Rege

nt’s

Re

view

s

April 2018 Edit ion 9.2

IN THIS ISSUE:

Steven Harmon: Baptist Identity and the Ecumenical

Future Matthew Thiessen: Paul and the Gentile Problem Ryan Anderson Newson: Radical Friendship and many more...

StevenR.Harmon,BaptistIdentityandtheEcumenicalFuture:Story,TraditionandtheRecoveryofCommunity(Waco,TX:Baylor,2017)345pp................................4

R.DavidNelsonandCharlesRaithII,Ecumenism:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:Bloomsbury,2017),194pp.........................................................................................5

AndrewPicardandMykHabets(eds),TheologyandtheExperienceofDisability:InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesfromVoicesDownUnder(Routledge,2016)pp.xvi+282.............................................................................................................................................................7

E.JeromeVanKuiken,Christ’sHumanityinCurrentandAncientControversy:FallenorNot?(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2017)....................................................8

AngusPaddison(ed.),TheologiansonScripture(London:T&TClark,2016),235pp....................................................................................................................................................10

KarlBarth,TheEpistletotheEphesians(GrandRapids:Baker,2017),192pp.....12

BenjaminJ.BurkholderBloodlessAtonement?ATheologicalandExegeticalStudyoftheLastSupperSayings(Eugene:Pickwick,2017),xx+272pp............................14

MatthewThiessen,PaulandtheGentileProblem(Oxford:OUP,2016)...................15

BrettGray,JesusintheTheologyofRowanWilliams(Bloomsbury,T&TClark2016)189pp.......................................................................................................................................19

VincentJMiller(ed.),TheTheologicalandEcologicalVisionofLaudatoSi’(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2017),pp.i-xv+277.................................................24

SimonOliver,Creation:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2017)209pp.........................................................................................................................26

SamuelWellsandBenQuashwithRebekahEklund,IntroducingChristianEthics(2ndEd.,Wiley-Blackwell,2017),428pp................................................................................28

I.LeonHarris,TheHolySpiritasCommunion:ColinGunton’sPneumatologyofCommunionandFrankMacchia’sPneumatologyofKoinonia(Eugene,OR:Pickwick,2017),xxi+240pp......................................................................................................29

RyanAndersonNewson,RadicalFriendship:ThePoliticsofCommunalDiscernment(Minneapolis:FortressPress,2017).............................................................31

PeterStevenson,Preaching.SCMStudyGuide(London,SCMPress,2017),268pp...................................................................................................................................................................32

MichaelGreen,RadicalLeadershipintheNewTestamentandToday(London:SPCK,2017)101pp.........................................................................................................................33

U.M.Lang(ed.),AuthenticLiturgicalRenewalinContemporaryPerspective(London:Bloomsbury,2017).....................................................................................................35

HelenLeneman,MusicalIlluminationsofGenesisNarratives(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2018).................................................................................................37

DouglasJ.Brouwer,HowToBecomeaMulticulturalChurch(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2017)..............................................................................................................................38

MelodyR.Briggs,HowChildrenreadBiblicalNarrative:AnInvestigationofChildren’sReadingsoftheGospelofLuke(Eugene,OR:Pickwick,2017).................39

WalterBrueggemann,God,Neighbour,Empire(SCM,2017),165pp.........................41

DoloresKamrada,Heroines,HeroesandDeity(London:Bloomsbury,2016).......43

CareyWalshandMarkW.Elliott(eds.),BiblicalTheology:Past,PresentandFuture(Eugene,Oregon:Cascade,2016)233pp...............................................................44

G.GeoffreyHarperandKitBarker(eds.),FindingLostWords:TheChurch’sRighttoLament(Eugene,OR:Wipf&Stock,2017)......................................................................45

KateKirkpatrick,SartreandTheology(London:Bloomsbury,2017).......................47

RodneyWallaceKennedy(ed.),PreachingConversationswithScholars(Wipf&Stock,2016),132pp........................................................................................................................49

DougGay,GodBeinMyMouth:40WaystoGrowasaPreacher(SCM,2018),148pp....................................................................................................................................................50

KeithClements,LookBackinHope:AnEcumenicalLife(Resource,2017).423pp...................................................................................................................................................................51

MartynPayne,MessyParables(BibleReadingFellowship,2017),173pp..............51

StevenR.Harmon,BaptistIdentityandtheEcumenicalFuture:Story,TraditionandtheRecoveryofCommunity(Waco,TX:Baylor,2017)345pp.ThisisabookmostfittedtoRegent'sReviews,reflectingnotonlytheCollege'secumenicalcommitments,butalsoitsBaptistconvictions,andbeginsinchapteronewiththeDecember2010meetingoftheBWA/CatholicdialoguemeetingatRegent'sParkCollegeinOxford,whichSteveHarmonattended.Thisbookreflectstheself-conscioustransitionbyitsauthorfrompatristicandsystematictheologiantoecumenicaltheologian(ix).Theresultisarich,hopeful,anddeeplytheologicalpleaforBaptiststoengagefullyintheecumenicalvisionofone,visibleunitedchurch.Baptistsarepartoftheonecatholicchurch,Harmonargues,andthereisanecumenicalmomenttobeseized.Thesupposedinsurmountabledifficultiesofthelocusofthemagisterium,ortheplaceofsolascripturaarenotimpossiblebarrierstounity,heclaims.HeiswritingfromtheNorthAmericancontext,ofcourse,andespeciallythatoftheCooperativeBaptistFellowshiptowhichhebelongs,butheisveryawareofthewiderinternationalperspective,andthatoftheBaptistUnionofGreatBritainespecially.Thepursuitofanecumenically-engagedBaptistidentityisonethatIwouldwhole-heartedlyembrace,butIamaware,asisHarmon,thatthisisnotuniversallywelcomed.Thereareplentyof,oftenquitestrident,voicesthatseesuchajourneyasnotonlyfraughtwithdangerstoBaptistidentity,butsimplywrong.EcumenicalengagementbyBaptistsinEngland(Scotlandisdifferent)isamongstthemorecommittedofthevariedBaptistresponsestotheecumenicalvision,butevenhere—inacountrythatrejoicesinthebroadestspectrumofchurchesinmembershipwithitsnationalecumenicalinstrument(CTE)ofanyEuropeancountry—ecumenismiscurrentlyundergoingsomethingofa'winterseason.'Thereisplentyofoftenquitesuperficiallocalcollaboration,especiallywheresocialprojectsareconcerned,butrealstepstowardsgreaterunityareoftenresisted.ThecallembodiedinthisbookforBaptiststobeapilgrimpeopleonthewaytofullvisibleunitymightseem,therefore,aprettynaiveone.However,Iwonderifthismightactuallybe,asHarmonclaims,thetimetore-invigoratenotonlythewholeecumenicalproject(andsincereceptiveecumenismisactuallyalreadyinourBaptistblood,Harmondiscerns—aswehavereceivedsomuchbywayoftheology,liturgyandhymnodyfromothers—there,isasgoodaplaceasanytostart)butspecificallyBaptistengagementinit.Harmonwrestleswithmattersofauthority,theplaceofScripture,traditionandtheplaceofBaptistdenominationalism.Hisconversationpartnersare,moreoftenenough,RomanCatholics—asonemightexpectfromtheauthor'sparticipationintheBaptist/RomanCatholicbilateralconversations—butnotlimitedtothem.DivisionswithinBaptistsintheUnitedStatesalsofigurelarge,asdorecoursetotheFathersoftheEarlyChurch.Itisthisbreadthoftheology,historyandecumenicalliteracythatmakethissuchafinebook,and,sincehe

makesfewconcessionstoapopularreadership(thetextisrepletewithveryfullfootnotes),onethatseekstoengageatdepthwiththeissuesconcerned.Ifoundthissoengaging,Ireaditatasinglesitting—withabreakforlunch—andfoundIwantedtoreadandreaduntilIfinishedit.ItisnotoftenthatIcansaythatofatheologicaltext!Ishallwanttoreturntoittimeandagain,Isuspect,asImakemyownjourneyasacommittedBaptist,ecumenistand'catholicBaptist.'Hereisakindredspiritthatbothencouragesandchallengesme,providingcluesastohowIcancontinuewithanidentitythatembracesallthreecharacteristics.IfearthatifIweretogiveaveryfulldescriptionofthewaytheargumentunfoldsthereadersofthisreviewmightbelievetheyhaveenoughinformation,anddeferreadingthebookitself(alwaysadanger!)—andthatwouldbeamiss.Instead,letmesaythatthisissimplyanindispensablebooktobereadbyanyBaptisttakingtheecumenicalchallengewithanyseriousness.Expensive?Sadlyyes.Valueformoney?Undoubtedly!MultiplecopiesinourBaptistlibraries,please.PaulGoodliffAbingdonBaptistChurch

R.DavidNelsonandCharlesRaithII,Ecumenism:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:Bloomsbury,2017),194pp.Thisisanimportantandtimelybookaddressingtheneedforamuchmoreinformedunderstandingoftheecumenicalmovementinthechurchesatlarge,amongpastors,andaboveallamongthosewhoteachinourtheologicalcollegesandseminaries.Howfar,ifatall,doecumenicsandecumenismfeatureinourstandardcurricula?Maybetheygetapassingnodinmodernchurchhistoryoraglancefromcoursesonmission.Ifso,thatissymptomaticofthewideranddeepermalaiseofchurchesthesedaysturninginonthemselvesandawayfromtheworld,leavingthegospelofreconciliationwithlittlevisibleembodimentapartfromtheannualformalityoftheWeekofPrayerforUnity.Theauthors,AmericanProtestants,combineevangelicalsympathieswithawide-rangingempathywithallChristiantraditions,anddisplayahighestimateofthemodernecumenicalstory,yetwithanhonestlycriticalappraisalofcertainofitsdevelopments.Firstofall,inaddressingthe“perplexed”theytargetsomebasicmisconceptions.Ecumenismisneithersyncretism,norapatchingtogetherofdifferentchurchesororganisationsintoasuperficialunion,norjustcooperationinevangelisticeffortsorsocialservice.Itisaninclusiveaffair.“Genuineecumenismisneitheronlyamatterofdoctrinenoronlyamatterofpractice,butrathertheearnestpursuitoftheologicalconsensusandacommonwayofChristianlife.Andecumenismtakesplaceneitheronlyattheleveloftheofficiallysanctionedecumenicaldialoguesnoronlyatthegrassrootslevel”(p10).Thestoryofthemodernecumenicalmovementfromthe1910EdinburghWorldMissionaryConferenceonwards,withitsseveraltrajectoriesofevangelicalmissionaryendeavour,FaithandOrder(doctrinaldialogue)andLifeandWork

(socialandinternationaljustice),istoldsuccinctly,togetherwiththeformationoftheWorldCouncilofChurchesanditsinaugurationin1948.The1960sislabelled“TheGreatDecade”ofecumenicaladvance,aboveallforseeingtheimpactoftheSecondVaticanCouncilandthearrivalofRomanCatholicsfullycentre-stage.Laterchaptersdealwiththeplaceofevangelicalsinmodernecumenism,theproblemofbasicdifferences,ecumenicalreception,andongoingcriticismsoftheecumenicalmovement.ReadersandteachersonthissideoftheAtlanticwillneedtomakesomeadjustmentsforitsuseintheircontext.Inparticular,whileevangelicalismisamajorpartofboththeAmericanandBritishscenes,therearespecialfactorswhichhavemadeitmuchmoreofapoliticalphenomenonintheUSAthaninBritain.Imyselffoundmostarrestingthechapteronbasicdifferences.Asthewriterspointout,notonlyarecertaindisagreementsoverthenatureofthechurch,authority,ministryandsacramentsdefiantofdiscernibleresolutionatpresent;but,theyaskpointedly,mightthesebeduetostilldeeperfissuresintheunderlyingbedrockofunderstandingofhowGod,humanityandworldarerelatedtooneanother?Itisgoodtobebroughtupshortbysuchwarningsignsontheroad,becausethatmakesthejourneystillmoreinteresting–andurgent.TherearecertainquestionsIwouldliketoaskinturn.ThefirstconcernstheoverallperspectivewhichviewsEdinburgh1910,generatedbymissionaryzeal,astheoriginalpurewellspringofthemodernecumenicalmovement,comparedwithwhichlaterecumenismlostitsfirstlove,downplayingtheevangelisticcalling.Clearlyatworkhereisaproperdesiretokeepevangelicalsonboard–orencouragethemtojoinagain–theecumenicalship,andtowarn“ecumenicals”nottoignorethem.Edinburghthereforeisofmajorinterest.ButEdinburgh1910wasnotthesoleecumenicalplayer,eventhen.Alreadyactivewasthechurches’internationalpeacemovementoriginatinginthe1908-09Anglo-Germanchurchesexchanges(inwhichBritishBaptistsincidentallyplayedaleadingrole),leadingtotheWorldAllianceforInternationalFriendshipthroughtheChurcheswhichinturnwasamajorstimulantintheformationofLifeandWorkin1924.Theevangelicalimpulsehasalwaysflowedalongsidetheotherecumenicalstreams.Topresstoexcessthefoundingclaimsofanyonestreamistodiminishthemovementasawhole.Followingonfromthis,NelsonandRaitharethemselvesmostclearlysympathetictothe“FaithandOrder”stream,andonehasnoquarrelwiththat.Butitissurprisingthathavingstatedtheinclusivenatureofecumenismtheiraccountlargelyignorestheactualachievementsinthe“LifeandWork”area.TheircomplaintthattheWCCgivestheimpressionofmerelyvoicingleft-leaningpoliticalconcernsoverlooksthevitalwork,forexample,ontherelationbetweenecclesiologyandethicswhichwasaspecialemphasisduringthe1980sand‘90s–andinwhichtheFaithandOrderCommissionitselfmadeamajorcontribution.Allthisperhapsdemonstratesthatthisbookwillserveamostusefulpurposeinbothinformingandstimulatingdiscussion,andisthoroughlycommendableforthatpurpose.KeithClementsPortishead

AndrewPicardandMykHabets(eds),TheologyandtheExperienceofDisability:InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesfromVoicesDownUnder(Routledge,2016)pp.xvi+282Thisbookhaditsoriginsinaconferenceheldin2013inNewZealand,sponsoredbyCareyBaptistCollegeandLaidlowCollegeinAuckland.Theaimwastobringtogetherpeoplefromawholerangeofbackgroundsandperspectivessothatthesevariousvoicescouldbeheardandbeheldinconversation.ThevastmajorityofcontributorsarebasedinNewZealandorAustralia–theexceptionsbeingJohnSwintonfromAberdeen,whosework,onesenses,hadasignificantimpactontheconference,andAmosYoungfromtheUSA;theyrepresentvaryingacademicandprofessionalbackgroundsbutallareseekingtoengageintheology;somewritelivingwithdisabilityintheirownlives,othersfromanengagementwithpeoplewithdisabilities,attimesprofessionalthroughtheirwork,butalwayspersonalandcommitted.Thebook’stitleplaysonthethemeof‘downunder’.Recognisingthatinaglobal,soessentiallyWestern,perspectivetheIslandssuchasAustralia,NewZealand,andSamoaareconstructedasbeing‘down’and‘under’bythosewhothereforeseethemselvesas‘up’and‘over’,thisisparalleledtothesimilarexperiencesofmanypeoplewithdisabilities.Althoughthereare,astobeexpected,differencesofperspectivewithintheauthors,therearealsoanumberofsharedcommitments.Disabilityisunderstoodthroughasocialmodel,asasociallyconstructedcategorywhichhasentailedasharedexperienceofoppressionandinjustice;thediversityofhumanlivesiswelcomedwithinwhichhumanpersonhoodisunderstoodinrelationalterms;theologyisalwayspracticalandmustworktowardstheintegrationandmutualenrichmentoftheoryandpractice.Thebookoffers20chapterswhicharearrangedinthreeareas,underthethemesofbeing,belonging,andbecoming.Thesearenotseparatecategoriesbutoffermorefocussedperspectives,firstonanthropology,thenonapracticalecclesiology,andfinallytheimpactofaneschatologicalperspective.Theoverallaimandhopeofthebookistoofferresourcestorenewtheology,churchandsociety,thatistheauthorsbelievethattheperspectivesofthosewhoareseekingtodotheology‘asandwithpeoplewithdisabilities’havemuchtocontributebeyondanysub-disciplineoftheology,sociologyormedicineandshouldleadtodoingtheologyandbeingchurchinradicallydifferentways.Somechaptersaremorenarrativeinform,offeringtheaccountsoflivedexperiencefromafirst-personperspective.Livingwithcysticfibrosis,theconsequencesofmajoraccident,autism,CerebralPalsy,deafness,andsevereintellectualdisabilitiesaresomeofthecontextsfromwhichtheessaysofthebookarise.Othersbeginwiththebiblicaltext.RodThompson,forexampleoffersanarrativereadingof2Samuel9whichseesthewelcomingtotheKing’stableofMephiboshethinapositivelightasanexampleoftheDavidicruleatitsbest;LouiseGosbellinterpretsLuke’sparableofthegreatbanquetagainstthebackgroundofadetailedstudyofculturaldiningpracticesintheGreco-Romanworld.Bothchaptersonlyjusthintatcontemporarycontextsbutprovide

insightfulbiblicalresourcesforotherstouseintheirownreflections.ElsewhereJobintheOldTestamentandJamesintheNewTestamentarestartingpoints.Anumberofchaptersdrawmoreexplicitlyonempiricalresearchdrawnquitenaturallyfromthesouthernhemisphere.OnechapterusestheresultsoftheAustralianChurchLifeSurveyasthebasisforreflection;asecondgivesanoverviewofalargerpieceofempiricalresearchtheauthorhadconductedinfiveAustralianchurches.Thekindofconclusionstheycometowouldseemtohaveclearresonancesinothercontexts.Othersagaintakeamoretheologicalperspective;MykHabets,forexample,reflectsonthePatristicandOrthodoxconceptoftheosistotentativelyexploretheeschatologicalfutureforusall,whateverourdisabilities.Allinall,thisisahelpfulandimportantcollectionofessays.Thevarietyofvoicesandapproachesisgenerallyastrength,bothfundamentaltotheapproachoftheinitialconferenceandwiderproject,butalsoenablingacontinuingengagementwiththebook.Readingasafatherofadaughterwithsomesignificantdisabilities,Ifoundthebookmoving,challengingandhelpful,findingmanypointsofresonancewithmyowntheologicaldevelopment,butalsoseeingnewinsightsandpossibilities.Formeitwasthebiblicallyorientatedchapters,andtheresourcestheyoffered,thatIfoundmoststimulating,togetherwiththechapterbyAmosYoungon‘DisabilityandtheRenewalofTheologicalEducation’.HereYoungisnotarguingformorespaceinwhatisnormallyaverycrowdedthecurriculumfordisabilitytheology,butwaysinwhichtheologydoneasandwithpeoplewithdisabilitiesshouldleadtoarenewalofthewholeapproachoftheologicaleducation.Whilethisreaderwasfamiliarwithareasonableamountofthesecondaryliteratureengagedwithintheessays,hewasnotawarebeforeofmostoftheauthorsoftheessaysthemselves.Inallareasoftheologyitisimportanttoenableawholerangeofglobalvoicestobeheard,butperhapsindisabilitytheologymorethanmost.Thisbookthen,whichtoBritishtheologyoffersanewsetofvoices,isaverywelcomeadditioninthisarea,anditisgoodthatRoutledgewerewillingtopublishingit.AnthonyClarkeRegent’sParkCollege,Oxford

E.JeromeVanKuiken,Christ’sHumanityinCurrentandAncientControversy:FallenorNot?(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2017)

