUniversity:AcademicKnowledgesandthe KnowledgeofGod,StanleyHauerwas,BlackwellPublishing,2007 (ISBN978-1-4051-6248-7),ix + 213pp.,pb$34.95
StanleyHauerwas’svasttheologicalworkhasexploredtopicsranging fromvirtueethicstopoliticaltheologytobiblicalexegesis.Inhis diversework,hehasdrawnuponaplethoraofthinkersacrossthe theologicalspectrum.Inhisnewwork, TheStateoftheUniversity, Hauerwasturnshisaboundingintellectualcuriosity,astuteandcritical engagement,satiricalacumen,andwell-informedscholarshiptoward theideaoftheuniversity.Specifically,heseekstounderstandhow ChristiansmightunderstandourparticipationintheworkoftheuniversityaswellasthedifferenceChristianpracticemightmakeforhow theworkoftheuniversityisunderstood.Ratherthandevelopinga systematicargumentaccordingtoapredeterminedplan, TheStateofthe University is,innormalHauerwasfashion,acollectionofessaysthat revolvearoundHauerwas’sconvictionthat‘universitiesasweknow them,publicandprivate,secularorreligious,produceandreproduce knowledgesthatbothreflectandservethestate’(p.6).Hauerwasseeks toexposethispurposeoftheuniversityaswellasto‘pressthequestion
ofthedifferencechurchpracticesmightmakefortheveryshapeof knowledgesintheuniversity’(p.7).ForHauerwas,thechurchandthe worshipofthefaithfulareoftheutmostimportantforanylifedeemed Christian,inthiscollectionofessays,heexploreshowthatconviction determineshowandwhywedotheologyintheuniversity.
InsteadofsummarizingeachofHauerwas’sessays,ataskwhich wouldbeextremelyboringformyselfandthereaderaswellasdoing anenormousinjusticetotheorganicandtimelyworkofHauerwas,I wanttohighlightseveralimportantpointshemakesthroughoutthe book.First,Hauerwasviewstheologyasmuchmorethan‘historical musings’relegatedtoa‘religiousstudies’department,ratherheargues fortheimportanceoftheologyforprovidinganinclusiveframework fortheknowledgeswithintheuniversity.ForHauerwas,theologyisan extremelyseriousenterprise,onethatmighthelpanyinterdisciplinary universitytounderstanditselfasacoherentunityratherthanacollectionofdepartmentsthatdolargelyunconnectedandunrelatedwork. Thisisaninterestingproposalthatatfirstglancewouldbescoffedatby anypersonworkinginhighereducationthatdoesnotseetheologyas anecessaryintellectualendeavor,butatadeeperlevel,oneshoulddeal withtheissueHauerwasisputtingforthhere:shoulduniversitiesbe guidedbyaunifyingtraditionofthought?Thisleadstoanotherof Hauerwas’sarguments(orviews)in TheStateoftheUniversity,and Hauerwascondemnstheideaofeducationasinformation;rather,he viewseducationasformation.ForHauerwas,‘alleducation,acknowledgedornot,ismoralformation’(p.46).Hauerwasseesmuchwrong withtheideaofeducationasinformation,accordingtohim,thedominantmotifofeducationinuniversitiestoday.Foreducationasinformationdoesnotrequirethatknowledgestaketheirplacewithinalarger frameworkofatradition.Thisisdangerousforinformationisopento ‘ideologicaldistortions’.Hauerwasarguesthateducationbeunderstoodmuchmoreasimitatingmastersandbeingformedintoaparticularwayofthinkingandtalkingaboutthingsratherthanlearningfacts. ForHauerwas,ahermeneuticthathelpsstudentsrightlyunderstand factsandplacesthemwithinalargerwholeisnecessaryifwewantto avoidanunderstandingofeducationasmerelywhatwedotomake money.Indeed,Hauerwasseestheavoidanceofaparticularwayof thinkingaboutthingsasimpossible.Hedisavowsliberalismasamode ofthinkingarguingthat‘thestructureofknowledgesarestructuredto reproducehabits’(p.181).Thequestionisnotifbutwhosehabitsare universitiesreproducingintheirstudents.Understandingthesepoints helpsusunderstandHauerwas’sfinalgrandtheme:thechurchmustbe analternativekindofhumancommunitytomakepossibleanytypeof alternativeuniversityoralternativestructureofknowledgethatchallengestheknowledgestaughtandreproducedinuniversitieswhichare basedinpowerandfear.ThisisaverycommonHauerwasiantheme,as
heoftenputsit‘thepurposeofthechurchistobethechurch’.HauerwasarguesthatChristianityismuchmorethanabeliefsystembutis particularlysituatedintheworshippinglifeofthegatheredcommunity. Hereishisconstructiveeffortin TheStateoftheUniversity.Hauerwas arguesthatauniversitythatgainsitspurposefromapeoplewho worshipGodisthebestpossibleformofaneducatedtraditionthat haveagreementsthatproduceknowledgesandtheinterconnectionof thoseknowledgesthatcanappropriatelyformstudents.Hauerwas wantstoputtheonusuponthechurchtoconstructafaithfultradition andfaithfulpeople,thisistheonlywayanytypeof‘Christianeducation’or‘Christianuniversity’mightbecoherent.Itisinthechurchthat atraditionisformedthathelpsusunderstandhowweshouldgoabout educationandwhyeducationisimportant,orhowweviewandunderstandtheworld.
Itisoutofloveforthechurchandtheuniversity,ashemakesclear, thatHauerwaswrotethisbook.Amanofbothworlds,hiseffortto interconnecthowwedochurchwithhowwedouniversityisnot abstractbutdeeplypersonal.Intheend,Hauerwascriticizesso-called Christianuniversitiesthatcannotofferanalternativewayoflearning butmerelyrecreatesecularlearningwithafewprayers,orJesustalk,or mandatorychapelservices.Tothoseuniversities, TheStateoftheUniversity isadeeplychallengingworkthatmustbedealtwithbyanyone concernedwithunderstandinghowChristiansshouldgoabouthigher education.Butthisworkisnotonlyimportanttothoseinterestedin educatingChristiansbutbythoseengagedintheworkofthesecular university.AlthoughmuchofHauerwas’sargumentswillbedeeply offensivetothosewhoseetheuniversityasaspacewhichbrings togetherpeoplefromdiversebackgrounds,beliefsystems,andethnicitiesinordertoengageinthepursuitoftruthtogether,theso-called liberalviewofeducation,hisargumentthatuniversitiesmustbe guidedbyanintellectualtraditioninordertoavoidbeinganother apparatusofstatecontrolandformationintotheserviceofstatepower (anotheroffensiveclaimtothoseinsecularuniversitieswhoseethemselvesasbastionsofintellectuallymotivatedpoliticaldissent)mustbe dealtwith.
TheStateoftheUniversity isanengaging,eruditepieceoftheological scholarshipwhichistheworkofbothadeeplycommittedchurchman andscholaroftheuniversityHauerwas’sengagementofavastarrayof thinkersgivesusfodderforadeepandfruitfulconsiderationofwhat wereallythinkabouteducation,universities,andtheknowledgeof God.Atbest,itisamanifestoforunderstandinghowanyuniversity mightbeunderstoodasbeingguidedbytheChristiantraditionwecall church,and,atworst,itisachallengetoliberalscholarshipsviewthat educationisaboutstrippingourselvesofallparticularitiesandonly thenpursuinganykindoftruth.Hopefully,thisbookwillbewidely
debatedbyanyone,boththoseguidedbysecularandChristianconvictions,concernedforeducation.
JohnThompson UniversityofDaytonTheologicalHermeneutics–SCMCoreTexts,AlexanderS.Jensen, SCMPress,2007(ISBN0-334-02901-4),xiv + 237pp.,pb£21.99/$29.99
AstheseriesSCMCoreTextsindicates,Jensen’sbookisatextbook,a toolfortheclassroom.Itisbasedonhislecturesforthecourse‘HermeneuticsandTheology’atTrinityCollege,Dublin,Ireland(2003–2004) (p.xiii).Jensenfocusesongeneraltheologicalhermeneutics(asdistinguishedfromthemorenarrowbiblicalhermeneutics/exegesis)and definesthegenreofhisbookas‘historicalintroductiontotheological hermeneutics’(p.6).(Asimilardiachronicapproachhasrecentlybeen adoptedbyJeanrond[1991]andJasper[2004].)Theauthor’sselfconfessedchallengeisto‘toexplaincomplexideasandsometimes inapproachableterminologyinaccessibleways’(p.xiii).Jensenovercomesthischallengewell,especiallyinexplainingHeidegger’s‘inapproachableterminology’.
Jensentakesforgranted,andrightlyso,thatlanguageandinterpretationareunavoidableforone’sunderstandingofanything.Accordingly andfromtheveryfirstpage(seealsopp.82–6,123–4,207–8,224–6),the authorattemptstowarnhisreadersagainstadoptingthepositionofthe eighteenthtonineteenthcenturyScottishCommon-Sensephilosophy. (Alternatively,somereadersneedtobeawakenedfromthehypnosisby ThomasReid.)ScottishCommon-Sensephilosophybelievesthatwhat textssaycanbeunderstooddirectly,thatiswithoutinterpretativeactivity,withouthermeneutics.Againstsuchhermeneuticalnaiveté,Jensen affirmstheinevitabilityofhermeneutics,whichhedefinesinaSchleiermacherianwayasscienceofavoidingmisunderstanding.
AkeydevicethatJensenemploysforhis‘broadoverviewofthe developmentofhermeneutics’(p.7)isthedistinctionbetween verbum interius and verbumexternum (pp.127,224–6).Hebelievesthatsuch logocentrism(i.e.theaffirmationofthepresenceof verbuminterius not onlyinthemindsofauthorsbutalsointexts,evenifinasomewhat distortedform)helpshimtoavoidsemanticrelativismandarbitrary interpretations.Thatis,ithelpshimtoavoidasituationwheretextsare ‘devoidofaninnerword’,altogetherwithoutreferencetotheextratextualworld,andunabletosayanythingnewor,allegedly,anything
atall(pp.170–1,188,226).JensenishappytolandwhereRicoeuris withhistheoryofsymbolandmetaphor(i.e.affirmationofboththe presenceof logos andtheexistenceofunlimitedsignification)(pp. 146–7,226).
TheauthorbeginshishistoricalsurveyfromHomer’s Iliad andpreSocratics,andwithinfourpagesarrivesquicklytotheassessmentof Jewishinterpretativetechniques.Thebrevityofthe‘narrativetime’ dedicatedtoancienthermeneuticsmaybe,perhaps,excusedbythefact that,unlikeJewsandChristians,ancient‘pagans’didnothaveasetof religiouslynormativetextsandthus,therewasreallyno theological hermeneutics.
Textbookauthorsdonottelleverythingtheyknowaboutagiven subject.Rather,theymakesimplifications,classifications,andgeneralizationsonthebasisoftheirreservoirofknowledgeofthesubject matter.However,anydiscussionofatopic’shistoryfrompre-Christian topostmoderntimesusuallydemonstratesanunevennessinknowledgewhichprecludesmakingequallygoodgeneralizationsforalltime periods.‘Allgrandschemesthreatentobeabitthinattimes’(Boer, 2007,p.120).Evensuchasimpleprocedureascomparingtheused primaryandsecondarysourcesrevealsthestrengthsandweaknesses ofanauthor.Jensen,whoquiteobviouslybelongstotheso-called ‘hermeneutictradition’andlovesexistentialists,dedicatesmorethan halfofhisbooktomodernhermeneutics.Accordinglyandstartingwith ‘RationalismandEnlightenment’(Chapter5),hisbibliographiesare muchmoreup-to-dateandimpressive.
AcuriousfeatureisalsoJensen’slistingofvariouselectronically availabledictionaryarticlesinhisbibliographies.Idonotknow whetherhelistssucharticlesasrecommendationsforstudents–in whichcaseitisquitecommendable–orassourcesofhisownlearning.
Selectingthepersonsandthemesforatextbookisalwaysamatterof deliberation,taste,andconvenience.Iunderstandthat‘forus[i.e.for textbookauthors]whohaveundertakenthetoilofabbreviating,itisno lightmatterbutcallsforsweatandlossofsleep’(2Macc.2:26).Yet,itis abitpuzzlingthat,apartfromJeromewithwhomthechapteron MiddleAgesbegins,notasinglemedievalauthorhasdeservedevena separatesubsection.Butdoesnotmedievalhermeneuticsconstitutehalf ofthetotalhistoryofChristiantheologicalhermeneutics?Withthe exceptionofmentioningthefoursenses,thistextbookreducesmedievalhermeneuticsmerelytoadiscussionofthepossibilityoftheologicaldiscourse(i.e.theissuesofequivocity,univocity,andanalogy).
Asfarastheancientmethodoffigurativeinterpretationisconcerned, Jensenclearlyseesthevalueofit.HeacknowledgesthatChristological interpretationoftheHebrewscriptures,as figurative interpretation,continuedinthesixteenthcenturyandwellbeyondit.Yet,thereareseveral contestableassertionsinJensen’ssurveyofpremodernhermeneutics.