Icangladlyconcurwiththefulsomecommendationsontherearcoverofthisbook:notwithstandingitsrelativebrevity,itservesasacompetentandsurprisinglycomprehensiveguidetothissharplydefinedpointofcontentionwithinatleastonebroadstreamofrecenttheologicalreflection.FollowingageneralintroductiontothequestionoftheformofhumannaturetheSonassumes(withthehelpfulheadingof‘thefallingoutoverfallenness’)Van

Kuikenproceedstosummarise,withinhisfirstmainchapter,thecontributionsoffiveauthorswho,albeitinratherdifferentmannerandsometimesdifferentterminology,havearguedforthefallennessofChrist’shumannature.TheidiosyncrasiesofEdwardIrving’sinitialchallengeofwhathadbecomereformedorthodoxyarenotglossedoverbuthisconclusions(oratleasttheformofhisconclusions)arebalancedbysummariesofthecontributionsofKarlBarth,ThomasTorrance,ColinGunton,andThomasWeinandy.TheinclusionofWeinandyhereisofparticularinterestsince,asaRomanCatholic,hestandssomewhatapartfromthetraditioninhabitedbytheotherparticipantsinthisdebate.ChapterTwo,insimilarvein,summarisestheresponsesoffiveauthorswhohavedefendedthenotionoftheunfallennessofChrist’shumannature:MarcusDods,A.B.Bruce,H.R.Mackintosh(perhapssurprisingly),PhilipHughes,andDonaldMacleod.IfthechapterhasaweaknessitspringsbothfromthepossibleimbalanceofsignificancebetweentheserespondersandatleastsomeoftheadvocatesexaminedinthefirstchapterandalsofromthetendencyofthechosenauthorstorespondrathermoretoIrvingthantomorerecentwriters.GiventhatbothadvocatesandopponentsofthenotionofthefallennessofChrist’shumannatureroottheirargumentsintheearlytraditionofthechurch,chaptersthreeandfourexplorethesourcestheyhaveutilised,consideringfirstIrenaeus,Athanasius,GregoryNazianzen,GregoryNyssen,andCyrilofAlexandria(asrepresentativesoftheGreektradition),andthenTertullian,Hilary,Ambrose,Augustine,andLeo(asrepresentativesoftheLatintradition).Thesetwochapters,testingthevalidityorotherwiseofthemannerinwhichmodernadvocatesandrespondershaveutilisedthesesources,constitutethecruxofthepresentauthor’sthesisyet,forthisreviewer,theanalysishereprovedratherlessthanconvincing.IhavenowayofknowinghowthispublishedworkdiffersfromtheoriginaldissertationpresentedatManchesterUniversitybutifadoctoraldissertationisusuallydepictedasexaminingathemethroughamicroscopethesetwochapters(indeed,thebookasawhole)feelmuchmorelikealandscapeviewedthroughawide-anglelens.Inthefirstplace,insuchconfinedspace,itissimplynotpossibletodofulljusticetosuchsourcesandthemannerinwhichtheyhavebeenemployed.Inthesecondplace,andmorefundamentally,anyancientauthor(ormodernauthorforthatmatter)isliabletodifferinginterpretation,notleastwhenthequestionsthoseancientauthorswereaddressingareratherdifferentfromthatwhichisatissueincontemporarydebate.InparticularitwouldnotbedifficulttochallengeVanKuiken’shighlyfavourableassessmentofLeoand,similarly,differinginterpretationsofCyrilremainattherootofdivisionswithintheeasternchurcheseversincetheCouncilofChalcedon.Thefinalchapter,entitled‘thefleshingoutofthefindings’reflectsontheoutcomesoftheprevioustwochaptersinamannerthat,ifnotwhollydecisive,leansrathermoretothefavourofthosewhoargueforthefallennessofChrist’shumannature.Theauthorthenattemptstoclassifythedifferingcontributions,tounpacksomeoftheassumptionsunderlyingtheuseofparticulartermswithinthisdebate,andtoidentifysomeofthetangentialissuesthedebateraises(such

asHamartiologyandMariology).ThebookincludesanappendixattemptingtoidentifyIrving’sratherimprecisereferencestopatristicsources,anextensivebibliography,andasinglethoughthoroughindex.Theveryfactorsthatmayrenderthisworklessthaneffectiveasadoctoraldissertationarewhatrenderiteffectiveandhelpfulasanintroductionandsummaryofthiscontemporarydebate.Thosenuancesofinterpretationthisreviewerwouldseekinchaptersthreeandfourofthebookcouldpossiblyturnanenjoyableandaccessibleintroductionintoanimpenetrablequagmireofsubtlequalifications.Asitstands(andasfarasitgoes)thisbookfulfilsitsaimasanintroductiontoadebatewhichmaywhettheappetiteofitsreaderstothinkandtodelvemoredeeply.Isay‘asfarasitgoes’,sincethereareacoupleofplaceswheresoeasilytheargumentcouldhavebeendevelopedfurther,issuinginamoredecisiveanddistinctivecontributiontothedebatebeyondmeresummaryandanalysis.Mostobviously,thefifthchapter’sdiscussionofterminologycouldeasilyhavebeenexpanded(towhatdegreearethedifferentauthorssimplyusingtermsdifferently?).Butmoresignificantly,VanKuikencouldhaveexpandedhisreflectiononBarthbynotingtheparadigmshiftofunderstandingtheincarnationoftheSonasdefiningofourhumanitybothinitssinfulnessandinitschosenness:itisnotthatChristassumesahumanityalreadydefinedinAdambutthatChristdefineshumanitybyassumingit.Suchaninsight,iffullydeveloped,ratherpullstherugfromundertheassumptionsofsomuchofthisdebate.Iwasalsoleftpondering(notforthefirsttime)thedegreetowhichunderstandingsofthenatureofChrist’shumanityrunparalleltounderstandingsoftheatonement(athemenotreallyexploredinthisbook).IfChrist’sdeathandresurrectionareavictoryoversin,suffering,anddeaththensurelyhemustassumeourhumanityinthestatethathefindsitinordervalidlytosecuresuchavictory.Similarly,ifChristbecomeswhatweareinorderthatwemightbecomewhatheis,thenagainitwouldseemnecessarythathetrulyandwhollybecomeswhatweare.However,ifChrist,asawhollyinnocentandpurevictim,enduresthepenaltyappropriatetooursin,thenhisessentialseparationfromthatsinfulnaturewouldseemanecessaryprerequisite.Ifthenotionofpenalsubstitutionis(relatively)atheologicalnoveltythenperhapsnotionsofChrist’sunfallenhumanityflowinitswake.

JohnE.ColwellBudleighSalterton,Devon.

AngusPaddison(ed.),TheologiansonScripture(London:T&TClark,2016),235pp.Ireceivedthisbookinthehopethatitwouldoffersomefascinatingandinsightfulreflectionsontheplaceandroleofscriptureinthelifeofthetheologian.IhadhopedthebookmightbeintheveinofDarrenMarks(ed.),ShapingaTheologicalMind,inwhichagroupoftheologiansreflectedonthe

shapersandjourneyoftheirtheology.SomeofthechaptersinTheologiansonScripturearesimilartotheMarksbook;theyareautobiographicalandself-reflective,tellingthestoryofhowscripturewasencounteredandread.TheseIthinkarethebestchapters.Wherescripturecanoftenbeonestepremovedfromalotoftheology,thatis,theengagementisimplicitratherthanexplicit,IfounditfascinatingtohearabouttheplaceofscriptureinthelivesZöeBennett,TimothyGorringe,StephenHolmes,ChristophSchwöbelandGrahamWard.Toomuchtheologylacksthepersonal,soanythingthatgivesaninsightintothehabits,experienceandpracticeofatheologianIfindilluminating.AngusPaddisongathersadiversesenseofcontributorstothisbook–practicaltheologians,Christianethicists,systematictheologians,blacktheologians,feministtheologians,Methodists,Orthodox,Anglicans,Baptists,andmore.Paddisonseesthebookaspartofthebroaderconversationtakingplaceintheologicalreadingsofscripture.Itispartofanon-goingseriesofworkhehasbeenundertaking(seeearlyChristologyandScriptureandScripture:AVeryTheologicalProposal).Paddisonhaschosencontributorswhoarenotonthe‘frontline’ofthatconversation.Theywereallaskedthesamesetofquestionsaroundtheirtheologicalunderstandingofscripture,theimpactreadingscripturehashadontheirtheology,withwhomandforwhomdoyoureadscriptureandhowhaveyouusedbiblicalstudiesinyourwork.Greatquestions.Sothedisappointmentthatagoodnumberofthecontributorsignoresomeofthem.Iwouldhavebeentemptedasaneditortoreturntheirchapterandaskthemtohaveanothergo!ZöeBennettaccountsforhowshefirstencounterscripture,andthenBarth,andthenthebookofRevelationwithChristopherRowland,andontoliberationreadings.ShethenexplorestheplaceoftheBibleinherpresentcontextasapracticaltheologian,theplaceithasalongsideexperience.TimothyGorringetellshowitwasn’tuntilhebegantoreadBarth,postdegreeandpostordinationthathefirstbegantodevelopatheologyofscripture,laterthiswasjoinedbyreadingChedMyers’commentaryonMark,BindingtheStrongMan.OtherinfluenceshavebeenKelsey,McIntyreandfromhistimeinIndia,BasWielengaandTomVeerkamp.Gorringethenexploressomeofhowscripturehasfeaturedinhisworkwhichhasengagedwithpublicissuesofjustice,economics,geographyandmore.TomGreggsexploreshowhisworkseekstohearscriptureinthecommunityofthechurch,inthecommunionofsaints,inthecontextofpost-ChristendomandinthecontextofthecommunityofthechildrenofAbraham(thatis,thepracticalofscripturalreasoning).StephenHolmessaysscripturebeginsforhimprimarilyinthecontextofworship,itisread,preachedandprayed,andmovesontoreflectontheimpactthathasfortheuseofscriptureindoingtheology.ChristophSchwöbeloffersanaccountofthewayhehasjourneyedwithscripturethroughhislife,aschild,student,lecturer,inecumenicalandmulti-faithsituations.LikewiseGrahamWardtellsaveryhonestandvividstoryofhisrelationshiptoscripture,fromfirstreadingthegospelofMark,ofbelongingtoahouse-churchinManchester,fromtheimpactofreadingEnglishatuniversity,tohisuseofscriptureinhisvariousscholarlyworks.

TheologiansonScriptureisabooktoread,becauseitcausesthereadertoreflectontheirengagementandencounterwithscripture.Itmakesusreflectonhowweusescripture,whowereaditwithandwhere.Manyofuswillreaditinthecontextofchurches,andfairnumbersasministersandpreachersandperhapstheanswerswillappearobvious,butthedifferentchaptersinthisbookinviteustothinkmoredeeplyandchallengeustoconsiderafreshtheplaceofscriptureinourlives.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea

KarlBarth,TheEpistletotheEphesians(GrandRapids:Baker,2017),192pp.ThosefamiliarwithBarth’stheologicalexpositionof1Corinthians15,TheResurrectionoftheDead,andhistheologicalcommentaryonPhilippians,haveeveryrighttobeexcitedaboutthepublicationoftheseearlylecturesonEphesians.Itshould,however,benotedfromtheoutsetthatthebulkofthecommentaryisonEphesianschapter1,(90pages)whileEphesians2-6areamere8pagesofsummarisedobservationsontheremainderoftheepistle.Thebalanceofthevolumeismadeupbyarationalereport(8pages)fromthetranslator,andtwoessays:‘Barth,EphesiansandthePracticeofTheologicalExegesis’byFrancisWatson,andoneofthelateJohnWebster’slastpieces,‘“ARelationBeyondAllRelations”:GodandCreaturesinBarth’sLecturesonEphesians.’Watson’sessayischaracteristicallysharp,affirmingBarth’spreferencefortheologicalexegesisandhisconcernnottopermithistoricalcriticismtoobscurethemessage,butontheotherhand,rightlyrefusingtoaccepttheimpliedoppositionbetweenhistoricalcriticalconsiderationsandtheologicalquestionsraisedinthetext.HereisaflavourofWatsonarguingforamorebalancedrelationshipbetweenhistoricalcriticismandtheologicalexegesis:

”InthecaseofaNewTestamentletter,therelationshipbetweenauthorandaddresseesisanexplicitfeatureofthetextitself,establishingattheoutsetthecommunicativesituationpresupposedintheletterasawhole.Itisnotclearwhythisaspectofthetextshouldbesoemphaticallydowngradedorwhythosewhoattempttoengagewithitshouldbecaricaturedasmereantiquariansusingunreliablemethodstoreachuncertainanswerstounimportantquestions.”(p.17)

TheessaybyJohnWebster,whodiedin2016,isapoignantdemonstrationofwhattheworldofNewTestamentandtheologicalstudylostinnothavingtheplannedBrazostheologicalcommentaryonEphesiansfromhishand.ProfessorWebster’smostrecentworkhadbeenaseriesofessays,gatheredintoseveralvaluablevolumesincludingthetwovolumeGodWithoutMeasure.HissoundingsintheseearlyBarthlecturesarebeautifullymeasuredandarticulated,andmusthavechimedwithmuchthathewashimselfwriting,forheretoo,BarthisexpoundingoneofthemostChristologicallyfreightedepistlesintheNew

Testament,andconcentratingonitsmosttheocentricallyfoundedchapter.GodwithoutmeasurewouldbeadistilledprecisofEphesians1.ThesetwoessaysbyWatsonandWebster,onetimecolleaguesatAberdeen,aregemsofmaturejudgement.Therearetwentypagesofsupportingandsignificantendnotesofferingcontext,referencestosecondaryliteratureandtheologicalobservationswherefurtherelucidationonBarth’smeaningorapproachisnecessary.ThecommentaryitselfisintheformoflecturesdeliveredfromNov10,1921–Feb23,1922.ThelastlectureonFebruary23isatheologicaloverviewofEphesians2-6.EssentiallyBarth’sexpositionofEphesians1isaprofoundandpassionatesoundingofatextlayeredwithimmensethemesincapableofexhaustiveorevenadequateexposition.AsPTForsythacknowledged,“itishardforwordstostretchtothemeasureofeternalthings.”That,howeverdidn’tstopBarthatleastmakingtheattempttobringhumanwordsintotheserviceoftheWord,ifonlytodemonstratetheburdenplacedoneveryreaderandheareroftheWord.QuotationgivesabettersenseofwhatBarthishereattempting.Onpage108Barthcomposesaconcertoonthephrase“accordingtotherichesofhisgrace…”

“God’sgraceissomuchricherthanwecanconceiveorimaginethathislightilluminatesourdarkness:inthatplacewherewecandetectonlythetriumphofsin,whereeventheSonofGodisaccountedassinfulandallowshimselftobesoreckoned,preciselythere,God’sgraceandtruthtriumphbyhisblood.Hisgraceisthatgreat,histruththatdeep.Nohumanparableisadequateforthisreality.Thisrealitysignalstheparablethatistheendofallparables.”

Whatfollowsisaweavingofthethemesofgrace,resurrection,forgivenessandtheeternalwisdomofGodbreakingintohumanknowingintheknowledgeofforgivenessinChrist.ThisJanuary18thlectureisamasterclassintheologicalexegesis,asBarthtellstheGospeltruth“thattakesourbreathaway,becausethatishowGodbreatheshisbreathintous.”Ephesians1isoneofthehighesttheologicalAlps.TohaveBarth’searlyengagementwithsuchatextenableshisreaderstotraceatheologicalvoicewithadevelopingtoneandtimbrethatwillmatureintothebetterknownvoiceoftheChurchDogmatics.Barth’sChristo-centrismiseverywhereevidentinhisattimeslyricalaccountoftheexaltedChristinwhomareembodiedthemysteriesofeternityandthepurposesofGod.“Theonewhodeterminesallthingsisnotdeterminedbythem.Theoriginisnotboundbycauseandeffect.Hisnameisaboveallnames…eventhenewaeonisasecondorderreality;ittranscendsthisworldbutisnottheultimatereality.”ThehistoryoftheinterpretationofEphesians1mayhelpexplainBarth’slongtrawlthroughthisparticulartext.Calvin’ssermonslingeredinchapter1,andevenmoresoThomasGoodwin,whowrotehundredsofpagesinthemannerofPuritanprecision,studyingdowntothefundamentsof“Gospeltruth”.Barth’sownsonMarkustakes154closelypackedpagesintheAnchorBiblecommentary,publishedalmostsimultaneouslywithMartynLloyd-Jones’sixstoutBannerofTruthvolumes,theoneonEphesians1havingacoupleofdozensermonsin450pages.HaroldHoehner,oneofthemorerecentlargescale

exegeticalcommentarieshas170pagesofexegesisandtheologicalexpositiononthese23verses.AllofthishighlightsthetheologicalrichesandtextualthicknessofthepassageBarthchoseashislecturecoursein1921.InBarth’sclassroomthestudentswerenotlisteningtolectures,theywereencounteringateachergrippedbyurgenttruth,insistingthatinthistexttheyencountertheexaltedLordofthechurch.BehindthelecturesisthehomeworkofBarth,consultingLietzmann,Dibelius,Blumhardt,andofcourseCalvin.Butwhateverlightwasthrownonthetextbyhistoricalcriticalenquiry,thedeterminingquestionwasaboutthelivingWordwaitingtoburstfromthoselongagosentencesaboutwhatGodwasaboutinthepivotaleventsofincarnation,crucifixion,resurrectionandascension.ThisisnotacommentaryonEphesians;itislessthanthatandmorethanthat.Exegeticaldetailcanbefoundelsewhere.AnyonepreachingonEphesians1couldstartwithBarthandlookatthealpineheightsofPaul’smaturetheologyofgracelavishbeyondtelling,sealedwithpromise,andpouredintotheOneinwhomisrevealed“themysteryofhiswillaccordingtohisgoodpleasure,whichhepurposedinChrist…”.JimGordonAberdeen

BenjaminJ.BurkholderBloodlessAtonement?ATheologicalandExegeticalStudyoftheLastSupperSayings(Eugene:Pickwick,2017),xx+272pp WhatdoesGirard’stheoryofmimeticdesireandthescapegoatmechanismhavetodowithTomWright’sreadingofthescripturesthroughthehermeneuticallensofexileandreturn?Ifyourfirstthoughtis,‘Notalot,’thenyouhavealreadygraspedthecentralthesisofthisstudy,whichessentiallyusesWrighttocritiqueGirard.Girardiscriticisedforunderstandingthehumanplightinthelightofhisowntheoryofhumannaturebasedonmythologicaltexts,whereasWrightispreferredbecausethegospelwriterslocatetheirstoryofJesuswithinthebiblicalnarrativeofexileandreturn,andso,tointerpretthegospelscorrectly,theymustbeinterpretedinthishistoricalandtheologicalcontext,whichmeansunderstandingthedeathofJesusintermsofhisbearingthepunishmentofexile.ProvidingsummariesofGirardandWrightandassessingtheirrespectiveapproachestakesmorethanhalfthebook,beforethereadergetstotheexegeticalcoreofthestudy,whichisananalysisoftheLastSuppersayingsinthesynopticgospels:24pagesaregivenovertoMark,just10toMatthew,and23toLuke.AccordingtoBurkholder,Girardandhissupportersaremistakenintheirattempttoexcisenotionsofviolenceandsacrificefromtheirsoteriology:thereisnosuchthingasa‘bloodlessatonement’.EvidencefromtheTargumsisusedtosupportthenotionthat‘thebloodofthecovenant’wasunderstoodtohaveatoningsignificanceinthefirstcentury,andthehighlydevelopedtheologyofatonementfoundinHebrewsisalsoenlistedinthesamecause,thoughtheclaimthatHebrewsascribesatoningefficacytothe‘bloodofthecovenant’isunpersuasive.AlthoughBurkholdermayoverstatehiscase,theanalysisofMark

andMatthewrightlyforegroundsinterpretingthedeathofJesusintermsofsacrificialatonement,whileatonementisalsogivenasignificantplaceinLuke’ssoteriology.GirardisthuswrongandWrightisright–thoughitisnotquiteassimpleasthat.Thebrief,lastchapterexploreswaysofaccommodatingGirardianinsightsintoabroaderunderstandingofsoteriology,perhapscentredaroundthethemeofcovenant.Thispartofthebookislesspredictable,andsketchesoutapotentialbasisformorefruitfulwaysofengagingwithGirard,andthusdoesleavethereaderwithsomegoodfoodforthought.TimCarterHorshamBaptistChurch,Brighton

MatthewThiessen,PaulandtheGentileProblem(Oxford:OUP,2016)MatthewThiessenistobecongratulatedforhavingwrittenoneofthemostthought-provokingandboldreappraisalsofaspectsofPaulinetheologywritteninthelastfewyears.Itiscrisplyarguedandfullofpotentialsignificance.IaddthewordpotentialforthesimplereasonthatmanyofThiessen’scontentionswillneedaseasonofcriticalinteractionandengagement,tosiftoutthewheatfromthechaff.Butindemandingthiskindofcriticalattention,Thiessen’sbookshowsitselfalreadytobeofcriticalvalue,evenforthosewhowillendupdisagreeingwithsomeofhiskeymoves.Thiessen’sargumentconsistsinareframingofPaul’slettersbyfocusingontheidentityofhisaddressees.Thisreading,intheintroduction,iscontrastedwithwhatThiessencallsanti-legalistic(orLutheran)readings,ontheonehand,andanti-ethnocentric(orNewPerspective[NP])readingsontheother.Agreeingwithcriticismsoftheanti-legalisticreading,ThiessenapplaudstheNPforresistingtheclaimthatJudaismwaslegalistic,butfindsfaultwiththeNPforunderestimating“howdeeplyethnocentric[Paul’s]ownthinkingwas”(7).Indeed,heclaimsthatPaul“continuestodistinguishbetweenJewishandgentileidentitybecausehethinksthattheseareGod-ordainednatures”(7).HisnewargumentforthecoherenceofPaulstartsbynotingtheparadoxicalstatementin1Corinthians7:19(“circumcisionisnothing,anduncircumcisionisnothing;butkeepingthecommandsofGod[iseverything]”—translationmine).Thesolution,forThiessen,involvesdrawingasharplinebetweenJewishandGentileidentities,whichhetakestoalignhisprojectwiththe“PaulwithinJudaism”perspective(thoughthisperspectiveis,likeothers,inadequatelynamedasalmostallreadingsofPaulseektounderstandhim“withinJudaism”).RatherthansettingPaulinoppositiontoJudaism,hislettersallneedtobereadasexclusivelyaddressingGentiles.Thisassumptionisthenextendedthroughoutthebookintwomajorsections.Inthefirstpart(chapters1-3),Thiessenanalysestwotexts,namelyRomans2:17-29(anditswidertextualframe)andGalatians4:21-31,inordertoexoneratePaulfromanyattackagainstJudaismortheJewishlaw,amoveaccomplished

primarilybyemphasisingtheGentileidentityoftheaddressees.Furthermore,becausePaul’slettersseektounderstandtherelationshipbetweenGentilesandIsrael’sGod,thisfirstpartbeginsbysurveyingthedifferentwayssecondtempleJudaismcouldunderstandtherelationshipbetweenIsrael’sGodandGentiles(orotherwiseput,theGentileproblem),suchthatPaul’sresponseissituatedwithinthesesecondtemplediscussionsandnotagainstthem.Atthispointhediscussesavarietyofmodelsthatheelaboratedinhis2009monograph,ContestingConversion,namelysympathization,ethicalmonotheism,eschatologicalparticipation,conversion,andexclusion.Inlightoftheseanalyticdistinctionsandcategories,ThiessenproposesthatPaulopposedGentilecircumcisionnotbecauseofsomedeficiencywiththeJewishlaw(eitherbecauseitislegalisticorethnocentric),butbecauseherejectedoneparticularsolutiontotheGentileproblem,namelyconversion.Inpractice,inchapter2,thesecommitmentsinvolveclaimingthatPaul’sinterlocutor,inRomans1-2,isaGentilewhohassoughttoadopttheJewishlaw.AndwhiletheGentilemoralproblemishighlightedinRomans1:18-32,inamorecontentiousmoveThiessenmaintainsthattheidentityoftheoneaddressedinRomans2:1-16isalsoaGentile,onlythistimeitis“thosewhobelievetheyhaveattainedavirtuouslife”(54).ThisleadstotheclaimthatRomans2:17-29,andthe“so-called”Jew(herereadingἐπονομάζῃ,in2:17,inthemiddlevoice,notasapassive),isaGentilewhoseekstolivelikeaJew(herebuildingontheworkofRunarThorsteinsson).Thisfacilitatesarereadingoftheidentityoftheonetargetedin2:21-23,thenatureofthecitationin2:24,andsoon.Chapter3’srereadingofGalatians4:21-31involvesemphasisingonlythelegitimacyofeighthdaycircumcision(cf.Phil3:5).This,soThiessenargues,iswhyIsaacwasseedofAbrahamwhileIshmaelwasnot(forIshmaelwascircumcisedatage13).SowhenGentileconvertstoChristseekcircumcision,theydosoinawaythatisnotstrictlycovenantal.(Ofcourse,thisdemandsanextendedexcursusdealingwiththeobviouscounterargumentconcerningAbraham’sowncircumcision,whichtookplacewhenhewas99yearsold).ItfollowsfromthisthatPaul’slanguageinGalatians5:3(thatanyoneundergoingcircumcisionisobligedtoobey“thewholelaw”),relatestothewholelawpertainingtocircumcision.Hence,theseGalatianGentilesseekingcircumcisionfindthat“intheveryactofundergoingcircumcision,[they]failedtokeeptheentirelawpertainingtocircumcision”(93).Thereasonissimple:theyfailedtocircumciseontheeighthday.Paul’srhetoricalquestioninGalatians4:21,then,canbeheardwithfreshforce:“tellme,thosewhodesiretobeunderthelaw,doyounothearthelaw?”.Theargumentasawhole,aswellasthatrelatingtoRomans1-2,alsoseeksbettertoappreciatePaul’shandlingofscripturalcitationsandallusions.Thesecondpartofthebook(chapters4-5)providesaconstructiveaccountofThiessen’sunderstandingofPaul’sownsolutiontotheGentileproblem.BeginningwithPaul’scommitmentthatGentilesmustindeedbecomesonsofAbraham,ThiessentracesPaul’sanswertothewayGentilesbecomeAbraham’sseed.HemakesparticularuseofGalatians3(inchapter4),whichmakesitclearthatfaith,whichmakesoneasonofAbraham,involvesthereceptionofChrist’spneuma(ThiessenleavestheGreekuntranslated).Butwhyisitsoimportant,for

Paul,thatGentilesbecomesonsofAbrahamatall?Thiessen’sargumentattemptstodrawthethreadsofthepreviouschapterstogether(inchapter5)bytracingoutPaul’spurportedreasoningstep-by-step(pp.135andfollowing).First,earlyreadersunderstoodthephrase“starsofheaven”(seeGen.15:5;22:17;26:4)toindicatethatAbrahamseedwouldbe“qualitativelylikethestars”,andassuchisnotsimplyanindicationofquantity(namely,lotsofdescendantsastherearelotsofstars).Second,starswereidentifiedasdivineorangelicbeings.Third,thesestarswereunderstoodtobepneumaticbeings,thuslinkingthereceptionofthepneumawiththepromisesassociatedwithAbrahamandhisseed.Thiessenconcludes:

WhenclaimingthatGodhadpromisedthepneumatoAbrahamandhisseed(Gal3:14-16),PaulintendshisreaderstorecognizethatGen15:5and22:16-18,inpromisingthatAbraham’sseedwouldbelikethestarsoftheheaven,containedtheimplicitpromiseofthepneuma,thestuffofthestars/angels(159).

GentileswhoreceiveChrist’spneumathusbecomeAbraham’sseed,andinthiswayPaulsolvestheGentileproblem.Whattomakeofthesecreativeproposals?Thefollowingsixcriticalpointscanbemadeonlybriefly,thoughreallyeachdemandsqualificationandgreaterclarification,whichisindeedasignofthesuccessofThiessen’smonograph.First,despiteThiessen’soccasionallipservicetoPaul’slanguagewhichseemstorelativizethedistinctionbetweenJewandGentile,slaveandfree,andsoon,(e.g.,Gal3:28;1Cor12:13;Col3:11;Rom10:12)—orundercuttheimportanceofsuchidentityclaims(e.g.,Phil3:4-9)—hehasarguablynotsufficientlyreckonedwithPaul’sgraspofthenewidentityinChrist.SuchversesproblematizeclaimsthatPaulremained“deeplyethnocentric”,oras“ethnocentricasthethinkingofhisopponents”(Aninterestingcontrast,atthispoint,wouldbeJohnBarclay’srecentPaulandtheGift,whichmayfalloffoftheothersideofthehorse).Arguably,theimportofallsuchidentitiesareprofoundlyrelativizedbyPaul,butpreciselysoremaininplay.Indeed,Iwouldgofurthertosuggestthattheimplicitcommitmenttoaparticularpoliticofidentityleadstoproblemsinafewotherplaces(suchashisinordinateemphasisonAbrahamicdescent,deploymentofthemoniker“Judaism”etc.),butthatisamatterthatwillrequiremoreextendedandcarefulelaborationelsewhere.Second,asonewhoalsowishestomovebeyondbothOldandNewPerspectives,IdoubtthosecommittedtothesePerspectiveswillseethemselvessuitablyreflectedinhissummaryoftheirinterpretivetrajectories.Hisrhetoric,atthesedescriptivepoints,tendedtooversimplifymorecomplexrealities.Third,hisconstrualofRomans2doesnotstrikemeasthemostobviousreadingofthepassage.IcanagreethatPaulisengaginganinterlocutor,butadifferentreadingcanavoidsomeproblems,namelythatPaulisaddressingaJewishfollowerofChrist(acounter-missionary),andthisleadstoasomewhatdifferentconstrualofthedata.Onthis,IthinkDouglasCampbellcanaccountbetterforthetext–exceptwhenitcomestoRom2:21-23.PaulspeakstothosewhocallthemselvesJewsbecausetheyareJews.Furthermore,inGalatians,whywouldPaul’sopponentscompelTitustobecircumcised?Tobenotedisthatthis

happenedwhiletheywereinJerusalem(seeGal2:1-4),whichsuggeststheissueisraisedbyJewishChrist-followers.Thisalsohasimplicationsforthenextpoint.Fourth,hisargumentrelatingtoeighthdaycircumcisionwascleverandhelpful.However,heneedstodoalittlebitmorework(cf.82-84)shoringuptheobviouscounterargumentagainstemphasisingeighthdaycircumcisiongiventhatAbrahamwasalsonotcircumcisedontheeighthday.Plus,inthisregardIquestionhisselectivedeploymentofdatainActs,inhisconclusion.Afterall,andaspointedouttomebyErinHeim,PaulmadesurethatTimothywascircumcised“becauseoftheJews”(Acts16),despitethefactthiswasnotontheeighthday.Asnotedinthepreviouspoint,itisprobablyJewishChrist-followerswhosoughttocompelTitustobecircumcised.Arewetoassumethatthese“falsebrothers”inJerusalem,whoslippedintospyonthefreedom“wehaveinChrist”,wereGentiles?InAntiochthisismorebelievable,butinJerusalem?Andiftheyweren’tGentiles,butJews,thendoesnotthisunderminethethesisthatitisaGentilemisreadingofthelawofcircumcisionthatforgetsabouttherequirementoftheeighthday?Fifth,chapter5makesagenerallyplausibleandconstructivecase,butthethreestepsinhisargumentrelyonlimitedtextualdatafromwithinthePaulinecorpus,andthusstrikethisreviewerasspeculative.Totakeanexample,Galatians3:14(andthelinkbetweentheblessingofAbrahamandthereceptionoftheSpirit)iscertainlysuggestiveforThiessen’sargument,butheplacesalotofpressureonthisverse(intheabsenceof,say,anyexplicitmentionofthestars).Thisisnottofalsifyhissuggestions,andThiessenisalerttointerpretivequestionsthatcannotbeignored,sosimpledenialofhisthesisisnotsufficient.Ontheseissues,Iremainconvincedthatarobustchristologicaldynamicisprimarilyatwork,whichmayalterthewaytheinterpreterhandlessomeofthestepsinansweringtheissuesinplay.Sixth,Thiessen’saccountofpneuma,leaningheavilyasitdoesonDaleMartinandTroelsEngberg-Pedersen,atleastattemptstounderstandPaul’slanguageintermsofitshistoricalparticularity.Itisfartooeasyanachronisticallytospeakofthe“Spirit”inPaul.Thatsaid,itseemstomethatVolkerRabenssuccessfullyunderminedtheviabilityofthephysical/materialspiritthesisThiessenaccepts(seethevariouseditionsofRabens’TheHolySpiritandEthicsinPaul),andtheconstantrefrainthatpneumalanguagenotbeunderstoodas“merelymetaphorical”(116andfollowing),betraysnotonlyamisunderstandingofRabens,butalsoofmetaphortheory.WhateverreservationsImaywishtoexpressinthisreview,IamconvincedthatThiessen’sworkoughttobereadbyallPaulinescholars.Hehaswrittenamonographthatdemandsattentionandinteraction,evenwheredisagreementmayresult.NotmanyworksonPaulcanbesaidtobe“mustreads”irrespectiveofone’sresearchinterests,butthisisoneofthem.Thiessenistobecongratulatedforwritingatrulypioneeringwork.ChrisTillingStMellitusCollege,London

BrettGray,JesusintheTheologyofRowanWilliams(Bloomsbury,T&TClark2016)189pp.RowanWilliamshasnotwrittenthekindofdogmaticsorsystematictheologythatwouldprovideacomprehensivewaytodiscoverhowheviewsJesus.Hiswritingstendtobemoreoccasional,diverseandexpressedinavarietyofgenres—sermons,papers,monographs—whichmakesthisbookbyBrettGrayonWilliams'theologyofJesussuchaninvaluablework.Itisnotafull-blownaccountofWilliam'stheologicaldevelopment,noratheologicalbiographyofWilliams(weareindebtedtoMikeHigtonforthat),butratheranexplorationoftheremarkablycoherentandconsistentunderstandingofJesusthroughoutWilliams'writing.ItstarteditslifeasDean'sdoctoralthesis,andIsuspectthatithasbeenre-workedsomewhatfromitsoriginaliteration,andthusbettersuitedtoawideraudience.Grayarguesthatunderstandingatheologian'swrestlingwithJesusChristtakesustotheheartoftheirtheology,andthisiscertainlytrueofWilliams.Hebeginswithpoetics—Williamsoftenwritingaboutotherwriters,notablyDostoevsky—andtheanalogyofcreationbeingGodwritinghisstory.ThewaytounderstandGod'srelationtoboththecreatedorderandtohimselfisderivedfromNicholasdeCusa.Godisnonaliud,'not-other.'Thishastwomeanings:Godisnot'an-other',partofthecreatedordercompetingforspacewithit,ora'thing',howevergreatthedifferencefromallother'things';andGodis'not-other'—Godismaximallypresenttoallthingsandcauses,evenif'hedoesnotwanttobeEverything'(17).Divineactionisnotonecauseamongstmany—hisisnotan-otherformofcausality,butthe'generativelygroundingofcreaturelyagencies'(17,hereWilliamscritiquesMarilynMcCordAdams)forHeis'everyotherthing'scontext.'(12)ThediscussionmovesontodeCerteauandAugustine.Theproblemoftheincarnationisthat'theonewhoisnotan-other,butwhogenerativelyisnot-othertocreation,becomesan-otherwithinit.'(28)Thatisthediscussionforchapter2.InthelifeofJesus,the'Author'ofthedivinegrammarisfound"thegenerativityofGod'spresenceasnot-othertohiscreation,whilethepossibilityofanxiousconflictinherentwithinanyan-otherisbroughtintoauniqueabeyance."(29)ThisisaChristologyself-consciouslyrelatedtoChalcedonandtheAlexandrianconfigurationofthehumananddivinerealitiesinonecoherentlife,adoptinga(notuncontroversial)viewthatseesAlexandrianChristology,Chalcedonandthetraditionthataroseinitswakeasfundamentallycontinuous.TheWordconstitutesthe'person'ofthehumanagent,andisexpressiveofthedivinitythatgroundsitasthesourceofaparticularlifethatisan-otherinhistory.Usingtheanalogyofamusicalperformance,Williamsdescribeshowapersoncanatoncebeutterlythemselvesasaperformeratthelimitoftheirskill,andyetbesaturatedwithanother'svision—thatofthecomposer.So,thelifeofJesusis'twosortsoflife,oneofthemunconditionallypowerful,oneutterlyvulnerable,butlivedinseparablyinoneperson.'(TokensofTrust,citedinGrayp.30).Inasimilaranalogy,Williamsdescribeshow,inOrthodoxiconsoftheTransfiguration,Christemergesfromadarkbackground,evocativeofdivinityundergirdinghishumanity.ThisuseoftheanalogybyWilliamshasbeenaccused

ofadoptionism,butGrayarguestheopposite—theentirehumanlifeofJesusisadivinegift,withoneagentandoneflowofaction.ThewaythisisunfoldedbyWilliamsisclosetothatofMaximustheConfessor,thelatePatristictheologianashewrestleswithChalcedon.Therearetwowills,onehumanandonedivine,atworkintheoneagent,Jesus,buttheyarenotcompetitive,forthehumanwillisdeifiedinitsagreementwiththedivine,butwithoutceasingtobefullyhuman.MaximusappearsinmultiplepointsinWilliam'sdoctoralthesisonLossky,and,tocontinuethemusicalanalogy,Jesus'shumanlifeisavirtuosoperformance,withoutafalsenote,andwillinglysubmissivetothescorethatrepresentsthecomposer'swill.ThelifeofJesusisalsofullyofitstimeandculture,intowhichitinterjectsasurprisingnoveltythatistransformativeintworegardsthatthestoryofIsraelhadtaughtattentivelistenerstocometoexpect—creationandjudgment.Jesusposesaquestioningjudgementontheconflictualwaysofhumanity,whilemediatingGod'screationofnewpossibilities.Thisismappedontocrucifixionandresurrection,withthecrucifixionbeingthejudgmentofIsrael'sarbitersoftruthonthelifeofJesus,butwhichbecomesthejudgementofGodretroactivelyfollowingtheresurrection'sendowingofthatdeathwithmeaning.Justiceisaboutattentivetruth-telling,andespeciallyaboutthe'endemicprocessofmutualdiminishmentandcompetition'(35)inherentinthehumancondition.Intheprocessesofmaturation,allhumanbeingsareinductedintoaworldofmimeticcompetition,learningthatachievingourdesiresrequiresourcompetitionwithothers.Jesus'sperformanceisofthenon-competitivepresenceofGodbyan-otherwithinourturbulenthumanhistory.ThereisinJesus,asinGod,anabsenceofanxiousself-assertion,andonlyahumaninterventioncanhealourviolentcontinuities,whileonlydivinefreedomcanenactsuchanintervention.EchoingRenéGirard,Jesusisalsothepurevictim,whodoesnotreciprocateinkind.IwasparticularlystruckbythewayinwhichGraydemonstrateshowthedivinefreedomfromcompetition,inWilliams'work,isajudgmentagainst"theworldofhumansystemsofmanufacturingmeaningand,aboveall,[myitalics]againstreligiosity."(37)Religioniscreatedinmanifoldcompetitivesectionalinterests,andhasadarkside,enamouredofpower."ThespecificallydivinenatureofthejudgmentenactedinJesusis,inpart,glimpsedinthewayhisstoryfunctionsasauniversalcrisisforreligiousconstructions,andthewayitcreatesacommunityofreflexiveself-criticism."(37)Christianitycanbecomea"large-scaletribalism",butwithaChristologicallymediateddivinejudgementonreligionpersistswithinit,thispossibility"is,atleast,forestalled."(37)TheCrucifiedoneisa'rayofdarkness'thatdisruptsourreligiousfantasy.Thisjudgementismostintenselyexperienced,forWilliams,intheeucharist.SomethingsimilartoaLutherantheologiacrucis,wherethecrossisemptyofworldlymeaningandpower,butsupremelysignificantofGod,andwhereJesuscrucifiedbecomesGod'sspeech,"thesignumofthedivineres.'(39)Theeucharistisaneatinganddrinkingofjudgementuponreligiouspretensions.