First,thedistinctionbetweenallegoryandtypology,asadistinction betweenthetwoformsoffigurativeinterpretation,hasnotprovedtobe particularlyaccurateandhasthereforebeenabandonedforquitesome years.Second,onlywhenOrigen’shermeneuticsisnotinterpretedin thelightofhisquesttofindthe‘spiritualusefulness’(2Tim.3:16)ofall thetextsofthescriptures,canonespeakabouthis‘excessiveuse’of allegory(p.30).Third–andifsuchsubtleconceptsneedtobepartofan introductorytextbookatall–inoneofthesemiotictrianglesthat Augustinepostulates(i.e. dictio, dicibile,and res), dicibile doesnotsimply correspondtotheinternalwordorthoughtwaitingtobeexpressed(pp. 41–6)butrathertowhatone‘perceivesfromthewordandwhichisheld withintheminditself’(Augustine, dial.5;cf.theStoic lekton –‘whatgets said’). Dicibile istheaccompanyingsignificateofanutterance(Augustine, mag.1.2.45).Thefactthat dicibile canexist antevocem (i.e.before verbumexternum)doesnotequateitwith verbuminterius. Dicibile should beunderstoodasthesemanticcontentofeithertherationalinneror expressedthought.
Comingtomodernhermeneutics,whichis,infact,ascontroversialas patristicandmedievalhermeneutics,Jensen’spresentationofmaterial ishelpful,clear,andsufficientlybroadandinclusive(althoughIwonderedabouttheomissionofWittgenstein).Author’sexplanationsand overviewsareconvenientlybrief–andstudentsarealwaysgratefulfor that–yetinformed,insightful,andnicelyorganized.Whileretaining thenormativityoftheWordintheologicalhermeneutics,Jensenis neverthelessreadytocriticallyacceptthevalueof‘hermeneuticsof suspicion’(mastersMarx,Nietzsche,andFreud,pp.109–12)aswellas toacknowledgethe‘systematicdistortion’ofalldiscourse(Habermas, pp.193–7).
InChapter13,Jensenpresentshisownversionofwhattheological hermeneuticsmightlooklike.Hisdiscussionwithsuccinctpointsand abundanceofexamplesisthoughtprovoking.Theseemingrepetitivenessofthischapterisactuallyaveryusefulfeatureforatextbook.The authorshoulddefinitelybecommendedfordiscussingsomeofthe representativehermeneutsagainandalsoforrevisitingsomeofthekey argumentsinhistextbook,evenifsomeofhisaffirmations(e.g.the author’spreferencefortheso-called‘experiental-expressivist’modelof religiouslanguage[Lindbeck,1984]onpp.218–21)remaincontroversial.Jenseniswellawarethat‘noteveryonewillagreewiththeparticularconstructionofatheologicalhermeneuticswhichIhaveputforward here’(p.221).Itakesuchhumbleacceptanceofalternativepossibilities tobealaudablefeatureinatextbook,asitbothshowstheauthor’s senseofrealityandunderlines,oncemore,thefactthatevenhistoryof theologicalhermeneuticsrequires hermeneia. Thepriceofthebookisnothighand,perhapsbecauseofthis,the paperqualityisverypoor.Mycopylooksprettywornalreadyafterjust
onereading.Yes,textbooksshouldbecheap,buttheyshouldalso survivethe‘heavyduty’ofseveralreadings.
Asisperhapsalreadyclearfrommyassessment,praises,andcomplaints,Jensen’stextbookisrecommendedprimarilyforstudentsof modern hermeneutics.
TarmoToomTheJohnLelandCenterforTheologicalStudies
AttheHeartoftheGospel:SufferingintheEarliestChristian Message,L.AnnJervis,W.B.EerdmansPublishingCo.,2007(ISBN 978-0-8028-3993-0),xiv + 149pp.,pb$14.00
Inmanycirclesinourmodernsociety,sufferingisataboosubject.Weare oftenfocusedondoingalltherightthingstoliveahappier,healthierlife, andweprefertoavoidsuffering.Yet,tobeanauthenticChristianisto facetherealityofsuffering.SufferingisattheheartoftheChristian Tradition.In AttheHeartoftheGospel,Dr.Jervisdelvesrightinand grappleswiththechallengingissueofsuffering.Sheseessufferingasa sourceofrichnessandmeaning.Jervis’sbookisoneofexcellentscholarshipandinsight.Itisinmanywaysanexerciseofexegesis,befittingher workasaNewTestamentscholar.Yet,italsohasthepotentialtobe valuableinpastoralwork.Jervisisnotonlyascholar,butalsoapriest. Thebookis,however,dominatedbyherscholarlywork.Myonecriticismofthisbookwouldbethatitcouldhavebeenfurtherenrichedbya greateruseofpersonaland/orprofessionalexamplesandreflections, suchasthestoryinherintroductionofaconversationfollowinga sermonshegave.Assomeonewhoalsodivideshertimebetweenthe academyandthechurch,Iespeciallyappreciatetheinterplaybetween thetwoworlds.Jervisdoesherselfandherinsightsadisserviceby qualifyingherreflectionsas‘amateur’(p.9).Herstatusasahumanbeing whoknowssufferingfirsthand(asshesharesinherPreface)andher professionalworkasapriestbothqualifyhertooffervaluableinsightson suffering.Alongwithhersubject(Paul),theacknowledgmentofpersonalsufferinglendsJervis’sworkagreatercredibility.Sufferingisa realityweallfaceinourlives.Tojourneywithsomeonethroughan examinationoftextsonsufferingandtograpplewithallthequestions theyraisecannotbeanabstractexercise.Itisadeeplypersonaland spiritualone.Jervis’shonestyisappreciated.
Jervisframesthebookinlightofherpersonalexperience,andthen shedelvesrightintothescholarlywork.Shebeginsbylayingouther
goalsandhermethods.Shesetsaframeworkbydefiningsufferingas ‘...thatwhichisenduredineitherbody,mind,orspiritasaresultof thatwhichisdistressing,injuriousorpainful’(p.4).Sheisalsoquickto assertthatshedoesnotholdthebeliefthatChristianfaithencourages suffering.Sufferingisanacceptedreality,butnotsomethingtobe soughtout.ShebelievesthatastudyofsomeoftheApostlePaul’s writingsisawaytohelpusunderstandourownsuffering.
Jervisthentakesthereaderthroughanin-depthexaminationoftexts onsufferinginthreeofPaul’sletters:1Thessalonians,Philippians,and Romans.Ineachofthesechapters,sheoffersanexaminationofwhat eachletterhastosayaboutthesufferingofbelieversversusthatof nonbelievers,aswellassectiononhoweachlettercanhelpustotalk aboutsuffering.Shethenpullsherthoughtstogetherinaconclusion andoffersinsightfulreflectiononhowweasChristiansaretorespond tosuffering.
Herdiscussionof1Thessaloniansofferstheacknowledgmentthat becomingChristiandoesnotgrantusimmunityfromsuffering;like Christ,wewillsuffer.Yet,becauseweareChristians,wecanseesufferinginlargercontext.Sufferingis‘...experiencedinconcertwithjoy. Anditisaccompaniedbyfaith,hopeandlove’(p.30).Andthisloveis toincludenonbelievers.Believersarenottobevengeful,butrather lovingtowardnonbelievers.
Philippiansisseenasan‘apology’forPaul’sownsuffering(p.42). ForPaul,onemustalsorememberthatChristianityisnotonlyaboutthe joyofresurrection,itisalsoverymuchabouttherealityoftheCross. Jervisnotesthatforbelieverstherearetwokindsofsuffering:‘in Christ’and‘withChrist’.Suffering‘inChrist’iswhateverdifficulties onefaceswhilebeingabeliever.Suffering‘withChrist’isthatwhich results from believer–i.e.persecution.Paulbeginstoestablishthis distinctioninPhilippiansandfurtherrefinesitinRomans(p.43).In Romans,Paulalsodevelopsthethemeofsinanditsidentityasthe sourceofsin.Sinisthatforcewhichcounters‘thelightandlifeofGod’ (p.81).Romansalsocontinuesthedistinctionofsufferingforbelievers versusnonbelievers.Thefundamentaldifferenceisthatbelievershave acompletelydifferentcontextinwhichtounderstandtheirsuffering.
Believersaretobroadentheirperspective,rememberingthat‘...the horizonofrealityisbroaderthanwhatcanbeseeninthesuffering moment.ThehorizonofGod’srealityisframedbylife’(p.69).Believers sufferbelievingthatsufferingwillleadtoagreater‘glory’andthatwe canmaintaina‘horizonoffuturehope’believingthatthereismoretolife thanourpresentexperiences(p.106).ForChristians,thereisthehope,so eloquentlyexpressedinRomans8:31–9,thatweareeversurroundedby God’sloveandwillsomedaybefreeofthesufferingsofthislife.
Yet,JervispointsagainandagaintothefactthatPauldoesnotencouragebelieverstoseekoutsuffering.‘Sufferingis not aninstrumentof
sanctification,exceptinsofarasitispartoftheconditionofthewhole “in”Christperson’(p.52).Thisissueofseekingoutsufferingisa challengingoneforChristians.Frommonasticpracticesofdeprivation totheculturaladmonitionto‘nopain,nogain’,toooftenwehaveheard themessagethatwearetoseekoutsufferingforitscharacterenhancing qualities.Itisgoodtoberemindedthatthisis not themessagethatisat the‘heartoftheGospel’.
Jervis’scontinualremindertoexpandourhorizonalsoprovidesa valuablewaytolivewiththechallengingquestionof‘whyarewestill suffering?’IfweacknowledgeGodasallgoodandallpowerful,itis oftendifficulttocomprehendwhythereisstillsomuchsufferinginthe world.Jervisremindsusthatsalvationisstillbeingworkedout.Itis happeningonGod’stime,notours.
AlthoughonemightwishthatJervishaddelvedmoreintothe‘why’ ofsuffering,sheacknowledgesfromthebeginningthatitishergoalto helpustolivewithsuffering.LikePaul,shehastocometoaplaceof acceptanceregardingsuffering.TheissueforChristiansisnot‘whydo wesuffer?’,butrather‘howdowerespondtosuffering?’.Ultimately, Jervis’sbookisavaluableacknowledgmentofthehorrorsofsuffering, whilealsoremindingbelieversthattheyaretofightagainstsin(the sourceofsuffering)andwhenitcomes,tobearsufferingwithahorizon oflife.Jervisremindsusthatsufferingisatthe‘heartoftheGospel’,but thatneednotbeacausefordespair,ratheritisacompanionofjoy.
MollyF.James HartfordSeminaryATimetoEmbrace:Same-GenderRelationshipsinReligion,Law, andPolitics,WilliamStacyJohnson,Eerdmans,2006(ISBN0-80282966),x + 330pp.,hb$25/£14.99
Inthistimelyandoriginalbook,WilliamJohnsonexaminesthecontroversialtopicofsame-genderrelationshipsfromatheologicaland ecclesiologicalperspective,aswellasfromasemi-integratedlegaland politicalperspective.Theargumentthroughoutisthatsame-sexrelationshipsmustbeblessedbythechurchandlegallyrecognizedand protectedbythestate,insofarasthoserelationshipsreproducethe normsofheterosexualmarriage.Itisintheinterestsofstraightand queer,theauthorarguesinthisinterdisciplinarystudy,forsame-sex relationshipstobeso‘ordered’andrecognized,allowinghomosexuals intothefulllifeofchurchandstate–albeitonheterosexualterms.
Theinterdisciplinaryapproachismostevidentintheengagingintroductorychapter,amongthenotableachievementsofwhichisan excellentsummationofthecontestedhistoryofscientificstudiesof homosexuality(pp.19–28).EquallyusefulisJohnson’soverviewofthe legalandpoliticaleventsthatleadtothecurrentimpasse–notablythe legalgainsbysame-sexcouplesintheUSandtheconservativereaction thereto.Heisalsorighttoinquire–orrather,throwuphisarmsin despair–uponwhysame-sexrelationshipshaveprovensucharemarkablepoliticalrallyingpointinasocietywhich‘greetstheoverwhelming evidenceoftorturebyitsowncountry’smilitaryleaderswithacasual shrugoftheshoulders’(p.7).Thus,theintroductionpresentsJohnson asaremarkablyclearthinker,abletonegotiatethroughlegal,political, andscientificfog;butperhapsnotalwaysasufficientlysubtleorsophisticatedone.Attimes,Johnsondisplaysthe(willful?)naivetyindicative ofmuchAmericanliberalthought;sorelyinneedofadialectical approachthatwouldrevealtherelationshipsbetweenandwithinseeminglypuzzlingpoliticalandculturalphenomena.
Chapter1introducesustoaseven-partdiagnosisoftheologicaland pastoralapproachestohomosexualitywithinthechurch,focusing initiallyonthethreeleastwelcoming–‘prohibition’,‘tolerance’, ‘accommodation’–indicativeofmostchurchpositions.‘Prohibition’is predicatedonaflawedreadingofscripture,theauthorargues,because onecannotequatetheunequalsame-sexactivitiesoftheancientMediterraneancondemnedinscripturewithtoday’segalitariansame-sex relationships.Disappointingly,however,Johnsonrepeatedlymakesthe illogicalleapthategalitarianhomosexualrelationshipsarenecessarily themonogamousmirrorsofidealisedheterosexualmarriages(pp.49, passim)–settingupafalsedichotomybetweensoldiersandslave-boys ontheonehand,andasimulacraofbourgeoisheterosexualpietyonthe other(p.12),leavingagreatdealofcomplexityinthelacunainbetween. Amoresubtleandinterestingsubtexttothistransparentslight-of-hand seesJohnsontarryingwiththepossibilityofredeemingtraditional heterosexualmarriagethroughtheagentofsame-sexmarriage;imitationbeingthesincerestformofflattery,afterall.Whilethebroader questionremainspreciselywhyhomosexualrelationshipsoughtto mimicidealized,traditionalheterosexualonesinordertogainlegal recognitionandchurchblessings(pp.85–6)–especiallygiventherather moribundstateoftheheterosexualimaginationthesedays–thisisan intriguingpossibilityworthyoffurtherdiscussion.