Intheresurrection,thecreativepowerofGodismanifest,andhecountermandsideologicalreligion'sverdictonJesus,nolongervulnerabletohumanity'sviolence,"butisaliving,transhistorical,presence."(40)ThisisGod'slastwordthatcreatesnewpossibilitiesforhumanity,"HeisGod'sgenerativepresenceasnot-othertoacommunitythatinstantiatesthosepossibilities."(40)ForWilliams,thecreatingofthenewcommunityisvital,andhasthepotentialtobringtogetherthewholeworldinanewunityandintelligibility."Thisdivinefreedom,thedifferenceofGodcommunicatedtohumanity,createsauniversalcommunity—onethatisnotjustan-othercommunityinaworldofsectionalcompetition,butonethatseekstobenot-othertothewholeworld."(41)Thisinterplayofpoliticsandtheology,ofChristologyandecclesiologyisarguedcoherentlybyGraydrawing,ashedoes,uponthemultiplesourcesinWilliam'swork.ThischaptercontinueswithdiscussionofWilliams'doctoralthesisonVladimirLossky,concludingasitdoeswithdiscussionofGeorgesFlorovsky,William'slecturesonT.S.Eliot'sFourQuartets,andhissubstantialmonographonArius.Allareconcernedwiththeplaceofhistoryintheologicalsensibility.Inconclusion,theresurrectionallowsustomovebeyondtheimpasseWilliamsinterpretsin'BurntNorton'—theoptionsofescapefrom,orsurrenderto,ameaninglessandvicioushistory—byhearingGod'seschatologicallastword.TheriskthatGodentailsintheincarnationisa"perilouscommitmenttointeraction.God,inacertainsense,surrendersthepossibilityofdivineself-definitionbybecomingnot-othertoahistoricalagent.....tobeingasignumthatcanbemisidentifiedbycreaturesinevenidolatrousways."Thiscomplexityisthesubjectoftheensuingchapters.Spacewillnotpermitasdetailedadescriptionofotherchapters.Sufficeitheretonotethatinchapter3,GraydiscussesWilliam'sdiscussionofChristologyinrelationtoliterature,withparticularattentiontotheroleofparody.WilliamswritingsonDostoevskyinparticularfigurehere.InparticularthefigureofMyshkininTheIdiotisanopaque,andultimately,failediconofChrist.UnlikeMyshkin,"Jesusfullyinhabitshisagencyintimeandahumancontext,makingchoicesandcommittingtothehumanandhistoricaldramainwhichlove'sworkisaccomplished."(79)Chapter4wrestleswiththewaythatChrist'shumanityis'complexlyunfallen.'Theworkunderdiscussionhereis'"Temptedasweare":ChristologyandtheAnalysisofthePassions.'(StudiaPatristica,Vol.XLIV,2010),aworkreflectinguponcertainpatristicinterpretationsofthetemptationsofChrist.Jesushasnodestabilizingpersonalhistoryoferror,andsois"notsubjecttoeveryspeciesoftestingweknow."(84)Christentersintopost-lapsarianhistory,butisnotmarkedbyan"impairedjudgmentwhichdistortscreatedfreedom".So,WilliamsagreeswithCassian'sunfallenhumanityassumedbyChrist,althoughheremainscautiousaboutwhatthismightactuallyentail."Jesus'livesinthat—forus—unimaginableplacewhereinstabilityisalwaysrealyetalwayscontained,onthethresholdbetweenfreedomandself-enslavement.'"(85)ChristperformsGod'slovewithoutbreakorstumble,aflowofperfection,'thereisnothinginthisperformancethatblocksoutthecomposer.'(86)Thisdiscussionistakenfurther

byGrayinreturningtoWilliam'sengagementwithMaximus'theologyofthetwonatures.Jesus'humannaturefindsitsexpressioninauniquelyunfallenanddeifiedmodeofhypostaticexistence—withoutignoranceorinstability.ThisisexemplifiedinMaximus'discussionofGethsemane.ForWilliams,"'Jesusreallydoesgrowandlearnasahumanbeing,yetthatmaturationisaconstantbringingtolight,bringingtoaparticularlife,somethingthatisalreadyrealatthecentreofhisbeing,thatismorethanjustahumanpsyche—thegivenabidingpresenceofGodtheWord.'(95citingWilliams).Inchapter5GrayexpandsthiscomplexitythroughdiscussionoftwologicsinWilliams—thelogicofharmony(asexemplifiedinthemusicalanalogy)andthelogicofsyncrisis—juxtaposition,alreadyintroducedearlierindiscussionofBakhtin'swork(83,86–9).Itrepresentsaworldinconflictwithitssourceanditself.ThisisworkedoutChristologicallyinJesusbeing"ahair'sbreadthfrombeingincapableofnotsinning."(103).Thereisabeautifuldiscussionhereoftheinarticulatecriesoftheneo-natalJesus"ababy's'insistentpresencewithoutshameorrestraint,cryingandclutching',whichare'note-perfect'intheirperformanceoftheWordwhichis'theshatteringstrangenessofGod.Thesecriescomeclosetothewordlesscryofthecross.(106)Therefollowsfurtherdiscussionofthesilenceofthecross,andthentothewayinwhichthepresenceofGodinChristisevasiveofhumanpurchase.So,Jesusisasmuchanobjectofdoubtasoffaith,and"thereisnostraightlinefromtheJesusofhistorytotheChristoffaith."(110)ItisthisillusivequalityofWilliam'stheologythatsooftenisrenderedasambiguous,andwhichthosewishingforeasycertaintiesfindlackinginhim.Forme,thisispreciselywhatmakeshimoneofthemostsignificanttheologiansofourtime,andequally,oneofthemostimportantpublicintellectuals.Heholdstoaclearandorthodoxfaith,withoutpretendingthatisatallsimple.ThisisnomoreclearthaninthewayWilliamsusesScriptureasthemediationofChrist,discussedintheclosingsectionsofthischapter.Chapter6engagesWilliams'workonthephilosophicaltheologyofDonaldMacKinnon,and'tragedy.'Finally,chapter7considersWilliam'seschatologicalvision.Thisdiscussionstartswiththechurchasthecommunitywhichis"theplace-holderintimefortheonewhoisnot-othertoit."(146)Thiscommunity,establishedbythekenoticdispossessionoftheGodwhostakesaplaceinhistory,groundedinthegrammaroftheincarnation,"isnotapoliticalorderonthesamelevelasothers,competingforcontrol,butacommunitythatsignifies,thatpointstoapossiblehealedhumanworld"(146,quotingWilliams,WrestlingwithAngels,72)Itpointsthenon-defensivewayoflivingthatisChrist's—love'sdifficultwork.GraydiscussesallofthisinrelationtoWilliams'interestsinHegel,whichwasspurredbyhisfriendshipwithGillianRose.TheconversationcontinuesbyreferencetoWilliam'sTheWoundofKnowledge,his1990bookonspirituality,andwithinithisexplorationofGregoryofNyssa'sapophaticism."God'sunknowabilitypersistsintheintimatepresenceofonewhoisnot-othertous,andnotasaninfinitedistance.Butthispresencecanneverbedetermineddatum,neveran-otherobject.This...isthegrammarofnonaliud."(154)ThisshapestheeschatologyofWilliams,whichisoneofinfinitedeferral,ofneverquitearriving,ofbeing"sweptupintotheSon'sjourneytotheFatherwhoeternallypourslifeintotheSon."Jesusperpetuallyevadesourgrasp.This

chaptercloseswithanotherextendeddiscussionofWilliam'stheologyoftheresurrection.Grayconcludeswiththreequestions,whichdohavethefeelofthe'forfurtherwork'sectionofadoctoralthesis.ThedialogicallanguageofthedivinelifeinmaximalencounterwithhumanvulnerabilitypushesWilliamsto"theedgesofacceptableChristianspeechaboutJesus'ssoteriologicallynecessarydissimilaritytous,raisingthequestionofhisverycapacitynottosin."(175).Theonlywordthatintheendcanbespokenisthewoundofsilence.Secondly,William'seschatologyissosottovoceastorequiredifficultexcavation,andistiedtohisrefusaltobetiedtoanover-determinedversion.ThisislinkedtoWilliams'under-pronouncementofdiscussionoftheAscension,anditscorrespondingparousiaoftheRisenChrist.ThisisrelatedtothewayinwhichWilliamswantsto'mythologise'suchevents,Isuspect.ThethirdareafordiscussionforGrayistherelativeabsenceofattentiontothebeginnings,withsomuchweightedtowardsthemiddleandtheendofhistory.Thereisnooriginalundisarrangedpeace,noEden."Howcanevilbe'historicized'(exceptmythologically)ifthereisnoEdenichistory?"(177)Grayespousesinitsplace"atheologythatplacesitsweightonChristology,andeschewscounterfactualaccountsofaprimordialunfallenexistence.TheimportantAdamisthe'second'one,thelastwordasopposedtothefirst."(177)WhilenoexclusivealternativetoreadingWilliamshimself,thisre-workeddoctoralthesisonthecentralthemeofWilliams'work,hisChristologysetwithinitswidecontexts,isagoodplacetobeginandtomapthatjourneyinWilliams'thought.Giventheoften'occasional'natureofWilliams'output(sermons,papers,articlesetc.),alongsidehisconsiderableoutputintheformofmonographscoveringawiderangeofinterests,andthelackofanythingresemblingafully-workedoutsystematictheology,grapplingwithWilliams'thoughtrequiresaconsiderableoutlayintimeandexpenditure,andsoweowethoselikeGrayinthisbook(andMikeHigtoninhisearlierexplorationofhistheology,DifficultGospel,SCM,2004—nowrequiringanupdate,Iguess)aconsiderabledebtofgratitudeinmakingthetheologyaccessible.Now,Isayaccessible,butitshouldberecognizedthatjustasWilliamsisnotaneasytheologiantograsp,albeitathrillingonewhenachieved,neitheristhisworkanythingotherthancomplex.Butitisentirelyworththeeffort,andmakesanimportantcontributiontotheunderstandingofthispolymathictheologicalmind.Literaryscholar,poet(now,there'sagoodplacetostartwithhiswork),patristictheologian,biblicaltheologian,publicfigureand,aboveall,contemporaryinterpreteroftheChristianfaithtoathinkingaudience,Williamsremainsamongstthemostimportant20thand21stcenturyBritishtheologians.Hisrecentventureintomore'popularworks'(MeetingGodinPaul,2015;BeingDisciples,2016;andhiscollectionofoccasionalarticlesandaddresses,HolyLiving,2017areamongstthoseinmylibrary)onlydeepensthislatterroleofpublicinterpreterofthefaith.IfyouareseriouslyinterestedinWilliams,you'llwantthisbook.PaulGoodliff

AbingdonBaptistChurch

VincentJMiller(ed.),TheTheologicalandEcologicalVisionofLaudatoSi’(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2017),pp.i-xv+277.Acollectionofessaysby13CatholicscholarsexploretheimplicationsofPopeFrancis’2015encyclical,LaudatoSi’anditsimportancefortherelationshipbetweenclimatechange,justiceandtheworld’spoor.Throughadivisionintothreepartsthebookexaminesthescientificbasisforthecurrentenvironmentalcrisis,thetheologicalandethicalchallengestoaction,andthepracticalresponseforindividualsandgovernments.Thewell-writtenessaysproduceahelpfulandcoherenttext.ThereisastrongCatholicemphasistoboththeadditionalworksreferencedandintheoutworkingofthethemesdevelopedforthedoctrinesoftheCatholicchurch.PopeFranciswroteanexhaustiveencyclicaltoallthechurchesoftheRomanCatholiccommunion,inwhichheaffirmedthatallspeciesgiveglorytoGod,whocaresforeachone.Herecognisestheseriousnessoftheglobalenvironmentalcrisisanddrawsoutitsimplicationsfortheworld’spooranddisadvantaged.Heidentifiesthehumancauses,andlaystheblamefairlyandsquarelyontheactivitiesofthedevelopedworld.WithStFrancisashisinspirationthePopeexpresseshisconcernaboutourcommonhomeandtheneedforglobal,sustainable,integral,development.Hechallengesustoavoidtheshort-termoutlookthathasdominatedpolitics,andcallsforanewpoliticalwill.HemaintainsthatwerecognisethatthedestructionandwantondisregardfortheenvironmentisbothasinagainstourselvesandagainstGod.MillerobservesthatsinshattersourknowledgeofGodandourcommunionwithcreation.EachoftheseessaysofferhelpfulcommentariesandcallforactioninresponsetothePope’smessage.ThescientificconsensuswasoutlinedbythePope,whodevelopedthethesisoftheclimateasacommongoodoraglobalcommon.Inrehearsingthescientificobservationsofdrought,flood,lossofrainforests,andreductioninbiodiversityhechallengesthedevelopedworldtoseetheimpactsonthepoorintheformofwaterpovertyandcropfailure.Thesedemonstrateglobalinequalityandinjustice,andthreatenthebreakdownofsociety.Heobservesthatworldleadersfailtohearthecryoftheearthandthecryofthepoor.MillerobservesthatadialoguewithscienceiscentraltothePope’sthesis,andthatcommongoodsareachievedbyhumansworkingtogether.Brechaconcludesthataholisticapproachisnecessaryfordevelopingstrategiestobothmitigateclimatechangeandtoenablesustainabledevelopmentinthefuture.ThePopeconcludedthateconomicpowerscontinuetojustifythecurrentglobalsystemwhereprioritytendstobegiventospeculationandthepursuitoffinancialgain,whichfailtotakethecontextintoaccount,letalonetheeffectsonhumandignityandthenaturalenvironment.Millerobservesthattherearesinful

prejudiceswovenintothefabricofourculture,societyandeconomy,andmarketsystemsdonottakeintoaccountthe‘externalcosts’suchaspollution.ThethemeofinterconnectednessrunsthroughanumberoftheseessaysfocusedonthePope’schallengetorecoverChristianvaluesandgoalsinourrelationshipwiththeenvironment,others,andGod.ThesearethepreFallrelationshipsofGenesis2,whichweseebrokeninGenesis3.Castillonotesthatthesebrokenrelationshipsaretheresultofsinfullust,andthatourcallistoserve,careandcooperatewithGod.ThePoperightlyrecognisesthatecologyteachesusthateverythingisinterconnected.Ehrmanexaminesbiodiversity,whichisavitalpartofourcommonhome.Environmentaldegradationaffectssocialstructuresandculturalidentity,theverymeaningoflifeandcommunity.Thisisnotjustinourowntime,butchallengesustoconsiderwhatkindofworldwewanttoleaveforthosewhocomeafterus.Inthefaceofhumaninterferencewiththeplanet,Groppecallsustoarenewedvisionoftheoriginandpurposeofcreationandtounderstandourcallingwithinthecreatedorder.Sherecognisescreationexnihiloasanintentionalactoffreedomofdivinelove,andemphasisesthePope’scalltoaconversionfromanthropocentrismtotheuseofthecommongoodsforGod’spurposes.Christiestatesthatecologicalconversionflowsfromlovingawareness,whichisalsoapainfulawarenessleadingtorepentance,achangeofmindset,alifestylefreefromourobsessionwithconsumptionandtheimmediacyofliving.Centraltoourecologicalconversionisanoptionforthepoorasthegravesteffectsofclimatechangearefeltbythepoorest.Dávilanotesthatenvironmentalharmandecologicalharmdirectlyimpactthepoorandaretheresultofdestructionandexploitationthroughawebofproductionandconsumptionthatisenvironmentallyunsustainableandspirituallytoxic(p.156).ThePopecommendstothechurchnewlifestyles,whichdemonstrateacovenantbetweenhumanityandtheenvironment.Furthermore,hechallengesustoanecologicalconversionwherebytheeffectsofourencounterwithJesusChristbecomeevidentinourrelationshipwiththeworldaroundus.Hecallsustofindjoyandpeaceinalifeofsimplicity,withloveoverflowinginouractsofcareforcreation.AnnettobservesthatthePoperecognisesthevariousglobalgovernmentalattemptstoaddressenvironmentalissues,andthathestressestheneedfortransparentpoliticalprocessesinfindingagreementonthegovernanceofthe‘globalcommons’.ThePoperightlynotesthatanytechnologicalsolutionwillbepowerlesstosolvetheseseriousproblemsifweloseourmoralcompasstoliveinharmony,makesacrifices,andtreatotherswell.Thesameiscertainlytrueofallowingmarketforcestocontrolourdecisions.Whilerecognisingthattechnologicalcreativityhasbroughtvastbenefitstohumankind,thePopewarnsagainsttheglobalviewoftechnologicalprogress,themasteryofcreation,domination,andexploitation.Annettrightlyobservesthatweemphasiseprogress,butsuchprogressmustbeintheserviceofallhumanityandrequiresaglobalcooperativeresponse.

ThelastpartofthebookexploresourresponseemphasisingthePope’sviewthatclimatechange,globalpoverty,andinequalityarethreateningthefoundationofour‘commonhome’.Unsurprisinglyitistheselfishactionsoftherichnationsratherthanpopulationgrowththatareseenasthemainculpritinourcurrentsituation.EdenhoerandFlachslandcallforglobaleducationaboutthemarketeconomyandpoverty,pointingtotheneedforreformingthewaysinwhicheconomicdecisionsaremade,wherebyenvironmentalandsocialaspectsbecomepartofallfinancialdecisionmaking.IncostingmitigationBrechamaintainsthattheexternalcostsofpollutionandtheimpactsforfuturegenerationsshouldbeaddedtothetechnologicalandeconomiccostsofthepresent.DiLeoandBivianocallforindividualandinternationalactioninaddressingsustainabilityandenvironmentalconcern.Theymaintainthatourindividualandcollectivechoiceshaveamoraldimension,andourethicalpositionsexpandtoglobalrelationships.InternationallawremainsanecessarycomplementtotheecologicalandtheologicalconversioncalledforinLaudatoSi’,bringingtogether,justice,prudence,andthecommongood.Theauthorsagreethattheencyclicalpresentsamessagethatweallneedtohearandactupon.Theyalsocallustoatleastbereadytosupportthosewhocallforenforceableagreementstoreducecarbonemissionsandwishtoseefinancialassistance,throughtheGreenClimateFund,giventothedevelopingworldintheirattemptsatsustainabledevelopment.ThereisawealthofmaterialhereforanyonewhowantstoexplorethebreadthandchallengeofLaudatoSi’,whichis,astheseauthorsmaintain,withoutdoubtthemostimportantencyclicaltoemergefromtheCatholicChurchinrecenttimes.JohnWeaverBedford

SimonOliver,Creation:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2017)209ppSimonOliversetsouttoexploretheorigins,natureandpurposeofexistence,addressingtwokeyquestions:HowarewetodistinguishbetweenGodandcreation?andHowdoescreationrelatetoGod?HeexaminesthebiblicalcreationtextsbeforeexploringthedoctrineofcreationexnihilothroughthethinkingofAugustineandAquinas,especiallyrelatingto‘being’andGodasthesourceofexistence.FromthisbasisOliverconsidersthethemesofparticipationandprovidence,sufferingandevil,beforeturninghisattentiontotheriseofsciencewiththeattendantthemesofmaterialismandreductionism.Thebookculminatesinadiscussionaboutthecurrentenvironmentalcrisisfacingtheworld,whichhearguesistheresultofafailuretorecogniseGodasthegiverof

creation,andafailureofanappropriateresponsebyhumanbeingstotheGodrevealedincreation.Thisisamostinterestingtext,whichissecuredinsomeofthefundamentalphilosophiesoftheChurch.Someimportantargumentsarise,whichgiveamostusefulreflectiononthecurrentdiscussionsoftherelationshipbetweenscienceandfaith,andonhumanresponsibilityfortheenvironmentalcrisis.Alongsidethesetherearehelpfulthoughtsontherelationshipbetweentheinterpretationofscripture,theChurch’straditions,andthevalidityofscientificdiscoveries.InacarefulconsiderationoftheGenesisaccountsofcreationOliverfollowsawell-troddenpath.Henotesthatanorderedandrationalcosmosisthefoundationonwhichscienceisbased,andasacramentaluniversedemonstratesGod’sblessingandprovidence.Heconsidersthe‘Fall’torepresentthehumanassertionofself-sufficientautonomyinthefaceofGod’sprovidence,andevilanddisordertobeanalienintrusionintothefundamentalgoodnessandintelligibilityofcreation.DrawingonOrigen,OliverpointsoutthattheChristianChurchtooktheanagogicalandallegoricalsenseofinterpretationoftheGenesistexts.Hearguesthatcreationexnihiloisthemostconvincingdoctrinefortheoriginofcreation,inwhichweareabletodistinguishbetweenGodandcreation.Heisquicktostatethatbig-bangscienceandexnihilotheologyarenotthesame,asexnihiloisnotanexplanation,butastatementoffaithinthebeingandnatureofGod.DrawingonAugustineandAquinasOliverexpressescreationaswhollycontingentbecauseitonlyexistsbyparticipationinGod’seternalsimplicity,andcreationisanexpressionofGod’seternalnatureasself-givinglove.InadiscussionofAquinas’causes,OliverfocusesonGod’sgivinglove,wherebycreationhasitsownexistenceandintegrity,whichisreceivedasGod’sgift.HemaintainsthatGodmakescreaturesreal,potentandfreesecondarycauses,but‘creation’sfreedomisexercisedwithinGod’slovingguidanceofhiscreaturestowardtheirendintheGood,despitetherebellionofsinandthedissolutionofcreatedexistencecausedbysufferingandevil.’(p.88)HavingnotedtheearlyChurch’sapproachtoscripturalinterpretationatfourlevels:literal,moral,anagogical,spiritual,Oliverstatesthatnaturewasalsoviewedinthiswaywithnaturalobjectsinterpretedsymbolicallyandallegorically.However,OliverobservesthattheProtestantReformationradicallychangedthehermeneuticalframeworkforbothscriptureandnature.TherewasamovetowardtheindividualreaderinterpretingthetextundertheguidanceoftheHolySpirit,whichtendedtofocusontheliteralsenseofthescriptures.Innaturethisledtoaliteralviewofnaturalcreaturesandphenomenaas‘objects’whosestructureanddesignrevealedthecreator’singenuityandpower.Thussciencedevelopedthroughtheprobingofobjectsbyempiricalmethods.ThemovetoamechanisticcosmoswasencouragedthroughtheworksofBaconandNewton.Thispavedthewayforcreationseenasanartefact,whichcanbereducedtoitscomponentparts,andwhichcanbeinvestigatedwithoutreferencetoitsintrinsicpurpose.

Thisalllaysafoundationforourcurrentenvironmentalcrisis,wherehumanbeingshavepowertomanipulatenature,whichnolongerhasaspiritualvalue.Oliveremphasisethedistinctionbetweennatureandculture.Humanunderstandingofourownevolutionreassertstheseparationfromnaturebyourdominanceovernature.InaddressingtheenvironmentalcrisisOlivernotesthatthereisadistinctionbetweentwoapproachesbasedonnatureandculture.Anemphasisoncultureleadstonaturalformsoftransport,farmingandsustainableconsumption,whileanemphasisoncultureleadstoeconomicpolicies,scientificinterventionsandinternationalprotocols.Theonerelinquishescontrolovernature,theotherexertsmorecontrol.ThroughhisviewofcreationexnihiloOliverbringsusbacktotheunderstandingofcreationasagiftfromGod,anutterlyselflessgift,whichwereceive.Hemaintainsthatcreation’sabilitytoreceivethegiftsofGodisagiftinitself;Godcreatesthegiftandtherecipientofthegift.Ourresponseisthroughpraiseandthanksgiving.HumansinistorefuseGod’sgifts,wherebywerejectourcreatednatureandassertourownautonomyoutsideGod.Theenvironmentalcrisisliesintheideathatcreation’svalueisbasedsupremelyinitsutilitytohumanbeings.Thefreemarketengendersthecommodificationofthenaturalworld.Thisbookintheantidotetosuchthinkingandisforanyonewishingtoengagewiththedoctrineofcreationasitappliestoourownengagementwithlifeintheworldtoday.OliverseestheEucharistasafocusonGod’sgifttousofthedivinelife,thesustenanceofhiscreaturesandthemeansofcommunion,whereweparticipateinthelifeofGod.Whatismissinghereispracticalsuggestionsofhowwemightrespondtotheclearargumentsthatarelaidout.However,Iwouldcommendthistextforthethoughtsdevelopedandthroughtheseencouragethereadertofindwaysofrespondingtoourcurrentenvironmentalcrisis.JohnWeaverBedford

SamuelWellsandBenQuashwithRebekahEklund,IntroducingChristianEthics(2ndEd.,Wiley-Blackwell,2017),428pp.Thefirsteditionofthistextbookwaspublishedin2010andsevenyearsonthereisalreadyasecondedition.ThisisthebestintroductionandaccountofChristianethicsIknow.IfIwasteachingChristianethics,thiswouldwithoutdoubtbebysettext.WellsandQuashpresentChristianethicsinthreeforms,whattheyterm,universal,subversiveandecclesial.Universalethicsisethicsforeveryone,regardlessofwhethertheyareChristianornot.Subversiveethicsisethicsforthosewhofeeloverlooked,itisoftenanethicofliberationandisfocusedin

particularonissuesofrace,genderandclass.Ecclesialethicsisethicsforthechurchandisassociatedwithvirtueandcharacter.WhenreadingaChristianethicalargument,itisworthrecognisingwhatformisbeingpresented.ThebooktellsthestoryofChristianethicsandthenintroducesthethreeformsdescribedinbriefabove,andthenappliesthemtovariousethicalissuesundertheheadings:GoodOrder(war,churchandstate),GoodLife(economics,work,media),GoodRelationships(marriage,friendship,sexuality),GoodBeginningsandEndings(abortion,euthanasia)andGoodEarth(animals,crops,ecology).Itisclearlywritten,accessible,andhelpidentifiesthedifferentapproachesandis,therefore,anexcellentguideandstartingpoint.Thisneweditionincludesanewintroduction,givesmoreattentiontoCatholicandOrthodoxthinkersandupdatesandexpandssectionsontheethicsofraceandonthatofsocialmedia.Thismightnotbeenoughtowarrantbuyingthebookagainifyouownafirstedition,butifyoudon’thaveacopy,Istronglyencourageyoutogetone.Everyoneministerwouldbegreatlyhelpedbyhavingacopyontheirshelvesandsharingitsinsightwiththeircongregations.Mysenseisthatwegenerallydon’tdoChristianethicsthesedaysinchurchesorwedon’titwell,andWellsandQuash’sbookisanexcellentremedytothatsituation.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea

I.LeonHarris,TheHolySpiritasCommunion:ColinGunton’sPneumatologyofCommunionandFrankMacchia’sPneumatologyofKoinonia(Eugene,OR:Pickwick,2017),xxi+240pp.

Asthetitlesuggests,thisbookisanattempttosummarisetherespectivepneumatologiesofColinGuntonandFrankMacchiabothtocompareandcontrasttheirrespectiveaccountsandtoexplorethemannerinwhichtheirunderstandingofthepersonoftheSpiritimpactstheirrelationalaccountsoftheHolyTrinity.FollowingageneralintroductionthevolumedevotesbothaspecificintroductionandfourchaptersinturntoGuntonandMacchiathoughthesetwosectionsareofratherunequallength,perhapsreflectingtheratherunequalweightandinfluenceofthesetwowriters,andraisinginturnthequestionofappropriatenessoftheircomparison.Isay‘comparison’buttherereallyislittlebywayofcomparisonhere.ThereisnoevidenceofferedofanysustainedengagementofMacchiawithGuntonandIamunawareofanyawarenessinGuntonofMacchiabut,morestrangelyinaworksuchasthis,thereseemedtometobelittleattempttodrawthesetwothinkersintoconversationwitheachotherand,wherecomparisonsaredrawn(forinstanceinGunton’susetotheterm‘communion’andMacchia’spreferencefortheuntranslatedterm‘koinonia’),Ifoundthemlessthanpersuasive.RatherHarrisoffersasimple

descriptionofthepneumatologyofthesewritersandthemannerinwhichthatdistinctivepneumatologyimpactsotheraspectsoftheirthought.InGunton’scaseIwonderwhetherthisanalysisisquitetherightwayaround:isitthecasethatGunton’sdistinctiveunderstandingoftheSpiritimpactshisunderstandingoftheTrinityoristherealityofthematterpreciselythereverse.HarrisrightlydrawsattentiontotheinfluenceofRichardStVictor,EdwardIrving,andJohnOwenonGunton’sdevelopingthoughtbutperhapsdoesn’tacknowledgesufficientlytheearlynatureoftheseinfluences.MoreoverthereissometensionbetweenHarris’sapparentlyfavourablereferencetoLyle’sassumptionthatGuntonreliedonsecondarysourcesinhisengagementwiththeCappadocians(p.43)andhislateracknowledgementofGunton’s‘prediliction’forthepatristicfathers(p.104).InfactGuntonwasaclassicistwhobeganhistenureoftheKing’sCollegeprofessorshipbyimmersinghimselfintheGreekandLatintextswithwhichhesubsequentlyengaged.ThoughHarrisdevotesachaptertoGunton’secclesiologyheishereskatingonextremelythinice:surprisinglygivenGunton’sprofoundcommitmenttoCongregationalismIamawareofonlytwoessaysbyGuntononthethemeofecclesiology,oneappearinginOnBeingtheChurchandrepeatedinThePromiseofTrinitarianTheology,theotherbeinghisDrewlecture,afocusedengagementwiththeecclesiologyofRobertJenson.OfthelatterHarrisappearsunawarewhichisapitysinceitmighthaveinformedarathersharpercomparisonbetweenGuntonandMacchiaonthenatureofthechurch’scommunion.WhileIcanclaimsomefamiliaritywiththeworkofColinGuntonIhavenoknowledgewhatsoeveroftheworkofFrankMacchiaandthereforecannotcommentonthefairnessorotherwiseofthesummaryherepresented.FromthissummaryitwouldseemtomethatMacchiaisplacingextraordinaryweightonthephrase‘BaptismintheSpirit’,aphrasebutsparselyoccurringintheNewTestamentandratherdifferentlyinterpretedbythemajorityofthechurchfortheoverwhelmingmajorityofchurchhistory.Butmoresignificantly,giventherepeatedacknowledgementthatMacchiarootshistheologyintheexperienceofsalvation,thereissurelyfardeepergroundforcontrastingMacchiawithGunton(nottomentionBarth)thanisattemptedinthisdiscussion.OneoftheearliestconversationsIeverhadwithColinGunton(inthelate1970s)concernedthecharismaticmovement(withwhichIwasdeeplyinvolved)andBarth’sconclusionthatpietismandliberalismamountedtothesamething–apretencetotalkaboutGodwhenweare,inreality,talkingaboutourselves.ThougharesolutedefenderofGunton,Irecognisethattherearevalidcriticismsofhisworkand,certainlyonthebasisofthesummarypresentedhere,therearesharpcriticismstobringtoMacchia–butinthislatterrespectparticularlythispresenteffortdisappoints.I’msureI’mnotaloneinviewingmyownpublishedthesiswithadegreeofembarrassment.APhDisajuniorresearchdegreeanditisrarelycharacterisedbymaturereflection.Thereisoriginalityofcontribution,thereiscompetentdescriptionandunderstanding(usuallyheavilydependentupondirectquotationratherthanreflectiveandanalyticalsummary),butmatureassimilationisunusual.Ihavenowayofknowingthedegreetowhichthisthesishasbeen

editedforpublication;Ihavenowayofknowingthedegreetowhichtheexaminersrecommendedpublicationorthequestionstowhichtheyinvitedresponse(thoughIcouldthinkofseveral);butamoremature,reflective,andsharplycriticalcomparisonofthesewriterswouldhaveissuedinamoreworthwhilepublication.

JohnE.ColwellBudleighSalterton,Devon.

RyanAndersonNewson,RadicalFriendship:ThePoliticsofCommunalDiscernment(Minneapolis:FortressPress,2017).InthisbookRyanAndersonNewsonwhoteachesreligionandphilosophyatCampbellUniversityarguesthatthe‘baptist’practiceof‘communaldiscernment’offersawayoffaithfulChristianengagementwithpoliticalissues.Thisfaithfulengagementispossibleintwomainintegratedways.First,thepracticeoffersChristiansa‘competent’wayofmoraldiscernment.Second,participationinthepracticeformsChristiansintothesortofpeoplewhocanparticipatemeaningfullyinandregardotherout-churchgrassrootactivitiesofradicaldemocracyasexpressionsofthecomingKingdomofGod.Inchapterone,Newsonhighlightsthepowerlessnessthatmanypeoplefeelfacedwithpressingpoliticalissuesthatappearbeyondtheabilityofhumanbeingstorespondwithanysenseofcompetence.Heattributesthissenseofpowerlessnessandtheaccompanyingapathyitcreatesto‘politicalliberalism’.Hedefinessuchliberalismasaconstellationofforceswhichprescribetheworldinacertainway,reducethecitizentoaconsumer,andthepoliticalparticipanttoanoccasionalvoter.Philosophicallythisanalysisandhisproposedantidotetosuchdrawsheavilyontheworkofradicaldemocratswhoarguefortheimportanceofparticipatorylocalpolitics.Inchapter2,heoffersathickdescriptionofcommunaldiscernmentaspracticedintheAnabaptisttradition.Heclaimsthisisapracticewhichenablesaformofmoralcompetencebasedupon‘communalism,humility,andcontextualisation’.Thesefactorsmeanthatthecompetenceinmoraldiscernmentdoesnotleadtoan‘overconfidence’butremainscomfortablewithcontingencyandpluralismwithoutfallingintorelativism.Inchapter3,continuingasitweretheAnabaptistthemehediscussesthepracticeof‘bindingandlosing’.Inthisdiscussionheconsidersquestionsofpowerandauthority.Hearguesthatininitsbiblicalcontextthispracticewasaimedatrestorationnotpunishmentandlocatedauthorityinthecommunityasawholeinsuchawayastoensurethattheprocessesdonotfallontheweakestmembersofthecommunity.Inchapter4,NewsondrawsnowmostexplicitlyonJamesWm.McClendon’sinfluencewhichhasbeenpresentthroughout.Accordingly,Newsonmaintainsthatcommunaldiscernmentcanfunctionasaformativeandtransformativecounter-practicetothedominantpracticesofliberalism.Thus,hearguesthatcommunaldiscernmentrequiresandinturnteachesthevalueofpatientreceptivity,localattention,andtheimportanceofhonestconfrontationindemocraticactivity.Inchapter5,withreferencetotheconceptof‘friendship’,heclaimsthatparticipationincommunaldiscernmentcanmakepeopleawareof

andsupportiveofgrassrootdemocraticactivitybeyondtheChurchasaplacewhereGodisactiveinestablishingGod’sReign.Thisisastimulatingandattimesdemandingbook.IlikeNewson’sdescriptionanddiscussionofthenatureofcommunaldiscernmentnotleastintermsofitofferingaprocessthatcanleadtocompetentlocaldecisionbutisalwaysopentothefutureleadingofGodandthecorrectionofothers.Ialsoresonatewiththeideathataparticular‘baptist’polityshouldhavesignificanceforourpreferencesregardingthetypesofpoliticaldemocraticengagementwefavourandsupport.Thissaid,Ifeltthatattimestheintegrativeargumentsconcerningthenatureandpracticeofcommunaldiscernmentandthenatureandpracticeofradicaldemocracyweresomewhatforcedandlessconvincing.InpartthisisbecauseIwouldwanttodrawagreatertheologicaldistinctionbetweencommunaldiscernmentasaChristiancongregationalpracticeundertheLordshipofJesusChristandthepracticeoflocalparticipatorypolitics,withoutnegatingthatGodmayindeedbeactiveinthelatteraswellastheformer.IamalsonotfullyconvincedthatparticipationinChristianpracticesnecessarilyethicallypreparespeopleforengagementinother,includingsimilar,activities.ItmaybethatthespecificityofthepoliticalliberalismNewsonaddressesandthelanguageofradicaldemocracylimittheinterestofreadersbeyondthecontextoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.Thiswouldbeunfortunate.Forthisisaninterestingbookconcernedtosimultaneouslyaddressapracticeofbaptistpolity,andasituationofpoliticalconcern,andwhilemaybenotinexactlythesameway,Iwouldcertainlyconcurthatbothoftheseissuesareimportantandrelated.StuartBlytheAcadiaDivinityCollege,NovaScotia