ElsewhereinthechapterJohnsonreassertshimselfasaperceptive andcompassionatethinkerindismantlingthetwocurrentapproaches ofmainlinechurchestohomosexuality,‘tolerance’and‘accommodation’.Insofarasatolerantattitudeallowsforlimitedinvolvementof homosexualsinthelifeofthechurch,andamorenuancedhermeneutic thatmovesawayfromstating‘theseindividualversessayX’to‘this
passageasawholesaysX’(p.56),weseeaclassicalliberaltolerance;the minorityisprotectedfromthepublicscornofthemajority,whilethe majorityremainsprotectedfromthepublicassertionofminorityidentity.Asenseoftragedythuspervadesthetolerantapproach–an ‘ambivalence’thathidesthedevastatinghopelessnessthatsuchsecondclassstatusenjoinsingayandlesbianChristians(pp.60–1).Further, while‘accommodation’ofhomosexualitywithinthelifeofthechurchis astepbeyondmeretolerance,Johnsonarguesthatitstillmanifestsa damaginghypocrisy.Accommodationists‘wanttohavethingsboth ways’(p.67),heargues;acceptingsame-sexrelationshipsinprivate–as anactof‘graciousexception’(p.62)–butrefusingtodosoinpublic.It islittlesurprisethatsuchapproachesareattackedfromallsides.
Incontrasttothesethreeapproachestheauthorseesasemblematic of‘thenonaffirmingChurch’,hepresentsfourapproachesthathe seesleading‘towardawelcoming,affirmingChurch’.Hebeginswith ‘legitimizing’approachesthatdifferfrom(mere)accommodationin assertingthepresenceofhomosexualpeopleinthe‘dramaofcreation, reconciliationandredemption’(p.73),ratherthanasmerepoliteexceptionstotherule.Johnsonthussuggestslegitimationasanecessary correctionforchurchesthatadvocatedtheindividual,civilrightsof homosexualsinthepast,butwhowouldnotallowthemecclesialrights (p.75).Thenextapproachdealtwithis‘celebration’,arguablyaless politicalapproachthatfocusesontheinnategoodnessofcreation.Celebratoryapproachestohomosexualityofferasimilaressentialized approachtosexualityastheProhibitionists(p.85).Johnsoncontrasts thiswith‘liberationist’approachesinaveryinterestingsection(pp. 86–95)thatchartsthechangesinliberationtheologyfromMarxian socialanalysistoitscurrentidentity-drivenadorationofimmaterial criticalculturaltheories,oftendisavowingpoliticalstrugglesonthe streetsandpewsfortheliteraryandself-referentiallyphilosophical.
InthefinalsectionofChapter2,andmostofChapter3(pp.95–155), Johnsonexpoundshispreferred‘consecration’approachtothetheologicalandecclesiologicalquestionofsame-sexrelationships.Intraditionalsystematictheologicalstyle,hearguesit’sanamalgamofallthat isgoodinpreviousapproaches;assertingthewelcomingapproachof inclusivetheologies,whileadheringtothetraditionalmoralteachings oftheapproachesmarkedas‘prohibition’,‘tolerance’,and‘accommodation’.Here,Johnsonarguesforthe‘ordering’(p.97)ofhomosexual relationshipsthatwishtohavetheblessingsofthechurchandthelegal recognitionofthestate,alongthelinesofnormativeheterosexualmarriage.IronicallyinfluencedbytheArchbishopofCanterbury,Rowan Williams–whoseownchurchisbeingtornapartonthisissue–Johnsontriestoestablishthelimitsforacceptanceofhomosexuals.Itis notsurprisingthatatthispointthetoneshiftsfromsympatheticreadingsofdiversetheologianswhereinminorityvoicesandconcernscome
throughstrongly,toafarmoreassertiveregister,largelyshornofits engagedlistening.Indeed,itbecomesmostevidentherethatwhatis missingfromthebookistheclearvoicesofthosemostaffectedbythis issue–nonheterosexualpeoplethemselves.
Thissectionisstillhighlyengaging,however.Johnsontakesadetour (pp.123–36)toreassertthemisapplicationofcondemnationsofhomosexualityintheHebrewandGreekBiblestocontemporaryrelationshipstowhichtheybear‘norelationship’(p.136).Rather,heargues moreproductiveusecanbemadeofotherpartsofscripture–focusing ontheneedforcompanionshipinGenesis(pp.114–20),whichleadsto anexplorationofcommunityandcommitment(pp.136–52).Here, JohnsonlooksprimarilytotheGospels,notingthatChristwould hardlygaintheapprovalofconservativeChristianactivistsforhis decidedlyambivalentrelationshiptothetraditionalfamilyasimagined incontemporaryorancientreligiousrhetoric(p.138).Thus,theauthor insiststhatwhiletheexampleofChristnecessitateslookingbeyond ‘legalisms’ofthepastorpresent,wearecompelledtowardanexaminationofthelegal,politicalandeconomiccontextwithinwhichquestionsofsexualityandfamilyareasked(p.139).
ItisatthispointthatJohnsonmovesovertoexaminethequestionof same-sexrelationshipsinanexplicitlylegalandpoliticalcontext,beginningwithahighlyreadablehistoryofthekeycaselawinthearea, notablythe2004USSupremeCourtdecisionin Lawrencev.Texas that heldTexas’banonsame-sexsodomytobeunconstitutional.Thefinal substantivechapterisasurface-levelanalysisofpoliticaldevelopments, suchasthevarious DefenceofMarriageActsthathavethrivedintheUSA foroveradecade,andtheconceptofdeliberativedemocracy.The connectionstobedrawnbetweenthetwosectionsarelargelyimplicit; therelationshipbetweenreligionandthelawisrarelyexplicitlydiscussed,andwhereitis,itisweakestpartsofthebook.Theperiodic asidesarguingthegenesisofcontemporaryUSpoliticalandlegal cultureinthescripturesorthereformationreproducesaconvenient politicalmyth,substitutingformorethoroughanalysis.Whileitis excellenttoseejurisprudenceincludedalongsidetheology,therather staid,underdevelopedapproachcontrastsmarkedlywiththedynamismearlierinthebook.Notwithstandingthis,Johnsonhasmadea worthyandtimelycontributiontothedebate;inintroducingdiverse approachestoacontroversialissuetoatheologicallymindedreadership,thisbookwillbeinvaluabletomanyworkinginthearea.
IbrahimAbraham MonashUniversityPentecostalTheologyfortheTwenty-FirstCentury:Engagingwith Multi-faithSingapore,Tan-ChowMayLing,Ashgate,2007(ISBN 978-0-7546-5718-7),xix + 203pp.,hb$99.95
Pentecostalism!Totheuninitiated,thistwentiethcenturymovement beganwiththeAzusaStreetrevivalinLosAngelesin1906,harksback toActs2.1–13forbiblicalprecedent,institutionalizeditselfprimarilyin theAssembliesofGoddenomination,andwasgivenfreshimpetusin thelastfiftyyearsbythecharismaticmovement,thethirdwaveand neo-Pentecostalism.
ItsdistinctivesareSpirit-baptism,signs,andwonders,speakingin tongues(glossolalia),theworldofdemons,healingand‘beingslainin thespirit’.
In PentecostalTheologyfortheTwenty-FirstCentury,Ms.Tan-Chow MayLingfirstdescribestheSingaporecontext,andthenChristianityin Singapore,focusingonherdenominationalniche–Pentecostalism.She pointsoutthattheSingaporegovernment’scallforpost-9/11interreligiousdialogue,wentunansweredbytheevangelicalbranchof Christianity,wherePentecostalslocate.
ShethenhistoricallyrevisitsthreePentecostalevents:thefirst centuryPentecostinActs,theearlytwentiethcenturyPentecostat AzusaStreet,andalate1990sPentecost–theLoveSingaporeecumenicalmovement.
Inthesecond,prescriptive,partofthebook,shecritiquesthe LoveSingaporemovement,itsblessingsandshortcomings.Shethen concludesthatPentecostalism,inspiteofsomeweaknesses,‘offersa promisinghopetobeapeacefulharbingerofpluralism’(p.xvii).Butit needstobemorebiblicallyreconceived.
Herfifteen-pageselectbibliographyisimpressive.AllthebooksI havewantedtoreadbutneverhadthetime.Thisreviewwillhavetodo, andthosebooksreadbyproxy.
Thisreviewcomesfromtheperspectiveofafieldpractitionerwhois notaPentecostal,whohaslivedinSingaporeforthirteenyearsand seentheLoveSingaporemovement,whoisveryinterestedinhowthe gospelofJesusChristengagesreligiouspluralism,andwhocurrently practicesinterfaithdialogue,especiallywithMuslims.
IwasintriguedbythehistoryofPentecostalbeginnings.Afterthe initialyearsoftheAzusaStreetrevival,themovementsplinteredinto blacksandwhites,untilitreunitedseventy-twoyearslater.Thereality isthateverymovementofGodsurfacesdistinctivesmissingfromthe bodyofChrist.PentecostalismbroughtafreshjoyintheSpirit,God’s powerinhealing,spiritualgifts,andanawarenessofdemons.But everymovementofGodisalsoamovementledbyfalliblemen.Weaknessesemergenaturally.Inthiscase,itwasracialdisunityversusthe biblicalidealofspiritualunity.
Chapter4isthebestchapter,wheresheoffersaclinicaldiagnosisoftheLoveSingaporemovement.Sheiscarefultosaythatthe diagnosisisnotmeanttodevaluethemovementbuttocritiqueit fromaPentecostal-biblicalframework.Someofherobservations follow.
1. Reconciliation:Whilecommendingthisemphasis,shepointstoits presumptioninknowingexactlyGod’spurposeofunity,and knowingexactlythatthemeanstoitisreconciliation.So‘unityis instrumentalisedintothepracticeofreconciliation’(p.80).Thislogic, combinedwithSingaporeandrivennessandpragmatism,when pushedtoitsextreme,worksagainsttheveryunityitespouses. Friendshipslipsthroughthecracksbecausefriendshipneedsno logic.
2. Prayer:Zealousprayeristhedynamicofthismovement.Butitsuse herepromotes‘aclosuretheology’(p.87)thatunreachedpeoplecan bereachedviatheuseofmoderntechnologyandspiritualwarfarea laPeterWagner.Thenprayeralsobecomesameansofcontrol,‘a meansofenforcingGod’skingdom’(p.88).
3. Evangelism:2001hadagoalandexpectationtoseeaGrandHarvest oftwomillionSingaporeansouls.Whenitdidnothappen,the assessmentwasunbelief!But‘doesthismeanthatGodcanbeheld hostagebyone’sbelieforunbelief?DoesitmeanthatGodisunable toactwhenthereisnofaith’?(p.90)
4. ActsofKindness:Themotivationforservingthecommunityiscompassion,withnostringsattached.Butthisbecomesambiguouswhen compassionisseenasanentrypointintothecommunity,andrelationshipsbecomemanipulated.
Twomajorcritiquesareoffered:first,ofthethesisinthebook.And second,ofthebookitself.
Ms.Tan-Chow’s‘interrogation’oftheLoveSingaporemovementis superb.Butinrelationto‘engagingwithmulti-faithSingapore’(the book’ssubtitle),thefirstglaringomissionisthatthereisnomentionof theCatholics.CatholicsmakeupabouthalfofChristianity.Isthe churchofGod,then,onlyaProtestantchurch?LoveSingaporehasto overcomethislimitation,andspeaktoitsownhouse.
Thesecond,andmoreglaringlimitation,isthatthereisnotmuchsaid aboutactuallyengagingthemajorreligionsinSingapore,especially Islam.Thisisunderstandablebecausenotmuchhasbeendone.Theologicalprescriptionsaloneareinsufficientastheyminimizethereal difficultiesontheground.
Forcomparison,IwasataseminaryinAmericawhereMuslims andChristiansstudyeachother’stheologyandtrytounderstandthe ‘other’.TherewasnoovertPentecostalthere.TheovertPentecostalism thatIknowwouldhavebeenoutofplaceinthatdialogueatmosphere.
Then,inSingaporeitself,theveryCatholicswhowereleftoutofthe LoveSingaporemovement,arethepartofChristianitythatisactually respondingtothegovernment’scallforinterreligiousdialogue.
AndallthisisinSingapore,whereinterreligiousdialogueisrelativelyeasybecausethegovernmentitselfcallsforit.Whataboutoutside safeSingapore,wherereligiousconflictsometimesleadstobloodshed? Thelimitationsofatwenty-firstcenturytheology(thebook’stitle) becomemoreglaring.
Thesecondcritiqueisofthebookitself.Itisarevisededitionofher doctoraldissertation.Butadoctoraldissertationisonething.Abook writtentobereadisanother.Passageslike‘thefragilityofourcontemporarysocio-religio-culturalcontextsdemandsnotdogmatism, butmetanoiaviaself-interrogation’(p.27),or‘linguisticdiversityand simultaneityoftheglossolalicoutburstdidnotleadtoacacophonous confusion’(p.33),areexamplesofunhelpfulacademese.
Terminologicalverbosityvitiatescommunicationalincarnationthat mediatestheologicalanalysiswithecclesiasticalplebianpraxis.(That wasthepractitionerinmetryingtobecheeky).Butseriously,ifthe thesisistobenefitothers,mayIsuggestatwo-pagelayman’ssummary offeredtoLoveSingaporeandotherPentecostalleadersinpluralistic countries.Itspresentformatwillleaveitunreadonseminarylibrary bookshelves.
TakingaleafoutofPentecostalism,mayIsuggestthattheGod-given phenomenaoftongues(languages)inActs2indicatesGod’sbiasfor multiple,notjustChristian,racesandcultures.Knowingbiblicallyhow Godfeelsaboutdifferentcultures,willreducetheculturalarrogance thatChristianity,especiallytheevangelicalbrand,bringsintomissionto otherreligions.
Someyearsago,IattendedaSufimeetinginmySingaporean MalayMuslimfriend’sflat.Attheemotionalheightofprayer, somepeople‘spokeintongues’.Later,myfriendexplainedthat phenomenalikeglossolalia(speakingintongues),writhinginreligiousecstasy,andbeing‘slaininthespirit’,sometimeshappened. Puttingasidetheargumentoftruetonguesandfalsetongues,let mesuggestthatthesereligiousphenomena,commonnotonlyto PentecostalismandSufiIslam,butalsotomysticaltraditionsin Hinduism,animism,andChinesereligions,couldprovideacommon groundfortheinterreligiousengagementthatPentecostalismstrugglestoattain.
DavidBok HartfordSeminaryEcclesiologyandPostmodernity:QuestionsfortheChurchinOur Time,GerardMannion,LiturgicalPress,2007(ISBN978-0-81465223-7),xvii + 249pp.,pb$29.95
Inthispenetratingandwide-rangingstudy,GerardMannion–associateprofessorofecclesiologyandethicsinLiverpoolHopeUniversity’sdepartmentoftheologyandreligiousstudies–seekstobring RomanCatholicismintofruitfuldialoguewiththepostmodernage.His goalistoencouragehischurchtofindways‘toliveoutitsmissionin faithfulnesstothegospeltoday’(p.ix).The‘today’partiswhatthisbook isabout.MannionisworriedthatamountingtrendwithinCatholicism, whichhenames‘neo-exclusivism’,servesonlytoimpedethismissionin aworldcharacterizedbyradicalplurality.Thesuggestionprofferedhere isthatCatholicismshouldembraceacertainkindofplurality,and therebyrealizethevisioncastatVaticanII.Tothatend,Mannion’s volume‘engagesinpainfulcritiqueinordertohelpmovedebates towardthehealingmedicineofgreaterecclesialdialogue’(p.xi).
PartOne(Chapters1–2)setsthestage.Recognizingthat‘cultureand theologyobviouslydoinfluenceoneanother,despitetheprotestof some’(p.6),Manniondescribesthepostmoderncontexttowhichhe hopesCatholicismwillbemoreattentive.Ecclesiologymustmeetthe challengesofpostmodernity,whichincludemoralfragmentationand theconsumerizationofchurchandreligion,‘inanopenandpositive fashion’(p.27).An‘ecclesiologyfromabove’,withitsemphasison institutionandauthority,isillsuitedtomeetthesechallengesforit appears‘toturn[its]backontheworld’(p.36).Instead,Mannion suggeststhatan‘ecclesiologyfrombelow’,withits‘attentivenessto historicalcontext’and‘itshistoricalconsciousness...can betteradapt itselftomeetingthechallengesofthepostmodernage’(p.36).Itisa communitarianandvisionaryecclesiology,ratherthananinstitutional one,thatcanproduceafittingpluralityandthereby‘witnesstotheGod whoisTrinity’(p.40).
PartTwo(Chapters3–4)digsdeeperintocontemporaryCatholic ecclesiology,discussingtwocontendinginterpretationsof Communio ecclesiologyaswellastheimportof DominusIesus,adeclaration releasedbytheCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaithonSeptember 5,2000.Mannionbeginsbyfurtherdescribingtheriseofneoexclusivism,whichrepresentsresurgentauthoritarianismintendedto ‘safeguardaspectsof[Catholicism’s]richdoctrinalandmoraltradition andtomaintainitspositionofinfluenceinshapingcommunitiesforthe better’(p.48)inthefaceofpluralismthreateningfromwithinand without.Twointerpretationsof Communio ecclesiologyhavedeveloped sinceVaticanII;the‘official’versionthatemploysa‘fromabove’ approach,andthealternativeposition, Concilium ecclesiology,that works‘frombelow’andis,inMannion’sestimation,moretrueto‘the
diversityofvisionsVaticanIIhelpedtoinspire’(p.54). DominusIesus, withits‘shiftinfocus’–withreferencetoothercommunities–‘from dialoguebacktoevangelism’(p.77),isaprimeexampleofburgeoning neo-exclusivism.ThisisnosmallprobleminMannion’sestimation,for ‘DominusIesus contradictedorunderminedotherchurchdocumentsas wellaspastoralandecumenicalventures’(p.86).
PartThree(Chapters5–7)movesforwardasMannionengages furtherstillwithVaticanII,emphasizestheimportanceofdialogue,and exploresthewaysinwhichthemethodologyofcomparativeecclesiologymayprovehelpful.Mannionremarksthat,‘InthiseraofwhatPope JohnPaulIIregularlydenouncedasdehumanizingglobalization,the churchshouldalsolearntocounteritsownglobalizinganduniversalizingtendencies’(p.130).GregoryBaum’sworkonecumenismis employedtomakethepointthatevangelismcanbeunderstoodin termsofdialogue,andthusas‘aprimaryecclesiologicalvirtue’(p.146). Comparativeecclesiology,withitsfocusonunderstandingthechurch intermsofitsdifferingculturalandtemporallocations,representsan ecclesiologicalmethodthatcorrespondswiththisemphasisondialogue.Thefundamentalpointhereisthat,because‘theologicaland ecclesiologicalpluralismareandhavealwaysbeenalivedrealityinthe church... [w]emustneverbeafraidtoengageinconversation’(p.172).
PartFour(Chapters8–9andconclusion)containsthebulkof Mannion’sconstructivecontribution.Hisproposalistounderstand thechurch’slifeintermsofthetheologicalvirtuesoffaith,hope,and charity–andthegreatestoftheseischarity.Ecclesiologyoughtnotto becaughtwithinafalselyimposedeither/ormentality,butoughttobe guidedbylovesothatthechurchmightliveas‘an...analogicalimage ofGod’(p.184).Todothis,thechurchmustbeavirtuouscommunity. AlthoughMannionworkstodistinguishhimselffromStanleyHauerwasinthisrespect,hedoesemphasizetheimportanceofbuildinga communityofvirtuecapableofsteering‘amiddlecoursebetweentwo extremes’(p.219).Furthermore,suchanecclesiologywouldrecognize thatchurchauthorityisnotoperativemerelybyfiat,butisdependent uponaleader’svirtue.Mannionpullstogetherthebreadthofhiswork intheconclusion.‘Avirtueecclesiologywould...truly embraceunity indiversity’governedby‘thepriorityoflove’(p.223).
Ifthereisaflawinthisvolume,ithastodowithitsoccasionaloreven polemicalnature.Mannionisfarmoreconcernedwithhisdesirefor Catholicismtodevelopavirtuouscommunitycharacterizedbydialogueandlovethanheiswithworkingouttechnicalquestions.One suchquestionhastodowiththerelationofecclesiologiespursued ‘fromabove’and‘frombelow’.Whileitistruethatecclesiologydone ‘fromabove’cantendtowardinstitutionalism,authoritarianism,and inflexibility,itisalsotruethatecclesiologydone‘frombelow’cantend towardrelativism,individualism,andcomplaisance.Mannionisaware
oftheselatterdangers.Herejects‘a“woolly”pluralism’,andrecognizes‘thatinclusivityandacceptanceoftheotheris[not]... limitless’ (p.225).But,giventhatMannionappreciatesvirtueecclesiologyasa via media,onewondershowthatmightworkoutintermsofthis‘from above’and‘frombelow’distinction.
Thisnotwithstanding,thereismuchtoappreciateinthisvolume. Mannion’semphasisontheimportanceofdialogueandlove,aswellas hisdesireforthecontinuanceoffruitfulecumenicalengagement,make himathinkerforwhichProtestantscanbethankful.Furthermore,the breadthofhisstyleintroducesthereadertoaplethoraofinteresting thinkersandtheirwork,aswellastoimportanttrendswithinRoman Catholicism. EcclesiologyandPostmodernity wouldthusbeahelpfultext toincludeinacourseorbibliographydealingwithecclesiologyfrom eitheraRomanCatholicoraProtestantperspective.
W.TravisMcMaken PrincetonTheologicalSeminaryMitzvothEthicsandtheJewishBible:TheEndofOldTestament Theology,GershomM.H.Ratheiser,T&TClark,2007(ISBN 978-0-567-02962-1),xiv + 409pp.,hb$145.00
Althoughnotstatedassuch,thebookisarevisedPhDdissertation submittedtotheUniversityofGroningen(January2004),written underthesupervisionofE.NoortandL.J.Greenspoon.Thetitleis indicativeofitscontentandtheterm‘end’doesnotindicate‘goal’or ultimatepurpose;theauthorarguesthatinthecontextoftheacademy OldTestamenttheologyhasrunitscourseandshouldbeburied forever.TheaimisnothinglessthanthecompleteeradicationofconfessionalreadingsoftheJewishBible(orOldTestament)inacademia, whetherJewishorChristian,andamovetowardanonconfessional religious-ideological,historical-philologicalapproach.Theauthor maintainsthatthewayforwardininterpretingtheJewishBibleis toreaditasa mitzvoth (orcommandments)ethics-centeredbook, thiscorpushavingbeenwrittenbyJews,forJewsandbelonging exclusivelytothem.Otherswhowishtopartakeinitsreadingare outsiderslookingin,largelylackingtheappropriatetoolsforits interpretation.Theparadoxhereisthatalthoughconfessionalreadingsareeschewedandnottobepermitted(exceptforhomiletics,for example),theauthorarguesthatitisonlyfromwithinthecontextof observantJudaism(orwithapracticalsympathyforthebasic
religious-ideologicalworldviewofthetext)thatonecanproperly readandinterpretthisliterature.
Afterabriefintroduction,theauthorbeginsalarge-scalereviewof theologicalapproachestotheJewishBibleinthepast250years.The focusisprimarilyonGermanscholarship,beginningwithGablerand endingwithBrueggemann(theauthorssurveyedinclude:Gabler, Semler,Zachariä,vonAmmon,Bauer,Hengstenberg,vonHofmann, Schultz,Oehler,Römheld,Kaiser,Baumgarten-Crusius,Vatke,Vischer, Eichrodt,Vriesen,Knight,vonRad,Childs,andBrueggemann).The mainobjectivehereistoshowtheologicalabusesoftheJewishBible, primarilyareaswhereChristianinterpretershaveimportedChristologicalreadingsintothetextorhaverobbeditofitsJewishness.Inthe end,theauthorconcludesthatChristianOldTestamenttheologieshave placedtoomuchemphasisonthenatureofGodandbeliefandnot enoughonbehaviorandpractice,somethingtheauthorregardstobe centraltotheJewishBible.
Thisfirstchapterislengthy,attimestedious,andinplacesoveremphasizestheobvious:ChristianinterpretershavereadtheOldTestamentChristianly.Theauthorspendsover150pages(welloverathird ofthebook)inthisanalysisandtheformatdoesnotmakeforeasy reading.Footnotesmakeupformorethantwo-thirdsofalmostevery pageandthecontentthereinreadslikearunningcommentary,at timesrelevant,attimeswithoutaclearconnectiontothemaintextor theauthor’spoint.Theauthor’swarningintheintroductiondoeslittle toappeasetheproblem(p.10)andagoodeditorcouldhavesavedthe readermuchheadacheandmadeforamorereadablebook(theformat suggestedtomethatitwasaPhDthesis,confirmedinanonline search).Amoresubstantialproblem,however,istheauthor’schoiceto weighthissurveysoheavilytotheeighteenthandnineteenthcentury scholarship.Whilehistreatmentisgenerallyastuteandthorough,itis totheneglectofmorecontemporarytheologicaltreatmentsofthe OldTestament.Post-holocaustOldTestamenttheologygenerally,and recentOldTestamenttheologyinparticular,haswitnessedmany changesandthechapterdoesnotreflectthis.WhileChildsandBrueggemannrightfullyreceiveattention,asurveyofliteraturein2007 needstotaketherecentshiftinOldTestamenttheologybetterinto account(e.g.Christologicalinterpretationandallegoryisnolonger whatitwas,sensitivitytotheJewishnessoftheOldandNewTestamentsisontherise,vocalizingthetetragrammatonisbecomingafaux pasinacademiccircles,etc.).Ofthetwentyorsoworkssurveyed, fifteenarepre-holocaustwhilefivearepost,thoughthreeofthelatter werelargelyformulatedaroundWWII.Thisessentiallyleavestwo worksthataretrulypost-holocaust,orworksthathavegrappledwith problemofanti-JudaisminChristianscholarship.Whatofthetheologicalworkof(tonameafew)Moberly,Knierim,Gerstenberger,
Preuss,Rendtorff,(Gary)Anderson,Barr,Trible,(Otto)Kaiser,Goldingayor(Patrick)Miller?Whileafewofthesearementionedbriefly (somepositivelywhileothersdismissed),andthereareundoubtedly problemswitheach,theauthor’sneglectaffectstheeffectivenessand convincingnessofhisthesis.