PeterStevenson,Preaching.SCMStudyGuide(London,SCMPress,2017),268pp.Doweneedanotherbookonpreaching?ThisisthequestionthatPeterStevensonasksattheverybeginningofhisSCMStudyGuide.Heiscorrecttoanswerintheaffirmative.Moreover,the‘we’issignificant.AgreatdealoftheliteratureonpreachingnowcomesfromtheothersideoftheAtlantic.Muchofitisofhighquality,andsomequiteadvanced.Butitalsocomesladenwithculturalindicationswhichmeansitoftendoesnotquitefitourowncontext.We,onthissideoftheAtlantic,certainlydoneedanotherbookonpreaching,andStevenson’sbookcouldbeit–itwillbeofusetostudentsandallbeginningtheirworkaspreachers,andmanyaministerorexperiencedpreacherwoulddowelltogetacopyandgivethemselvesarefresherinthebasics.Stevensonbeginsbytryingtodefinepreaching.Inanswertothecommonlymadecriticismthatpreachingisapooreducationalmethodhecorrectly(inmyview!)assertsthatpreachingismoreaboutencounterthaneducation.Hethensympatheticallydescribesanumberofaccountsofpreachingthattakeamuchmoresacramentalviewofpreaching.Thisbeingsaid,hisfinalworkingdefinition(p.19)seemsalittleprosaic:‘DiscoveringthewordoftheLordfromtheBible,

forthisgroupofpeople,atthisparticulartime,andthendeliveringthatWordinthepoweroftheSpirit,inwaysthatpeoplecanunderstand,sothattheycanrespondinworshipandservice.’AllsatisfactoryunderstandingsofpreachingwillsomehowblendhumanwordsanddivineWord,ouractionandGod’s,Scriptureandrhetoric,textandcontext,theSpirit’smovingandahumanresponse.ForadefinitionIwouldprefersomethingmoreobviouslyChristocentricwhichunderlinesthesenseofencounterwiththeRisenChrist(asontheEmmausRoad),butStevenson’sdefinitionserveswellenoughtohelphimunpackthedisciplineofpreachinginthisbook.Subsequentchaptersexplorethestagesofpreparation(hermeneuticsandsermondesign)anddelivery(including‘sermonperformance’).Therearelotsofworkedexamplesandpointersforreflection,withthereaderencouragedtosubjecttheirownexperiencetoscrutinyinthelightofthematterunderconsideration.Forinstance,achapterinthesermonpreparationsectionon‘LookingforTrouble,’worksthroughPsalm139withoneanalyticaltool,andJohn13withanother.ThenStevensonturnstothequestionofhowwhathasbeenfoundbecomesmaterialforasermon.Withthisbookthosewhofindreflectionontheirpracticedifficultoughttofindthetoolstodosofruitfully.Afinalbriefchapterconsidersaspectsofthespiritualityofpreaching.AlongthewayStevensonintroduceshisreaderstosomeofthekeyhermeneuticalmethodsandtosomeofthemainideasinthehomileticalliterature–butdoessowithanenviabledeftnessandlightnessoftouch,andwithafineandclearwritingstyle.Thereisavideointroductiontoeachchapteravailableonline,andaseriesofeightappendiceswhichillustrateandunpacksomeofthematerialinthebook–withsermonsforfuneralsandanordination,aswellasguidelinesforusingLectioDivina,andfurtheranalyticaltoolsinworkedexamples.Thisissuchapracticalbookthatforthisreaderatleast,thereweresometimesjustafewtoomanyshadedboxesandquestionsforreflectionbreakingupthesequencesinthemainchapters–butmanyotherswillfindthislayoutveryhelpful,Iamsure.Thisisafinebook,withawideappeal.Whetheryouhavebeenpreachingalifetimeorarejustbeginningtherewillbesomethingofinterestandhelpinthisvolume.AsStevensonsays(p.210)‘preachingisacostlyandpainfulbusiness.But…[isalso]ultimatelyworthwhile,becausebythegraceofGod,itislife-giving.’RobEllisRegent’sParkCollege,Oxford

MichaelGreen,RadicalLeadershipintheNewTestamentandToday(London:SPCK,2017)101ppThisisashort,easyreadingbooktheheartofwhichisanexplorationofanumberofNewTestamentbooksandauthorsandtheirattitudestoleadership.SotherearechaptersthatfocusonJesusintheGospels,thewritingsofPeter,Luke,Corinthians,thePastoralEpistlesandPaulmoregenerally.Green’scentral

thesisisthatwhilethereisnoclearecclesiologicalblueprintintheNewTestamentthereisaclearandunifiedunderstandingofleadershipwhichfocussesoncharacter,avisionofJesusandpreachingthetruth.Thestyleofthebookispopular–onecanimaginemuchofthebookbeinggivenasaddresses,saytoaChristianUnionaudience;thereisclearlyadeeperlevelofscholarshipbehinditbutthisrarelycomestothesurface.Seekingtocoversignificantgroundveryquickly–8pagesonLukeand9pagesonCorinthians–meansthattextsandissuesaredealtwithinbroadbrushstrokes,andattimesalittlesuperficially.ThechapterthatexploreswomeninministryoffersthegreatestdepthofengagementwithbothspecifictextsandsomeofthewiderscholarshipwhenGreenarguesquitestronglyforaninclusiveapproach.Isayquitestrongly,becausehavingrejectedthosewhowouldargueforamaleleadershipparadigminfairlystrongterms,quitedismissiveoftheirarguments,hissomewhatsurprisingconclusionisthatwhiletosaythat‘leadershipismale’isanoverstatement,perhapsleadershipisinfactnormallymale.HisexampleofMargaretThatcherasagiftedwomanleader,whomightbetheexception,itselfwilldividereaders!Whilethethemeisleadershipmoregenerally,writtenforageneralpopularaudience,thebookdoesinfacthaveafeelofamanifestoaboutit.Andthismaybethereasonwhy,whenGreenbeginsbyrecognisingthattherearealreadymanybooksonleadership,Christianorotherwise,heoffersonemore.Thebookisframedinitsopeningandclosingchaptersbyadiscussionofministerialtraining,asubjectonwhichGreenhasstrongviews.PortrayingAnglicanministerialtrainingasstronglyacademicinaresidentialcommunity,andassumingthatotherdenominationsarethesame,hiscentralargumentseemstobethatthechurchisdoingthewrongthingsprobablywiththewrongpeople.Trainingistooacademic,toocosy,tooconcernedforbooksandgradesorcareerandhomes,tooremovedfromtheworldandnotsacrificialenough;hesuggeststhatifwefollowedJesus’patternoftrainingthenwhatwedidtodaywouldbemorepractical,muchmoreaboutevangelism,apologetics,preaching,healinganddeliverance.Green’sonlypositivecommentsconcernStMiletusCollege,andthesearerepeatedbothatthebeginningandendofthebook.Thereisofcourse,atouchofironyhere,forGreen,whowaseducatedatOxfordandCambridgeandwhohaswrittenmorethan50books,seemsclearlytohavebenefittedfromhiseducation.EssentiallythebookoffersGreen’svisionforwhatministryandleadershipintheChurchofEnglandshouldlooklike.ThismaybeanattempttoinfluenceAnglicanpoliticsandfuturedecisions,especiallywithBishopsnowhavingmoreinfluenceovertrainingpathways.Thisalsogivesthebookacertainpolemicfeel.Thestyleistostronglypresentthecase,generallypresentedasaclearscripturalmandate,ratherthantoofferamorecarefulargument.Eveninthechapteronwomeninministry,whereIwouldstronglyagreewithGreen,thosewithotherviewsarefairlysummarilydismissed.Therearequitealotofclichésfromleadershipmaterial–transformationalleadership,clearvision,magneticexample–andwithanarmybackgroundtherearequiteafewillustrationsfrommilitarysources,butwithoutanydiscussionoftheappropriatenessoftheseorthe

difficultiesofcomparingarmyandchurch.TheremaywellbethoseinAnglicantheologicalcollegeswhomightagreewithsomeofGreen’smainpointsbutfeelthatthebookofferssomethingofacaricatureofevenresidentialAnglicantraining.AndGreencertainlyshowsnoknowledgeofthefactthatalmostallBaptistordinandsundergoministerialformationwhileministeringpart-timeinaplacementcontext.WhileinterestingtoreadGreen’sownviews,someofthemanybooksalludedtoatthebeginningtackletheissuesinvolvedmorethoroughlyandcarefully.Therearemoredetaileddiscussionsavailableofthesamebiblicalmaterialwhichweighuptheexegeticalissuesmorefully.GreendoesrecognisethatthereisagapbetweentheworldofJesusandourownbutthereisasensesometimesthatthisgapisforgotteninatoosimplisticreadingofScripture.Thereareotherexplorationsofministerialformation(asitisnowmorewidelyknown–withitsgreateremphasisoncharacterandspirituality)thatdiscussbothhistoricaldevelopmentsandfuturepossibilities.AndwhileitiscertainlytruethatthereseemstobeawidevarietyofecclesialstructuresintheNewTestament,contemporarychurchesdodefendtheirparticularpracticeinpartatleastfromtheNewTestament.Green’sbookisthenoneofmanyleadershipbooksthattreatleadershipasifitwereadiscreetsubjectremovedfromanyunderstandingofecclesiology.InadditiontothosegeneralprinciplesthatGreenhighlights,suchascharacterandcollectiveteamwork,thereneedstobethegreaterrecognitionthatleadershipisonlyexercisedinparticularchurchcommunitiesandthewiderunderstandingofthenatureofthesecommunitiessignificantlyshapehowleadershipisframed.AnthonyClarkeRegent’sParkCollege,Oxford

U.M.Lang(ed.),AuthenticLiturgicalRenewalinContemporaryPerspective(London:Bloomsbury,2017)AuthenticLiturgicalRenewalinContemporaryPerspectiveisacompellingcollectionofpapersfromtheSacraLiturgiaconferenceheldinLondoninJuly2016.WhilstthisvolumeprimarilyservestopresentthebreadthofthoughtonthefunctionandfutureofRomanCatholicworship,itdelvesintothetheological,pastoral,ethical,sociologicalandmissiologicalimplicationsofliturgyandworshipinsuchawayastobeofconsiderableinteresttothewiderChristiancommunity.AssomeoneunfamiliarwithRomanCatholicliturgy,theopeningremarksbyDominiqueReyandaddressbyRobertCardinalSarahencapsulateitsprofundity,astheplacewheretransformativeandsustainingencounterwithChristismadepossible.SacrosanctumConcilium,thekeytextonliturgywhichemergedfromtheSecondVaticanCouncil,recommendsthatthesacredliturgyshouldimpartvigour;adapttochanginginstitutionsandcontemporaryneeds;promoteunityamongstChristians;andstrengthenmission.Thereisnoquestionfromtheoutsetthatthisvolumewillpresentthesacredliturgyasbeinguniquely

powerfulandeffective,andthatparticipationandimmersionintheliturgyshouldbeencouraged,thattransformationmayoccur.Thepapersthatfollowareafascinatingexaminationofhowthechurchhasandshouldcontinuetoprogresstowardsauthenticliturgicalrenewalandofthepossibleresultsofdoingsoforthecontemporaryworld.Beginningwiththetheologicalimplications,HelmutHopingexploreshowliturgyandtrinitariantheologymightberelatedandco-forming:Hoping’srecognitionthatTrinitariantheologyandliturgysharetheirrootindoxologyleadstoanunderstandingofthe‘livinglanguageofprayer’asthemostauthenticanswertothemysteryoftheTrinity.Hepresentsachallengetotheologians,thatunderstandingsoftrinitymustconnectwiththeprayerofChristandofthechurch,andcannotbeconfinedtoacademia.HopingthenproceedstoexpoundtheTrinitariancontentoftheEucharist,andwhileheconcludesthattheprayerformulaeareessentiallypatrocentric,thesacramentasawholeindicatesChristasthecentreoftheheavenlyliturgyinwhichthechurchmayparticipate,bythepoweroftheSpirit.CharbelPazatdeLysOSBfollowsHopingwithapaperonthepublicnatureoftheliturgy.Liturgyispublicinthatitistheofficialworshipandplaceofsanctificationforaninstitutionalandeschatologicalsociety:thechurch,unitedunderChrist,thehead,withtheHolySpiritasthesourceofthatunity.ThatthechurchistheBrideandBodyofChristmustbeperceivedin‘concretefamiliarrituals’;theauthorsuggeststhismaybeachievedbyfosteringarecognitionofthesacred,recognisingthedetailsoftheliturgythatbringaboutunity,andbyrecognisingthatwithintheliturgyallareinvitedtoparticipateinthetendingtotheactivepresenceofGod.While,asaBaptist,Iresisttheproposalherethathierarchynurturesthissenseofpersonalidentificationandinvolvement,thisseemstotendrightlytowardstheministryofallbelievers.Mytraditionoughttolearnfromtheauthor’scommitmenttoexpressingunityanduniversalityinworship.FortheRomanCatholicchurch,Gregorianchant,Latinandsacredmusicaretoolstothisend;whattoolsmightBaptistsfindforexpressinguniversality?Theparticularstrengthofthisvolumeisinitsportrayalofmoreunusualaspectsofliturgicalrenewal.MichaelP.Cullinan’spaperontheethicalcharacterofthemysteries,orsacraments,drawsonorthodoxthoughttoarguethattheliturgyofthechurchshapesandcontainsherethics,withtheEucharisticemphasisonthetransfigurationofmatterasthesupremeexampleofthelinkbetweenliturgical,sacramentallife,andtheChristianmorallife.Theseideassetthestageforthescopeofthetransformativepoweroftheliturgytobewidenedtoencompassthewholeofcreation,inthepaperpresentedbyDavidW.Fagerberg.ForFagerberg,the‘liturgyshouldoverflowthesanctuary’:hespeaksofhowChristmightbevisitedbeyondtheEucharistinthepoor,andhowachargeofgraceisreceivedanddischarged,inboththemasstheworld.Ihaveoftenheardnon-conformistsrejectthefocusontheliturgyasisseenmorecommonlyinCatholicorAnglicanworship,onthebasisthatitdetractsfromthechurch’sengagementinthemissionofGodtotheworldinsocialaction.Iwouldcontend,withCullinan,thatauthenticliturgicalrenewalasexpressedinthisvolumecompelsandempowersthechurchtodojustthat.

JulesGeldhofcontinuesinasimilarvein:‘TheliturgyisanytimewhentheChurchisdoingwhatsheissupposedtodo[…]whenthebodyofChristissacramentallyseenandecclesiallyrealised’.InadditiontoitsenablingthechurchtorecogniseandjoininwithGod’sactivityintheworld,theliturgychallengessecularculture,andsoisinstrumentalinthesalvificandredemptiveworkofChrist.Liturgy,thisvolumesuggests,hasamissiological,andevensoteriologicalfunction.Bullivant,however,observesthattheneo-evangelisticmotivationsbehindSacrosanctumConcilium,thoughprovidingthenecessaryspaceforthesacredliturgytospeaktodifferentcultures,hadnotyetbeenrealised.OnemayreflectatthisstageontheNairobiStatementonworshipandculture:thesacredliturgyneednotbecontextualattheexpenseofitsbeingcounter-cultural,foritisatitsmostpowerfulwhenthetwoareheldintension.Theremainingpapers,whilstelucidatingthehistoricalcontextbehindSacrosanctumConcilium,didnotofferthesamebreadthofcriticalreflectiononliturgyandworshipasthosepreceding,andsoIdidnotfindthemasaccessibleorilluminatingwhenapproachingthesubjectmatterasanon-Catholic.Thissaid,inspiteofthestatementinRobertCardinalSarah’sinitialcontributionthatthe‘CatholicliturgyisthesinglyprivilegedlocusofChrist’ssavingactioninourworldtoday’,thevolumeasawholeportraystheimmensevalueofliturgicalworshipandtheimportanceofitscontinualrenewal,andsopresentsachallengetoallengagedinleadingorfacilitatingpublicworshiptotakeliturgyseriously.MollyBootRegent’sParkCollege,Oxford

HelenLeneman,MusicalIlluminationsofGenesisNarratives(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2018)InthisnewvolumeintheScripturalTraces:CriticalPerspectivesontheReceptionandInfluenceoftheBibleseries,HelenLenemanintroducesthereadertoadiverserangeofmusicaladaptionsofhistoricalnarrativesfromtheTorah.Selectingfromamuchwiderpoolofworks,herchoicesenablehertofocusindepthonhowthepersonalitiesandemotionalresponsesofsomeofthemostsignificantOldTestamentfiguresaredevelopedandfilledoutthroughmusicanddrama.Whiletheauthorsandcomposersoftheseworksevidentlygofarbeyondwhatisrecordedinscriptureintheirretellings,LenemansuggeststhattheyrepresentarecognizablecontinuationoftheJewishmidrashtradition,commentingonandfleshingoutscripturalaccountstomakethemmoreaccessibleandapplicabletochangingtimesandaudiences.WorksdiscussedincludethestoriesofEve,Noah,AbrahamandSarah,RachelatthewellandJoseph.Authorsandcomposersincludesomewell-knownnamessuchasHandel,SchubertandFaure,butincludemanymorewhoarelesswell-known,andinparticularseveralJewishcomposerswhocometotheirownscriptureswithrefreshinginterpretationsforwideraudiences.Lenemanalsodiscussesseveralwomencomposersandcomposersfromothernon-Westernculturalgroupswho

evennowstruggleforacceptanceasmainstreamcomposersin‘ClassicalMusic’circles.Thebookproceedsaccordingtobiblicalchronology,bringingfordiscussionseveralmusicalworksforeachscripturalaccount.Eachchapterstartswithaselectivecommentaryonthescripture,beforeproceedingtosomebriefbackgroundinformationforeachcomposerandtheirera,andconcludingwithanextensivediscussionofthework,examiningplot,librettoandmusicalstyleandeffects.IncaseswhereLenemanprovidedmoredetailedcontextualbackground,forexamplethecontemporaryGermansocietyandpoliticssurroundingKurtWeill,herensuinganalysisofthemusicseemedmoreeffective.Lenemanhashelpfullyprovidedlinkstoonlineperformancesofalmosteveryworkincludingtheobscureoneswhichmakesthebookmuchmoreengagingtoread,evenifthepriceforthesehelpsistohavethemaintextbrokenupwithstringsofweblinks.Insomecasesplotdescriptionsbecomeverylengthytoo,butillustratejusthowmanyextradetailshavebeenimaginedandaddedtotheoriginalstoriesinordertoconnectwithaparticularsocietyorera.Biblicalpuristsmayfindthiswearingasthemusicalinterpretationstendtorevealmuchmoreaboutthemoresoftheircomposersandthesocietiesforwhichtheywerewrittingthanofscriptureitself.Thescopeofthisbookisambitious.AswellasknowledgeofscriptureLeneman’swritingrequiresareasonablegraspofmusicaltermsandtechniquesasnotallhertermsareexplained.Iwonderedattimesforwhomthisbookisprimarilywritten,lackingasitdoesafinalconclusion.However,aswellasrevivinginterestinsomelittleknownwork,itprovidedplentyoffoodforthoughtandreflection.Musiccanbeaneffectivetoolforrealisingwell-lovedandoft-rehearsednarrativesfreshlyintoeachnewcontextinanaccessibleway.AgoodexampleisSallyBeamish’sworkHagarintheWilderness.Leneman’sanalysisofthismusicalretellingofanage-oldstorycanremindsushowSarahandHagar’srelationalandculturalagoniescontinuebetweenIsraelandPalestinetoday.Thustheybecomemorepersonalandrelevanttoanycontemporarylistener.Today’smovieindustryhasnotlostallinterestinservingupnewversionsofbiblicalnarrativesfromtimetotime,howeverstronglyadaptedorstretchedtofitfashionablepointsofview.Leneman’sbookremindsusthatthisisnotanewphenomenon.Eachagehastakenscripturalnarrativesandretoldthem,moreorlessaccurately,accordingtotasteandsometimesatthecostoflosinganyoriginalintention,butalwayswiththeaimofengaging,entertainingandperhapsinspiringanewgenerationtoengagewithancientstoriesafresh.MargaretGibbsPerryRiseBaptistChurch,ForestHill

DouglasJ.Brouwer,HowToBecomeaMulticulturalChurch(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2017)ForalmostthreedecadesDougBrouwerservedasaPastorinpredominantlywhitechurchesacrosstheUnitedStates.Attheageof59hemovedto

SwitzerlandtobecomePastoroftheInternationalProtestantChurchinZurich,anEnglishspeakingchurchwithpeopleofdifferentethnicandculturalbackgrounds.Thisbookishisstory.ThebookisstructuredaroundtenlessonsthatBrouwerlearned.Theseare:themeaningof‘home’,theimplicationsofthechurch’sname,theissuesthatariseinstylesofleadership,theologicalandecclesiologicaldifferences,communication,language,stereotypes,nationalism,musicandhospitality.Witheachchapterhegivesillustrationsoftheissue,hisreflectionsonitandwhatistobelearnedfromit.Soforexample,inhischapteronleadership(alwaysanimportantissueinmulticulturalchurches),Brouwernoteshisstruggletocopewithwhathesawasbeinginefficientmeetingswhereittookasignificantamountofdiscussionandreflectiontocometodecisionsthatreflectedthewholeleadershipteam.Hesays,‘Butsomethinghaschangedinme.Ihavebeguntoseeourworkdifferently…Gettingworkaccomplishedinamulticulturalchurchisgoingtotaketime,sometimeslotsofit.Meetingswillalmostinevitablyfeelunwieldy’(p.48).Hegoesontoshowhowbuildingamulticulturalleadershipteamrequiresintentionalbehaviour,itdoesn’tjusthappen,whichissomethingmanyPastorsofmulticulturalchurcheswillidentifywith,andconcludesthechapterwithreflectionsonMosesandJethroandtheneedforsomeonefromadifferentculturetopointouttoMosestheweaknessinhisapproach.Althoughthisbookhasemergedfromtheinternationalchurchscene,whichisuniqueinmanyways,thereismuchinthisbookthatthoseofuswhoarePastorsorleadersinUKmulticulturalchurcheswillidentifywithandlearnfrom.Itisaneasyread,withaninformalstyle(Brouwerisabloggertoo!)butBrouwerhasaknackofhominginonkeyissuesandunpackingthemhelpfully.ThereisalsoanaspectofthisbookwhichisaboutBrouwerre-learningministryinamulticulturalcontextanddiscoveringafreshinsightsintochurchministrywhichwillinformandinspirePastorsandleadersinanycongregation.Therearefewbooksinthisarea,(DavidPacker’scompilationTheInternationalPastorExperienceisanotherusefulread)sothiscomesasawelcomeaddition.MalcolmPattenBlackhorseRoadBaptistChurch,Walthamstow