Chapter2movestoestablishamoreappropriateapproachtoreading theJewishBible,onethatinterpretsthiscorpusnotlinearly(ashe arguesChristiantheologydoes)butcircularly,withtheobservanceof the mitzvoth atthecenter.Theargumenthereisthatthereadershould moveawayfromreadingtheJewishBibleasameanstodiscover what YHWHislikeandinsteadconcentrateonwhatthiscorpusitselffocuses on,whatYHWH requires ofhispeople.Theauthorisnotsuggestingthat theologicalsublayers(thosethatdescribeGod)areabsentwithinthe HebrewBible,buthethinksthesearesecondary.Theparadigmatic approachoffered(1)shouldexaminetheethicalcontentsandintentions oftheJewishBible;(2)maythensidesteptoinvestigatetheological sublayersinthetext;(3)returnwiththisinformationtoshedmorelight ontheethicalnatureofthetext(p.159).TheprimeconcernoftheJewish Bibleis‘instructionofancientJewsforforthcominggenerationsof Jews’andsoshouldbeours(p.162).Ashestates,‘themostmeaningful approachtotheJewishBible–alongsidethatof“historyofthereligion ofIsrael”–isanonconfessionalandhistorical-philological mitzvoth ethicsoftheJewishBible’(p.160).
Theauthorusestherestofthechaptertoshowthatthebiblical intentionof mitzvoth-ethicsisholinessand shalom,somethingthatguaranteesjusticeandrighteousness(especiallyforthepoor)andallowed Israeltocopewith(notexplain)theproblemofevilintheworld.Apart fromformatproblemssimilartothoseinChapter1,thislattersectionis generallywellpresentedandwellargued.
Thefinalsubstantialchapter(thereisalsoashortconclusion)teststhe theoryandappliestheparadigmtothecharacterofJoshua,‘theexemplarywarrior’.TheapproachuseswhatRatheisercallsareligiousideologicalinvestigationofthereceived(Masoretic)text,andin practicecouldbedescribedasatheologicalreadingofthefinalformof thetext(thoughtheauthoravoidsalluseoftheterm‘theological’).The interpretationofferedisnotentirelynovelthoughtheauthorplaces specialemphasisupontheideathatJoshuaconfirmsandreinforcesthe Sinaicovenantthusestablishingthe mitzvoth as‘the stabilizingfactorin ancientJewishsocietythatguaranteessocial-politicalandreligiousethicalliberatingjustice...’(p. 270).Joshuafunctionsastheexemplary warrior,representingYHWHtheidealwarrior,andinleadingthe peopletotaketheland,separatefromtheautochthonouspeopleand devoteallidentity-threateningelementstodestruction,thepeople experienceliberatingjustice,securing‘thesanctified/chosenstatusof theancientJewishpeopleand[realizing] shalom’(p.270).Joshua’s
exampleistopromoteandstimulateIsrael’sobedienceandtheauthor concludesthechapterbysuggestingthattheentireJewishBiblecanbe summedupasabookof‘encouragementtofollowthewaysand examplesofthefathers,thatis,toliveconsciouslyundertheguidance of[YHWH]’(p.350).
Thebookiscertainlyprovocativeandbynomeansuninteresting. Despitemycommentsaboveregardingitsformat(whichafflictthe workthroughout),thebookisimportantreadingforallinterested scholars(andothersinterestedwhopossessGermanandbiblical Hebrewreadingskills).ItisnotclearthatJoshuaisaparadigmthatcan thusbeappliedtoIsrael’sfathers,anditisalsounclearthatthelarge sectionsofnarrativematerialintheHebrewBiblealwayspointto mitzvoth-ethicsoralwaysservethispurpose.ItisevenlessclearthatOld Testamenttheologyisalwaysconcernedwiththeologicalabstraction andnotpractice(somethingimpliedthroughoutthebook).But,oftena bookmustoveremphasizeapointtomakeapointandthefaultcanbe overlookedtoadegree.
AlargeconcernofthebookistoshowthattheJewishBiblerightfully belongstotheJewishpeopleandislargelyaJewishaetiologyofancient Jewishconduct,writtenbyJews,forJews(p.157).Ratheisertherefore alsoarguesthatreadingthe‘OldTestament’throughtheeyesofthe NewTestamentcannotbepermitted(exceptinnonacademicdisciplines)asthisJewishliteratureneedstobereadfromaJewishperspective,onethatlivesandrespectstheinstructionthatstandsatitscore. Buttheproblemhereistwofold.First,theNewTestament is largelya JewishreadingoftheJewishscriptures,thoughitmaynotbeonewith whichheagrees.Second, both JudaismandChristianityreadtheancient Jewishscripturesthroughalens,theChristianthroughtheNewTestament,andJudaismthroughRabbinics.Ratheisernotesthishimself(he devotesasectiontoexplaininghowtheJewishBibleisonlypartof Judaism’ssacredwritings;seepp.112–21),buthedoesnotseemto appreciatefullyanideahementionsmadebyLevenson,namely,that bothRabbinicJudaismandChristianitygrewoutofthesamereligious andsocialmatrixandtheirseparatetraditionsare‘midrashicsystems thatmirrorthe“rivalryoftwosiblingsfortheirfather’sunique blessing”’(p.137).
Ultimately,thebookmakesanimportantclaimthatChristianinterpretersneedtotakeseriously:theJewishBibleisanancientJewish bookthatisdeeplyconcernedwith mitzvoth-ethics.Notallwillagree thatthisistheonlygrounduponwhichJewsandChristianscanjointly approachtheJewishBibleintheacademy.Further,notallwillagree thatOldTestamenttheologyshouldbeorhasbeenburiedforever. However,thereaderwilllikelyagree,thisoneincluded,thatOldTestamenttheologyneedsbettertoaddressthe mitzvoth-ethicsofthe HebrewBible,respectandlearnfromthepeoplethroughwhomthese
scripturesarose,andbetterappreciatethereadingcommunitythat continuestograpplewithobservingthe mitzvoth
JoelN.Lohr TrinityWesternUniversity50KeyConceptsinTheology,HughRayment-Pickard,Darton, LongmanandTodd,2007(ISBN978-0-232-52622-6),vi + 170pp.,pb £10.95
Thisbookiswhatitsaysitis:anintroductiontofiftykeytheological concepts.Eachtopicgetsacoupleofpagesorsoofexposition,plus brieflistsofkeythinkersandkeyideas,andashortbibliography.Itis notabooktoreadfromcovertocover–yetIdidfindmyselfdipping aroundinit,wonderinghowhewasgoingtosummarizethistopicor that,andbytheendhadreadjustaboutalltheentries.
Thetopicsarearrangedalphabetically.Theystretchfrom‘Atheism’to ‘TheTruth’viaawholerangeoffrequentlyencountered,butnotalways fullygrasped(bythosewhorefertothem),subjects.Hisselectionis topicalinthesensethathehaschosentheissueswhicharecurrently uppermostintheologicaldiscussions.Intenyearstime,adifferent selectionmightbemade.Butthisisfornow.So,heincludes,for instance,‘Ecotheology’and‘RadicalOrthodoxy’alongsidetheold chestnuts:‘Atonement’,‘Christology’,and‘TheTrinity’.‘Liberation’ and‘FeministTheologies’arenotquiteasnearthetopoftheagendaas theywere(andstillshouldbe?)buttheyarein.
Whoisthebookfor?SpecialistswithintheologicalschoolswillprobablyalreadybeuptoscratchonmostofthetopicsRayment-Pickard picksout.Ontheotherhand,studentsoftheology,peopleworkingon subjectsadjacenttotheologywhomightvalueknowingabitmore abouttheirstrangeneighbor,the‘interestedlayperson’whowantsto knowabitmorethantheaveragepreacheroffers,evenpeoplewho encountertheologicalideasinthedailynewspaperandwonderwhat theyareallaboutmightwellenjoy,andbenefitfrom,havingthisbook bytheirside.
JohnArmson HerefordshireTheTouchofTranscendence:APostcolonialTheologyofGod, MayraRivera,WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2007(ISBN 978-0-664-23073-9),xi + 181pp.,pb$24.95
AsoutlinedinChapter1,thepurposeofthisbookistoofferaconstructiveaccountoftranscendence.Theologicalclaimsassertingthat Godis‘beyondbeing,beyondtime,beyondcreation’and‘beyond materiality’failtoconceiveofaGodwithin‘ourtouch’.Riveraoffersa conceptoftranscendencethatis‘withincreationandbetweencreatures’,a‘relationaltranscendence’whichallowsustore-imagineinterhumanrelations(p.2).Thenotionoftranscendenceisadequatetothis taskinthatitallowsustothinktheirreducibility,yetinterconnectedness,ofGodandofothers.
Chapters2and3discusstranscendencethroughanexaminationof radicalorthodoxyandliberationtheology.AccordingtoRivera,radical orthodoxy,whichsheprimarilyassociateswithJohnMilbankand KatherinePickstock,isconcernedwithrecoveringanotionoftranscendencewhichis‘firmlyorthodoxandradicallyethical:aradicaltranscendence’(p.19).Intermsofethics,radicalorthodoxyconceivesof humansinaprecarious,yetgrounded,relationshipwiththedivine. Ourresponsibilitytotheotherandourpotentialtotransformhuman relationshipsinanaffirmativewayisgroundedinwhatis‘beyond–beyondtheself,thecommunity,thepresentmoment’(p.25).Thisisa valuablenotionoftranscendenceinthatitavoids‘self-absolutization’ andcallsfor‘theopennessofsocietiestoothers’asa‘principleof communalrule’(p.37).However,accordingtoRivera,radicalorthodoxy’sdepictionsofGodandworldas‘twoextrinsicrealities’failsto offeranadequateconceptionoftranscendencethatcanaccountforour interconnectedness.
Asachallengetoradicalorthodoxy,liberationtheologies–which focusonhistoricalinjusticesthroughcolonization,patriarchaltheology, andmasculineculture–questionthewayslanguageoftranscendence hasservedtoestablishtheconventionalepistemologicalsupremacyof dominanttheologicaldiscourses.Insteadoftendenciesintime-honored theologicalinterpretationsthatemphasize‘distance,exteriority,or otherworldliness’(p.44),liberationtheologiesstrivetoimagineanew notionoftranscendenceinwhichhumanbeingsareconceivedinterms oftheirconcreterelationality.Thisemphasisofrelationalityshouldnot, however,bereadasadenigrationofdifference,butasanaffirmationof thepossibilitiesandopennesscreatedbytheinterconnectednessofall humans.Humansareirreduciblysingular,yetinterconnectedona precariousgroundofrelationality.
Chapters4–6redirectRivera’sdiscussiontowardphilosophical ethics,feministphilosophy,andpostcolonialtheoryasameansto examinetheconceptoftheOther.DrawingontheworkofLevinas,
DusselandHispanictheology,Chapter4illustrateshowwemayexperiencetranscendencein‘thefaceoftheOther’(p.55).Levinas’sinfluentialconceptspermeatethisinvestigation,andthemessuchasinfinity, exteriority,andasymmetryinrelationtotheotherarescrutinizedasa meanstotransitionfrombroadcosmologicalquestions(i.e.radical orthodoxyandliberationtheology)to‘interhumanrelations’(p.56). AccordingtoRivera’sreadingofLevinas,immanence,whichis ‘self-sufficient,self-sameandsolipsistic’,doesnottoleratedifference. Alternatively,transcendenceisthe‘openingupofsamenesstoits Other’(p.59).WhilethisisanimportantmoveforRivera,ultimately Levinas’sphilosophicalaccountofethicsandresponsibilityrequires supplementation.
Dusselprovidesonesuchsupplementationinsofarashechallenges Levinas’saccountoftheOtheronthegroundsthatitfailstoadequately discusstheoriginoftotalizingnarratives;namely,thecolonialencounterwiththeOther.ForDussel,alimitedconceptionoftheOtheras victim,aspoorperson,asan‘exteriority’tothesystem,failsto empowerthespeakingother,theotherwhocanstruggleforliberation.
WhileDusselofferssomevaluableinsights,Riveramovesontoa discussionofUSHispanictheologyasanexampleof‘thespeaking Other’(p.78).Asrepresentativeofamarginalizedcommunitywithina geographicandculturalterritoryofhegemonicpower,yetalsoacommunitywithavoice,Hispanictheologyrepresentsauniqueformulationoftranscendence.Drawingfromthisinvestigation,Riveraposes herdefinitionoftranscendence.‘Transcendencedesignatesarelation witharealityirreduciblydifferentfrommyownreality,withoutthis differencedestroyingthisrelationandwithouttherelationdestroying thisdifference’(p.82).
Chapter5reformulatesLevinas’saccountoftranscendencethrough theworkofLuceIrigaray.InadditiontoLevinas’sface-to-faceencounterwiththeOther,Irigarayemphasizesthebody-to-bodyencounteras ameanstoexamineinterhumanrelationsintermsofdesire,eros,and sexualdifference.Forexample,theeroticencounter,asaformofincarnation,asaformofcreation,isapossiblewaytoexperiencethe‘infinite webofrelationsacrossdifferences’(p.95).Irigaray’sworkonsexual differencecolludeswithHispanictheologytoreinforcetheideathat identityismultiple,andthatinterhumantranscendence‘takesplacein singularmomentsinhistory’,butalso‘takesplaceinthefleshandin thecosmos’(p.97).
Chapter6integratesSpivak’sexaminationoftheexperienceofcolonizationanditsimpactonhowweconceiveoftheOther.Here,the issueofidentityformationtakescenterstage,asthemultiplicityof identityisextendedtopersons,communitiesandnations.Because identityismultiple,postcolonialtheory‘callsustore-linkinterhuman differencestotheirhistory’andto‘seetoday’sencountersintheir
relationshipstootherencounters,withotherpeople,atotherplacesand times’(p.103).RecallingthethemeofwelcomingtheOther,Rivera suggeststhatoneoftheproblemswithaphilosophicalethicthatimaginestheOtherasstranger,victim,ormarginalizedisthetendencyto forgethowconcretehistoricalexperiencesservetocreateboththe identityoftheselfandoftheOther.Forexample,‘throughrepeateduse ofsignifierslike“ThirdWorld,”weinscribecategoriesofdifferencein theworldandthenallowourselvestoforgettherangeofforcesthat wentintotheirproduction’(p.105).Assuch,weneedanaccountof‘the relationbetweeninterhumanothernessandtranscendence’(p.108) whichrecognizesthefailureofcolonialcategoriestoencapsulatethe singularityofallhumans.
Chapter7offersRivera’sconstructiveproposalsforaninnovative notionoftranscendence.Whilealargeportionofherargumentdraws fromnontheologicalresources,thischapterexploreshowthesemyriad voicescancontributetoaChristianunderstandingoftranscendence. Consistentwiththeideathattheologymustneverdeclareabsolute certainty,a‘theologyoftranscendenceisnecessarilyandselfconsciouslymetaphorical’.Theologycannot‘encompassthedivine Other’,butthroughimaginationwecanhopeto‘touchupontheexperiencesofthedivineintheflesh’.Thedoctrineofcreationmayhelpto groundan‘intracosmicandintercreaturlytranscendence’whichis groundedinthedivine(p.128).
Throughanexaminationofadiversechorusofphilosophicaland theologicalvoices,fromradicalorthodoxytoliberationtheology, philosophicalethicstopostcolonialstudiesandfeminism,thisbook willbeofspecialinteresttothoseconcernedwithsocial,philosophical,andtheologicalethics.WhileRiveracommendablyattempts totranslatethetechnicalterminologyofthesevoicesintoamore accessiblelanguage,thisbookwillmostlikelycirculateinacademic settings.
Rivera’sappropriationofadiversegrouptheoristsisengagingand informative,evenif,assheadmits,notallofthesefigureswouldbe comfortablewithatheologicalappropriationoftheirwork.WhileRivera’sfinalconstructiveproposalsseemtofocusmoreontheways Christiantheologycanre-imaginehumananddivinetranscendence, giventhediversityoffiguressheexamines,Iwonderifheraccountcan impartvaluetootherreligioustraditions.Thiswouldbeawelcoming possibility.
WillSchanbacher ClaremontGraduateUniversityTheOtherintheLightoftheOne:TheUniversalityoftheQur’an andtheInterfaithDialogue,RezaShah-Kazemi,TheIslamicTexts Society,2006(ISBN978-1-903682-47-0),xxvi + 309pp.,pb$34.95
Thisbookispurposefullypractical.Shah-KazemipresentstheQur’an asaguidebookforMuslimengagementwiththereligiousOther.His goalisto‘tobringtolighttheprofound,andurgentlyrequired, messagethattheQur’anconveys,notjusttoMuslimsbutalsothose concernedwiththedeeperwellspringsofmeaningfuldialogueand peacefulcoexistencebetweentheadherentsofthedifferentreligious traditions’(p.viii).Thismessageisurgentbecauseof9/11,whichto himisanexpressionofthemoderntrendof‘declineofspiritualityand theriseofideology’thatafflictsallreligions(p.ix).Hisstyleand presentationclearlysuggestsanaudienceofspecialistsinreligious studies,aswellasMuslimandnon-Muslimreligiousdialoguers.Based ontheissuesheaddresses,hisinterfaithpartnersappeartobeprimarily WesternChristians,mostoftenCatholics,someJews,andveryrarely non-Abrahamicinterlocutors.After9/11,heisparticularlyconcerned withtheexclusivistMuslimaudience.Forthem–ormorepreciselyfor thoseMuslimintellectualswhoshouldengagetheminintrafaithdialogue–hedesignsa‘universalist’readingoftheQur’an,whichshares withpluraliststheconvictionthat‘majorreligioustraditionsarevalid pathstosalvation’,andwithexclusiviststheirinsistencethatforreligion tobetrueitmustbe‘revealed’(p.xxiv).
Theauthor’sthesisiscompelling:‘theQur’anicdiscourse,readin depthandnotjustonthesurface,containstheprinciplesforelaborating...a “transcendentallyordainedtolerance”,... whichisdeeply rootedinarecognitionof,andrespectfor,theholinessthatliesatthecore ofallrevealedreligioustraditions’(p.xii).Hearrivesatthisbyreading theQur’anthroughanesotericperspective,whichhetakesfromthe exegesesofMuhyial-DinIbn‘Arabi(d.1240)and‘Abdal-Razzaq al-Kashani(d.1329).HisapproachfollowsthetraditionoftheperennialistSeyyedHosseinNasr.WithNasr’shelp,heseesinKashaniandIbn ‘Arabitheprincipleof‘transcendentunityofreligions’(p.xvii),which wasarticulatedfamouslybyFrithjofSchuon.Shah-Kazemi’scentral focusisthemetaphysicsofdivineunity, tawhid,wherehefindsdeeper meaningsofreligiousdiversity.Hisanswer–all‘revealedreligions’are salvific(p.183).Dialoguebetweentheiradherentsisapracticaland spiritualnecessity.Keyhereisproperunderstandingof‘thedivine nature... [which]isbothoneinitselfandmultipleinitsexpressions’, andwhich‘impliesandrequiresmultiplicity’(p.67).Diversityofhuman beingsandtheirreligionsisanexpressionoftheperfectionofthedivine unity.Thisisthe‘theultimateprototypeofalldialogue’(p.xix).
Shah-Kazemidevelopsthisviewinfourengagingchapters,all drivenbyapracticalconcernaboutincludingtheexclusivists.In
Chapter1,hedefineshisapproachas‘hermeneuticsofSufism’.Sufism isimportantbecause,atitscore,itresonateswiththepietyofmost Muslims.Incontrast,hecriticizespostmodernapproachesofFarid EsackandMohammedArkoun,SouthAfricanandFrenchinterpreters oftheQur’an.Muslimmainstream,hesays,willneveracceptpluralist readingsoftheQur’aniftheyemploypostmodernprinciplesofinterpretation.InChapter2,Shah-KazemifocusesonKashaniandIbn ‘Arabi’smetaphysicsof tawhid,withaninsightfulanalysisofKashani’s interpretationoftheQur’anicsura al-Ikhlas (‘Sincerity’/‘Purity’).He concludesthat‘fromaSufimetaphysicalperspective,onenessand diversityimplyratherthancontradicteachother’(p.140).InChapter3, heappliesthisprincipletotheapparentlycontradictoryQur’anic verses:ontheonehand,someofthemvalidatepreviousrevelationsand commandrespectforthe‘peopleoftheBook’,whileotherssuggestthat Islamabrogatedpreviousreligions.Thisquestionofabrogationisa major–thoughoftenunderemphasized–undercurrentinShahKazemi’sanalysis.Whilehesaysthatheisnotengagedin tafsir,formal exegesisoftheQur’an(p.viii),hisreadinggoesagainstthegrainof muchofthedominantlegalistictraditioninMuslimexegesis,which hasemployedtheconceptofabrogation,bothinmakingsenseofthe apparentlyinconsistentQur’anicversesandarticulatingtheMuslim self-imageastheultimatereligiouscommunity.
Theauthoraddressesthisissueinhisfinal,productivelyproblematic, chapter.Here,heapproachestheinter-andintrafaithdialoguewith twoeyesopen:upholdingboththeexoterictruthoftheuniquenessof Islamandtheesoterictruthofthe‘transcendentunityofreligions’. This,hesays,isthewaytoincludetheexclusivistmajorityofMuslims ininterfaithdialogue.Thus,sidingwithexclusivists,Shah-Kazemidoes notargueagainstabrogation.Rather,relyingonIbn‘Arabi,hestresses itsdeepermeaning:‘thefactofabrogationdoesnotimplythenullificationofthosereligionsthataresuperseded[byIslam],nordoesit rendertheminefficacious,insalvificterms’(p.240).Continuinghisline ofaffirmingexotericorthodoxconcepts,Shah-Kazemiproposesthat Muslimsshouldapproachinterfaithdialogueasa da’wa,orinvitationto faith.But,withaneyeonitsdeepermeaning,heurgesMuslimsto callonnon-MuslimstosubmittoGodthroughtheirown‘revealed religions’.
Shah-Kazemi’sattempttoincludeexclusivistsisacrucialintrafaith endeavor.ItalsoechoesCatholicdiscourses,whichissignificantfrom theinterfaithperspective.But,thereisalimitationtothisapproach, exemplifiedinhismisdirectedcriticismofAbdulazizSachedina,an AmericanMuslimscholarandauthorof TheIslamicRootsofDemocratic Pluralism (OxfordUniversityPress,2001).Shah-Kazemiassertsthat Sachedinaengagesina‘gratuitousconfrontationwiththeconservative upholdersofreligioustraditioninIslam,excludingtheirexclusivism
totally’(p.260).Yet,whatheismissingisthatSachedinagoesbeyond interfaithdialogue;heisarticulatingMuslimattemptstobepartners inthepublicsphere.ThisnecessitatesSachedina’sconfrontationwith exclusivistlegalinterpretations,whichShah-Kazemiissokeento avoid.
AninclusionofMuslimsinthepubliclifealsorequiresaformulation ofengagementwith(post)modernhumanbeings,whereEsackand Arkoun’sinsightsmightbeuseful.Thisisanotherlevelofdialogue glossedoverinthebook–dialoguebetweenhumanbeings,religious andotherwise,eventhosewhose‘onticclaims’appearincompatible (p.37).Tohiscredit,Shah-Kazemiprovidesasolution.Hisstresson deepermeaningsallowsMuslimstoseeintheirtraditionsa‘tolerance groundedinaconsciousnessoftherealitywhichtranscendsallsystems ofbelief,one’sownincluded,andyetalsopresent...inthe depthsof eachhumansoul’(pp.277–8).Suchaconsciousness,herightlystates, mustbedevelopedtofosterthevaluesofhumilityandgenerosity,the keycomponentsofanymeaningfuldialogue.
TimurYuskaev UniversityofNorthCarolina–ChapelHill
TheEthicsofWar:SharedProblemsinDifferentTraditions,Richard SorabjiandDavidRodin(eds.),AshgatePublishing,2007(ISBN 978-0-7546-5449-0),ix + 253pp.,pb$29.95
What?Abookontheethicsofwar?Really?Whatcouldpossiblybein suchabook?Well–theethicsofwar!Thoughmostpeoplewouldnever thinktherewasanythingethicalaboutwar,muchlesstheconductof war,therehasbeenagreatdealofphilosophical,political,moral,and religiousdebateabouttheethicsofwarthroughoutthecenturies.And thatdebatecontinuestoday.
Discussionabouttheethicalpursuitandconductofwaroccurred longbeforetheChristianChurchexistedanddevelopedtheconceptof ajustwar.
ThisisseeninChapter1whichinvestigatestheinfluencesofPlato, Aristotle,Cicero,andtheOldTestamentontheformationoftheChristianconceptofajustwar(pp.13–17).TheChristiantraditionformulated adistinctionbetweenwhenitisjusttogotowar(jusadbellum)andthe justconductofthatjustwar(jusinbello).Theseconceptsareseen throughouttheremainingchaptersofthisbook.Thefirstchapterrefers totheyear-longcessationoftheSpanishwarsagainstnativeAmericans
whilephilosophers,theologians,andpoliticalcounselorsdebatedthe justiceofsuchawar.Duringthesedebates,Christiantheologianssaid thatspreadingtheChristianfaithwasnotajustcauseforenteringintoor forfightingawar(p.18).Thischapteralsoappliessomeoftheancient ideasandconceptsofwartomodernwarfare(pp.19–27).
Chapter2studiesthedifferentideasofajustwarheldbyWestern andEasternChristianitywhichledtotheWesternChristians’sacking ofConstantinople.ThedifferenceisfoundinmedievalWesternChristianity’scombiningtheideasofajustwarwithaholywar,while EasternChristianityheldaseculardefinitionofajustwarwhich excludedholywarideas.