MelodyR.Briggs,HowChildrenreadBiblicalNarrative:AnInvestigationofChildren’sReadingsoftheGospelofLuke(Eugene,OR:Pickwick,2017)Thereisadearthofacademicresearchonchildren’sreligiousawareness,andspecificallytheirapproachtoabiblicaltextasreaders,researchthatdrawsitsconclusionsfromlisteningtothevoiceofthechild,andsettingprimarydatadrawnfromhighqualityempiricalstudiestocritiqueandevaluatescholarlytheory.Suchresearchisinvaluableinfurtheringthesupportthatchurchandschoolcanoffertochildrentoenhancetheirappreciationofbiblicalnarrative,andpotentiallyfacilitatetheirspiritualgrowth.Inthisbook,MelodyBriggshas

offereduptheresultsofjustsuchaproject,whichshouldbecomeanimportantresourcenotonlytoresearchersbutalsototeachersandchurch-basedchildren’sandyouthworkersengagedinthetaskoffacilitatingchildrenintheirreadingofscripture.Indoingso,shechallengessomeoftheacceptedstrategiesforchildren’s-andadults’-Biblereading;herfindingstherefore,althoughbyself-declarationlimitedinscope,includeinsightsforallofuswhotrytoexcitenew-orhabitual-readersofscripture.Thebookisdividedintothreesections,coveringrespectivelyBriggs’theoreticalbase,hermethodology,andfinallyheranalysis.Forthepractitioner,thefirstandlastofthesearemostgermanetotheirwork,themiddlesectionbeingpredominantlyofacademicinterestestablishingthecredibilityofherprocessandthussecuringacademicvalidationforherfindings.Althoughhelpfullydescribingthegroupworksheundertook,theverydetailedaccountsgivenofeachstageareorientedtowardsthespecialist,anddespiteanattemptatsimpleexplanationofeachstageoftheprocessareprobablybeyondtherangeofinterestofthe‘ordinaryreader’.Thisreviewwillfocusmainlyonthefirstandthirdsections.Briggs’openingaccountofthetheoreticalframeworkistheologicalanddevelopmental,butrefreshinglyalsoliterary.Heresheintroducesthedisciplinesshewillemploy-biblicalstudies,children’sliterarytheoryandpracticaltheology-andoutlinesherresearchprojectwhichcentredaroundtwogroupsof11-14year-oldsinacomprehensiveschool,thefirstcomprisingchurchedchildrenwhoreadLuke’sGospel‘ontheirownterms’,theseconddrawnfromabroadersampleinthesameschool,analysisofwhoseparallelreadingstrategiesensuredsometriangulation.First,however,sheevaluatestheGospelitself,elucidatingkeycriticalthemescurrentlypre-occupyingcommentatorsparticularlyfromaliterarystandpoint,followingthiswithadiscussionoftheplaceofthereaderbothastheybothengagecriticallywiththetext,andexperienceitfromwithin.Sheparticularlyhomesinon,andlaterusesasananalyticaltool,twoapproachestoknowingpositedbyC.S.Lewis,namely‘lookingat’versus‘lookingalong’thetext;thelatteroffersheranewperspective,designatingasitdoesthereadersteppingbackandassessinganarrativefromthepositionofinsideexperience.Thisresonateswithherfindingsfromthechildren’sreadings.Nextinthissection,Briggsanalysesandcritiquestheoriesaboutchildrenasreaders,takingintherangeofdevelopmenttheoriesbeforefinallydiscussingthestrategiesoftenemployedinthepedagogicalsettingsofchurchaswellasschooltoconfrontchildrenwithbiblicaltext,frequentlyoverlaidastheyarewithwideragendaswhichdetractfromthechildren’sabilitytoread-andhavefunwith-thegospelasaliterarywhole.Havingthengoneontodescribehermethodologyinfinedetail,establishinghercredentialsasadoctoral-levelresearcher,Briggsbeginstosetoutheranalysis.Herethestudyreachestheheightofitssignificanceandinterest.Returningtoherheadlinequestion,‘HowdochildrenreadtheBible?’,shesummarisesasheroverallconclusionthatthesechildrenadopta‘puzzle-solving’orinductivereasoningapproach,andthatparticipationintext-readertransactionsproducesinsideexperienceofthetext.Asthechild‘looksalong’thetext,andparticipates

withitsnarrativeimaginativelyandempathically,he/sheisablebothtoinhabititinitscontextanddialoguewithitinthelightofpersonalexperience.Someofthechildren’sspontaneousexperiencesresemblethosefoundinothercontemplativeapproachessuchasIgnatianreadingofscripturewhichissimilarlyinductive.ThusImaginationandempathyareidentifiedastwokeycomponentsofthetoolkitchildrenutiliseinbiblereading.Thethirdhighlightstheformsinwhichthechildrensearchformeaning,bothaskingofthetext‘what’sgoingonhere’,andofthemselves‘Howdoesthatrelatetome?’.Inherfinalchapter,Briggsdrawsthisalltogetherbyexploringhowthechildren,readingtheGospelasanyothernarrativetextuntaintedbytheoverarchingevangelisticormoralisticagendasthatmightdrivetheirschoolorchurchteachingnoworinthefuture,enjoyandcritiquetheplot.Heresheexposeshowsomeoftheirinsightsconformwiththoseofgospelcommentatorsdiscussedinthefirstsection,whileothersoffercontradictorybutequallyplausiblealternativesfromwithinthetextitself.AsIfoundinmyownresearchwithgirlsinthesameagebracket,thedepthoftheologicalinsightandreflectionofwhichearlyteensshowthemselvestobecapableshouldservetoengendermorerespectforthemasindependentandcreativethinkerswhohavemuchtocontributetoaholisticappreciationofBiblicalnarrative.Briggshasofferedchildren’sandyouthleadersaswellasstudentsofchildfaithdevelopmentavaluableresourceforhelpingthemgrow,particularlyinbringingliterarytheoryandgenericreadingstrategiestothetablefordiscussioninthiscontext:thisservesasawelcomecorrectivetotheframeworkofpedagogicalanddevelopmentaltheorythatmorecommonlystructuresourstudyinthisfield.Itisabookforin-depthstudy,whichwillprimarilybeusedbyresearchersintobothfaithandchilddevelopment.Aswithsomanyresearchstudies,itsessencewouldbeofvaluetopractitionersbutsooftena‘popular’versiondoesn’tmaterialise.However,MelodyBriggshasalsopublishedaGroveBook:InterpretingBibleStorieswithChildrenandYoungTeenswhichIpresumeservesthispurpose.Neverthelessthechurchminsterandyouthworkeraswellasthescholarwouldlearnmuchfromreadingthefullaccountofherresearchproject,whichbringstogether‘theworldofbiblicalnarrativeandtheworldofthechildreader,whichwillintheprocessopenupnewavenuesbetweenthem’,whichsurelyisanaimthoseofuskeentoexciteyoungpeopleintheirreading,appreciation,understandingandenjoymentofreadingbiblicaltext,wouldwhole-heartedlyshare.AnnePhillipsDerbyshire

WalterBrueggemann,God,Neighbour,Empire(SCM,2017),165pp.Danielandhisdenoflions.Mosesandhistabletsofstone.Jaelandhertent-peg.Storieswe(perhaps)learninSunday-school,storieswe(perhaps)readinour

devotions,storieswe(perhaps)gleanmoralhomiliesfromforourpulpits.Buthowdotheyconnect?Whatarethey,infact,about?Whatisthescarletthreadthatjoinsthem?Howdoesdivinehistorybecometheology?

Ithinkitis,sadly,undeniablethatfolkinourchurchesareoftenwoefullyignorantofthegreatstoryoftheBible,whyitmatters,andhowitisconstructedfromthelittlestoriesofheroism,tragedy,anddownrightinscrutability.Theprojectofpiecingtogetherthebigstoryfromthelittleonesiscalledbiblicaltheology.Inthefieldofbiblicaltheologythereareahandfulofgiants;oneoftheseisWalterBrueggemann.

Thereisnotonebiblicaltheology;theold,oldstoryisricherandbroaderanddeeperthanthat.ThuswecanfollowthedevelopingstoryofTemple,ofland,ofcovenant,ofthepeopleofGod,andsoon.Brueggemannhimselfhaswrittenonanumberofthemeswhichdevelopduringthecourseofthetestaments.Inthisbookheunpacks,withcharmandenergy,thegloriousthemeofGod’sfidelity.

God’sfidelity,asBrueggemanndescribesit,isencapsulatedin‘asemanticclusterwhichreverberatesinIsrael’sliturgicimagination’(p.41);fivegreatwordsthatdescribeGod’sfaithfulnesstohiscreation(andhencetoIsrael)andwhichoverflowintothelifeofIsraelasapropulsiontowardsthecommongood.Thefivegreatwordsarethese:mispat(justice),sedeqah(righteousness),hesed(steadfastlove),raham(mercy),amunah(faithfulness).Thesewords,andthesystemofdivineandhumanfidelityofwhichtheyarebothproductandprescription,formasortofcounter-narrativetothetotalisingclaimsofempire.Wearethereby‘invitedtosubversion,resistance,andalternative’(p6);toparticipateinastruggletocreateandperformalifenotseducedbya[nanti-neighbour]totalism’(p.70).

Itisstirringstuff.SometimesIhavetroublereadingitsittingdown.Iwanttoagree,chimein,debate,andsometimesarguewiththeauthor.Iamnaturally(orperhapsbylongimmersioninhispriorwriting)sympathetictoBrueggemann’sthesis,andappreciatehiseminentlyquotableprose.Indeed,hispreachingvoiceissometimesalmostaudibleasIread–andImeanthatasagenuinecompliment.Nonetheless,IcannotdenythatinplacesIfeelhehassuppressedthe‘counter-testimony’(ironically,sincehehaspublishedelsewhereonthepresenceofcounter-testimonywithintheHebrewBible)inthecauseofmakinghissingle,thoughnotsimple,point.TheHebrewBible’sattitudetohumankingshipandempireisnotasuniformlynegativeasheimplies.ThemilitaryactionsofIsraelcannotalwaysbecastastheuprisingofthedowntroddenpeasantagainstwell-equippedoppressors.Wemightwishit,butwishingdoesnotmakeitso.

Butthisisasmallpaperback,notadoorstop.Itisabookwrittenforthereadily-kindledinthechurches,notthedourscholarinherivorytower.Itisabookwhichwillfiretheimagination,deepentheunderstanding,andjustmighthelpustobuildthekingdomofmispat,sedeqah,hesed,raham,andamunahwhichitdescribes.Readit.Preachit.Liveit.

HelenPaynterBristolBaptistCollege

DoloresKamrada,Heroines,HeroesandDeity(London:Bloomsbury,2016)ThisbookisamodifiedversionofKamrada’sdoctoralthesis,inwhichsheinvestigatesanumberofnarrativesfromtheHebrewBiblewhichfallwithintheso-called‘heroic’tradition–folkstoriesofmilitaryheroes,oftendesignatedgibborimintheHebrew.KamradaconsidersthatthewholebookofJudgesisdedicatedtothesegreatwarriors,andthatthethemethencontinueswithSaulandJonathan,concludingwithDavid.Shearguesthatcertainkeythemeslinkthesestories,notablytheactionofthedivinespirit;thelanguageofḥerem(totalexterminationoftheenemy);andtheuseoftheUrimandThummimtoascertainthedivinewill.Fromthisrichselectionofstories,Kamradachoosestoconsiderthreeindetail:thesacrificeofJephthah’sdaughter,thestoryofSamson,andtheSaul-Jonathan-Davidcycle.Herapproachthrowsfreshlightonsomepuzzlingstories.ConsiderthestoryofJephthahandhisdaughter,forinstance;adisturbingaccountofaherowhoserashpromisetothedeityresultsinhimbeingcompelled–apparently–tosacrificehisonlydaughter.ComparingthisstorywithotherfolkloreparallelsfromtheAncientNearEastandtheGraeco-Romanclassics,Kamradashowsthemanypointsofcontactwhichitshareswithtraditionalfolktales,tracingindetailthewarvowmadebyJephthahanditsconsequences,inrelationtoitsbiblicalandextra-biblicalparallels.Fromtheputativebaselinestory,shethendeducesasignificanttheological‘tweak’whichtheDeuteronomicredactorhasgivenit.ParticularlycomparingJephthah’sadult(thoughyoung)daughterwiththechildIsaac,shenotestheapparentwillingnessofthewoman,concludingthatwhiletheAkedahservesasacondemnationofchildsacrifice,theJephthahstoryprovidesjustificationforself-sacrificeinextremecircumstance–anactcomparablewiththeholyvowofḥeremwhichisirrevocableandirredeemable.Heractofsacrificeisthenimmortalisedinritual–femaleritual–anassertionofthe‘rightofwomentohavetheirownexclusivelyfemaleritual(s)withinapatriarchalsociety’(p.64).Kamrada’sthesisrepresentsimportantscholarshipwhichthoseofusworkingintheareaoftheseHebrewnarrativeswillbeunabletoignore.Herworkisheavilyshapedbyformcriticism,assheutilisesananthropologicalanalysiswhichleanstowardsstructuralism.Sheseekstocomparethepresumedbasicstorylyingbehindeachnarrativewithitsfinalbiblicalform,inordertouncovertheprocessofeditingandmemorialisationwhichhasresultedinthetextwenowhave.Suchatechniqueisnecessarilyspeculative–oneconstructsahypothetical‘groundzero’andthenusesitasaplatformforbuildingafurtherhypothesis,whosesecurityisnecessarilyandforeverdependentuponthesolidityoftheoriginaltheory.Nonetheless,hercarefulandthoroughscholarshipisasignificantcontributiontothefield.Forthenon-specialist,thebookwillbeaheavyread,asitishighlytechnical,althoughitdoestakethedeterminedreaderdeeplyandthoughtfullyintotheseintriguingnarratives.Kamrada’swillnotbethelastwordonthematter,butitisanimportantword.HelenPaynterBristolBaptistCollege

CareyWalshandMarkW.Elliott(eds.),BiblicalTheology:Past,PresentandFuture(Eugene,Oregon:Cascade,2016)233pp.Asachurch,wedoBiblicaltheologyeveryweek-everytimeIchooseanOldTestamentreadingtocomplementaNewTestamentoneIampreachingon,everytimetheSundaySchoolleaderusesherlectionary-basedmaterialtoprepareasessionforthechildren,everytimeweusescripturalversestomakesenseofasituationorasabasisforprayer,everytimeIgointoschoolsandanswerthequestion“WhatisGodlike?”Undertheunceasingpressureofpastoralministry,mycongregationandIareconstantlytakingactionswhichpredicateonunarticulatedandunexaminedtheologicalbeliefs.AndthesamehiddenBiblicaltheologyformsmypublicapologeticwheneveragrievingfamilyasksforanswers,ortheBBCasksforatwoandahalfminuteslotgivingtheChristianperspectiveontheweek’snews.ThisiswhyabooklikeBiblicalTheology:Past,PresentandFutureissoimportant.Eventhoughsomeofthearticlesmayseemtodealinminutiae,eachcontributorintheirownwayforcesustoexamineourassumptions.Thesamequestionsringouttimeandagain:DoestheBiblehaveasinglemind,ordianoia,whichcanserveasaninterpretivekeyforthewholebook?WhatroledoescanonplayinourBiblicaltheology?IsitevenappropriatetospeakofOldTestamenttheology,ratherthantheologies,letaloneofasingleBiblicaltheologyencompassingbothTestaments?IsitChristianacademics,JewishscholarsorfaithpractitionerswhohaveaprivilegedunderstandingofhowtheBibleworks-orisitnoneoftheabove?HasBiblicaltheologyasadisciplinecometoanaturalendasitfragmentsintomyriadspecialisedsub-disciplines,andlosescontactwiththeworshippersinsynagogueandpew?ThisvolumeisacollectionofpapersthathavebeencommentedonandreworkedinthecontextofasetofsessionsfromSBLconferencesbetween2012and2014.Thepapersaregroupedintothreesections.ThefirstoftheseexaminessomemajorcontributionstoBiblicaltheologyintheearlymodernera.TheworkofGabler,VitringaandBaurisdiscussedasanillustrationofthewayinwhichBiblicaltheologycouldbesaidtohavebecomeconsciousofitselfasadiscipline.ThenfollowtwopapersondifferentaspectsofMagneSæbø’sHebrewBible/OldTestament:TheHistoryofItsInterpretation.Havingestablishedsomerecenthistoryofthediscipline,thebookthenturnstomethodologicalconsiderationsforBiblicaltheologyinthepresentday.ThissectionstartswithahelpfuloverviewofrecentworksinBiblicaltheology,andthenwehaveaseriesofpapersinwhich,asonemightexpect,BrevardChildsloomslarge.Weareofferedacategorisationofthedifferentwaysof‘doing’BiblicaltheologyalongaspectrumfromBT1(historicaldescription)toBT5(theologicalconstruction).Thisisfollowedbyapleatorevivethe‘salvationhistory’approachastheunifyingprincipleofBiblicaltheology.ThencomesaninterestingreflectiononthelectionaryasBiblicaltheologyinaction,followedbyanapproachtoreadingtheHebrewBiblewhichisinformedbyBakhtin’sliterarytheory.ThefinalpaperinthissectionisanentertainingpaperbyN.T.Wright,whichisalsoaneloquentpleatotheologianstoreclaimPaul’sperspective,and

allowPaultoteachusnotonlythefaithcontentofourtheologybutalsoitsmethod.Hisline(attributedtoBernardWilliams)thattheproblemwithpragmatismisthatwhileitisundoubtedlytrue,itsimplydoesn’twork,hadmechucklingforhours.ThebookconcludeswithsomepapersexploringaconstructivewayforwardforBiblicaltheologyinthefuture.WehaveasuggestionthatBrueggemann’snotionofcountertestimonymayserveuswellinapostmodernera(ifthatisindeedwhatwearestilllivingin…)ThisisfollowedbyacriticalevaluationofScottHahn’sBiblicaltheologyoftheNewTestament,andthenawelcomecontributionfromaJewishscholararguingthatwhereasProtestantBiblicaltheologyhasseentheBibleasbeing‘about’God,oneJewishtheologicalperspectiveseeshumanityasthefocusoftheBible.Next,JohnGoldingaydrawsaparallelbetween‘middleaxioms’inethicsand‘middlenarratives’inBiblicaltheology,andtheirrelationshiptothe‘grand’scripturalnarratives.Finally,wehaveapaperlookingatvariousscholarlyaccountsofthebookofRevelation,andsuggestingthatthisisoneNewTestamentbookwhichmaybeofparticularrelevanceintoday’spluralistenvironment.IcameawayfromreadingthisbookbeingfarmorealerttotheunexaminedassumptionsImakedailywhenreadingmyBibleasaChristianminister.IwouldrecommendittoallthosewhowishtouseorspeakabouttheBiblewithgreaterintegrity,whetherintheirprivateortheirprofessionallives.RosaHuntSalemBaptistChapel,Pontypridd

G.GeoffreyHarperandKitBarker(eds.),FindingLostWords:TheChurch’sRighttoLament(Eugene,OR:Wipf&Stock,2017)The subject of lament and the church’s need to rediscover its lost words ofcomplaintinworshiphasbeengatheringmomentuminrecentyears.Thisbookoffersanexcellentintroductiontothisemergingsubjectfrombothacademicandpracticalperspectives,andsucceeds inmakingrecentscholarshipaccessible toaninterested, ifpragmaticreadership.Butthiscollectionofessaysalsooffersaboldandcompelling thesisof itsown.DavidFirthestablishes thisargument inhis foreword, claiming that the removal of lament from the worship in theChurchesoftheWestisnothingshortofheresy.Itisheresy,heclaims,becausemuchcontemporaryworshiphascolludedwiththecultureoftheinofferinganendless diet of positive experiences which subtly suggest that expressions ofpain,sorrowordisappointmentinworshipareactsofunfaiththatconcedetoomuchaboutGodlackingoverallcontrol.Ofcourseheacknowledgesthatthereisa rightfulplace forpraiseand thanksgivingwhen life iswell, but insists that ifpraise exists at the expense of people’s brokenness finding an authenticexpressionofcomplaintbeforeGod,thensuchworshipdeniesdeeptruthsaboutChrist,aboutindividualsandcommunities.Theconsistentargumentthroughoutthis book is that without honest admissions of such pain there is littleopportunityfortrueChrist-centredhealingorliberation.