Chapter3investigatestheinfluenceofGrotiusontheoriesofjustwar. Hisideassubordinatedtherightsofthecitizenrytothoseoftherulers andthemilitary(pp.48,56).Hisworkseparated jusadbellum from jus inbello.Hisideaswereandstillareveryinfluential.
Chapter4isperhapsthemostimportantessayinthisbook.ItexaminesconceptsofIslamicarmedresistance.Theseideasaresetforthin thewritingsofIslamicreligiousspecialistsknownasthelearnedclass whoexpound‘Shari’areasoning’(p.62).Thelearnedclass’staskisto discerntherightwayforaMuslimtoliveonthebasisoftheQur’anand thelifeandauthorityofMuhammad.IbnTaymiyya(d.1328)iscited becausehiswritingisquotedinOsamabinLaden’s‘JihadAgainstJews andCrusaders’,anappendixtoChapter4(pp.89–91).BinLaden’s statement‘focusesonthesharedguiltofcitizensinademocraticstate’ whichjustifiesattackingthem.Italsoinvokes‘theIslamicversionofthe lextalionis’(p.82).
InIslamicthought,aproperjihadshouldbedeclaredbyajustand legitimatelyrecognizedgovernment.Thechapterarguesthatthelackof thisdeclarationbringsintoquestionthelegitimacyofterroristicacts againstprivatecitizenscommittedinthenameofjihad.Debateswithin thelearnedclassaboutthestatedpositionsandactionsofHamas,bin LadenandothersmakethisessaynecessaryreadingforaclearerunderstandingoftheconceptofwarandthejustnessofwarinIslamic thoughttoday.
Chapter5givesevidenceofAristotle’sinfluenceonbothJewishand MuslimideasaboutholywarintheworkofMaimonidesandAverroes. Holywarsarewarsthatadvancereligions.AristotlehelpedAverroes viewstobemoremoderate.Averroes’smoremoderateviewsclearly influencedMaimonidesthoughtsaboutjustwars(pp.94–6,99–100).
Chapter6studiesthewritingsofrabbinicJudaismontheethicsof war.RabbinicstatementsfromtheearlyTalmudicwritings,themiddle ages,andmoderntimesareexaminedincludingdebatesonwarin modernIsrael.ThisessayconcludesbycitingOldTestamentpassages whichspeakaboutpeace–Job25.2;Deuteronomy2.26;Isaiah2.4;and Micah4.3(p.130).
Chapter7examinestheethicalconceptsofwarfareinalengthy ancientIndianepicpoementitled Mahabharata whichdescribesawar betweentheKauravasandtheircousinsthePandavas.Thepoem includesdiscussionsaboutwhetherthewarwasjustlyenteredintoand justlyfought.Theepicremindsreadersthatallwarsareenteredinto andfoughtwithlimitedhumanknowledge,andthattheoutcomesof warareunknownattheoutset.
Chapter8beginsthesecondpartofthebookwhichappliesjustwar conceptstomoderncircumstances.Thischapterdealswiththeethical dimensionsofmodernassymetricalwarfare(terroristicandguerilla tacticsusedbytheweakagainstthestrong)whichcreateconflict betweenthejustnessofwar,andthejustconductofwarascivilians becometargets.
Chapter9examinestheconceptofapre-emptivewarandquestions whetherspeculationabouttheevilthatmightbedoneisasufficient causeforpre-emptivewar.
Chapter10arguesagainstwarsofinterventionbasedonhumanitarianreasonsbecausedifferentpeoplesandcultureshavedifferingideas abouthumanrights.Italsoemphasizesthefactthattherearediffering waystodealwiththeviolationsofthoserightswhichdolessharmthan armedconflict.
Chapter11isareminderthatcultureinfluencesactionsandperspectivesinwar.Culturecandemonizecertainpeoplesothatitis incorrectlyconsideredjustandrighttoharshlytreatandexterminate thatopponent(theOther)(pp.210–15).Inatrulyjustwar,enmity againsttheenemyshouldbeataminimum.Anoverzealousapproach fallsintotherealisttrapwhichbelievesthatmightmakesright.Ina justwar,thebelligerentsshouldvaluepeacehigherthanwar.Feelings motivatedbytribalism,clan,orevenstateneedtobemitigatedby havingallseeoneanother,eventheenemy,asfellowmembersofthe humanfamily.
Chapter12isafascinatingexaminationofthecontrastsbetween liberationtheologyandwhattheauthorcallstheChristiantraditionof ajustrevolution.Thisessayalsoattemptstoapplyjustwarconceptsto theissueoftheuseofnuclearweapons.
Chapter13discussesthewarsBritainhasengagedinsince1945 includingtheIraqwar,askssearchingquestions,andconcludesthatthe Iraqincursiondoesnotfitthemodernconceptofajustwar.Italso raisesquestionsastowhatshouldbedoneafterwarisover.
Theseessayspositthatajustwarentailsajustcause,shouldbealast resort,needsauthorizationbyproperauthority,shouldnotmake mattersworse,andshouldhaveachievableaims.
Thisshouldbeatextbookinethicsclasses.Militaryleaders,politicians,andheadsofstatesshouldreadthisbook.Everycitizenofany countrycurrentlyengagedinarmedconflictshouldreadthisbookto
helpanswerquestionsaboutthejustnessofitswar,andthejustnessof itsconduct.
Achaptersettingforththeviewsofsecular,Jewish,Christian,and Muslimpacifistsastotheimmoralandunethicalnatureofwarwould haveenhancedthisbook’svalue.
ArmandJ.Boehme PeopleofGodEvangelicalLutheranSeminaryTheCambridgeCompaniontoJonathanEdwards,StephenJ.Stein (ed.),CambridgeUniversityPress,2007(ISBN978-0-521-61805-2),xix + 342pp.,pb$27.99
StephenJ.SteinhasdoneanexcellentjobofgatheringsixteenoutstandingessaysrelatedtothelifeandworkofJonathanEdwards.Thiscollectionisaveryhelpfulintroductiontothecurrentstateofscholarship regardingEdwardsaswellasservingasawide-rangingreviewofthe developmentsinthattradition.Theindividualessayscontributedby thethreegenerationsofscholarsrepresentedinthisbookgoalongway towardorientinganystudentofJonathanEdwardstothecomplexityof theissuesinvolvedinanyconsiderationofEdwards’simpactonAmericanreligiouslife.Thebookisapartofthemosthelpful,manyvolumed, CambridgeUniversityCompanionseries.
Manyoftheauthorsoftheseessays–AvaChamberlain,DavidDHall, Wilson,H.Kimnach,M.X.Lesser,GeorgeM.Marsden,KennethP. Minkema,StephenJ.Stein,andHarryS.Stouthaveeditedvolumesof theYaleUniversityeditionof TheWorksofJonathanEdwards. Especially whenusedinconjunctionwiththisedition–currentlytwenty-six volumes,projectedtobetwenty-eight–thiscompanionissuretobean invaluableguideandreferencetoolforanyseriousstudentofJonathan Edwards.
Steinhasorganizedtheseessaysintothreesections–PartOne Edwards’slifeandcontext,PartTwo Edwards’srolesandachievements, andPartThree Edwards’slegacyandreputation.Whilethereislittlenew scholarshipintheseessays,thecontributorsare,afterall,wellknown andwidelypublishedJonathanEdwardsscholars.Amongthemselves, theyareresponsibleforthepublicationofovertwodozenwellreceivedscholarlybooksonAmericanreligion,Edwards,andhiscontemporaries.Havingnotedthat,thiscollectionhasabreathofscope thatwouldbecrucialtoanyoneinterestedinunderstandingthe subject.
InPartOne,Marsden’s Biography andHall’s TheNewEnglandBackground aremostusefulparticularlytobeginningstudentsofEdwards. WhileinPartTwoKinmach’s Edwardsaspreacher,Stout’s Edwards asrevivalist andtheadditionalfouressaysinthissection Edwards as... theologian,philosopher,biblicalexegete and missionaryby Holifield, Daniel,Stein,andWheelerrespectivelyallservetoroundouttheportraitofthisenormouslyprolificwriter.InSectionIII,Bebbington’s The ReputationofEdwardsAboard servestoremindthereaderjusthowmuch EdwardsandindeedmostNewEnglandclergyoftheperiodthought ofthemselvesasapartofalargerBritishandEuropeantradition. Likewise,Chamberlain’sessay– Edwardsandsocialissues makesclear theimportanceoftheNewEnglandclergy’s,andthisparticular,highly visible,clergyman’sinvolvementinthemyriadoftheseissues.Clergy helpingtodefineculturalresponseiscertainlynonewconcern.
Thesuggestionsforfurtherreadingsastheendofthebookwillalso serveasausefultooltoanystudentoftheperiod.
MaryColeman HartfordSeminaryUnionandDistinctionintheThoughtofStMaximustheConfessor, MelchisedecTörönen,OxfordUniversityPress,2007(ISBN 978-0-19-929611-8),xvi + 222pp.,hb£42/$74
StudiesofthethoughtofMaximustheConfessorarecurrentlyenjoying aperiodofvigorandflourishing.Ashisthoughtarguablyrepresents thepinnacleofpatristictheologicaldevelopment,thiscanonlybea goodthing.Maximusmayevenbebeginningtochallengethecurrent hegemonyofGregoryofNyssaintrendinessstakes.EversinceHans UrsvonBalthasarpublishedhismonographonthesaint’stheologyin 1941,interesthasincreased.Now,somesixty-sevenyearsafterthat publication,scholarsarebeginningvariouslytoqualify,andeven criticizevonBalthasar’sreading.Itistime,asMorwennaLudlowhas recentlysuggested,thatvonBalthasar’sreadingsofpatristic(andother) literaturewerelookedatsystematically(NewBlackfriars 88/1014[2007], 234).Thatwouldcertainlymakeaworthyandinterestingdoctoral study.
ThisbookbeganasadoctoralthesissubmittedattheUniversityof Durhamin2002,underthesupervisionofProfAndrewLouth.Iconsulteditinthesisformsomeyearsago,andamsadtoseethatsome ofitsmoreplayfulfeatureshavebeenpareddown,inparticularthe
delightfulintroductorystoryaboutGemüsesuppewhichwasavivid illustrationoftheauthor’sthemeintheearliertext.
Thebookiscomposedoffourteenchapters,placedbetweenanintroductionandabriefepilogue.Theintroductionnotonlysummarizesthe book,butalsoindicateshowtheauthorseeshisworkinrelationto recentscholarshiponMaximus.Thebookaimstolookatthethemeof ‘simultaneousunityanddistinction’,onewhichtheauthordeems, surelyrightly,tobepervasiveinMaximus’sthoughtasa‘kindof architecture’whichfindsdifferent‘embodiments’(p.1).Thissimultaneous‘unionanddistinction’,whichIwillcalldifferentiatedunity,is, Törönenargues,the‘principleoftruthofallreality,the logos oftruth’in Maximus’sthought.Negativelyexpressed,theauthorintendshis framingofthis, the,themeofMaximus’sthoughttodisplacealong regnantframeofinterpretationofMaximianstudies,thatofChalcedon anditsChristological‘definition’.EversincetheworkofvonBalthasar, ithasbeenclaimedandlargelyagreedthatthe(aporetic)conceptionof thehypostaticunioninChalcedon’s horos,ascompletedbythoseof Constantinople,istheprismthroughwhichMaximus’sthoughtought toberefracted.Theauthorstatesvigorouslythathisnewopticdisplaces theChalcedonianone,butImustsayIfailtobeconvincedonthispoint. This,however,doesnotaffectthereadingofthebulkofthebook. Indeed,thepolemicoftheintroductionfeelstackedonandisnot discussedagaininthecourseofthebook.
InPartOne,‘Logic’,theauthorlooksatvariousconceptualtools(ch. 1)andimages(ch.2)whichMaximusmayhavehadtohandinformulatinghistheology,andinparticularthosewhichwouldhavehelpedin perceivingandarticulatingdifferentiatedunity.Asalwaysinthisbook theauthorgivesagood,snappyhistoricalcontexttoMaximus’seducation,andthenconcentratesonneoplatoniccommentariesonAristotle,whichMaximusmusthaveknown,aswellasPorphyry’streeinhis Isagoge,andthecategoriescontainedinit:differentkindsofdifference (concentratingon idiaitata difference);universalandparticular,andthe relatedcategoriesof logos and tropos (vitalforemphasizingthe dynamism ofMaximus’smetaphysic);thelexicalpairs‘unionanddistinction’and‘unionanddifference’;andfinallydifferentmereological conceptionsofwholesandparts(especiallyinreferencetothebodyand soul).HemovesinChapter2fromwaysofconceivingofdifferentiated unitytowaysofrepresentingit.Thus,heconsidersimageswhichare moreorlessstandardneoplatonicfare,andwhichoftenappearin ChristiantheologyindiscussionsofChristologyanddeificaition: incandescantiron,airilluminatedbylight,thecentreandradiiof circles,manylightsandoneillumination,manycolorsinonestone.
Thesecondpart,‘Trinity’,movesthroughthreedifferentchapters. Thefirst,‘Principles’,explorestheparametersofMaximus’strinitarian reflection,observingasitavoidstheScyllaofSabellianismandthe
CharybdisofArianism,bothofwhichconstituterefusalsofdifferentiatedunity.Theauthortracesthegradualclassificationoftrinitarian terminology,priortoMaximus,alongthelinesofuniversalandparticular.Interestinglyandusefully,heconsidersinsomedepththe meaningofthevexatiousword, hypostasis,thebaneofmanyastudent ofpatristictheology.Hehelpfullyemphasizeshowdifferentourunderstandingofpersonhoodis,giventheheavypersonalistdriveinrecent theology(curiouslyomittinganymentionofJohnZizioulashere).He notes,startlingly,thatforapatristicauthorhavinganhypostasis,and hencebeinga‘person’,wasnotrestrictedtohumanbeings.Amouseor ahorse,forinstance,ishypostaticandsopersonal.Intheauthor’sview, ourmodern(atanyratepost-Boethian)understandingsofpersonhood includeamongsttheircentralcharacteristics:rationality,freedom,relatedness,self-consciousness,andparticularity.Forpatristicauthors,he argues,thesewerenot personal characteristics,butratherweredefining ofthe universal humannature.Ononecount,though,patristicand modernviewsofthepersonconverge,andthatisaroundtheconcern fortheintegrityofahumanbeing’sparticularity.Törönenalsoargues thatthecategoryofrelationisunderstoodbypatristicauthorsina significantlydifferentwayfrompresentdayunderstandings.Thepatristicauthors,hesays,thoughtofrelationmuchmoreintermsof comparison.Itisnotclear,though,thatthisapplies,forinstancetothe Cappadocians’useof skesis.
Thefourthchapter,‘MonadandTriad’,considersthedifferentiated unityofthetrinityinmoredetail,seeinghowMaximusarguesthatGod theTrinityis both monad and triad.Hequotesamostinterestingtext whichtrieslinguisticallytodelineateagrammatical‘location’which describesthisrelation.Maximussaythatitisnot‘one in theother’,nor ‘onething and another’,nor‘one above another’,nor‘one through another’,noryet‘one from another’(p.63).Apart,however,fromthe statedfactofsimultaneity,itisnotclear,fromthisaccount,howinfact Godismonad and triad.Töröneninsiststhatneithersidehaspriority, andhereheagaininteractsusefully,ifalittlevaguely,withmodern theologywhichhasimputedsuchprioritiestoEasternandWestern theologies(witnessalltherecentdiscussionoftheso-called‘deRegnon Paradigm’:seetheusefulaccountinKristinHennessy,‘AnAnswerto deRégnon’sAccusers:WhyWeShouldNotSpeakof“His”Paradigm’, HarvardTheologicalReview 100/2[2007],179–97).Törönenfollowsthe FranciscanAndrédeHalleuxinarguingthattheCappadocians,and Maximus,gaveneithersidethepriority.Thenextchapter,‘Knowingthe Trinity’,remindsonethatmostofMaximus’stheologyisoriented towardpraxis;itisnotamuseumpiecebutalifetobelived.Here, TörönenexploresMaximus’stexturedunderstandingofcausation:it shouldcomeasnosurprisethathedidnotoperatewithefficientcausalityalone,asweby-and-largedotoday.Thisgivesusaflavor:‘He
[God]movesandismovedasthirstingtobethirsted,andasdesiringto bedesired,andaslovingtobeloved’(p.70).Wegetastrongsenseof Maximus’scharacteristicdynamicofreciprocityandsynergy,though wedowellalsotonotetheasymmetrywhichnonethelessdrivesit. TörönenfurtherexploresMaximus’saccountofgrowthintheknowledgeoftheTrinitythroughhisreflectionsonvariousbiblicalstoriesand characters(angelsappearingtoLot;Abraham).Oddly,theauthorstates attheendofthischapterthatithasbecomeclearthattheprincipleof differentiatedunityhasbecomemostclearintheeucharisticcontextin Maximus’s Mystagogia;however,priortothispoint,therehasbeenno discussionofthistext(p.78).
PartThreeofthebook,‘Christ’,alsocontainsthreechapters.Thefirst considers‘Nature,Difference,andNumber’.ItfirstsketchesthehistoricalcontextofMaximus’schristology,notingthatitdevelopedin reactiontowhatMaximussawasthreeerroneousideas:theSeveran theologyofChrist’sonecompositenature;theimperialdoctrineof Christ’soneactivity,andthemonotheliteinsistenceononewill.Again, aswiththeTrinity,crucialtothetheologicaldevelopmentwasthe classificationofthetheologicalvocabularyalongthelinesofuniversal andparticular.Crucialtoowasdistinguishingbetweendifferenceand division.ForMaximusnumberdoesnotnecessarilyimplydivision, whereasitwouldforaSeverantheologian.AfterconsideringthequestionssurroundingwhetherChristhadacompositenatureorcomposite hypostasis,theauthorlooksbrieflyatthevexedquestionof enhypostaton.ThediscussionherefollowsthepositionofAndrewLouthand BrianDaleywhichdoesnotgrantanydoctrineof‘enhypostasia’in LeontiusofByzantiumorMaximus.Therehave,however,beensignificantchallengestothatpositionintheworksofDennisFerrara,Richard Cross,and,mostrecently,Carlodell’Osso.
Theseventhchapter,‘ActivitiesandWills’,considerstheconsequencesofadmittingtwonaturesinChrist,whichmusttherefore includetwoactivities,astheyarenaturalproperties.Likewisewith wills,whicharenatural,notpersonal,properties.Althoughamouseis hypostaticandpersonal,ithasnowill,asitsnatureisnotcharacterized bywilling.TörönenbrieflydiscussesMaximus’suseof gnome alongsidethewill.Chapter8,‘Union’,arguesforaPorphyrianoriginfor Maximus’s‘unionwithoutconfusion’,comparingitverybrieflywith thelanguageofmixtureandonlyonesetofunderstandingsofthat language.Again,aswith enhypostaton,Törönen’sdiscussiondoesnot alwaysseemawareofrecenttreatmentsofsomeofhisthemes.Atany rate,ashepointsout,terminologywhichfortheneoplatonistswas usefulforbridgingthe‘divide’betweensensibleandintelligiblewas veryattractiveforChristianslookingforwaysofconceptualizingand representingaunionbetweentheCreatorandhiscreation,‘across’the ‘gulf’whichseparatesthem.Here,Törönenalsolooksatthelanguageof
perichoresis,‘interpenetration’,andagainthediscussionisshort.Itis notcorrect(p.121)thatGregoryNazianzenonlyusestheterminology once(itisfoundat Or 17.4;18.42;22.4; Ep 101.31).Readersinterestedin thisshouldconsultthewide-rangingworkofEmmanuelDurand, La périchorèsedespersonnesdivines:Immanencemutuelle,réciprocitéetcommunion (Paris:Cerf,2005).
PartFour,‘Universe,Church,Scripture’,movesintomorevariegated territory,butstilllookingatthesamethemeofdifferentiatedunity.Of itsthreechapters,thefirst,‘CreationSong’,elaboratesMaximus’swellknowntheoryofthe Logos andthe logoi whichareGod’sintentions/ willforcreation.Thisisagainastructureofdifferentiatedunity betweenGodandcreation.Itisrelated,Törönenargues,toneoplatonic participation,butdiffersfromitinitsinsistenceontheontological dividebetweencreatureandCreatorandthuseschewsthecontinuum whichcomeswithaneoplatonicscheme.Here,theauthordrawscreativelyfromtheNarniastoriestoillustratehispoint.Maximusavoids bothpantheismandemanationism,arguingforaGodthatistranscendent and immanentineverypartofthecreation.Hisisatheophanic cosmology.Thenextchapter,‘SpiritualHierarchy’,looksatdifferentiatedunityinthecontextoftheChurch,bothintermsofthegifts/spirits itreceivesfromtheoneSpirit,butalso,andmostfascinatinglyinterms ofecclesialarchitecture.Atfirstflush,thesuggestionthatthenaveand sanctuaryofachurchareadifferentiatedunityinthemannerofthe hypostaticunionseemstofailonaccountofthelackofdynamism,and alltheotherqualitiesTörönenhasexcavatedthusfarinthebook. Butwhenoneaddstheactiveanddynamicnatureoftheliturgy,the pictureisreversedandoneisnolongerpresentedwithastatic,and christologicallydeficient,juxtaposition.Thefinalchapterofthispart, ‘TransparentWords’,givesanaccountofMaximus’shermeneutic, emphasizingasinthepreviouschapter,theimportantroleeschatology playforMaximus.Thischapterseemedlessconvincingthantheothers.
PartFour,‘SpiritualLifeandHumanArchitecture’,considershow Maximus’santhropologyaffectstheChristian’slivingoutofthedouble commandmenttolove.Throughthechaptertheauthor’sreflectionsare linkedtoasongofDowland’s:‘TellMe,TrueLove’.Törönengivesa carefulandgoodaccountofhowMaximus’sversionofthetripartite anthropology(dividingintorational,incensive,anddesiring),along withadistinctiontakenfromAristotleandNemesius,betweenthe rational(furtherdividedbetweenintellect/nous andreason/logos)and theirrational,workstoprovideananthropologygearedtowardfulfillingbothcommandmentsinanintegratedway.ForMaximus,hesays, loveisthemostgenericofvirtuesandalltherestareanunfoldingofit. Thenexttwochaptersconsidertwomovementsavailabletothehuman being,giventheanthropologydelineatedinthepreviouschapter.The firstisnegative,‘ConfusionandFragmentation’,andtreatsthewrong
directionsthehumancangoin.Thereismorediscussionoftheroleof thegnomicwillhere,andofMaximus’semphasisonthereformationof the gnome whichisthegoalofthespirituallife.Wronguseofthiswill, beingunitedwith sensibilia yieldsconfusion.Confusion,ofcourse,is oneofthekindsofmixturewhichthepatristicauthorsdetermined couldnotbeusedinaChristologicalcontextbecauseitdoesnotrespect theintegrityoftheingredientnatures.Justaspositively,thepatternsof thespirituallifefollowChristology,sotoonegatively:confusionasa kindofunionisbadinboth.Thelastchapterbrieflytreatsthepositive directioninwhichthehumancanmove,detachingherselffromthe sensibleworldandmovingtowardintegrationwiththespiritualrealm. ThereissomediscussionofMaximus’saccountofdeificationhere,and apresentationofMelchisedechasthemodelofthedeifiedperson:his detachmentfromtheworld,symbolizedbyhislackofparentsanda genealogy,isamodelforthedetachmentwemustcultivate.Thechapter appearstoendwithaprayerfulexhortationtothelovewhichleadsto differentiatedunitywithGodandourfellowhumans.Averybrief epilogueroundsoffthework,summarizingitsfindings.Törönen emphasizesthatmoststrikinginMaximus’stheologyistherespectfor theintegrity‘ofeachandeverybeing’,andmakesthesuggestion, withoutteasingitoutatall,thathistheologyhasimportantmessages forthe‘commonlife’whetherinconnectionwith‘workingenvironment,politics,biodiversityorchurch’(p.198).Heendsbyinvitingusto followthepathofdeificationandpursuedifferentiatedunitytobecome ‘anotherMelchisedech’.Thisremindsonethattheauthorisnowa memberofthemonasticcommunityofStJohntheBaptistatTolleshunt KnightsintheUK,havingtakenonthenameMelchisedech.Thebook isdedicatedtothefounderofthecommunity,ArchimandriteSophrony Sakharov.
ThisstimulatingandfruitfulbookeffectivelyprovidesatourofMaximus’stheologybyfollowingaparticularthemethroughouthisworks. Thenumberofstopsonthetourmeansthatthetreatmentofthecontent ofthosestopsissometimesthin,aswehaveseen.Buttheother,necessary,sideofthatsamecoinisthatTörönen does giveafreshopticto seeMaximus’stheologyasadifferentiatedunityitself.Itdoesnot matterifoneremainsunconvinced,asIthinkIam,byhisunsustained initialpolemicagainstChalcedonianreadingsofMaximus,forhis readingisinfactconsonantwiththosereadings,whileitselfusefully addingtexturetothem.Oftheareaswhichcouldbeexpanded,the mostinterestingmightbethatofdeepeningtheanalysisofdifferent differences.Törönendoesnotconsideroppositionatall,northerefore differentkindsofopposition.Butnotinfrequently,Maximusdescribes theentitieswhichjoininadifferentiatedunityas‘extremities’(for instance,139),andthisimpliesoneofanumberofsensesofopposition. ThismakesmewonderwhetherTörönen’schosenheuristicprincipleof
‘unionanddistinction’ordifferentiatedunityisinfactstilltooblunt, andwhetheramodelwhichinvolvesasenseofopposition,like paradox,mightbeaproductiveavenuetoexploreinMaximus’s thought.ItwouldalsobeinterestingtocompareTörönen’saccountof unionanddistinctioninMaximuswithotherpresentationsofthesame themeatotherlocationsinthetheologicaltradition,mostobviously perhaps,inWernerBeierwaltes’s IdentitätundDifferenz (Heidelberg: Klosterman,1980).Thatisworkforanotherday.Fornow,theauthor mustbethankedforastimulatingpanoramaofMaximus’stheology.
PhilipMcCosker StBenet’sHall,Oxford