Withsomuchatstake,itisgoodthatthebookmanagestoachieveaconsistencyof lucid style andwell structured argument across its fivemain sections. Theauthors’desiretoconnecttheoryandpraxisiseverpresentwithouteverfeelingcontrived, andwhile every readerwill have their favourite chapter, and couldeasily examine such in isolation, there is a compelling internal trajectory. Itbeginswiththreehistoricalessaysthatrecordtheplaceandsubsequentdemiseof lament in theWesternchurchbefore section twograppleswithsomeof thetheologicalissuesarisingfromareclaimingoflamentfromthePsalms.ThenextsectionunpacksrecentscholarshiponthePsaltertoassistintheexegesisofthescriptures of lament and part four draws these previous academicconsiderations intothepragmaticchallengesofpreaching,singing,prayingandpastoral care. The final section delivers what is so often absent, but eagerlysought after by interested readers, some ‘worked examples’ of sermons, songsandpastoralexperiencesthatgrappledwithlament.In the first sectionRachelCiano reviews thedemiseof lamentandargues thatreclaiming these ‘lostwords’ isexactlywhatpeopleof faithshoulddobeforeafaithful God in themidst of trouble. Ian J Maddock illustrates this affirmationwith an examination of how historical figures such as John Calvin, MatthewHenry, JohnWesley andCharles Simeonhave approachedPsalm77.However,Baptist readers will probably be most taken with Alan J Thompson’s chapter‘Consolation for the Despairing’ which explores Spurgeon’s endorsement oflament in public worship as a genuine experiences for true believers and hisleadingcongregationsinthecorporateexpressionoflamentinsong.Thistakesustothesixessaysofthesecondsectionallofwhichgrapplewiththetheological issues raised by psalms of lament. These include chapters thataddress the impact of speech-act theory to considerations of if, and howChristiansaretobringtheircomplaintbeforeGodinthelightoftheresurrectionvictoryofJesus.AttheheartofthissectionaretwoessaysbyDavidCohenandGeoffHarperthatreiterateacommonthreadthroughoutthebook,thatlamentisnot an indication of a failing faith but quite the opposite, it is an essentialcomponentofaspirituallifethatcontinuestotrustinGodthroughtherealitiesoflife.Thethirdsectioncontains fouressaysthataddress thechallengesofpreachingon thepsalms, reminding thosewhostand in thepulpit, that thesepassagesofpoeticlamentmustbereadintheoverarchingcontextsofthePsalterasawholeanddonewith an appreciation of the self-involving nature of these scriptures.AndrewSloane’schapteron‘WeepingwiththeAfflicted’ inparticularexamineswhathappenswhenasindividualsandcommunitiesoffaith,weplacethewordsofanother’slamentuponourlipsandremindsusthat,‘whilelamentmaynotbeournativetonguenow,perhapsitoncewas,anditiscertainthatatsomepointitwillbe’.While theoryandpraxishaveneverbeen farremovedfromoneanother in theprecedingchaptersitisthefourthpartofthebookthatspecificallyaddressesthechallenges of using lament in contemporary congregational life. Peter Davis

examines the taskofpreaching,MalcolmGilloffers insightonhowtoprayandKirk Patson reflects on the use of lament in pastoral care. However it is thechapteronsinging lamentbyRobertS.Smith thatmanywill findmosthelpful.Smithcontendsthatthecontemporarychurchisneither‘adeptnorcomfortablewith singing lament’ and goes on to examinewhat been forsaken through thislossofcongregationalappetiteforthedarkerPsalms.ThroughanexaminationofPsalm137,Smithnotesthepowerofmusictoaugmenttheemotionalrealityofwordsspoken fromtheheart.Heexamineshowthecarefulsynthesisofwordsandmusicenablesagatheredpeople to findconsolation for thetroubledspiritandunityasacongregation in the faceofdifficulty.Hereaddress thepotentialheresy of churches who do not lament, concluding that such a failure leadscongregations into lives of unreality and deprives them of a full knowledge ofGodofscripture.Foranypriestorpastorthesemaywellbethechapterswhichground the scholarshipmost closely to their daily life, but it is perhaps a sadomission that there was not a further chapter to be included here, one thatexaminedhowthecongregationsmightrediscoverlamentbeyondtheimmediateborders of the church and in the art, music and literature of contemporaryculture.Thefifthandfinalsectioncontinuesthepragmaticdirectionwithexamplesoftheuseoflamentwithinthelifeofthechurch.Thisincludesthreefull-textsermonsonPsalm13, 88 and137 and an excellent reflectionbyNickFreestoneon thesongwritingprocessofweavingtogetherthelyrics,musicandtheologyofPsalm88.Asoneofonlytwowomencontributorstothebook,SharonWoodconcludeswith a quite personal chapter on lament within the context of pastoral careamongwomen.Thisprovedtobeamuchneededperspectiveontheimportanceoflamentamidsttheharshrealitiesoftestingtimesandherwordsmakeafittingconclusiontothebookasawhole:‘Wecryandcryout,knowingJesusdidtoo,InthecompanyofGod’sSpiritandhispeople,wedonotgroanalone.’Thiscollectionofessays isacompellingargument for thechurch torediscoverthelostwordsoflamentithasforsakeninrecentyears.Itisnottooboldaclaimthatfailuretodosomayleavecongregationsworshippingontheedgeofheresy.Assuchthisisabooknotonlyfullofwisdomthatdeservestoberead,butwhichalsourgentlyneedstobeputintopractice.CraigGardinerSouthWalesBaptistCollege

KateKirkpatrick,SartreandTheology(London:Bloomsbury,2017)StanleyHauerwashassaid,onmorethanoneoccasion,thatbecauseofthesentimentalitythatpervadesWesternChristianitytoday,thechurchhasgreatdifficultyinproducinginterestingatheists.Hearguesthatthegodthatmostatheistsdenytoday,thegodpreachedinmostofourpulpits,isnotevenworthdenying.KateKirkpatrickargues,inthisofferingtoBloomsbury’s“Philosophy

andTheology”series,thatJean-PaulSatreisanatheistthatismostdefinitelyworthlisteningto,someonewhoisofgreatinterestbecauseoftheideasheoffers,andhisdirectengagementwiththeologicalthought;Kirkpatricksaysthat“theintersectionsbetweenSatreandtheologyareasrichastheyareunderexplored”(p.13)andthisbookoffersusajourneyofSartreandiscovery,onethatIamcertainlythankfulfor.Inchapter1weareintroducedtoabriefbiographyofSatre’slifeandengagementwithphilosophicalandtheologicalthinkersandthemes,drawingfromsomestillunpublishedworksthatofferus,thereader,insightsinSatre’sinfluencesthathaveyetbeenexplored.Chapter2isanexplorationofthetheologiansthatSatreengagedwithearlyoninhisphilosophicaleducation.WithinboththesechaptersKirkpatrickexploresSartre’sreceivedtheologicalinheritanceofsinas“nothingness,”andhissubsequentinsightsintoChristianity,nothingness,and“lack,”andhowhisthoughtintheseareasarehugelyimportanttotheologicalthoughttoday.Frenchliteratureduringthelate19th,early20thCentury,experimentedwiththeologicalcontentanddepictionsofChristianlives,ofwhichSartrewasnoexception,andChapter3offersperspectivesonSartre’sownliterarycontent.Chapter4focusesonhismostfamouswork,BeingandNothingness,andpaysattentiontothemostpertinentpointsofhisexistentialismandthetheologicalpointstherein.Chapter5isabriefanalysisofSatre’snowfamed“ExistentialismIsaHumanism”deliveredon29October1945inParis,alecturethatwasbothdecriedas“Luciferian”and“celebratedasthehighestmomentofWesterntheology.”(p.124)Unlikemodernattemptsbypopularmodernatheists,Sartre’slecturewashailedasatriumphant,andrelentlessexpositionofthe“consequencesofthedenialofGod’sexistence.”(p.124)InPart3KirkpatrickexaminesSatre’slegacyinProtestant,Catholic,Orthodox,andliberationtheology.Chapter6discussesSartre’slimitedbutinterestinginfluenceonKarlBarthandPaulTillich,beforemovingonto“SartreandCatholictheology”inchapter7.Chapter8considershowChristosYannarasandJohnZizioulasuseSatreintheirtheologiesofpersonhood,andhowhesharpensandexpandstheirviews.Chapter9thenshowshowinfluentialSatrewaswithinblackliberationtheology,aninfluencethatinformedMartinLutherKingJr.andJamesH.Cone.Chapter10thenbringsthebooktoaclose,arguingthatSatre’sworkcontinuestobeneededforthetheologyofthefuture.Thewholebookiswonderful,andKirkpatrickhasproducedabookofdeepinsight,highlightinghowtheworkofSartre“isfascinatingfortheologiansbecauseitisatheologicallyinformedatheismhauntedbyquestionsofdivinelove,freedom,andgrace.”(p.210)Thisisnosmallthing,forinatimesuchasthisweneedthosewhoareabletonotonlythinkwell,butwhothinkthroughinallseriousnesswhatitreallymeanstoworshiptheGodofJesusofNazareth.

Kirkpatrick’schapter“SartreandLiberationtheology”isremarkableforitshowswithincredibleclarityhowSartre’sworkchallengedobjectifyingbehaviour,andhow“thestructureofhumanexperiencestillinvolvesthepossibilityofreducingorbeingreducedtothestatusofanobject.”(p.209)AsKirkpatricksays,“Sartrestoodagainstoppressionwithoutattemptingtospeakfortheoppressed...”(p.194)Thisdesire“tohear”isnotonlytoseeliberationfortheoppressed,butintheirliberationtoseeoppressorliberated,“...whenblacksasserttheirfreedominself-determination,whitestooareliberated.Theymustnowconfronttheblackmanasaperson”writesJamesH.Cone.AccordingtoKirkpatrick,Sartre’sunderstandingoffreedom,oftruefreedom,“involvescommittingone’swholebeingtothecauseoftheoppressed.”(p.201)KirkpatrickwritesthatConereadsSartreasonewho“willnotlettheologiansrestincomplacency,”(p.204)remindingthemthatanytheologicaldiscussionmustneverbeabstractedfromtherealityofhumanity,oftheconcernforrealhumanbeings.ThiskindoftheologythatSartrechallengesuswithdirectlychallengesthesentimentalitythatHauerwasrightlylaments,andcan,Ibelieve,producetheinterestingkindoftheologiansthechurchsodesperatelyneedstoday.JosephHawardThisHope,NewtonAbbott

RodneyWallaceKennedy(ed.),PreachingConversationswithScholars(Wipf&Stock,2016),132pp.InthisbookWallaceKennedy,pastorofFirstBaptistChurchofDrayton(2003-2016)offershissermonstotheresponseandcritiqueofagroupofscholars,includingtheAmericanBaptisttheologiansStevenHarmon,BethNewman,PhilipThompson,BradKallenbergandDerekHatch.Backintheearly1990sStanleyHauerwasandWilliamWillimondidasimilarexerciseasHauerwasrespondedtothepreachingofWillimon(seethebookPreachingasStrangers.)IlikeWallaceKennedyasapreachersimplybecausehehasfootnotes,thatishissermonsdisplaythathereads–commentaries,thetradition,theologyandmore.Inadditionwelearnthatbeforehebeganasermon,hegatheredwithasmallgroupjusttoreadthelectionarypassagesforthefollowingSundayandconversetogether.Thesearesermonsthattakepreparationandtimetocraftbeforetheyarepreached.Heisascholar-preacher,whichprobablymakesiteasierforthosescholarstorespond.Thisshortbooksincludesthirteensermons,manyonthegospelofMark,eachwithoneortworesponses.Ifindthereisalwaysmuchtobelearnedabouthomileticsfromreadingthesermonsofothers.OnthebasisofprovidingmewithnewthoughtsandpossibilitieswhenInextcometopreachMark’sgospel,thisbookisworthgetting.Butinaddition,theresponsesseethatitispossibletobuildbridgesbetweenthechurchandtheacademy,thatagoodpreachercanbringthelearningofthescholarintothelivesofachurchcongregation,andthatthiscanofferadepthtoasermonthatspeaksintothepresentcontext.Theresponsesalsoallowtheargumentofeachsermontobereflectedonfurther.

Forthosewhopreachregularly,thiswillbeahelpfulbook.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea

DougGay,GodBeinMyMouth:40WaystoGrowasaPreacher(SCM,2018),148pp.Whetheryou’reatthebeginningoflearningtobeapreacher,whetheryou’vebeendoingitforsometime,orwhetheryou’velostcountoftheyearsandthesermonsyou’vepreparedandgiven,thisnewbookfromDougGayiswortharead.Here’swhy?First,it’seasytoread,withfortyshortchapters.Second,itlooksatpreachingingeneral:howweapproachit,howweprepareforit,howwespeakasermon,andhowwemakesureitlivesinthepreacherandthecongregation.Third,it’sfullofhelpfullittlenuggetsofthought,whichforthosestartingoutwillbehelpfulstartersandforthoselongerintoapreachingministrywillbeeitherhandyremindersorgiftstorefreshperhapsagoingstalepattern.Fourth,Gaydoesnotofferatheoryofpreaching,butatreasurechestofwaystogrowasapreacher.EverythingIwasaskedtoreadaboutpreachingwhenIwasatcollegedidlittleforme,andprobablylikemostpreachers,ittookmeagoodwhiletofindmyvoice.GodBeinMyMouthwillaidthatprocessoffindingyourvoice,andgetyouthinkingaboutthingsthatmostbooksonpreachingdon’taddress.Thoseofyouwhoteachpreaching,youcoulddoagoodthingbygettingthisbookintoyourhandsofyourstudents.Five,Gay’sbookbringstogethersomeofthebestpreachingadvicefromsomeofthebestpreachers,soitwilleithersaveyouhavingtobuyalltheirbooks,orgiveyouanappetitetogoandreadmore.Six,DougGayissomeonewhostillbelievesinpreachingandthatpreacherscangrowaspreachersintheirapproach,theirpreparationandtheirdelivery.Sevenandfinally(justincaseanyorworriedthatthismightendbeingfortyreasonstobuythisbook),thiscouldbeagreatbookforLent,forthoseofuswhopreach,toreadachapteraday,andwhoknows,thesermonsthatemergeinHolyWeekandonwardsintoEaster,mightfindnewlifeandresponse.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea

KeithClements,LookBackinHope:AnEcumenicalLife(Resource,2017).423pp.KeithClementsisaBaptistminister,whohaspastoredchurches,beenatutoratBristolBaptistCollege,InternationalSecretaryfortheCouncilofChurchesinBritainandIrelandandGeneralSecretaryofConferenceofEuropeanChurches,aswellasbeingainternationally-renownedscholaroftheworksofDietrichBonheoffer.Inthishislatestbook,hewritesthestoryofhislife,onewhichasthesubtitlesuggestsasformuchofitbeenanecumenicalone.WhatisofferhereisoneBaptistaccountofbeingaBaptistandbeingcommittedtoecumenism.ThereishereapersonalhistoryofBaptistlife,especiallyfromthe1960sto1980s,tosupplementIanRandall’smuchbroaderhistoryofthe20thCentury.Fromthe1990sonwards,wearedrawnintoahistoryofthenewecumenismthatbeganasaconsequenceoftheinter-churchprocessandthenwiderintoeventsinEurope.ThebookbeginswithanexcitingaccountofbabyKeith,escapingwithhisparentsandsiblingsfromChinain1944,itgoesontotellthestoryofhistimeinCambridge,beingintroducedtotheologyandespeciallyBonhoeffer.ItwasatuniversitythatClement’secumenicallifereallybeganandsoshapedtherestofhisministryandcareer.Hereisapassionandexcitementforecumenismrarelyencounteredtoday.AndherethebookendswithasenseoffrustrationanddisappointmentregardingthecurrentecumenicalfortunesinEnglandanddespairataUKchoosingtoleaveEurope.ForClements,duetohisexperience,isbothanecumenistandaEuropean.ClementstellshisstorywellanditisafascinatinginsighttoonelifewhichunexpectedlyfounditselfmovingfromBristol,toLondonandtoGeneva.IencourageBaptistsandotherstoreadit,ifonlytoinspireyouandchallengeyouwithanecumenicalvisionsorelymissing.Likeotherreviewshavecommented,thebook’soneletdownisamultitudeofmistakesthatcouldhavebeenpickedupandcorrectedincopy-editing.Butthisisaminorfrustrationinanotherwisewonderfulandimportantbook.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea

MartynPayne,MessyParables(BibleReadingFellowship,2017),173pp.MessyChurchburstontothescenein2004andhasgrownatanastonishingrateacrosschurchesintheUKandaroundtheworld.WiththathascomeanumberofbookstosupporttherunningofMessyChurchcongregations.ThefirstthreewerebookslargelywithideasforMessyChurchservices.Butmorerecentlyhavecomebookswhichpickupparticularlythemes–hospitality,togetherness,makingdisciples–andthetheologyofMessyChurch.Allofthisisreallyencouraging,forthisinitiative,project,phenomenon,callitwhatyouwill,hasshownarealdesiretoreflecttheologicallyandpracticallyaboutitself.What

mighthavebeen(andmorestillbe)afad,isseekingtobecomingsomethingthatthinkscarefullyaboutwhatitdoes,howitdoesitandwhereitfitsinthestoryandmissionofthechurch.Thislatestbook,MessyParables,isamorepracticalbook.Itoffers25retellingsofJesus’parables.Eachcomeswithawayoftellingthestorywithlotsofinvolvementandaprayerideatofollow.ItbeginswithwhystorytellingisimportantandhowtobecomeagoodMessyChurchstoryteller.WhetheryouchurchdoesMessyChurch,thisisanexcellentbooktoaddthoseinvolvedintellingBiblestoriesinanall-agecontext,whetherinachurchserviceoraschoolassembly.IforonewilllookfortothecontinuinghelpfulsetofresourcesandreflectivepracticethatMessyChurchoffers.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea