Rege

nt’s

Re

view

s

April 2019 Edit ion 10.2

IN THIS ISSUE:

Rowan Williams: Christ the Heart of Creation Joshua Searle: Theology after Christendom Gregory A Boyd: Crucifixion of the Warrior God and many more...

GregoryA.Boyd,CrucifixionoftheWarriorGod.2Vols.(Minneapolis:Fortress,2017)........................................................................................................................................................4

RowanWilliams,ChristtheHeartofCreation(London:Bloomsbury,2018)...........9

JoshuaSearle,TheologyAfterChristendom:FormingProphetsForaPost-ChristianWorld(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2018).........................................................................................12

StevenD.Cone,TheologyfromtheGreatTradition(London:Bloomsbury,2018),726pp...................................................................................................................................................13

ChristopherR.BakerandElaineGraham(eds),TheologyforChangingTimes:JohnAthertonandtheFutureofPublicTheology(London:SCMPress,2018),192pp....................................................................................................................................................15

PaulAvis(ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofEcclesiology(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2018),649pp........................................................................................................................17

GeorgeHunsinger(ed.),KarlBarth:Post-HolocaustTheologian?(London:T&TClark,2018),171pp........................................................................................................................19

LincolnHarvey(ed.),EssaysontheTrinity(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2018),240pp...................................................................................................................................................................22

LeeC.Barrett(ed.),T&TClarkReaderinKierkegaardasTheologian(London:T&TClark,2018)................................................................................................................................23

MichaelDaviesandWROwen(eds.)TheOxfordHandbookofJohnBunyan(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2018),681pp+index................................................24

AshleyCocksworth,Prayer:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:T&TClark,2018)..................................................................................................................................................................25

BenPugh,SCMStudyguide:PhilosophyandChristianFaith(London:SCM,2018)..................................................................................................................................................................26

DanielL.Migliore(ed.),ReadingtheGospelswithKarlBarth(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2017)..............................................................................................................................27

SarahMelcher,MikealC.Parsons,AmosYong(eds.),TheBibleandDisability:ACommentary(Waco:BaylorUniversityPress/London:SCM,2018).......................29

AaronW.White,CraigA.EvansandDavidWenham(eds.),TheEarliestPerceptionsofJesusinContext:EssaysinHonourofJohnNollandonHis70thBirthday(London:T&TClark,2018).....................................................................................30

JamesMastonandBenjaminE.Reynolds(eds.),AnthropologyandNewTestamentTheology(LondonandNewYork:BloomsburyT&TClark,2018).............................32

SusanGroveEastman,PaulandthePerson:ReframingPaul’sAnthropology(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2017)..............................................................................................33

PeterJ.Leithart,Revelation.2vols.(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2018).......34

LaurenF.Winner,TheDangersofChristianPractice:OnWaywardGifts,CharacteristicDamage,andSin(London:YaleUniversityPress,2018)..................35

ChristopherDeacy,ChristmasasReligion:RethinkingSanta,theSecular,andtheSacred(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016)................................................................36

PeterTyler,ChristianMindfulness:TheologyandPractice,(London:SCMPress,2018),177pp......................................................................................................................................37

JamesM.HoustonandJensZimmerman(eds),SourcesoftheChristianSelf:ACulturalHistoryofChristianIdentity(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2018),692pp...................................................................................................................................................................39

MykHabets,Heaven:AnInklingofWhat’stoCome(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2018)..................................................................................................................................................................41

CeliaDeane-Drummond,APrimerinEcotheology.TheologyforaFragileEarth(EugeneOR:Cascade,2017),pp.xiv+1-167.......................................................................42

CeliaDeane-Drummond&RebeccaArtinian-Kaiser(eds.)TheologyandEcologyacrosstheDisciplines.OnCareforourCommonHome(London:T&TClark,2018),pp.xii+261..........................................................................................................................43

AaronP.Edwards,ATheologyofPreachingandDialectic:ScripturalTension,HeraldicProclamationandthePneumatologicalMoment(London:T&TClark,2018),245pp......................................................................................................................................46

TimofeyCheprasov,LikeRipplesontheWater:OnRussianBaptistPreaching,Identity,andthePulpit’sNeglectedPowers(Eugene:Wipf&Stock,2018),152pp...................................................................................................................................................................48

JohnHughesandAndrewDavidson(eds.),TheGodWeProclaim:SermonsontheApostles’Creed(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2017).......................................................................50

RichardHarries,HauntedbyChrist:ModernWritersandtheStruggleforFaith(London:SPCK,2018)240pp.....................................................................................................51

PaulBeasley-Murray,RetirementMattersforMinisters(Chelmsford:CollegeofBaptistMinisters,2018)................................................................................................................52

Editorial

InthiseditionofRegent’sReviewsthereisanarticlelengthreviewofGregBoyd’smagnumopusTheCrucifixionoftheWarriorGodbytheDirectorofthenewCentreforBibleandViolence,HelenPaynter.TheCentreisbasedatBristolBaptistCollege.OthertitlesunderreviewincludeRowanWilliamsonchristology,JoshuaSearle(TutoratSpurgeon’sCollege)ontheologyafterChristendom,andLaurenWinneronthedangersofChristianpractice.

AndyGoodliffEditor

GregoryA.Boyd,CrucifixionoftheWarriorGod.2Vols.(Minneapolis:Fortress,2017).GregBoydbeginshismagnumopusbyexplainingtheconundrumofOldTestamentviolencethatdrovehimtowriteit.‘Iam[…]caughtbetweentheScyllaofJesus’affirmationoftheOTasdivinelyinspiredandtheCharybdisofhisnonviolentrevelationofGod’(p.xxix).HeismotivatedbyasensethatalltheattemptsthathavebeenofferedtoaccountfortheviolenceoftheOTwereunsatisfactory.Inresponsetothisconundrum,then,hewritesthisbook,consistingof1445closely-argued,andoccasionallyratherdiscursivepages.InitheoffersanovelwayofreadingtheOldTestament,whichhecallsthe‘CruciformHermeneutic’.Hedescribesitinhisintroductionlikethis:

Whenweinterpretthese[violent]portraitsofGodwiththeresolvedconvictionthatthetruecharacterofGodisfullyrevealedinthecrucifiedChrist,weareabletoseebeyondthesurfaceappearanceoftheseportraits(viz.beyondwhatmereexegesiscanunveil)anddiscernthecruciformcharacterofGodintheir“depth”…ThedrivingconvictionoftheCruciformHermeneuticisthatsinceCalvarygivesusaperspectiveofGod’scharacterthatissuperiortowhatpeopleintheOThad,wecanalsoenjoyasuperiorperspectiveofwhatwasactuallygoingonwhenOTauthorsdepictedGodengaginginandcommandingviolence(p.xxxiv).

EssentiallytheCruciformHermeneuticisdefinedbythechoicetousetheCrossasthesupremelensforexaminingtherestofscripture.Sofar,souncontroversial.However,thisdecision,asBoyddevelopsit,hasthreedistinctelements.First,justasatthecrossGodisbothactingandactedupon,sothewaythatGod‘breathed’scriptureshouldberegardedlessasaunilateralactofinspiration,butasadialecticalactivity(pp.480ff.);apositionthatwouldnotsurprisethosewhoarefamiliarwithhisallegiancetoOpennessTheology.Thisrathercontroversial-soundingsuggestionisthenboileddowntotherathermoreblandassertionthatGoddoesnotover-ridethehumanauthorsbutthattheirpersonhoodremainsintactinthe‘inspiring’process.However,whatthismeans,forBoyd,isthattherevelationofGod’scharacterintheBiblecanbeso‘human’astobeutterlyfalse.

IfGod“breathed”hisdefinitiveself-revelationonthecrossbystoopingtotakeonanappearancethatmirroredthesinoftheworldonthecross,weoughttoexpect,andevenlookfor,Godto“breathe”thewrittenwitnesstothisrevelationbysometimesstoopingtotakeonliteraryappearancesthatmirrorthesinofhispeopleatthetime.(p.488)

ThesecondelementoftheCruciformHermeneuticisthatthenatureoftherevelationisnotinthetextitself,butinthecondescensionwithwhichGodpermitshimself,intheOT,toberepresentedinwaysthataresoveryotherthanhisowncharacter.JustasJesuswascrucifiedasadespisedcriminal,asonesinneramongmany,soGodisrepresentedintheOTasviolentandabusive,anditisameasureofhiscondescensionthathepermitsthismisrepresentation.

ThethirdelementoftheCruciformHermeneuticisthatscripturecontainsbothdirectandindirectrevelationsofGod.Thus,

TothedegreethatanyportraitofGodreflectsacharacterthatisantitheticaltothecruciformcharacterofGodrevealedonthecross,IsubmitthatwemustconsideritanindirectrevelationthatbearswitnesstoGod’shistoricfaithfulnessincontinuallystoopingtoallowthefallenandculturallyconditionedstateofhispeopletoactonhim,asmuchaswasnecessary.Andtothisdegree,theportraitcanbeunderstoodasparticipatinginthesin-bearinguglinessofthecross(p.502).

Thisthenleadstothestrikinglycounter-intuitiveassertionthat,

ThemoreascripturalaccommodationconcealsGod’struenatureonitssurface,themoreprofoundlyitrevealsGod’struenatureinitsdepths…wemightsaythatthelessacanonicalportraitdirectlyrevealsGod’struenature,themoreitindirectlyrevealsGod’struenaturewheninterpretedwiththedepthperceptionofacross-informedfaith(p.651).

ThatisabriefsummaryofthefirstvolumeofBoyd’swork.Inthesecond,hesetsoutinmuchmoredetailhowthishermeneuticthenplaysoutinpractice.Evenmorebriefly,theseare:(1)CruciformAccommodation:Godassumesa‘mask’thattakestheformof‘aliteraryappearancethatreflectstheuglinessofhispeople’ssinandcurse’(p.634);(2)ThePrincipleofRedemptiveWithdrawal:divinejudgmentissimplyawithdrawingoftheprotectivepresenceofGod,andahanding-overofpeopletothe‘boomerang’effectsoftheirownsin;(3)ThePrincipleofCosmicConflict:Godpermitslicencetothecosmicforcesofevilandchaosandthus‘allow[s]oneformofeviltopunishanother,alwaysasastepping-stonetotheultimateself-implosionofevilbroughtaboutbyChrist’scrucifixion(p.1146);(4)ThePrincipleofSemi-AutonomousPower:WhenGodgrantssupernaturalpowertoanindividualtheyretainsomecontroloverhowtheyadministerit,andthusdivinepowercanbeharnessedtoevilpurposes.IwillbeginmyanalysisbystatingthatIverylargelyshareBoyd’sstartingpoint.Ialsohavesurveyedtheofferedtheodiciesfortheviolentnarrativesoftheconquestandfoundnoneofthemwhollysatisfactory.IalsowouldaffirmthatourhighestrevelationofGod’scharacterisfoundinJesusChristcrucified.AndIalsoreadthetextsoftheconquestwiththeconvictionthat,ifIcouldbutseeit,‘somethingelseisgoingon’(p.631andpassim).ThereareelementsofthisbookwhichIthinkareextremelyhelpful.Theideaofthe‘boomerangeffect’ofsin,wherebytheconsequencesarepermittedtoreboundontotheoffenderisquiteuseful.BoydlikensthistothemartialartofAikido,wheretheopponent’saggressiveenergyischannelledbackontohim.Thisiscloseto(butperhapsnotidenticalwith)thebiblicallawoftalion(aneyeforaneye)whichunderpinsagreatdealofthelanguageofbothOldandNewTestaments.Seeforexample,thePsalmist’splea,‘Repaythemaccordingtotheirdeeds,andfortheirworksofevil.Repaythemforwhattheirhandshavedone;bringbackonthemwhattheydeserve’(Ps28:4);theappealagainstBabyloninRevelation18,‘Forhersinsarepileduptoheaven,andGodhasrememberedheriniquities.Givebacktoherasshehasdonetoothers’.ItiseventobefoundinthewordsofJesus:‘Give,anditwillbegiventoyou.Agoodmeasure,presseddown,

shakentogether,andrunningoverwillbepouredintoyourlap.Forwiththemeasureyouuse,itwillbemeasuredbacktoyou.(Luke6:38)and‘forgiveusourdebts,aswealsohaveforgivenourdebtors’(Matthew6:11).However,Boyd’sexplorationoftheremovalofdivineprotectionisnotunproblematic.Forexampleheuncriticallyassumesthatthedivinepresencealwaysbringsblessing;however,inExodus(forexample)itisshowntobebothutterlydesirableandatthesametimeutterlyterrifying.Nonetheless,theideaoftheremovalofdivineprotectionisahelpfulonewhichmayhelpustoaccountforsomeofthepuzzlingepisodesinbiblicalhistory.AsecondelementwhichIappreciatedaboutthebookwashisclearandhelpfulsummaryofthethemeofcosmicconflictwhichweavesitswaythroughbothTestaments.Iagreewithhimthatthisisaverysignificantandoftenunder-estimatedthemethatformspartoftheworldviewoftheancientwritersandshouldshapeourinterpretationofthesetexts.However,whilethereareelementsofthebookthatIappreciateverymuch,IamunabletoconcurwiththeessentialthesisoftheCruciformHermeneuticforanumberofreasons.First,IcannotfindthatBoydeverdefines‘violence’,andthisishugelyproblematic.Dependingontheideaofviolencethatoneisworkingwith,violencecanembracestructuralinequality,coerciveaction,andinactionwhichleadstoharm.ByseveralofthesedefinitionsevenBoyd’sdescriptionofGodmightbesaidtobeviolent.And,indeed,dowereallywantadeitywhoisutterlymeek?Wecertainlywantparentswhowillstandupforusanddefenduswithwordsand—inanextremesituation—actions.Wewantparentswhowillthrustusviolentlyoutofdanger.Flawedastheseparallelsare,IcannotfinditinmetowishforaGodwhowillneverexercisepoweronmybehalf.Forthesereasons,Boyd’srepeatedassertionthatGodistotallynon-violentdoesnotappeartometobeborneoutby(even)theNewTestament.TherearemanyexamplesofJesusspeakingofjudgment,andviolentimagesofjudgmentinRevelation.IamnotpersuadedthatthesecanallbeattributedtothedivineAikidoandthecosmicconflict.Further,itdoesnotseemtomethattheremovalofprotection,orthepermittingofevilcanreallyexonerateGod(ifexonerationisrequired)fromthechargeofcoercion.I’mnotevenconvincedthatOpennessTheology(towhichIdonotsubscribe)canwhollyremovetheissue.IfGodisthemasterstrategist,thechessGrandMasterwhouseshissuperiorwisdomtoout-smartusdespiteourselves(seepp.267–274),canthistrulybedescribedasanon-coerciveact?Jobcertainlydidn’tthinkso:‘IfIsummonedhim[tocourt]andheansweredme,Idonotbelievethathewouldlistentomyvoice.Forhecrushesmewithatempest…Ifitisacontestofstrength,heisthestrongone!’(Job9:16-19).Second,evenifweweretoconcurthatthe‘NewTestamentGod’isutterlynon-violent,thereisahugedifferencebetweenclaimingthatsucharevelationneedstoconditionourreadingoftheOldTestament,andclaimingthattheNew

TestamentutterlytrumpstheOldTestamentrevelation.IfwefollowBoyd’sargumenttoitsultimateconclusion,wecantrustnothingthattheOldTestamentsaysunlessanduntilitisvalidatedbytheNewTestament.Inotherwordsthereisnoauthentic,reliablerevelationofGodpriortothecomingofJesusChrist.Thisseemstometobeimmenselyproblematic.Foronething,itisveryderogatoryofJudaism,whichIwouldwishtoaffirmashavinganauthentic,thoughincomplete,revelationofthetrueGod.BoydrefersrepeatedlytoJesusrepudiatingpartsoftheOldTestament,forexamplethelawoftalion(p.71).IthinkthisisbasedonafailuretoappreciatethedevelopmentofmoralitywhichbothtalionandJesus’wordsrepresent.Itiseasytolookforwardtotheunattainedconceptofperfectlylovingourenemy,andthenlookbackwardsattalionandsoviewitasaregressivemove.InotherwordsweseeJesusandtalionpullingusinoppositedirections.Moreappropriate,Ithink,istoviewtalionasasignificantlimitationtothecustomofpersonalvengeance,andthenseeJesus’instructionstoloveourenemiesasafurthermoveinthesamedirection.(Boyddoesaddressaversionofthissuggestiononp.71,butIdonotfindhisobjectionsconvincing.)Third,thereisanimportantdifferencebetweensayingthattherevelationofGodisincompleteintheOldTestament—asitsurelyisevenintheNew—andclaimingthatthemoreevilGodappearstobeintheOT,themoreitisinfacttestifyingtohisgoodness.Thereissomethingsoutterlyperverseaboutthisthatitwouldsurelyamounttoalieonacosmicscale.OfcourseBoydgetsaroundthisbyhisuseofOpennessTheology:Godcannotcontrol(andthereforebeheldresponsiblefor)whatiswritteninscripture,orwhatisdoneinhisname.Heisnotsovereign,justamuchbetterchessplayerthanweare.ButinthecaseoftheOldTestament,heappearstohavelostratherbadly.Fourth,itseemstomethatBoydhasmadetheproblembiggerthanheneedsto,andthisisapity.Itisalwaysadangerthatascholarwhohasagoodideatriestoapplyittoeverything,andIfearthatthisisatrapthatBoydhasfalleninto.Biblicalviolenceisaverybroadcategory,andthediversetextsofviolencecannotallbeaddressedwiththesametool.Iargueinmyownforthcomingbookthatifweconsiderthemcarefully,quitealargenumberofincidentscanbefairlyeasilyexplained,andthe‘problem’thusreducedtoacoreofhardtexts.(Forexample,thedescriptionofviolentactionwithoutdivineendorsementshouldnotberegardedasproblematicinthesamewaythatthedivinecommandtoviolenceis.)Boyddoesnotappeartoappreciatethis.So,forexample,helistsfour‘violent’actionsofGodfromHosea,Jeremiah,LeviticusandDeuteronomy(p.651),withnoapparentappreciationthattheydonotconstitutethesametypeofspeechactandthereforemightrequiredifferenttoolstoaddressthem.Inasimilarvein,heuncriticallyassumesthatthetechnicalwordḥeremmeans‘kill’.Inactualfactthesemanticfieldofthiswordisbroadandcomplex.Itisnothelpfultocollapseitdowntoitsmostproblematictranslationaloption.Indeed,attimes,heseemsperverselydeterminedtothinktheworstofthedifficultpassages.ForexamplehearguesthatinNumbers25theover-zealousPhinehasranthecouplethroughwhiletheywereintheactofpleadingformercy(p.311).Theywereinfactintheman’stentandtheirbodieswereadjoined!Itseemsmuchmorelikelythattheywereengagedinanother,lesscontritionalact!

Finally,IfeelthatoneofBoyd’scorepremises,thatGodisasin-bearingGodbecauseJesuswasmisrepresentedontheCross,israthermissingthepoint.Jesuscertainlyisrepresentedasasinnertotheonlookers,butthisisnotthecentralfeatureofthesin-bearingattheCross,atleastinmyowntheologicalunderstanding.ThepointisnotthatJesustakesontheappearanceofsin,butthathebearstheconsequenceforsin.Icannotseehowthismighttranslatebackintoahermeneuticofcruciformitybuttoomititsurelysuggeststhatthetheoryisnotaswatertightasitmightbe.Insummary,IamgladthatIhavereadthisbook,thoughitrepresentsalargeinvestmentoftime.ThereismuchthatIappreciateaboutit,andIamalwaysdelightedtofindafellow-scholarwho—likeme—iscommittedtothegoodnessofGodandtheinspirationofScripture,andwhosharesmydeterminationnottoletgoofGodorthetextuntilwehavewrestedablessing.MayGodcontinuetoshedlightuponhiswordforallwhotrulyseekhimthere.HelenPaynterCentreforStudyoftheBibleandViolence,Bristol

RowanWilliams,ChristtheHeartofCreation(London:Bloomsbury,2018)ThisengagingexplorationofkeydevelopmentsinChristologyisdedicatedtothememorybothofJohnBainbridgeWebsterandAustinMarsdenFarrer,markingthefiftiethanniversaryofthelatter’sdeath.Keywriters,includingFarrer,areintroducedwithintheprefaceandFarrer’swork,especiallyhisBamptonLectures,arefurtherexploredintheIntroduction,andthiswithparticularfocusupontheprincipleexpressedmostfamouslybyNicholasofCusa,thatGodisnonaliud-‘notanotherthing’(xiv).Indeed,thismaximcouldbetakenastherecurringlitmustestthroughoutthisstudyofthewaysinwhichthepersonofJesusChristhasbeenconceived.ThoughFarrerisusedtointroducetheIntroduction,thechiefconversationpartnerhereisThomasAquinasandthemannerinwhichThomasfollowsthroughthenonaliudprinciple(albeitlongbeforeitsexpressionbydeCusa).InonesensetheworkofFarrerandPrzywaratopandtailRowanWilliams’sdiscussionbutinanothersensethestartingandendingpointofthediscussionrestswithThomasAquinasandDietrichBonhoeffer:thesearethewriterswithwhomWilliamsmostclearlyidentifiesbuttheirthoughtisutilisedtobracketanimpressivelypenetratingoverviewofthehistoricaldevelopmentofChristologicalunderstanding.FollowingthisIntroductionwithitsappreciationofThomasanditsratherlessappreciativeaccountofhisleadingcritics(DunsScotusinparticular),thebookisdividedintotwoparts,eachwithtwosections:FormulatingtheQuestion;RefiningtheVocabulary;LossandRecovery;Christ,CreationandCommunity.Thefirstsection,FormulatingtheQuestion,tracesthedevelopmentofreflectionsonthepersonofChristfromtheirNewTestamentorigins,throughNicaea,toAugustine.Thereisnothingespeciallynewinthisanalysis,noreitherinthesectionthatimmediatelyfollows,whatisimpressiveistheextraordinaryclarity

withwhichWilliamspenetratesthedetailofdebatewithouteverlosingfocus,notjustonthebigpicture,butmorefundamentallyonthebigissue.Thesecondsection,RefiningtheVocabulary,engageswiththeearlyByzantineTheologythatinstigatedandrespondedtotheformulaagreedatChalcedon.Onceagain,theclear-sightedmannerinwhichtherefinedandrefiningargumentsofLeontiusofByzantiumandLeontiusofJerusalem,MaximustheConfessorandJohnofDamascus,arerepresentedisexemplary.Havingsaidthat,Iremainunconvincedbythediothelitearguments:whileMaximusandJohnareclearthat‘will’,like‘nature’,isnota‘something’,incontemporarythought‘will’isadefiningcharacteristicofanagentratherthananaspectofnature–iftheterm‘person’hasbeenrenderedunhelpfulinTrinitariandebatethroughitscontemporaryconnotationssurelythatsamequalificationshouldberecognisedinrelationto‘will’.Thethirdsection(thefirstsubdivisionofthesecondpartofthisbook)considersCalvinandthere-formationofChristologyundertheheading‘LossandRecovery’.Itisdifficultnottoconcludethat,forWilliams,the‘loss’relatesnotjusttothenominalismofScotusandOckham,butalso,tosomedegreeatleast,toLuther.WhatmaybesurprisingtosomeisWilliams’soverwhelmingaffirmationofCalvinandtheparallelshedrawsbetweenCalvinandThomas.HereIfoundmyselfratherlessthanconvincedbyWilliams’s(brief)analysisofCalvin’slanguageofsatisfaction–onceagainWilliamspromptsmetoare-readingofatextwithwhichIhadthoughtmyselfthoroughlyfamiliar.Thefourthandfinalsection,Christ,CreationandCommunity,issubtitled‘ChristologyintheshadowoftheAntichrist’dealingbrieflywithBarthandatfargreaterlength(anddepth)withBonhoeffer.ProbablybecauseitrepresentsacurrentpersonalinterestIfoundthischapterbyfarthemostintriguingbutalsothemostpuzzling,andthatintworespects.InthefirstplaceBonhoeffer,likeThomasAquinasattheotherpoleofthisstudy,notoriouslylendshimselftoradicallydifferentinterpretations–allIcanconcludeisthatIfindtheBonhoefferhererenderedbyWilliamsimmenselyattractiveandpersuasive.Butinthesecondplace(andhavingreadthetextseveraltimes)Ihaven’tquiteunderstoodhowtheradicalrootednessofBonhoeffer’sChristologyinJesusofNazarethdiffersinessencefromtheinterpretationsofKarlBarth’srejectionofanylogosasarkosbyMcCormack,Jenson,andJüngel(discussionswithwhichWilliamsbrieflyengagesearlierinthissectionandanticipates,tosomedegree,intheprevioussection).Theconclusiontothebookisgiventhetitle‘Christ,theHeartofCreation:TheTensioninMetaphysicsandTheology’whichitselfconcludes(p.250)withperhapsthemostremarkableparagraphonecclesiologyIhaveeverencountered,butdoessofollowinganextendedengagementwithErichPrzywara.IhavetoconfessthatIhaveneverreadPrzywaraandconsequentlycannottellwhethertheimpenetrabilityoftheearlypartofthischapterisdowntoPrzywaraortoWilliams’saccountofPrzywara.

TheAppendixthatfollowstheConclusioncarriesthetitle‘Concluding(Untheological?)Postscript:Wittgenstein,KierkegaardandChalcedon’.Untheologicalitmostcertainlyisnotbutrather,fromaverydifferentstartingplace,thechapterrestatestheprincipleidentifiedinthePreface,thatGodisnot‘anotherthing’:‘AnyqualificationoftheChalcedonianinsistenceonthecompletenessofthetwo‘natures’willinfactcompromisethegrammarofGod:itwillimplythatGodactsintheworldbydisplacingfiniteagencyandthuscannotexistinthesamelogicalspaceasfiniteagency.Butifthisisthecase,thendivineagencybecomesarivalfactintheuniverse;andassuchitcannotmakeuponustheunconditionalclaimthatitpurportsto’(p.271).Thereareaseriesofwaysbywhichonecanassessthesignificanceofaworkofthiskind.Mostsimply(andcrudely)onecancountthenumberofquotationsliftedfromthetext(thirty-threeinthiscasethoughitcouldeasilyhavebeenfarmore).Moredeeplyabookcanbemeasuredbywhatonehaslearntthroughreadingit,especiallyiftheareascoveredareareaswithwhichoneisalreadyfamiliar:timeandagainasIreadthroughthisworkIwaschallengedinsomeofmyassumptionsandpromptedtogobacktosourcesandtoreadthemagain.But,similarly,onecanassessthesignificanceofaworkbythedegreetowhichitpromptsone,havingre-engagedthesources,torespond.Inresponsethen,towhatisatrulyremarkablebook,Iwouldhaveanumberofquibbles,someofwhichIhavealreadyidentifiedwithinthisreview.ItmaybemoreofareflectiononthetraditionthanonWilliams’saccountofthetraditionbut,otherthaninrelationtoCalvin,theHolySpiritreceivessparseattention,asifthisTrinitarianrelationwasredundantintherelatednessoftheFathertotheSonandtheSontotheFather,asifanunderstandingoftheSpiritmighthelpusnotonewhittothinkthroughthedynamicsofthelifeoftheSonmadeincarnate.InadditionIremainparticularlypuzzledbythetitleofthebooksince,notwithstandingpointsmadewithintheConclusion,anunderstandingoftherelationbetweenIncarnationandCreationfeatureslittleinthebodyofthebook.Guntonwrotemuchonthisrelationshipbuthereceivesnomentionandneither(unlessImissedit)doesIrenaeus:perhapsthereissomethinginAugustine’saccountofcreation(andredemption)thatshouldbechallengedbytheaccountofChristologywithwhichWilliamsconcludes?ThestoryofthedevelopmentofChristologicalreflectionislitteredwithfutileattemptstounderstandthepersonofJesusofNazarethaccordingtopreconceivedcategoriesofwhatitmeanstobedivineandwhatitmeanstobehumanratherthanallowingthissinglepersontodefinetouswhatittrulymeanstobehuman(notasomething)andwhatittrulymeanstobedivine(notasomethingelse).It’salongtimesinceIreadanybookthathaspromptedmetoreflectonthisprincipleofmethodinsuchasustainedandsearchingmanner.

JohnE.ColwellBudleighSalterton,Devon.

JoshuaSearle,TheologyAfterChristendom:FormingProphetsForaPost-ChristianWorld(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2018)ThisbookbyJoshuaSearleispassionate,provocativeandattimespolemic.ItispartoftheAfterChristendomSerieswhichwaslaunchedwithStuartMurray’s,Post-Christendomin2004,andcontinuesverymuchinthatvein.Searleassumeswearelivinginapost-Christendomera,withChristendomunderstoodandportrayedinoverwhelminglynegativeterms.Itispassionate,andinthisclearlyreflectstheauthor’sowncommitmentsandapproach.Searle’soverwhelmingconcernisforapassionateandmissionalchurchthatengagesdynamicallywiththecontemporaryculture.Acentralwaythebookconsiderstherelationshipbetweenchurchandculture,ashintedinthesubtitle,isthatoftheprophetic.Searleasksinchapter2,‘Wherehavealltheprophet’sgone’andexploreswaysthatthechurchmightregainitspropheticvoiceinthepublicsquare.Onthisbasisthebookmovesintoquitearangeofdifferentareas.InmanywaysthebookisreallyaboutthechurchasamissionalcommunityandtheagentofGod’skingdom,andthenmorespecificallyabouthowthechurchengagesintheologyandformsitsmembersandthenthecontributionthattheologicalcollegeshavetothisprocess.Searlesetsouttowritenarrativetheologyor‘biographyastheology’,andasignificantamountoftheintroductionsetsouthisownstoryandthewaythishasshapedhisunderstanding,andthisnarrativeapproachisanengagingandhelpfulaspectofthebook,andattimesthismeansamorecircularapproachratherthanlinearargument.AnAnabaptistheritage,thestudyofhistoryaswellastheology,theNorthumbriancommunityandEasterEuropeallfeaturesignificantly.ThereisasenseinwhichSearlewouldunderstandhimselffirstasadisciple,thenasatheologianandthenascurrentlyatutorinatheologicalcollege–thebreadthofthebookreflectstheauthorasaperson.Searledrawsverybroadlytheologically,whichisanotherstrengthofthebook.Intermsoftheologicaleducation,JamesKASmith’sinsistencethatwearefundamentallyloversratherthanthinkerspermeatesthebook.NikolaiBerdayev,theRussianpoliticalandexistentialphilosopherisakeydialoguepartner,reflectingSearle’sknowledgeofandinterestinEasternEurope.Then,forexample,liberationtheology,processtheologyandAnabaptisttheologiansarealldrawnonanddiscussedthroughout.Thebookisalsoprovocative,andclearlyintentionallyso.Itisprovocativeinthewaythebookdealswiththepast.Muchofthetraditionalandhistoricalapproachtothepracticeoftheologyisdismissedasirrelevant,discussinginternalchurchissuesratherthanengagingpoliticallyandculturally.Theology,Searlerightlyinsists,mustalwaysbeconnectedwithlife;therefore,thehistoricalseparationoutoftheologicalsub-disciplines,inaSchleiermarcheanapproachhasbeenunhelpful.Inthiswaythelabel‘Christendom’isusedverybroadly,attimesIfeeltoobroadly,asawayofputtingtoonesideanegative,contaminatedwayofdoingtheology.Certainlyattimethetheologiansofthechurchhavebeentooinwardlooking,butquestionsaboutthenatureofGodaredeeplyformativeand

relevanttoamissionalandpropheticchurch.Thebookisalsoprovocativewhereitseeksinspirationandinthewayitoffersmodels.MarxandNietzsche,forexample,areofferedasexamplesofmoremodernprophets,eventhoughtheyhaveoftenbeendismissedbythechurch.Therearetimeswhenthepassionateandprovocativecasewouldbenefitfromsomemorecarefulargument.Generallythisvolume,asthewiderseries,seesaveryabruptandnegativechangethroughthe‘conversion’ofConstantine–theinvertedcommasareSearle’s–whereasthereisacasethatsomeoftheseinstitutionalchangeswerealreadybeginningtohappeninthechurch,andthebroadbrushstrokesinthebookattimespaintthepre-Constantinechurchintooidyllicway.TherearealsomomentswhenthereissomeuncertaintyinSearle’sargument.Justin,TertullianandAugustinearealldiscussed(chapter3)intermsoftherelationshipofphilosophytofaith,andtheimpactofChristendom,butthebriefnesswithwhichtheyarediscussedmakesanyseriousdiscussiondifficult;similarly,thescholasticandmysticaltraditionsarepaintedinveryexclusiveterms.Finally,thebookisgenerallypolemicintone.Thisis,inmanyways,thelastingimpressionofreadingthebookchapterbychapter.Searlecertainlydoesnotpullhispunchesandofferssomeimportantandnecessarychallenges;thosewhowouldalreadybegenerallyinagreementwithSearle’sapproachwillfindmuchtohelpthem,butIwonderwhetheraslightlylesspolemicalstylemighthelpotherstojourneywithSearletoseetheworldandthechurchinadifferentway.Thereismuchinthebookthatwillbeofinterest,valueandchallengetoawideraudience.Althoughthereisasensethatthisistheauthorreflectingonhisownexperienceandpracticeasatheologicalcollegetutorthisismuchmorethanabookondevelopingtheologicaleducation–althoughitisthataswell.SearleistutorintheologyandpublicthoughtatSpurgeon’sandhisclasseswillcertainlybelivelydiscussions.Thebook’sconcernforamissionalchurchthatengageswiththecontemporarypublicsquaremakesitsomethingvaluableforamuchbroaderaudience.ThisreviewerwouldwanttosupportthedirectionSearletakesusandIfoundmuchheretomakemestopandthinkagain.IngeneraltermsIwouldnotwanttobeaspolemic,orperhapsevenasprovocative–butmaybethesearefeaturesofaprophet!AnthonyClarkeRegent’sParkCollege,Oxford

StevenD.Cone,TheologyfromtheGreatTradition(London:Bloomsbury,2018),726pp.StevenD.ConeisProfessorofTheologyatLincolnChristianUniversity,IL,andtheauthorofseveralbooks,includingAnOceanVastofBlessing:ATheologyofGrace(Eugene,OR,2014).Fromthemostcursoryglanceonline,twothingsstandoutabouthim:first,adesiretofosterengagementwithhistoricaltheology,

acknowledgingalivingtradition;and,second,alovingcommitmenttoteaching.ProfessorCone’swebprofileatLCUbeginsnotwithprofessionalcredentialsoralistofresearchinterests,butastatementofenthusiasmandindebtednesstostudents.Heisathinkingteacher,gratefulforthequestionswhich‘keeppushingmetohelp[mystudents]findbetteranswers’.Thesetwoqualitiesarealsothehallmarksofthisbookandmustbebornefirmlyinmindinanyattempttoassessitsvalue.Itisnotaworkoforiginalorconstructivetheology,butthatishardlythepoint.Itisaworkofcreativeandaccessiblepedagogy,suitableforhighschoolandentry-levelundergraduatestudents,andprobablyhelpfulforresourcingteachers.ItisastorehouseoftheologicalwisdomfromtheChristiantradition,likethesurfeitofmemoriescontainedwithinthehumanmindtowhichStAugustinerefersinhisConfessions(Bk10).Thebookbenefitsfromaclearstructure:fifteen‘modules’,eachsubdividedintoone,twoorthreetheologicalexplorations,andculminatingindiscussionofparticulartheologiansintheirhistoricalcontexts.Themodulesare:TheologicalFoundations,TheologicalAuthorities,DoctrineofGod,TheTrinity,TheWorkofGod,HumanBeings,Sin,ThePersonofChrist,TheWorkofChrist,TheHolySpirit,Salvation,TheChurch,MinistryandSacraments,EternalLife,ChristianityandtheWorldReligions.Thethematicapproachisanundoubtedstrength,sinceitavoidsthepotentialarbitrarinessofperiodisation,encouragingreadersnotonlytothinkaboutthetopicathand,butalsotoenteraconversationalreadytakingplacewithinthetraditionasawhole,betweenvoicesfromdifferenteras.Forinstance,inveryshortorder,anexplorationoffaithandreason(II.8,pp.136-50)introducesClementofAlexandria,Tertullian,Augustine,Aquinas,twentieth-centuryReformedProtestantism(theBelgicConfessionandtheBarmenDeclaration),JamesCone,andBenedictXVI.Eachthinkerreceivesashortencyclopaedia-stylesynopsiswhich,thoughfarfromsatisfying,largelysucceedsinwhettingtheappetite.Itisespeciallywelcomethatthebookincludesagoodnumberoffemaletheologians,theneglectofwhominmanycollegeanduniversitycoursesisbothaninjusticeandanimpoverishment.ToProfessorCone’scredit,hehasincludedentriesonHildegardofBingen(pp.286-88)andMechthildofMagdeburg(p.289)fromtheMiddleAges,andSarahCoakley(p.215),MaryHayter(pp.291-92),andKathrynTanner(pp.662-63)fromthemodernera.Therearealsofurtherreferencestofemaletheologians,suchasCatherineofSiena(p.288),inpassing.Muchmoreofthiswouldhavebeenwelcome,aswellasgreatervisibilityforthedefiningfemalefigureoftheGreatTradition,theVirginMary;afterall,Mariologyisthehermeneuticalkeyunlockingandsafeguardingsomuchelse,fromtheIncarnationtotheCommunionofSaints.Inthisbook,Maryfeaturesmainlybyaccident(or,atbest,bydefault)andiftheFathershadnotchosentoincludehernameinearlycredalstatements,onewonderswhethershewouldhaveappearedatall.EvenwhenapaintingoftheAssumptionisusedtoillustrateadiscussionoftheLastThings(fig.43.3,p.662),thereisnoexpositionofitsaccompanyingtheology.TheabsenceofMaryisaglaringandunfortunateomission.Infact,itisdoubtfulwhethermanyofthetheologianswithwhomProfessorConeissincerelyinvitinghisreaderstoengage,wouldthemselvesrecognisetheGreatTraditionwithouttheMotherofGodatitsheart,pointingtoherSon.

Notwithstandingthis,thebookisarichandaccessibleresourceforanyoneapproachinghistoricaltheologyforthefirsttime,anditwillundoubtedlybehelpfultoteachersconstructingtheirowncourses.Ithasbeenwrittenbyateacherforhiscolleaguesandstudentsinanadmirablespiritofinclusivepedagogy,introducedinthepreface(pp.xxii-iv)andcarriedthroughout.Fromthefirst,thetoneisconstructiveandencouragingwithoutbeingwet;forinstance,whilstProfessorConehasoptednottousegender-neutralpronounsforGod,hehasprovidedaclearandgenerousstatementofhisrationale(p.xxiii).Inturn,thepresentationisunintimidating(somethingofafeatforabookof726pages),combiningclearsummariesandinformativecontextualnotes,keyideashighlightedinboldand,attheendofeachchapter,discussionquestionsandhelpfulindicativebibliographies.Therearealsomanypictures,thoughtheyarenotalwaysusedappropriately;forinstance,toillustratediscussionoftheSpiritualExercises,animageofIgnatiusofLoyolawouldhavebeenpreferabletothatofTeresaofAvila(fig.7.2,p.127).Finally,inclusivityisalsotheobjective;namely,touncovertheGreatTraditionforasmanypeopleaspossible,especiallyProfessorCone’sfellowProtestants,forwhomhesuggeststhatitcanseem‘bewildering’(p.xxiv).Itisindeedatreasure-trove,eachglitteringgem,whilstnotwhollyvisible,invitingthereadertolookmoreclosely,withthepromiseofrichestocome.Itisnotthewholestory,butjustenoughtoinitiateand,hopefully,inspire.MatthewJ.MillsRegent’sParkCollege,Oxford

ChristopherR.BakerandElaineGraham(eds),TheologyforChangingTimes:JohnAthertonandtheFutureofPublicTheology(London:SCMPress,2018),192pp.Inanagewhenthechurchinthewestisindecline,itbecomesamatterofurgencytoensurethatthevoiceofthegospelcontinuestobeheardinthepublicforum.Untilhisretirementin2004,JohnAthertonwasCanonTheologianofManchesterCathedral,anhonorarylecturerinChristianSocialEthicsandsecretaryoftheWilliamTempleFoundation.Hewastheauthorofeightvolumesofpublictheology,publishedatatimeofgreatchangeinthepublicarena.Thekeyeventsofhistimeincluded:thecollapseoftheSovietUnion,financialderegulation,Thatcherism,9/11andtheearlyindicationsofthenowmoreprevalentriseinnationalismandpopulismthatischallengingliberaldemocracyinpartsofthedevelopedworld.ThiscollectionofessayscelebratesthevalueswhichAthertonpromoted.ThetitleisadeliberatehomagetoAtherton’sPublicTheologyforChangingTimes.Hebelievedintheimportanceofthecontextofanytheologicalreflectionandthattheremitoftheologyshouldrangefarbeyondanarrowfocusonchurchtoconsidersociety’scontemporarychallenges.Inthe1980sand90s,amajorpoliticalpreoccupationwaswiththefreemarket.TheAnglicanreport,Faithinthecity,hadattractedconsiderableoppositiontothechurch’sinvolvementin

politicalmatters,notleastfromthegovernmentoftheday.YetAthertonwascriticalofthereportforfailingtoofferasufficientlyhard-hittingcritiqueoftheprevailingpoliticalandeconomicattitudesofthoseinpower.Atherton’sworkFaithintheNationassertedtheimportanceofamoralhearttoeconomicsandtheconceptofacommongood.Afteranintroductoryessaybytheeditors,itisappropriatethereforethatthefirstmaincontributionisanessaybyAthertonhimself,settingthesceneontheethicsofmaterialwellbeingfromaChristianviewpoint.Thelistofcontributorsisimpressive.LargelyBritishacademics,thereisanunderstandablepreponderanceofWilliamTempleFoundationTrustees.MostarefromanAnglicanbackgroundalthoughthereisanessayon‘FlourishingandAmbiguityinUKurbanmission’fromAnnaRuddick,communitytheologianandResearchFellowatBristolBaptistCollege.LesleyAtherton,John’sdaughterandadministrativeassistantforthelatterpartofhislife,writesapreface.TheeditorsareChristopherBaker,WilliamTempleProfessorofReligionandPublicLifeatGoldsmiths,andElaineGraham,GrosvenorResearchProfessorofPracticalTheologyattheUniversityofChester(whereAthertonhimselfheldaseniorpostinthefinalpartofhiscareer).Likethemanybooks,essaysandarticlesoftheauthorhonouredbythiscollection,thecontentcomprisesadeeplytheologicalexplorationofeconomics,socialjustice,industry,politics,government,socialethicsandmorality.ThecontributorsechoAtherton’sstrongbeliefinmakingsenseoftheologyasapublicdiscourseforthere-shapingofsociety.Likehim,theyarewillingtolookaheadintowhatisemerging–forexample,thefurtherdevelopmentofthedigitaleconomyandanattemptataCatholicpublictheologyforthefutureinNorthernIreland.Inthatsense,thescopeofthetopicscoveredbytheseessaysisverywideindeed.Thisisfittingforanauthorwholikedtoseebeyondnarrowsubjectdisciplinestotakeamorepanoramicviewofsociety,thechurchandtheology.Theeditorsbringthevariousstrandsidentifiedintheessaystogetherwithanafterword.ThisexplorestherelevanceofAtherton’slegacyanddesireforpublictheologyinanageofBrexitandTrump,amongmanyothersignsofcrisisinpublic,economicandpoliticallifeinthewest.Onceagain,theemphasisisuponcontext:connectingGodtothecontemporaryworld–afavouritethemeofAtherton.InhisChurchTimesreviewofthiscollection,theBishopofWorcestercommentedthatthiswasabook‘whichwillnotyielditsfruitwithouteffort’.Thatisafairassessment:thisisnoteasyreading.Atatimewhenwearebeingofferedpolarisedchoicesinthepoliticalworld,thiscollectionisasoberingcalltolookatthewholecontextandasksomesearchingquestions–andtoconductourreflectioninthepublicarena.IvanKingSouthend-on-Sea

PaulAvis(ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofEcclesiology(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2018),649pp.Thisisasignificantandcomprehensivedictionaryasonewouldexpectfromaleadingexpertonecclesiology,PaulAvis.Hehasassembledateamof26authorstocoverthistopicinbothahistoricalandcontemporarypatternof28chapterscoveringBiblicalfoundations,resourcesfromthetraditions,majormodernecclesiologistsandcontemporarymovementsinecclesiology.Thebulk,butnotall,oftheauthorshalefromBritishacademiawithDurhamandOxfordpredominating.However,authorsfromSingapore,Strasbourg,Berlin,Miami,Waco,HeidelbergandRomeensurethatthisvolumehasaninternationalfeel.InanopeningchapterPaulAvisinformsusthatecclesiologyhasundergonearenaissancesincetheSecondWorldWar.Hebelievesthreefactorshaveinfluencedthis.HecitestheseasKarlBarth’smonumental“ChurchDogmatics”andhisreactiontothechallengetoGermanProtestantismthroughtheriseofAdolfHitler.HissecondsourceofimpetusistheSecondVaticanCouncilandthechangesintheofficialattitudeoftheRomanCatholicChurchtotheecumenicalmovement.HisthirdsourceforrenaissanceistheecumenicalmovementitselfandthemanifoldpatternofbilateralandmultilateraldialogueswhichhavetakenplaceandinwhichBaptists,alongwithmanyothers,havejoined.LetmedealwiththeBaptisttraditionfirst.PaulFiddeshasachapteronBaptistconceptsofthechurchandtheiranticedents.AswewouldexpectfromProfessorFiddes,thisisanexcellentoverviewexploringthemeshehasengagedwithelsewhereaboutthecovenantnatureofclassicBaptistecclesiology.HeexplorersbothSeperatistandAnabaptistanticedents,notingtheremusthavebeenAnabaptistinfluenceonthecongregationofSmytheandHelwysinAmsterdam.InclassicformFiddesensureshischapterconcludeswithastatementonthedynamismofBaptistecclesiologywiththefluidityofauthoritywithinthelocalchurchandbetweenthelocalmanifestationsofthechurch.Thereferencesandsuggestedreadingattheendofthechapterprovideanexcellentreferencepointforthoseoutsideourtraditionseekingtoknowmore.PaulAvishimselfreviewsAnglicanecclesiology,notingthatAnglicantheologianshavesometimesstruggledtoidentifywhatmakesAnglicanismdifferentfromothermajortraditions.Haveaddressedthatinternalstruggleheexploresthequestion“isAnglicanismProtestantbyanyothername?”HehelpfullysuggeststhatitonlymakessensetoseeanidentifiableAnglicanecclesiologyfromapointsomewhereinthefirstthirdoftheseventeenthcentury,recognisingthattheearlierChurchofEnglandwassubjecttothewhimsoftheMonarch.Helpfully,Avisengageswiththeterms“Anglican”and“Anglicanism”exploringwhatitmeanstobeaglobalcommunionofthirtyninememberchurches,whichhenotesareambiguouslytermed“provinces”.

OrmondRush,aRomanCatholicProfessorfromAustralia,setsoutRomanCatholicEccesiologyfromtheCouncilofTrenttoVaticanIIandbeyond.Ashorterchapterthansomeothers,hereferencingandsuggestedreadingarecomprehensiveandwillbenefitanyoneseekingtounderstandcontemporaryRomanCatholicecclesiology.ThereareveryreadablechaptersonthechurchintheSynopticGospels,theJohaninevisionofthechurch,theshapeofthePaulinechurchesandthechurchintheGeneralEpistles.Allcarefullyassembledbywell-knownBiblicalscholars.PentecostalecclesiologiesandcontemporarymovementssuchasFeministcritiques,LiberationTheologies,AsianandAfricanecclesiologiesarealsocovered.Hasthisbookanydeficienciesasaresourcetoturntoonmattersecclesial?Ioffertwo.ThereisasinglechapteronthechurchoftheMagisterialReformerswrittenbyLutheranscholar,DorotheaWendebourgoftheHumboldtUniversityinBerlin.Inevitably,theecclesiologydescribedandreflecteduponisprincipallyLutheran.HereargumentisthatLutherprovidesthekeyelementofthekinshipoftheclassicProtestantChurches.Certainly,LutherandLutheranismasdevelopedbyPhilippMelanchthondeservesachapterinthisDictionary.However,theReformedchurchesarisingoutoftheworkofHuldrychZwingliandJeanCalvinreceiveonlymodestattentionandZwingli,himself,whoconductedamajorecclesialreforminZurich,receivesnomentioninthetext,apartfromonenotebyPaulFiddesinthechapteronBaptists.IfIwasareviewerfortheChurchofScotland,theDutchReformedChurchortheReformedChurchofHungary,nottoforgettheUnitedReformedChurchintheUnitedKingdom,wouldIfeelthisDictionaryhadexploredmyownecclesialtradition?IsuspectIwouldnot.Forinstance,Eldership,soimportantinthesetraditions,isnotatopiccovered,butseemsakeyelementofReformedandPresbyterianecclesiology.Mysecondareaofdeficiencyrelatestothechapterson“MajormodernEcclesiologists”.Certainly,Barth,Congar,Rahner,Ratzinger,PannenbergandZizioulasalldeservechapters.GiventhattheeditorisanAnglican,wewouldconcedeRowanWilliamsshouldbethere.However,IdonotunderstandwhyMiroslavVolfisnotincluded.AsJürgenMoltmanncommentedonthecoverofAfterOurLikeness–TheChurchastheImageoftheTrinity,“Volfisamatchforhisdialoguepartners,ZizioulasandRatzinger.”So,insummation,thisisanimpressiveDictionarywhichdeservestobeineveryseminaryandcollegelibrary.InmyjudgmentithasaslightbiastowardstheAnglicantraditionandisdeficientintreatmentoftheReformed/Presbyterianchurchesandfailsinnothavingachapteronacontemporaryecclesiologistinthebaptistic/freechurchtradition,namelyMiroslavVolf.KeithGJonesGilstead,Yorkshire

GeorgeHunsinger(ed.),KarlBarth:Post-HolocaustTheologian?(London:T&TClark,2018),171pp.KarlBarthhadacomplicatedrelationshiptoJewsandJudaism.RenownedasagreatChristiantheologianwhoapposedtheNazisandcondemnedanti-Semitismasaheresy;healsoconfessedhisneedtosuppressan‘irrationalaversion’and‘allergicreaction’inhispersonalencounterswithlivingJews.HetaughtthatIsraelandtheChurcharepartof‘theonecommunityofGod’butalsothat‘Israelhearsbutdoesnotbelievethedivinepromise’,andthatJudaismis‘Yahweh-religionwithoutYahweh’.ThisvolumefacesuptotheseandothercontradictionsandoffersalivelydebatearoundthesubjectofBarth’scontributiontotheChristianencounterwithJudaism.

Inthisbook,GeorgeHunsingerbringstogethernineexcellentessaysfromleadingBarthscholars.EachseeksinsomewaytoengagewiththeworkofKarlBarthindevelopingaPost-Holocausttheology.SixoftheessayshaveappearedelsewherebutHunsingerprovidesagreatserviceinreprintingtheminoneplacetogetherwiththreecompletelynewessays.

ThreeoftheessaysdealsubstantivelywithBarth’s,ChurchDogmatics(CD)II/2whereBarthhasmuchtosayaboutIsraelandtheChurch.ThefirstisthenowclassicessayofEberhardBuschthatformschapter3.BuschdefendsBarthagainstthosewhohavefoundinBarth’sdoctrineandconductanunderlyinganti-Semitism.HethenoffersanappreciativereappraisalofBarth’sexpositionofRomans9-11inCDII/2.Ifthereareanti-Jewish-soundingstatements,theyreflecttheanti-Jewish-soundingstatementsofPaul.YetPaulisdevelopingthethesisthat(1)God’scovenantwithIsraelisirrevocableand,(2)thechurch’sconnectionwithIsraelisindissoluble.ForBarth,drawingonCalvin,thereisonecovenantintwodispensations.Thus,IsraelandtheChurchbearwitnesstothegraceofGodindifferentbutcomplementaryways.‘InsteadofconductingamissiontotheJews,Christianityshouldstandinalliancewiththemandattestthegospelamongtheheathen’(p.52).InBusch’sreading,Barthisfarfromanti-Jewishbecause,forBarth,JewsandGentiles,‘unmixedandyetinseparable’makeup‘theonecommunityofGod’(p.54).

DerekAlanWoodard-Lehmanoffersalesssympatheticreadingofthesamematerialbutthenproposesasolution.HeaccusesBarthofhisownkindofstructural,dialectical,supersessionismthat‘resortstoallthestandardtropesoftheadversusJudaeoslexicon’.EmployingZygmuntBauman’sterminology,Woodard-LehmanfindsBarth’steachingonIsraelherenotsomuchanti-Semiticas‘allosemitic’.‘ItabstractstheconceptoftheJewfromempiricalJews’andtreatsactuallivingJewswithindifference(pp.78-79).Woodard-Lehman’ssolutionistocorrecttheBarthofCDII/2,§34-35bymeansoftheBarthofCDIV/1,§62.2.In“TheBeingoftheCommunity”(CDIV/1,§62.2),Barthcharacterises‘theJewish“No”historicallyratherthantypologically’.Hethus‘allowsustodifferentiatebetweenunbeliefbeforeChrist,disbeliefatthetimeofChristandintheapostolicage,andpresentnonbelief.HealsonowassignstheblameforpresentJewishnonbelieftotheChurchanditstwomillenniaofpersecution.’Woodard-Lehmanassertsthat,‘ThepresentJewish“No”toChristis

mostbasicallya“Yes”toYHWH’.Further,theJewish‘“No”thatisalsoa“Yes”’canprovideavitalcorrectivetoChristian‘overlyrealisedeschatology’(pp.80-82).

DavidE.DemsonalsowrestleswithBarth’sexpositionofRomans9-11inCDII/2butthenseeksto‘recastitfromwithin’forcontemporaryGentileChristians.HeidentifiesthreelinesofargumentinBarthandtransformsthemasfollows.(1)IfBarthsawthatthoseJewswhoweredisobedienttoPaul’sgospelwere(temporarily)excludedbyit,weGentileChristiansarenowexcludedwhereverwewish‘tohavetheGodofIsraelwithouttheJews’.(2)IfthehistoryofIsraelshowsthatIsraelhasalwaysbeendisobedient,‘thehistoryofthechurchrevealsthatithasalwaysexpressedenmitytowardJews.’Thispointstotheirdamnationbecause,‘ToexpressanyenmitytowardJewsasJewsistoexpressenmitytowardJesusChrist’(pp.95-96).(3)ThehopeofRomans11isthatGodwillawakenobedienceamongthedisobedient.ForGentileChristiansthisbecomes‘thehopethatalltheGentileChristianswillbeawakenedfromenmitytowardtheirJewishbrothersandsisterstoaffectionforthem’(p.97).Bythisrereading,DemsonseekstoprovideaBarthianreinterpretationofBarththatmoveshisoriginalargumentinadirectionhewouldhaveapproved.

MarkR.Lindsay’sessay(Chapter1)comparesBarth’stheologywiththatofJewishOrthodoxrabbiandtheologianEliezerBerkovits.UnlikeBarth,BerkovitsdealtexplicitlywiththequestionofwhetherfaithinGodispossibleafterAuschwitz.WhileBarthnowhereaddressesthisconcerndirectly,hisconceptofthedivineself-revelationmightofferapossibleapproachtoit.LindsayfindscommongroundbetweenBarth’sinsistencethatGod’sself-revelation‘isalwaysaveilingaswell’andBerkovits’sconceptof‘thedivineHesterPanim,thehidingfaceofGod’.‘BothperceiveGod,inthemannerinwhichhebecomespresentwithinhistoricaloccurrences,tobebothhiddenandpresent,veiledandunveiledsimultaneously.’(p.12)ThusLindsaysuggests‘animplicit,evenifunintended,alignmentbetweenwhatBarthsaysaboutrevelationandwhatsomepost-Holocausttheologians,includingBerkovits,wouldwishtosayaboutthehiddenpresenceofGod,eveninthedeathcamps’(p.13).

ThesecondchapterofthisvolumereproducesJohnMichaelOwen’sintroductionandEnglishtranslationofBarth’sAdvent2sermonof1933.Thisisimportantbecauseinhisbook,Hitler’sWillingExecutioners:OrdinaryGermansandtheHolocaust(NewYork:AlfredA,Knopf,1996),DanielJonahGoldhagenchargesBarthwithanti-Semitismandcitesthesamesermonasevidence.OwencontendsthatBarthhasbeenmisunderstood,treatedunfairlyandmisrepresented.HethensetsBarth’ssermoninitshistoricalcontextandprovideshistranslationofthesermonsothatEnglish-speakingreaderscanmakeuptheirownminds.Barth’stextisRomans15.5-13andhistreatmentofit,inOwen’stranslation,rewardscarefulscrutiny.Tomyreading,Barth’ssermondoesemployanti-Jewishtropes.However,Barthcallsonhisnon-JewishhearerstostandinsolidaritywiththeirJewishneighbours.InoppositiontotheGermanChristianmovement,heinsiststhatthedivineWordconstitutesthechurch.Thisisentirelyofgraceand‘doesnotbelongtothenatureandcharacterofanyparticularpeopleorrace’.JesuswasnecessarilyaJew,for‘salvationcomesfromtheJews’(John4.22).Still,Israel‘rejected[Jesus]andnailedhimtotheCross’butindoingsoit‘behavedtowardthisitsredeemerinnootherwaythanallpeoplesofall

timesandlandswouldalsohavedoneinitsplace’.InitsrejectionofJesus,Israelputitselfonaparwiththeothernationsandbysodoing‘Israelalsoputtheotherpeoplesonaparwithitself.Thecloseddooropened.’‘[T]hecovenantthatGodcertainlyconcludedwithhispeople,andwithhispeoplealone,hasbecomemanifestinthatpeople’srejectionofChrist.’Havingwelcomed‘us’,‘theHeathen’,non-Jewsalsointothecovenant,Christnowcommandsthat‘theHeathenandtheJews’‘welcomeoneanother’.AspectsofthesermonmaybeproblematicbutBarthclearlyarguesthatChristiansshouldwelcomeJewsandopposetheirmistreatment.

Inchapter4,FayeBodley-DangeloscrutinizesBarth’s“ThelifeofthechildrenofGod”(CDI/2,§18)anditstreatmentoftheparableoftheGoodSamaritan.ShedoesthisbecauseBarthprepareditintheearly1930sshortlyafteratimewhenhewaspubliclyinvolvedinoppositiontotheGermanChristianmovement.SheshowsthatBarth’sdepictionoftheneighbourheresubtly‘subvertstherhetoricofVolk,nationandblood’andunderminesthe‘ordersofcreation’frameworkthattheGermanChristianMovementhadutilisedforanti-Semiticpurposes.Barth’sretellingoftheparableisaninvitationtohisChristianGermanreaders‘toseethemselvesintheself-justifyinglawyerandintheinjuredIsraelite,andtoseeChrist,theirbenefactor,intheguiseoftheethnicother’(p.60).TheremaybeahiddencallhereforGermanChristianstoloveandsupporttheirJewishneighbours.However,wemayquestionwithBodley-DangelowhetherBarth’ssubtleargumentis,intheend,toosubtle(p.58).

PhilipJ.Rosato’s1986essaytracestheinfluenceofKarlBarthonRomanCatholictheologyaboutJudaismandisreproducedaschapter7.Init,hearguesthatBarth’stheologyhadsomeimpactonVaticanII.HepaysattentiontoBarth’scriticismofNostraAetatefortreatingJudaismwithothernon-ChristianreligionsinsteadofrecognisingitsuniquerelationshiptoChristianity.HefurtherseestheinfluenceofBarthinthemovementwithinCatholicismtowardagreaterappreciation‘ofthecontinuityratherthanthediscontinuitybetweenJudaismandChristianity’.

Inchapter8,‘KarlBarth,Israelandreligiouspluralism’,PaulS.Chungcontendsthatinspiteofcriticismtothecontrary,Barth’sworkdisplaysaChristologicalopennesstoreligiouspluralismthatinspiresinterreligiousdialogueandsolidaritywithalltheworld’speoples.ThisopennesscertainlyextendedtoJudaism,theveryexistenceofwhichwas,toBarth,‘thesinglenaturalproofofGod’andasignofthedivinereign.

Inthefinalchapter,RudyKosharseekstobroadenthespaceoccupiedbyBarthintheintellectualhistoryofmodernEurope.Acknowledgedbytheologians,Barthislargelyoverlookedbyhistorians.Koshararguesforagreaterappreciationofhisinfluenceandofhiscritiqueofideologiesofrightandleft,whichwerethemselvesexposedbythehorrorsoftheholocaust.

Theseessaysmaynotfullyanswerthequestionmarkofthebook’stitle.IamnotsurewhetherwecanthinkofKarlBarthasapost-Holocausttheologian.However,thisbookclearlydemonstratesthatBarth’stheologycanhaveagenerativeinfluenceontherelationshipsofChristiansandJewsforthosewho

readitcarefullyandcritically.Inadaywhenanti-Semitismisconstantlyinthenewsbutrarelyunderstood,thisbrilliantbookdeservesawidereading.

RobertParkinsonDidsburyBaptistChurch,Manchester

LincolnHarvey(ed.),EssaysontheTrinity(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2018),240pp.Fromabout1980totheearly2000stherewasabigemphasisonthedoctrineoftheTrinityamongsttheologians,worksbyMoltmann,Jenson,Zizioulas,Torrance,Gunton,Volf,Cunningham,Fiddesbeingleadingcontributorstothis‘revival.’‘Suddenlywearealltrinitarians’,Guntonwouldwritein1997.ThisinterestwasnotjustinthedoctrineofGod,butalsohowitsimplicationsforcreation,personhood,salvation,eschatology.‘EverythinglooksdifferentinlightoftheTrinity’wasanothercommentfromGunton.LincolnHarveybeginshisintroductiontothiscollectionofessaysbyidentifyingsomethingofabacklashagainstthistheologyinthelastdecadeandabit(p.4).TherehavebeenbigquestionsaskedoftheprojectsofGunton,Zizioulas,Volfandothers.Harvey,wasastudentofGuntonatKing’s,whichwasahomefromhomeforthelikesofZizioulasandJenson,andsothereissomethingpersonalinthisforHarvey.Harvey’sanalysisarenotsharedbyalltheothercontributors,andthebookitself‘gatherstogethersomecurrentworkonthedoctrineofGod’(p.8).ContributorsincludeJenson,inwhatisoneofhisfinalessays,JeremyBegbie,ChrisTilling,LucyPeppiatt,WilliamHasker,ClaireLouiseWright,ChrisGreen,StephenJohnWright,GijsbertvandenBrink,JulieCanlis,DouglasCampbellandChristophSchwöbel.JensonshortessayistypicalJenson,titled‘ChooseYeThisDayWhomYeWillServe’itisapunchyargumentfor‘attributingdecisiveontologicalweighttooverallnarrativecharacteroftheBibleandtotheplotofthestorythatitdoesseemtotell’(p.14).ThisisJenson’s‘revisionarymetaphysics.’TillingandCampbellexploreSt.Paulasatrinitarianthinker,withTillingarguingthatheshouldbeconsideredaTrinitarian,thatis,Paul’sunderstandingofGodwastrinitarianandCampbellexploringhowPaul’strinitariantheologyisalsoethical.CanlisoffersasermoniclikereadingoftrinitarianprayerandSchwöbelreflectsonhowChristianworshipistrinitarianfrombeginningtoend.ChrisGreenreflectstheologicallyonhisPentecostalconvictionthatheexpectstoGodinhislifewithahelpfulconclusioninwhichhesays‘wearenonearertoGodawakethanasleep,instrengththaninweakness,infaiththanindoubt,insuccessthaninfailure,inmercythaninjudgment’(p.137).ClareWright’spaperisadelight.SheoffersachapteronGregoryNazianzus,reflectingonepistemology,languageandTrinity,andwithitcomesanAfterword,whichtookmebysurpriseandopensuptheessayinawholenewlight.AlanTorrancesaysinhiscommendationthattheessaysinthisbookare‘eclecticinmix,wide-ranginginscope,andrichininsights.’Thebestofthemhaveapastoralfunction,challengingustoconsiderhowwespeakofGodaswelead

worshipandprayer,preachsermons,offerpastoralcare.IwasleftwonderingafreshhowtrinitarianisthecontentofmyministrywhenIspeakaboutGod.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea=

LeeC.Barrett(ed.),T&TClarkReaderinKierkegaardasTheologian(London:T&TClark,2018)AnypersonwhohasattemptedtoreadKierkegaard(1813–55)couldbeforgivenforthesenseofbafflementanddisorientationfeltwhenengagingwiththisDanishthinker.Hiswritingsareapolyphonyofvoices,eachchallengingthereadertothinkforthemselves,totakeresponsibilityfortheirownbeliefs,anauthorshipthat“functionedasapedagogyinfreedom.”(p.280)Indeed,toreadKierkegaardisanactoftheologicalwrestling,thedesireofthereadertoknowthenameoftheGodthatKierkegaardspokeofinalmostcontradictorytermsattimes;readingKierkegaardistobeathinkingChristian,andthus,alimpingChristian.ThebrillianceofBarrett’sapproachtoKierkegaard’sworkisthatheallowsittospeakforitself,butoffersus,thereader,windowsintothetexttohelpilluminateandmakesenseofthecomplexitiessuffusedthroughoutKierkegaard’swritings.Barrett,aprofessoroftheologyatLancasterTheologicalSeminary,hasorganisedthis“anthology”ofexcerptsfromKierkegaard’swritingswiththemostobvioustheologicalsignificance.Barrett’sdesireistoshowtheuniquenessofKierkegaardasatheologian,atheologianwhohasinspiredthinkersacrosstheologicalstreamstowardsadepthandhonestyofthought.EachchapterbeginswiththeEditor’sintroductiontothetext,providinghistoricalbackgroundtothespecificKierkegaardiantextofthechapter,aswellasprovidingabriefgeneraldescriptionoftheroleofthespecifictheologicaltopicinthesweepofKierkegaard’sauthorship.Barrettalsoprovidesamorespecificdiscussionofeachtext,givingthereaderasenseof“orientation”totherealityofKierkegaard’s“complexanddemanding”works.(p.15)Certainlythen,thisisnotanexhaustiveattemptatinterpretingKierkegaard,rather,itbringstogetherthetheologicalthoughtsofthe“MelancholyDane”andmakesitaccessible.We,thereader,havetheopportunitytoreadKierkegaardandmakeofitwhatwewillasthinkersandtheologians.Barrettisveryclear,thepurposeofthisbookistohonourthewayKierkegaardapproachedtheology,namely,nottooffera“definitiveinterpretation,”norsuggesta“univocalmeaning.”(p.15).Kierkegaardbelievedthat“anyecclesialfactionsinsistenceuponstrictstandardsofdoctrinalorthodoxywassymptomaticofspiritualcowardice.”(p.11)Thisisperhapswhytheologicaltensionsandevencontradictionsarefoundthroughouthiswritings.Therearemanyhighlightsthroughoutthisbook,fromKierkegaard’spiercingobservationsonself-examination(pp.34–41),thatto“needGodisaperfection,”(pp.51–73),toexploringhowlife’sjourney,whentakenseriously,isfraughtwith“anxiety,ambiguity,andtension,”(p.105)notinginparticularAbraham’sjourney

toMountMoriahandtheintendedsacrificeofIsaac,anactwhereKierkegaardcomments,

“TheethicalexpressionforwhatAbrahamdidisthatheintendedtomurderIsaac;thereligiousexpressionisthatheintendedtosacrificeIsaac.”(p.111)

TheeightchaptersprovidethereaderwithawonderfulscopeofKierkegaard’stheologicalthought,guidingusthroughchristology,soteriology,theexperienceofGod,andChristendom,tonamebutafew.EachchapterendswithquestionsfromBarrett,questionstoengagethereaderinfurtherstudy,challenge,andreflection.Thisisaworthwhilebookforanyseriousreaderoftheology,tobothchallenge,learn,andinspire.Butalso,itisabookthatreflectsthepassionatefaithofKierkegaard,amanwhoencouragedpeopletofallinlovewithGod’slove,whobelievedinChristeverythinghadbeengained,“Sotakeitawayfromhim:wealthandpoweranddominion,thetreacherousobligingnessoffalsefriends,thesubmissivenessofdesirestothewhimsofwish,thetriumphsofvanityoveridolizingadmiration,theflatteringattentionofthecrowd,andalltheenviedgrandeurofhisappearance—hehaslostallthisandiscontentwithless.Justastheworldisunabletorecognizehimbecauseofthedrasticchange,sohecanscarcelyrecognizehimself—sochangedishethathewhoneededsomuchnowneedssomuchless.”(p.53)Ifthereeverwasatheologicalwordpowerfullyrelevantforourcurrentculture,thenhereinKierkegaardwehavediscoveredit.JoeHawardNewtonAbbott

MichaelDaviesandWROwen(eds.)TheOxfordHandbookofJohnBunyan(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2018),681pp+index.Thisisaheavyweightbookinallsense.At618pages,itisnotaslipinyourpocketandcarryaroundvolume,butratheracollectionofthirty-eightseriousessaysontheworkandlegacyofJohnBunyanasanauthor.Theessaysarewrittenbyacademics,andareconcernedwithunderstandingandexploringthevariouswritingsofBunyan.Sincethestudyofliteratureisaninterdisciplinaryoneintoday’sacademia,thewritersarelecturersandprofessorsofEnglish,ofhistory,ofreligiousstudiesandofculturalstudies.Thisgivesawidevarietyofapproachestothematerial,andmakesthisaveryrichfeastindeed.Thebookisinfoursections;Contexts,whichincludesessaysontheology,gender,thenatureofchurchandtheprintingindustry;Works,withessaysondifferentpartsofBunyan’swritingsandusingdifferentapproachestounderstandthem;DirectionsinCriticism,inwhichtheessaysexaminethevariouswaysinwhich

Bunyan’swritingshavebeenexploredandassessed,includingusingtheverymaterialityofthebooksthemselvestounderstandwhatBunyanisdoing,anessayinwhichthewriterexaminestheplaceofmarginaliaandwhatthefirstandsubsequentprintededitionslookedlikeandsowereread,andfinally,Journeys,essaysexaminingthewaysinBunyan’swritings,butparticularlyPilgrim’sProgresshas“turnedup”invariousplacesandtimessinethelate17thcentury,anditsimpactonotherwritings,andonwiderculture.Thisisaspecializedbook,writtenbyexpertsforexperts.Butbecausethewritersaregoodcommunicators,theessaysareaccessibleandofinteresttothosewhohaveapassingknowledgeofandwanttoknowmoreaboutBunyan’swritings.Inconsequence,therearealsofascinatinginsightsinto17thcenturydissent,particularlywhenlookedatfromoutsidethetradition,theplaceofexplicitlyreligiouslyinspiredwritinginasecular–andpost-secular–context,andaboveall,theencouragementtotake“text”seriously.ForanyofuswithaninterestinandsympathyforBunyan’stheology,evenifwedon’tshareit,itisilluminatingtoreadhowsuchtheologyisencountered,puzzledover,dismissedorvaluedbythoseforwhomitisnotcongenial,aswellas,amongsomeofthewriters,encounteringthosewho,becausetheytooareinterestedandsympathetic,andarealsoknowledgeable,canhelpusunderstanditmore.Pilgrim’sProgressremainsoneoftheseminalworksofEnglishliterature,evenifnotsofrequentlyreadtoday.Thisrichandvariedexplorationofitandotherworkshelpsusunderstandnotonlywhyitmatteredsomuchatthetime,butalsotorecognisewhattheintroductionreferstoasthe“runawaymetaphors”thatarenowsodeeplyembeddedthatalltoooftenwedon’tseethemforwhattheyare.Bunyanasawriterandtheologianwascontroversialinhisowntime.Theshapeofthecontroversyhaschanged,butheremainsthesubjectofdebateandachallengetounderstand.As“oneofourown”,howeverdistant,itisgoodtolearnmoreabouthimthroughthisfeastoflearning.RuthGouldbourneGroveLaneBaptistChurch,CheadleHume

AshleyCocksworth,Prayer:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:T&TClark,2018)Thisparticular‘GuideforthePerplexed’willnothelpanyonenavigatetheirwayintothepathwaysofprayer,butanyonewhoisalreadywanderinginthelabyrinthmayfindCocksworth’sstudytobeimmensehelpintermsofgettingthemostoutofbeingthere.Thisisemphaticallynota‘howto’manual,butratherahelpfuldistillationoftheinsightsofthosewhosetheologyisprofoundbecauseithasbeenrootedandgroundedinprayer.

ThefirstchapterfocusesonEvagriusofPonticusandhis153maximsOnPrayer,payingparticularattentionto61:‘Ifyouareatheologian,youwillpraytruly,andifyoupraytruly,youwillbeatheologian.’ThesecondchapterdeploresthewayinwhichawedgecametobedrivenbetweenprayerandtheologyandexploreshowSarahCoakley,RowanWilliamsandNicholasLashsetaboutintegratingthecontemplativeandthesystematic.Chapter3exploreshowprayercanenlargeourunderstandingoftheTrinity,lookingatCoakley’sprayer-basedmodeloftheTrinityandthedoxologicalTrinitarianismofJürgenMoltmann,CatherineMowryLaCugnaandAlanJ.Torrance.CyrilofAlexandria’scommentaryonChrist’sprayerinJohn17followsinchapter4,andinchapter5CocksworthcallsonthewisdomofThomasAquinasandKarlBarthtoaddressthequestionofhowfreely-offeredpetitionshaveavalidroletoplaywithinGod’ssovereign,providentialpurposes.ThefinalchapterfocusesonthepoliticaldimensionsofprayerwithreferencetoStanleyHauerwas,SamuelWellsand,amongotherliberationtheologians,LeonardoBoff.ForthosewhoseappetitehasbeenwhettedbyCocksworth’sintroductiontotheseprayerfultheologians,thereisatwenty-pageannotatedbibliographyofselectedsourcesonprayerandthisisfollowedbyanindexwhichprovidesforeasynavigationaroundthebook.Readingthebookisthetheologicalequivalentofoneofthoseeveningswhereyouspendtimesamplingfinewinesandgoodfood:theexperienceofsavouringallthesedifferentportionsisdeeplysatisfying.Myfavouriteinsightfromthebookistheideathatwhenwepray,wejoinintheeternalconversationgoingonbetweenFather,SonandHolySpirit.Willmyprayerlifechangeasaresultofreadingthisbook?Certainlythesuperficialnatureofmuchofmyprayinghasbeendisconcertinglyexposed.Ithink,forthisbooktohavealastingeffectonmyprayerlife,IwouldneedtosetasideaweeksoIcouldreadandreflectonachapteraday,andsoabsorbitintomyspirit.So,ifyouarethinkingofreadingthebookthatmightbeagoodwaytoapproachit.Andifyoustarttodelveintothebibliography,well,there’senoughmaterialthereforawholesabbatical.TimCarter,BrightonRoadBaptistChurch,Horsham

BenPugh,SCMStudyguide:PhilosophyandChristianFaith(London:SCM,2018)BenPugh’snewSCMStudyguideaddstotheseries’offeringsondoctrine,ethicsandphilosophy(PughhasalsowrittenaStudyguideonTheologyintheContemporaryWorld,andthereareseveralothersinthesamebroadsubjectareas).Thisdevelopingseries,withitsdistinctiveredcovers,comprisestextbooks‘designedforstudents,undergraduates,ordinandsandclergyattheologicalcollegesanduniversitiesorforthosepreparingforministry’andareflaggedassuitableforthosewithnopriorknowledgeofthesubject.

Imainlyteachpastoralcare(fromatheologicalperspective)andChristiandoctrine;andIamoftenlookingforsomewheretodirectstudentsforabasicoutlineofthethinkingofkeyphilosopherssuchasPlato,AristotleandKant.Ithinkthisbookwillbeausefuladditiontoabasicreadinglist,perhapsalongwithZagzebski’s(2007)PhilosophyofReligionandSimpson’s(2016)ModernChristianTheology.StudentsareeasilyoverwhelmedinthissubjectareaanditisgoodtohaveabooklikePugh’swhichis,inplaces,appropriatelychattyinstylewhiledeliveringplentyofaccurateandusefulinformation,helpfulterminologyandglossarysections,andinvaluableapplicationtoChristianfaithtoday.

Allthekeythinkersarehere,andthemainsweepsofwesternphilosophicalengagementarehelpfullyaddressed.IparticularlyadmiretwothingsinPugh’sapproach.Oneishiscommitmenttostayawayfromthedeliberateunderminingofviewswithwhichhedoesnotagree:‘Ihaveaninstinctivedistastefortheideaofhumiliatingatheistsinpublicdebate’,heoffersintheintroduction.Thisbookisnotammunitionforviolentapologetics,butanofferingofphilosophyasalanguagetounderstandthemovementsunderlyingtheshapingoftoday’sChristianworldview.

TheotherthingIlikeisPugh’suseof‘timeout’sections,inwhichhepressesthepausebuttonaftergivinginputandinvitesthereadertoreflectonarelevantquestioninethicsorthecontemporarychurch.Wearenotallowedtoconsignphilosophytothecategoryof‘abstract’or‘irrelevant’.

Althoughitisawide-rangingbook,Ididespeciallylikethechapteronpostmodernismandwillberecommendingthattoanyonewhoisstrugglingwithitasaconcept–orwhoneedstounderstandtheideasunderlyingcurrentmissiologicalconundrums.

MyonlyquestioniswhetherthecompactsizeoftheStudyguideserieshasforcedPughtocovertoomuchtooquickly.Thearrivaloftermsanddefinitionsisfastandfuriousinplaces–butitisverythorough,andthe‘time-out’sectionsandglossarieswhichpunctuatethebookshowthattheauthorisawareofthisandhastriedtoaddressitinahelpfulway.Inconjunctionwithataughtmodulethisbookisasuperresource.

SallyNelsonStHildCollege,Yorkshire

DanielL.Migliore(ed.),ReadingtheGospelswithKarlBarth(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2017)KarlBarth’sengagementinbiblicalexegesisisoftencharacterisedasthemethodoutlinedinhiscommentaryonRomans,inwhichhecalledfora‘theologicalexegesis’ratherthansimplyan‘historical-critical’method.However,hismonumentalDogmaticsandotherpublicationsshowthathewasdeeplyengagedwiththewholecanonofscripture,andthatheurged‘minuteattention’tothetextalongsideactsof‘boldimagination’.TheessaysinReadingtheGospelswithKarlBarthexplorehowBarth’s‘theologicalexegesis’and‘boldimagination’affectedhisexpositionofthegospels.Thevolume’seditorDanielMigliore

observesthatBarth’sapproachisChristocentric,attentivetonarrativeform,alerttotherichdiversityanddeepunityofthebiblicalwitness,andbasedonanassumptionthattheJesusofthetextisalsoencounteredinthelivesofthosereadingandinterpretingthem.

Thisvolumehasanillustriouslistofcontributors,whoeachaddressasaspectofBarth’sreadingofthegospelnarratives.Inthefirstchapter,JürgenMoltmanncriticallyassessesBarth’srenewalofthedoctrineofpredestination.ForBarth,thedoctrineexpressesGod’seternaldesiretobewithandforhumansthroughJesusChrist.MoltmannconcludesbygivingBarth’sreinterpretationofpredestinationapoliticaltwist,suggestingthattheirresistiblecallofGod’sgraceisalsoacalltoresistancetoinjustice.

RichardBauckham’sessayexaminesBarth’sexegesisoftheprologuefromthefourthgospel,particularlyhisinsistencethatthedivine‘word’istobeunderstoodasJesusChrist.EricGregorytakesan‘ethics’approachtotheGoodSamaritannotingthat,forBarth,theparablebearswitnesstothesurprisinggraceofGod,ratherthanmerelytheimperativetohelpone’sneighbour.WillieJamesJenningssetsBarth’sexpositionoftheRichYoungRuleragainstacontextofSwissbanksandNazimoney,notingtheinfluenceofBarth’scontextonhisexegesis.

PaulNimmosuggeststhatBarth’sreadingofJesuscompassionforthecrowdsoffersinsightsforbothanthropologyandatonementtheory,asJesus’compassionateembraceisseentoencompassallpeople.DanielMigliore,inadditiontoeditingthevolume,alsooffersapaperonBarth’streatmentoftheparableoftheLostSonincomparisonwiththatofHansUrsvolBalthasar,suggestingthatbothinterpretersspeaktoquestionsofTrinitariantheologyandhumanfreedom.KendalCoxalsoaddressestheLostSon,holdingBarth’sreadingalongsidethatofJulianofNorwich,notingthatbothseeananalogytoJesusintheLostSon,anddrawingfromtheconclusionsaboutthenatureofChristology.

PaulDafyddJones’essaylooksatBarth’streatmentofGethsemane,focusingontheprayer‘notmywillbutthinebedone’asanexpressionoffreewillandchosenobedienceonthepartofJesus.BruceMcCormackfocussesonJesus’cryofderelictionfromthecross,assessingBarth’sreadingofthisasacryofpainfromtheveryheartofGod.BeverlyRobertsGaventaoffersanassessmentofBarth’sexpositionoftheRoadtoEmmaus,whichnotesthatthemomentofJesus’revelationtothedisciplesisamomentofself-revelation.GaventashowshowBarth’sfocusontheactionofJesusinopeningthedisciples’eyestorecognisehimoffersanotherwiseoverlookedpointofcontinuitybetweenLuke’sgospelandthebookofActs,wherebyBarth’sreadingChristcontinuestorevealhimselfthroughthewitnessofthedisciples.ShannonNicoleSmytheoffersanoverviewofBarth’sexpositionoftheterm‘handingover’withintheNewTestament,drawingoutitsimplicationsforthedoctrineofjustificationandforChristianmissiontoday.

Thefinalchapter,byFlemingRutledge,isapowerfulsermonofferedindialoguewithBarth’stheology,onhowthelightofJesuscontinuestoshineinadarkworld.Thisvolumeisanenjoyableandthoughtprovokingread.ThereismuchhereforthosewhoknowBarth’sextensivecanonalready,butequallyitwill

openuphisthoughtandexegesistothosewhohavenotyetmadethemselvesfamiliarwithhiswritings.

SimonWoodman,BloomsburyCentralBaptistChurch.

SarahMelcher,MikealC.Parsons,AmosYong(eds.),TheBibleandDisability:ACommentary(Waco:BaylorUniversityPress/London:SCM,2018)ThisbookisaverysignificantcontributiontoboththefieldsofDisabilityStudiesandBiblicalStudies.Inthepasttherehasbeenatendencytofocuson‘difficultpassages’withregardstodisability,suchastheLevitical‘ban’ondisabledpriests(Leviticus21,22)orthemanyhealingmiraclesrecordedinthegospels.OneofthegreateststrengthsofthisbookisthatitprovidesabroadperspectiveonhowdisabilityfeaturesthroughouttheBible.Thewholebibleiscoveredintwelvechapters,writtenbybiblicalscholarswhoarefamiliarwithDisabilityTheology:Genesis&Exodus;Leviticus-Deuteronomy;Joshua-SecondKings;FirstandSecondChronicles-Esther;Job,Proverbs&Ecclesiastes;Psalms,Lamentations&SongofSongs;Isaiah,Jeremiah,Ezekiel,DanielandtheTwelve;MarkandMatthew;Luke-Acts;John,first-thirdJohn,Revelation;Paul;HebrewsandCatholicLetters.

ThebookiswrittenfromaUSperspectiveandsomeofthescholarsandtheextensivereferencesmaybeunfamiliartoUKreaders.Thereareseveralbriefdiscussionsofsociologicalmodelsofdisability,whichwouldhavebenefitedfrombeingaddressedtogetherintheintroduction.Inadditiontothis,adiscussionofthe‘SocialModel’oftenassumesaUSvariant,the‘MinorityGroupModel’asusedbyNancyEieslandinhergroundbreakingTheDisabledGod.ThisisusedratherthantheSocialModelthatiswidelyusedintheUK.The‘CulturalModel’referredtoseveraltimesisclosesttothe‘criticalrealist’approachtakenbyMichaelOliverandothersintheUK.Theapproachtakenbythedifferentauthorsvariesandthisisbothastrengthandweakness,providingdifferentperspectivesbutmakingstraightforwardcomparisonsdifficultattimes.ThereisanassumptionthatthereaderisfamiliarwiththeissuesraisedbyDisabilityTheologyandthewidercontextofDisabilityStudies.(Thisisawide-ranginginterdisciplinaryapproachtounderstandingdisabilitythathasbeendevelopedinthelast15orsoyearsintheUKandUS.)

TheauthorsarenotafraidtoacknowledgewhentheBiblepresentsproblematicmaterialbutratherthanaccepttheseatfacevaluetheyseektodetermineiftherearedeeperinfluencesshapingthese.BydoingthistheyexposeandutiliseaspectsoftheBiblewhichchallengesomepreconceptionsofdisability.OneimportantthemeistopointoutthatsomeconcernsoftheOldTestament,suchasinfertility,weresociallyverydisablingincontrasttothecontemporarysituationwhereIVFandrelatedtreatments,togetherwithadoption,haveallbutremovedthesocialstigmaformanypeople.Therehasbeenasimilartransformationintheattitudetowardspeoplewitharangeofskindiseases,oftenlabelledleprosy,

whicharenowtreatableandnolongerareasontoexcludepeoplefromthecommunity.

Thepictureofdisabilitythatemergesiscomplexanditisclearthattherearenoeasywaystoencapsulateabiblicalapproachtothesubject.ThisbookchallengesthecommontendencytoreadourunderstandingofdisabilitybackintothetextandprovidesresourcestogainabetterperspectiveofthecontextinwhichthevariouspartsoftheBiblewerefirstwritten.ThisenablesdisabilitytobeunderstoodaspartoftherichdiversityofhumanitymadebyandintheimageofGod.

NancyEiesland’simageofthedisabledGodfocusesontheresurrectedJesusstillbearingthemarksofcrucifixion,themarksofimpairment,whichhebringsintotheGod-head.SomeofthewritersinthisvolumeextendtheconceptofJesusasthedisabledGodintohisministrythroughtheidentificationoftheattitudestowardshimthatcountedhimasanoutsideralongwithdisabledpeopleofhisday.

Tomymindoneoftheaspectsofthisbookthathasthebroadestapplicationarethevariousdiscussionsofthemetaphoriclanguagethatbothrevealsandshapeshowweunderstanddisabilityandrelatetodisabledpeople.Thewayweusemetaphorsofsight,hearing,walkingetc.canhaveaprofoundimpactonhowdisabledpeopleareincludedorexcludedfromchurchcommunities.

Thisbookprovidesarichanddiverseperspectiveondisabilitythatwillenableanuancedapproachtodisabilityanddisabledpeopletobedeveloped.ItservesasagoodcompaniontothepreviouslypublishedDisabilityintheChristianTraditioneditedbyJohnSwintonandBrianBrock.

MartinHobgenUniversityofManchester

AaronW.White,CraigA.EvansandDavidWenham(eds.),TheEarliestPerceptionsofJesusinContext:EssaysinHonourofJohnNollandonHis70thBirthday(London:T&TClark,2018)ThisvolumeinhonourofJohnNolland’s70thbirthdaycontainsawealthofinsightfromanimpressiveline-upofNewTestamentScholars.JohnNolland’swork,bothasanacademicandaspastor,iswidelyrespected,andisreflectedinthequalityofcontributorsthatmakeupthisvolume.Eighteenchaptersistoomanytocoverinanydetail,soitiswithregretthatthisreviewleavesasidehighlyimpressiveinputfromsuchfiguresasN.T.Wright,CraigA.Evans,DarrellBock,DavidWenhamandothers.Inwhatfollows,Ifocusonlyuponthreelesserknowncontributorswhosechaptersneverthelessdeservetobestudiedindetail.Firstlythen,RobertBrawley’saccountofLukancharacterisationofthePharisees,restsuponacareer-longinterestinsociologicalanalysis,hermeneuticalrigourandastutepoliticalawareness.WhilstthePhariseesareoftenportrayedasJesus’nemesis(atleastintheearlypartofhiscareer),Brawleymakesthepointthat

seemsblindinglyobviousbutisoftenignored:namely,thateachspecificportrayalofthePhariseeshastointerpretedwithinitscontextofLuke’sunfoldingnarrative.WhensuchanapproachisbroughttoLuke’swritings,anoticeable,positivedevelopmentintheirportrayalisdemonstrablyclear.TakingthereaderthrougheachinstanceinwhichLukereportsinteractionwithPharisees,Brawleybringstobearawealthofresearchinordertopresentalucidandnuancedreading.ThisenableshimtoshowhowtoavoidthetwofolddangeroftreatingthePhariseesasasingle,homogenousin-groupthatcanbediscussedalwaysandeverywhereintermsoftheirgroupidentity,andoftreatingthePhariseesalwaysasanegative,antagonisticentity.Thepicturethatemerges(andthereadingoftheGospelsitopensup)isoneofarich,thoughtfulLukannarrativewhosecharacterscannotbereducedtotheall-too-temptingsloganizeddepictionsof‘goodiesandbaddies’.Instead,Brawley’sworkpresentsLukeasasophisticatedwriter,sensitivetothecomplexitiesofhumancharacterandhumanaction.Secondly,FormCriticismhasbeenenormouslyinfluentialinBiblicalStudies,butfromacontemporaryperspectivefeelsincreasinglynaïve,castingunwarranteddoubtoverthereliabilityofcertaintraditions,and(unwittingly)demandingunjustifiablecertaintyconcerningthereliabilityorotherwise,ofothertraditions.WhethertheJesusSeminar(onedescendantofthemovement)wasthehighorlowpointofthisapproach,thedemiseofthisverymodernmovementisindicativeoftherealitythatFormCriticismastheinterpretivemodelforBiblicalStudiesisnolongerfitforpurpose.OnealternativethatappearstobegainingtractioninBiblicalScholarship,istermed‘SocialMemoryTheory’,anapproachassessedbyThomasR.HatimainrelationtohowscholarsdealwithquotationsattributedtoJesus.Atitsbestsocial(orcollective)memoryembracesanoriginalcommunity’spreservationoftradition(itselects,remembersandsafeguardseventsandactionsthatarepertinentorcontroversial).Simultaneously,thisveryactofrememberingisitselfafilteringsystematsource.(Forinstance,multiplenewsoutletstodayshowthesamehighlightededitsofpoliticaldebatesandspeeches,independentlyofoneanother,becausethememestheyreportencapsulatewiderargumentsandconcerns).Inturn,acommunitythatreceivessuchatradition,isalsosubconsciouslyselectivewiththattradition—butsinceitseekstohonourthattradition,thisdoesnotmeanitiscreativewithitshistory.Socialmemoryrather,suggeststhat‘whatthepastactuallywas…canneverbeseparatedfromitsreception.Wecannotarriveata‘pure’pastthatwaslater‘contaminated’(279).Insum,theGospelscantellusonlywhattheEvangelistsunderstoodJesustohavedoneandsaid.However,themovement–stillinitsinfancy–islikelytoyieldnewandexcitinginsightintotheroutebywhichtraditionbecametext.Thirdly,EevaJohn’smagnificentchapteronTheologicaleducationseemstoimplythattheChristianeducationislargelyshapedbythesecular,exam-drivenhighereducationsystemdesignedforeconomicpurposesthatmayevenbeatoddswithChristianeducation.UsingexamplesfromLuke,sheproposesamodelofeducationthatembracesfarmorethanmightbeexpectedofmodernteaching.Oftenteachingissubconsciouslyregardedastheboffinatthefrontoftheclassdistributingcorrectinformation,withoutwhichthestudentswould

otherwisebeunenlightenedandignorant.Updatedmethodstoteachingoftenmaintainthisapproach,changingitsolelybybecomingmoreinterestingandmoreeffectiveatdisseminatingtheircorrectinformationabouttheworld.Evenwhilstthelanguageoftransformationhasbecomeatediousnecessity,transformationtendsstilltomeanthatpeoplewillbebetterandhappieroncetheyagreewiththeteacher.Eevaisabelieverinbothperformativeandtransformativemodelsofteaching,thatengagequestionsthatmattertostudents,encouraginginterruptionandinteraction,ratherthanmerelyattemptingtoensuretheteacherhasgottheirpointacross.‘Leavingstudentswithunansweredquestions,atleastforatime,maybeameansofenablingdeeper,moretransformativelearningtotakeplace’(p.277).Eeva’sapproachtoteachingdovetailswillrecentresearchonsynagogues(seeespeciallyJordanRyan).ThePalestiniansynagoguesofJesus’daywerestructuredasdebatingchambersratherthanaspreaching-houses,andtheirplaceinsocietywasmoreakintothetownhallthanthechurch.IfJesusisthemodelteacher,then‘asEevahasrightlyargued—goodteachingaddressesthetough,‘no-go’areasoftheday,believesinafuturebeyond‘theexam’,anddoesnotnecessarilyofferanswerssomuchasrevealthesubstructureofpeople’sphysical,mental,spiritual,socialandemotionalpatternsofthought.SimonPerryRobinsonCollege,Cambridge

JamesMastonandBenjaminE.Reynolds(eds.),AnthropologyandNewTestamentTheology(LondonandNewYork:BloomsburyT&TClark,2018)‘Whatarehumanbeings,thatyouaremindfulofthem?’JasonMastonpondersPsalm8:3-4inhisintroductiontothissummaryofNewTestamentanthropology.MatthewandMarkgetachaptereach,whileLukeiscombinedwithActs,andJohn’sgospelwiththeJohannineepistles.OtherchapterslookatPaul,Hebrews,James,PeterandJude,andRevelationrespectively.TheseNTstudiesareprefacedbythreeessaysexploringwisdomanthropology,aspectsofanthropologyinearlyJudaism,andGraeco-Romanperspectivesintheperiodfrom800BCEto200CE.ThecollectionconcludeswithanoverviewofbiblicalanthropologywhichtakesthesonofGodasitstheme,andanessayfromasystematictheologianwhichusesthebodyasalenstoexploreanthropology.ThecollectionsucceedsinitsaimofprovidingagoodwayintolookingattheanthropologyofanyNTbook,buttheessaysareallquitesuccinct,rangingfrom12to22pagesinlength,andsodonotofferacomprehensiveanalysisofNTanthropologicalthemes.Theeditorsdidimposeanyframeworkonthecontributors,encouragingtheminstead‘tofollowthetextwhereitleadsandtracetheanthropologicalthemesthatitraises’(p.4).Thisallowsthedistinctivevoiceofeachtexttoemerge,withoutbeingforcedontotheProcrusteanbedofasetagenda.Thishasalsograntedthecontributorsthefreedomtodeveloptheirowninsights,someofwhicharecloselyaligned,othersareverydistinctive.Onecangleansomeideaofeachauthor’sapproachbythetitleoftheirchapter.

Anthropologyisabroadsubject:inhisconcludingessay,Radnernotesthat‘thehumanbodyasafundamentalandnormativegiven’isnothighlightedinthemajorityoftheessaysinthebook(p.245).Healsolistsotheraspectsofanthropology:‘birth,lifespan,survival,physicalorderandrelationship,sex,procreation,toil,pleasures,suffering,weakeninganddeath’(p.249).InhisstudyonRevelation,IanPaulcitesCharlesCameron’slistofthekeycategoriesofaChristiantheologicalanthropology:‘creation,sin,salvation,divinecalling,humanresponse,personaltransformation,themindandunderstanding,emotions,thewillandsocialtransformation’,andthenaddsthebroadercategoriesdevelopedbyMarkCortezof‘imagoDei,sexuality,mindandbody,andfreewill’(p.207).Someofthesethemesareaddressedinsomeoftheessays,andtheadditionalthemeofmemoryishelpfullyexploredinKarenJobes’essay,basedonPeterandJude.Athematicindex,tocomplementtheindicesofauthorsandancientsources,wouldgreatlyhaveenhancedtheusefulnessofthisbookforanyonewantingtoexploreaparticularfacetofanthropology,particularlygiventheeditors’expressedhopethatthevolumemighthelpscholarsfromotherdisciplinesunderstandhowtheNTcontributestopresent-daydiscussions(p.4).Itmaybethatsomeoftheburningissuesoftodayarepassedoverinthisvolume,buttheNThasitsownrangeofperspectivesonanthropologyandthisvolumeintroducestheseeffectively.TimCarterBrightonRoadBaptistChurch,Horsham

SusanGroveEastman,PaulandthePerson:ReframingPaul’sAnthropology(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2017)InPaulandthePerson,EastmanseekstoexplorewhatPaulsaysaboutpeopleinthecontextofotherancientthinkersaswellascontemporarythinkers.EastmannotesthereisapuzzleaboutPaul’sunderstandingoftheperson.IntwoplacesPaulspeaksoftheselfnolongeracting,butothersdwellinginme.InGalatians,itisChristlivinginme,andinRomansitis‘sindwellinginme.’Whatwenotice,saysEastman,is‘theselfisneveronitsown’,thatis,itis‘alwaysaself-in-relation-to-others,’(pp.8,9)whichraiseawholenumberofquestions.Havingidentifiedthispuzzle,EastmanoffersathreewayconversationbetweenPaul,Epicetus(aStoic)andcontemporaryphilosopherShaunGallagher.Thesethreechapters,oneachthinker,aretechnicalandrequirecarefulreading.ItisparttwoofthebookthatIhavemosthelpful.HereEastmanoffersthreechaptersthatlookatthreedifferentPaulinepassages—Romans7,Philippians2,andGalatians2.Thefirstlooksattheimpactofsin(relationalitygonebad),thesecondtheintroductionofChrist(divineparticipation)andthethirdwhatitistobeinChrist(thesavingrelation).ItshouldbenotedthatEastmansitswithintheapocalypticPaul‘school’,sheisadiscipleofLouMartyn,andthiscomesacrossstronglyinthewaysheunderstandsPaul’slanguageofsinandtheimpactofChrist.EastmanprovidesafascinatinginterpretationofthesethreetextsthatgettotheheartofwhatPaulissaying(inherview)aboutthepersonandhowthey

relateormightbeunderstoodinlightofcontemporaryconceptions.Thesearecomplicatedpassages,butEastmannavigatesinclearwaystheirimplications.Ifinishedreadingthesechapterswantingatsomepointtodoathree-weeksermonseriesoneachthesepassageswithEastmanasmyguide.Howsin,ChristandredemptionareoftenunderstoodfailtodojusticetowhatPaulsays.AsEastmanargues,‘Paul’svisionoftheperson;hisdiagnosisandanalysisareglobalandradical’(p.125).ThebooksendswithsometentativewaystheargumentthatPaulseesthepersonalwaysinrelationalandparticipatorywaysmightbedeveloped.Eastman’schiefclaimisthatshehaspressedtheresetbuttononPaul’santhropology,thatwhatPaulsaysaboutthepersonmustbeseennotinindividualisticnotions,butinhowweparticipatein‘realitieslargerthantheself’.ForEastman‘redemptionis…amatterof…liberationfromonerealmofpowertoanother,fromtheruleofsinanddeathtolifeinChrist.’(p.177).GettingtogripswithPaul’stheologyisnevereasy.IsuggestEastman,alongwithotherslikeBeverlyGaventa,DouglasCampbell,andJohnBarclayareexcellentguides.YouwillbegreatlyrewardedbyreadingPaulandthePerson.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea

PeterJ.Leithart,Revelation.2vols.(London:BloomsburyT&TClark,2018).ThistwovolumecommentarysitswithintheT&TClarkInternationalTheologicalCommentarySeries,whichexplicitlyaimstoreconnectwith‘theecclesialtraditionofbiblicalcommentary’,andtoreflectontheBibleasHolyScriptureandasa‘witnessfromandofthetriuneGodofthegospel’.(GeneralEditors’Preface,p.vi)Attentionispaidtothecreedalandconfessionalheritageofthechurch,andtheobjectiveofthecommentaryistoilluminatethetextforconfessionalreaders.

Thisisalonganddetailedcommentary,withthetwovolumescominginatoverathousandpages,makingitunlikely(despitetheauthor’spleatodoso,p.53)thatmostreaderswillreadallofit.Rather,itisdesignedtobeused;soinadditiontothesequentialanalysisofthetext,thereareextensiveindicesofbothsubjectsandbiblicalreferences.Theintroductioncoverstheusualground:thecomplexitiesofreadingRevelationinthecontemporaryworld,itsstatusasonebiblicalbookamongmany,anintroductiontoNewTestamenteschatology,thedatingofRevelation(early:c.63-4CE),andstructure(epistolary).Leithartnotesthathiscommentaryoffersa‘unified’readingoftheApocalypse,‘asacoherentprophecyofeventsthatwere(mostly)abouttohappentoJohnandhisoriginalreaders’.Hesuggeststhatheisableto‘demonstrateacoherencethatothershavemissed’,offeringboth‘coherentunityandtheologicalsubstance’(p.52).

Theanalysisofeachpassageincludesafreshtranslationofthetext,followedbyawide-rangingessaycoveringthemes,backgroundandtheological

interpretation,ratherthanverse-by-verseanalysis.Thishasthebenefitofreleasingtheauthorfromfollowinganoverlyproscriptiveformat,butitalsomakesfindingspecificcommentonanindividualverselessstraightforward.Thereareinterestinginsightstobefoundinthiscommentary,butthisreaderfoundithardonoccasionstoworkoutwhotheintendedaudiencewouldbe.Itistoodetailedforalayreadership,andtooconfessionalforanacademicreadership.It’sintendedaudiencemightbethosepreachingRevelation,butevenherethejumpfromcommentarytohomileticsisabigone.

SimonWoodmanBloomsburyCentralBaptistChurch

LaurenF.Winner,TheDangersofChristianPractice:OnWaywardGifts,CharacteristicDamage,andSin(London:YaleUniversityPress,2018).InrecentyearstheProtestantchurchhasseen,claimsLaurenWinner,arecoveryoftheideaof‘practices’asameansoffixingsomethingin,orfor,theChurch.TheologianssuchasStanleyHauerwas,WilliamCavanaughandEugeneRogersfrequentlyextolthevirtuesofkeyChristianpracticesandtheirabilitytobeameansofresistancetootherpractices(whetherinternaltotheChurchorexternal)andtherebyastrategyof‘recuperation,repair,andreform.’(p.180).Theproblem,asWinnerseesit,isthatChristianpracticesthemselvesaresubjecttodeformationanddistortion,andthereforecanoftenendupperpetuatingdamageaswellasgood.Moreover,thisdamageshouldnotbeconsideredasextrinsictothepracticesbutintrinsic:characteristicdeformationswhichflowoutofthenatureofthepracticeinandofitselfratherthanfromanyexternalforce.

Bywayofexample,WinnerfocussesonsomeofthewaysinwhichtheEucharist,prayerandbaptismhavebecomedistorted.FortheEucharist,shedescribeshowtheincreasingvenerationofthehostintheMiddleAges,alongwiththeincreasedsenseofcommunalidentityderivedfromconsumingthathost,ledtoagrowingcontempttowardsJewsinsociety.Accusationsof‘hostdesecration’becameareason(orexcuse)forviolenceagainstJews.ItisintheEucharistthatthetensionbetweenconsumingChrist’sJewishfleshandtheon-goingrelationshipbetweenJewsandChristiansismostkeenlyfelt.Theviolence,therefore,‘…isconnectedtotheEucharistnotbyhappenstance[butratherdepends]onthecentralityoftheEucharisticsymbol.ItwasnotincidentallyEucharisticbutintrinsicallyEucharistic.’(p.35).

Forprayer,Winnerpointstothediariesofslave-owningwomenintheAmericanSouth,inwhichtheyrepeatedlyaskforGod’shelpincontrollinganddiscipliningtheirslaves.Tooeasily,Winnernotes,prayercanbecomedeformedfrombeingaplaceofintimatecommunioninwhichwebecomeattunedtothewillofGod,tobeing(inthemindoftheoneprayingatleast)areinforcementof‘divinelyordained’hierarchiesofpower.

Baptism,Winnersuggests,‘..operatesinthecleftbetweenextractingthebaptizandfromherlocalityandaffirmingthatverylocality.’(p.115)Itbecomes

deformedwhenitfailstomaintainthisbalanceandemphasiseseithertheextraction(focussingonincorporationintothebodyofChrist)or,asismoreoftenthecase,affirmation(notseveringbutformingorreinforcingfamilialandsocialties).Thelatterwasthecase,claimsWinner,intherapidgrowthofprivatechristeningpartiesinthenineteenthcentury.

Theprecedingargumentwouldappeartopointtowardsanunderstandingofthesepracticesasbeingirredeemable,andthereforeacallfortheirrejection.Thisisnot,however,thecaseWinnerwantstomake.Instead,herstatedaimisthatinhelpingtheChristianstorecognisethewaysinwhichpracticescaneasilybecomedamagedanddistorted—‘de-pristinatingthem’,touseherwords—theChurchmightcometoaplaceofconfession,repentance,lamentandreform(whilstrecognisingthattheseactsthemselveshavethepotentialfordeformation).TheEucharist,prayerandbaptismareallgiftsfromGod,whicharedamagednotinthegivingbutintheirreceptionbybrokenandsinfulpeople:‘…arecipientlikethiscannothelpbutdamageagiftlikethat.’(p.143).Thiswillbethecaseuntiltheeschaton,asonlythenwillhumanitybeabletoreceiveGod’sgiftswithoutsin.Untilthen,recognitionofthewaysinwhichthesegiftscanbecomedeformedhelpstheChurchtoguardagainstsuchdeformation,butalsohelpsustosituatetheirreceptionwithintheflowingcycleofrepentanceandforgivenessandthusreceivethesegiftsdespitetheirdamage:‘Givinganaccountofagift’sdamageisoneneedfulresponsetodamageddominicalgifts.Anotherresponseisanticipatingthatevendamagedgiftsmakepossiblegoodsthatwouldotherwisehavebeenimpossible.’(p.163)

Thisisashortbutfascinatingbook.WhetheronefindsWinner’sargumentiscompellingisuptotheindividual,andcertainlytherearemomentswhenitfeltlikethebrevityofwritingcameattheexpenseoflayersofnuanceintheargument.Thisreadercouldn’thelpbutwonderifWinner’scasewouldhavebeenstrengthenedbychoosinglessextremeexamplesofdeformedpractices,andinsteadfocussingonsomeofthemoresubtleandinsidiouswaysourpracticescanshapeus,forexampleintheinherentindividualismofcommunionorthepowerdynamicsatworkinprayer.Nevertheless,Winner’sabilitytochallengeandprovokeopensupanumberofquestionsandavenuesofexploration,andhersisavoicewhichneedstobeheardintheongoingconversationaboutthepracticalimplicationsoftheliturgicallifeoftheChurch.

JamesHenleyBudleighSalterton,Devon

ChristopherDeacy,ChristmasasReligion:RethinkingSanta,theSecular,andtheSacred(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016).Ifyoudojudgebooksbytheircover,thenthisisafestivedelight!ChristopherDeacy’syuletidehard-backbookisbeautifullybound,adornedwithjollyredribbonpatterntoppedwithagoldenstar.Insidewearetreatedtoathought-provokinganalysisofthenatureofChristmasascelebratedinthewesternworld.Deacy’sresearchinterestsoftheologyandfilmarewelldisplayedasheuses

variousformsofmediatouncoverourexpressedandunderlyingbeliefsaboutChristmas.

AfterpresentingahistoricaloverviewoffilmsandnovelsrelatedtoChristmassuchasAChristmasCarolorTheSantaClaus,hemovesacrosstotheannualBBCRadio2programme–JuniorChoice.Deacychartsthemoveoftheprogrammeinthe1970swhenitwasaregularprogrammetoitscurrentstatusasanostalgicspecialbroadcastonChristmasDay.HehighlightshowChristmassecularsongshaveperpetuatedparticularvaluesystems,suchasChrisRea’s‘DrivinghomeforChristmas’wherethegatheredfamilyathomeisprizedaboveall.HearguesthatthesongsplayedacrossmediaoutletsatChristmastimereinforcethemeaningofanon-ChristianChristmasbutequallyreligious(p.80).ForDeacyherecognisestheradio,filmandTVofChristmastobeanewandalternativereligioussiteasopposedtootherscholarssuchasRestad(p.83)whobelieveittobeanincreasedsecularisationofChristmas.

SociologyandanthropologistssuchasTurnerandEliadeareusedbyDeacytoexplorethethemeofcommunitaswhichheseesispresentinJuniorChoice,andliminalitybetweenideasofsacredandsecularChristmasideologies.Chapter4outlinestheideaofimplicitreligionasproposedbyEdwardBaileywherebyreligionispresentinordinarysecularlifebutunacknowledged(p.125)butDeacyultimatelydecidesreligioncanbeseenineverydaylifeandthereforeispresentratherthanhidden.ThefinalchapterprovidesashortanalysisofthematerialismofChristmasinwhichheanalysesmoremodernChristmasfilms,likeElforMiracleon34thStreetwhereheconcludeswhilefilmsaremadeforprofit,‘theirnarrativesareboundupwiththeimportanceofgenerosity,wonder,miracles,joy,belief,fellowship,giving,celebration,community,loveandevenredemption’(p.200).

Whilethisbookdoesnotincludeanyin-depthdiscussionaroundotherpotentiallyrichareasforresearchsuchasthevalueofgifting,foodandfeasting,excessconsumptionortheimportantoffamilygatherings,ithascausedmetoreconsiderhowreligionisperceivedandexpressedbythoseoutsidethechurch.Ienjoyedreadingthebookgreatly,anditbecameapparentindeedthatthisissurelyaperfectstockingfillerforany‘awkwardtobuyfor’persononyourlist.Itwouldmakeanidealgiftforministers,theologians,filmbuffsorfree-thinkingadultscuriousaboutourexpressionsofreligiontoday.

RuthMoriartyChristchurch,NewSouthgate,London

PeterTyler,ChristianMindfulness:TheologyandPractice,(London:SCMPress,2018),177pp.Thatmindfulnesshasrapidlybecomeacommonplaceconceptthroughoutsocietyandincreasinglyinchurchesinrecentyearscanbeshownbytwoexamples.ThefirstwasadonationreceivedthreeyearsagobytheChristianmanagerofachurchcharityshopofsomemindfulnessmeditationmaterials.Theywereimmediatelydiscardedbecauseanythingofthatnaturewasassumed

tobecovertlySatanicinorigin.YetonlythisweekIhaveseenaninvitationpublishedonsocialmediabyatraditionalBaptistchurchforamindfulnessdaytheywereorganising.ThedefinitionofmindfulnessinTyler’sworkisthatofferedbyitspioneerJonKabat-Zinn:‘payingattentioninaparticularway:onpurpose,inthepresentmoment,andnon-judgementally.’Mindfulnessisnowoftenseenemployedinschools,hospitalsandmajorcompaniesandindeedisapparentlybeingtaughttoover200MPstohelpthemcopewiththepressuresofBrexit!PeterTyler’sbookis,therefore,topicalandtimely.Withmindfulnesssowellacceptedinthemainstreamofpsychiatry,healthcare,schools,businessesandself-help,thechurchrightlyneedstoevaluateanyreflexthatdismissesallmeditationasdemonicinorigin.Towhatextentdoessucharejectionofferafairandmissionalresponsetothosewhohavefoundthepracticehelpful?Mightthisbeonemoreinstanceofthechurchwithdrawingfromlifeasactuallyexperiencedbythoseoutsidethechurch?TheauthorisProfessorofPastoralTheologyandSpiritualityatStMary’sUniversityLondon.Heisaregisteredpsychotherapist,acontributortothecurrentdialoguebetweenspiritualityandpsychotherapyandservesasco-editorofVinayasadhana,ajournalforPsycho-Spiritualformation.HebringsexpertisetobearonthetopicfrombothaChristianaswellasaBuddhistperspective.ThisisrelevanttomindfulnessintheUKsettingbecausetheconceptmostfrequentlyexperiencedherehasitsmostimmediatebasisinBuddhism.TylerexplorestheextenttowhichtheremaybemoreexplicitlyChristianrootstomeditationandmindfulnessthatmayauthenticatethepracticeassomethingappropriateandwholesomeforfollowersofChrist.EachmainchaptercoversahistoricalmovementorinfluencethatmayenableChristianstotaketheback-bearingsandfindtherootsofmindfulnessinthepracticeofthechurchthroughhistory.Eachchapterconcludeswithsomepracticalexercisesinmindfulness.TylerbeginswiththeDesertFathersofthe3rdand4thcenturies,notingthatitwouldbealmostimpossibleformodernhumankindtoreplicatetheirliteralwildernessexperienceinanageofmobiletelecommunications.Sotheexplorationisadaptedtothedesertwithin:amindfulpsychologyofthedesert.ThisisfollowedbyareviewofthepracticesoftheIberianschoolbetween1500and1700AD,inparticulardrawingattentiontothepracticeofOraciónmental,whichhedefinesasrelatinglesstomentalprayerthantomindfulnessasweunderstanditnow.TheexplorationthenprogressestoconsidertheworksofStTeresaofAvilaandStJohnoftheCrossandhowtheoración,incontrasttoamoreusualpracticeofvocalprayer,canbeintegratedintoalifeofChristiandevotionanddiscipleship.TheexplorationcontinueswithareviewofthecontributionofThomasMertonandhisrespondingtothecallofsilence.Merton’swithdrawalintoaTrappistcommunitygavehimthe‘desert’opportunitytowriteaboutpracticesrelatedtomindfulness.ThatMertonwasacomplexfigureisconfirmedbyreadinghis

work.HisexperiencesdrawnotonlyupontheDesertFathersbutalsofromSufism,HasidismandZenBuddhism.ThefinalmainchapterrelatestolivingamindfullifeintheIndiantradition.TosomeonecomingtotheconceptsdescribedherefrombeyondthecultureofsouthAsia,thisofferssomeimmediateobstaclestounderstanding,requiringaglossaryofnewtermsaswellasunfamiliarconceptstobeexplored.Ifoundthisbookpuzzling.Mindfulnessisnowaconcepttowhichthechurchmustrelate.IwelcomeanapproachtoplacingmindfulnessinthecontextofhistoricalChristianthoughtandpracticeandIfindithelpfultolearnfromtheexperienceofthosefromotherfaithsandchurchesindifferentcultures.However,Icannotreallysayifthisworkisfortheacademic,thestudentorthepastor.IdoubtitwouldfindawidereadershipinthepeworasapracticalcompaniontoaChristianexploringtheplaceofmindfulnessintheirdiscipleship.IvanKingSouthend-on-Sea

JamesM.HoustonandJensZimmerman(eds),SourcesoftheChristianSelf:ACulturalHistoryofChristianIdentity(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2018),692pp.Inhisclassicworkofasimilarname—SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity(Cambridge,1989)—Canadianphilosopher,CharlesTaylor,arguedforaninherentlinkbetweenidentityandmorality,delineatingandanalysingelementsofmodernidentity(thereby,thesourcesofmodernmorality)partlythroughakindofarchaeology,diggingintothelivesandbeliefsofthinkerssuchasPlato,AugustineandDescartes.ThefactthatJamesHoustonandJensZimmermanhavechosenasimilartitlefortheirbookismorethanmerewindow-dressing;itisacriticalendorsementofTaylor’swork.Theyhaveacceptedhisfundamentalpointaboutthesignificanceofnarrativesofidentity,aswellashisrejectionofthemodern‘subtractionnarrative’that‘humanprogressentailsthedemiseofreligion’;they,too,arguethatreligionhassomethingtoofferthemodernworld(pp.xvii,xxi-xxii).Atthesametime,though,theysuggestthatTaylordidnotgofarenoughinanalysingthe‘socialandecclesialcontextsofseminalChristianthinkers’(p.xvii).ThepurposeofHoustonandZimmerman’sbook,then,istwofold:tocontributeto‘theconstructionof…aculturalandsocialhistory,exploringwhatithasmeantforwomenandmentoidentifywithChristinverydifferentcontexts’(pp.xvi-xvii),andtofoster‘hopeandconfidence’byencouragingotherstoseetheirownlivesinrelationtoameaning-givingmetanarrativegreaterthanthemselves(p.xxiii).InseekingtofollowTaylor,HoustonandZimmermanhavesetthemselvesnosmallchallenge;SourcesoftheSelfhasbeendescribedinareviewbyAllenWood,asatonce‘massivelylearned,philosophicallysensitive,andoftenoriginal’.Yet,standingatnearly700pages,SourcesoftheChristianSelfhasatleastsurpassedTaylor’sbook(amere600pages)inlength!Itsrangeisalsoimpressive.It

consistsofforty-twohistoricalbiographies,gatheredintosevensections:OldTestament,NewTestament,EarlyChurch,MiddleAges,‘AgeofReform’,ModernWorld,andTwentiethCentury;itisunclearwhysectionfiveisnotsimply‘EarlyModern’,sincenoperiodhasamonopolyonecclesiasticalreform.Inturn,thecontributorscompriseavarietyofhighly-qualified,interesting,andeveneminentscholars,includingMarkusBockmuehlonStPeter(pp.69-83)andJanetSoskiceonDante(pp.353-66)(fulllist,pp.683-90).Forthemostpart,theeditorsmustbecongratulatedforchoosingfrommanythousandsofpossiblesubjectsandmatchingthemwithknowledgeableandsensitivestory-tellers.Atthesametime,however,itisproblematicthatabookpurportingtoshowcaseandanalyseChristianidentityfrommanyangles,hassolittlecoverageofthelivesofChristianwomen.Therearejustfourchaptersdevotedtowomen—JulianofNorwich,TeresaofAvila,AnnaMariavanSchurmanandJeanneGuyon,andChristinaRosetti—eachofwhichhasalsobeenwrittenbyafemalescholar.Thelatterisnotitselfintrinsicallyproblematic,butitdoesraisequestionsabouttheeditorialprocess;womenhavewrittenaboutmaleexperience,sowhynottheotherwayaround?Itismuchmoredisappointing,andsignificant,thatthereisnoEstherorRuth,TheVirginorMaryMagdalen,StMonica,HildegardofBingenorCatherineofSiena,ThérèseofLisieuxorTeresaofCalcutta.Afurthercriticismisthatthecollectionlacksuniformity.Somediversityofstylewasinevitable,andprobablyalsodesirable,butitwouldhavefeltmorecoherentifessayshadatleastadheredtoauniformstructure.Asthingsstand,forinstance,thereaderofHouston’scontributiononBernardofClairvaux(pp.293-311)maywellbedisappointed,havingjustreadStevenPorter’sessayonAnselm(pp.294-311),whichexplicitlyapplieslessonsfromthesubject’sownnarrativetoChristianlifeinthepresent-day(pp.291-92).Bothareinteresting,butPorter’sseemstobemoreinthespiritofthisexercise.HemarshalstheevidenceofAnselm’slifeandthoughtbehindaunifyingnarrative,the‘integratedidentity’(p.277)ofa‘humble,passionate,prayerful,God-thirstytheologian’(p.284).IhavebeenstudyingAnselmforseveralyearsmyselfandinthisportrait,Irecognisehim.Moreover,IappreciatetheAnselmianprinciplesPorterhasextractedaslessonsfortoday:toholdtogetherprayerandstudy;toreflectonreasonsasaspiritualdiscipline;todiscernvocation,seekingonlythatwhichGoddesiresforus;andtocultivatevirtue-givingfriendships.IfthereisonedeficiencyinPorter’saccount,itisthelackofexplicitattentiontoAnselm’spublicface,aboutwhichSallyVaughnandothershavewrittenmuchovertheyears.Onthispoint,Houston’sessayonBernardismoresatisfying,thoughitisalsoguiltyofsomedistortioninpresentingthetwelfth-centuryCistercianabbotasaproto-Protestant,ignoringthetenthandeleventh-centuryrootsofthereformshechampioned.Infact,throughoutHouston’sportraitthereisanoticeablelackofappreciationfortheRomandimensionofBernard’sidentity.InHouston’s(admittedlyverywelcome)expositionofBernard’sMariology,forexample,thereisnomentionofhistruereasonforopposingthefeastoftheVirgin’sconceptionatLyons(pp.309-10);namely,lackofapprovalbytheHolySee.Instead,Houstonco-optsBernardasaforerunneroftheReformation,opposingwhathedescribesas‘thediverseMariologicalheresiesofhiscontemporaries’(p.310).Forthisandotherreasons,theessayhasa

reductivequality,sounlikePorter’sessayonAnselmandsomewhatalarming,sinceHoustoniscreditedasthemain‘creativemind’behindtheentirebook(p.xxv).ThiscomparisonofjusttwoportraitsisnotmeanttocondemnHouston,whoseessaycoversmuchinterestingterrain,andevenlesstodetractfromthecollectionasawhole.Itisbothrichandfascinating,reflectingandrefractingtheChristianidentitythroughmanycompelling,embodiednarratives,unfoldedinthepresenceofGod.Asanacademicresource,itisbothaccessibleandinformative,equippingthereadertodelvedeeperintospecificnarrativesbyprovidingrich,up-to-datefootnotes.ThecritiqueofHouston’sBernardismerelyaninvitationtoreaderstobeontheirmettle;toengagecriticallyanddiscoverforthemselves,usingtheresourcessignposted,whatliesbehindandbeyondtheseportraits.ThiswillundoubtedlyyieldmanymorelessonsforChristiansstrivingtolivethegoodlifeintheworldtoday.MatthewJ.MillsRegent’sParkCollege,Oxford

MykHabets,Heaven:AnInklingofWhat’stoCome(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2018)IthinkImightmakegooduseofthisshortbookwithstudents—eventhoughitstargetgroupisfamilies,forparentstousewiththeirchildren.AlthoughinitiallyIwasn’tsurehowitwouldsitwithinthelandscapeofbooksonheavenandresurrection,IendedupfeelingthatitcouldmakeasuitableentréeforthoseministerialstudentswhomightstruggletobethrowndirectlyintothecomplexityofkeybookssuchasN.T.Wright’sTheResurrectionoftheSonofGod.

Habets’statedaimishowto‘talkaboutHeaveninwaysthatarebothfaithfultoScriptureandhelpfulforlife’.Hepresentsasummaryofscripturalinformationaboutheavenandthelifetocome;hestimulatesfamilydiscussionsaroundthequestionsthatchildrenpose;andhechallengessomeoftheunbiblicalassumptionsthatarewidelyheldevenintheChristiancommunity.HabetsteachesdoctrineatCareyBaptistCollegeinAucklandandhisabilitytoconveytheologicalconceptsclearlyisverygood—thebookisremarkablydirect,whichiswhyIthinkitmighthelpstudentsinearlystages.Itisveryreadable.

Habets’methodisakindofextendedtheologicalreflection.Eachchapterbeginswithakeyquestionthathascomefromchildren—whatisheavenlike?whowillbethere?etc—andisexploredinthreesections:Let’sListen,inwhichtheBibleisheard;Let’sTalk,inwhichthematerialisexploredandunpackedtheologically,andLet’sPlay,whichconsiderspracticalapplication.Thereisahelpfulsummaryofthemainideasattheendofeachchapter,andattheendofthebooktherearestudysectionsforfamiliesandforadults.Throughoutthebooktherearequestionsandcommentsforchildrenofdifferentages,whichfocusthemindontherealissuesarisingwithinafamilydiscussion.

Forexample,‘HowwillwerecognizeeachotherinHeaven?’asksSydney,aged9.ThediscussionhereincludesanexplorationofthebodilyresurrectedJesus’sphysicalandnon-physicalcontinuityanddiscontinuity,coverageofwhetherweareresurrectedattheageatwhichwedieandwhatthatmightmeanfor‘ageing’anddevelopinginheaven;andsomecommentsondisabilities(aparticularinterestofmyownandaboutwhichHabetshaswrittenelsewhere).Ilovedthissentence,respondingtoSydney:‘Iwouldliketothinkthatinthenewheavensandearthwewillknowpeopleinstinctively,notsimplybysightbutrelationally,bytheHolySpirit’.

Insuchabook,decisionsinevitablyhavetobemadeabouttheologicalnuance—andnoteveryonewillagreewithHabetsoneverything.Thediscussiononhell,forinstance,ismorerobustthanthatwhichonewouldcommonlyhearfrommanyUKpulpitsthesedays,andtheoveralldirectionandcitationsarefromthemoreconservativeendofpossibletheologicalsources—yetallsuchpointsaredefendedfromscriptureinanon-confrontationalandaccessiblemanner.Ireallylikedthediscussionsofjudgementandof‘rewards’inheaven,whichIthoughtwerehelpfullyarguedandbiblicallydefended.

Insummary,inadditiontothebook’sintendedusewithinfamilies,Ithinkithasaplaceasanentry-levelbookforteachingonresurrectionandheaven,readalongsidePaulaGooder’sHeavenandBody,toprovideabasepointforaccessingmoresubstantialtextssuchasWrightandThiselton.

SallyNelsonStHildCollege,Yorkshire

CeliaDeane-Drummond,APrimerinEcotheology.TheologyforaFragileEarth(EugeneOR:Cascade,2017),pp.xiv+1-167.Deane-DrummonddoesnotsetouttowriteacomprehensivetextonEcotheology,butratherproducesatasterandapreviewofwhatcanbeexplored.Thebookcomescompletewithaglossaryofthekeywordsfrequentlyusedbythosewritinginthisfield.ThereisalsoanappendixofvariousnetworksinvolvedinChristianenvironmentalactivity.Shedecidestoexploreclimatechangenotingthatwhenscientificdataisinventedoralteredthatitceasestobescience.Shethenrehearsestheevidenceforglobalwarming,lossofbiodiversity,andsheseesoneanswerinagrarianism–asympatheticworkingwithnatureinfarming.Tosupportthisthesis,shechallengesustoreadtheBibleecologicallyandtofollowthelastAdamandnotthefirst.ShedrawsfromJobthatGod’swisdomandtrutharerevealedincreation,andthatthewholeofcreationisredeemedandreconciledinChrist.Sheobservesthattheintrinsicvalue(it’svaluetoGod)ofcreationisanimportantfactor;theinterconnectedness;thekinshipbetweennatureandhumanbeings;thesharedGod-givenpurpose;andthecallonhumanbeingstocareforcreation.

Deane-DrummondnotesthatPopeFrancisandliberationtheologianssuchasLeonardoBofftakethesideofboththemarginalisedofsocietyandoftheworlditself,summedupbylinkingthecryorthepoorwiththecryoftheearth.Inasimilarway,ecofeministtheologianssuchasMaryGrey,seeecofeministspiritualityarisingfromthemarginsandoutoftheconcreteconcerns,whichlinkthedevastationoftheearthwiththethreatsposedbytheglobalisationofhumansocieties.AsaCatholic,theauthorspeakswarmlyofPopeFrancis’encyclical,LaudatoSi’,whichcallsforanecologicalconversionthroughwhichcareofcreationisanessentialpartoftheChristianfaith.ButthestrongestargumentforourChristiandiscipleshipcomesthroughherexplorationoftheincarnation(John1:1-5,ChristboththeWordofGodandtheWisdomofGod),whichsheexpressesasbeinginclusiveofotherbeingsinthesensethat‘Christsharesthesocialandgeo-biologicalconditionsofthewholecosmos’(p.75)andconcludingthat‘ifChristidentifieswiththewholesufferingearth,includingevolutionaryandecologicalaspects,thenthereisashifttoasenseofdivinesolidarityinsuffering’(p.77).Thisleadsusintounderstandingourdiscipleshipinrelationshipwiththelandandotheranimals.Deane-Drummondmaintainsthathumanbeingsoccupythemiddlegroundbothspaciallyandhistorically,bearingthedivineimageandembeddedinalifewithothers.Thus,sheconcludesthatfromanethicalposition,acknowledgingallcreaturesasgiftstooneanother,ratherthaninstrumentalobjectsforhumanuse,shiftstheethicaldiscourseawayfrommanagementtowardsappreciationandcare.Shedoesnotbelievethatwecanplaceamonetaryvalueonenvironmentalgood.Ecologicalconcernplacesusasfellowcitizenswithcreationratherthananeconomicmarketapproachwhichfindsusasconsumersofit.Herfinalchallengecomesintermsofourworship–confessionofguiltandourshareinthefailureofhumansocietiesincaringforcreation;theimportanceoftheChurchexpressingtheseconcernsinthepublicsquare;buildingacollectiveconscience;andtakingpracticalstepstochangeourownlifestyles.ThistextprovidesanecologicallyandbiblicallybasedfoundationforourthinkingaboutthecareofcreationasChristiandisciples.JohnWeaverBedford

CeliaDeane-Drummond&RebeccaArtinian-Kaiser(eds.)TheologyandEcologyacrosstheDisciplines.OnCareforourCommonHome(London:T&TClark,2018),pp.xii+261.Theeditorsaddresstheurgentenvironmentalquestionsfromamulti-disciplinaryperspective.TheytaketheirinspirationfromPopeFrancis’encyclical,LaudatoSi’,whichcallsforcareofourcommonhome.Eachoftheessaysmakesreferencetothisencyclicalanditisthehopeoftheeditorsthatthe

variouscontributionsofthebookwillinspiredeeperengagementbetweenthedisciplinesinaddressingthepressingenvironmentalissuesofourday.Thevariousauthorsconsiderthescienceofclimatechange;naturaltheologyasawayofexploringGod’sinvolvementwithcreation;socialhistoryoftheland;ecologyasameansofearthingtheology;anemphasisontheincarnation,whereGodidentifieswiththewholeofcreation;theecologicalconversionoftheworldofbusiness;moreradicalapproachestotheprotectionofcreation;theroleofpeacebuildinginthefaceofecologicalviolence;thechallengeofLiberationTheologyinaddressingthecryofthepoor/cryoftheearth;thevoicesofwomenintheexplorationofenvironmentaldegradation;sustainabledevelopmentinpoliticsandthemarket;therestorationoftheecosystems;andtheimportanceofwaterandfoodsecurity.Eachofthesethemesoffersimportantinsights,butafewoffersignificantlynewthoughtsforourtheologicaldiscussion.DavidGKirchhoffer(chapter3,pp.53-63)identifiesfourwaysinwhichtheologymightbenefitfromecology.Theempiricalobservationofneedsandharmsgivesecologyadescriptiveandexplanatorypower.Contextandpraxisareimportantasinthefactsofhuman-inducedclimatechange,thefocusisonthepotentialimpactsandoptionsforadaptationandmitigationratherthanonideologicalandpoliticalprincipals.Rolesandtheirfunctionscanalsobeausefullensthroughwhichtoaddresstheology.WhilethetranscendenceofGodisimportantindefiningGod’sessentialnatureandtheessentialnatureofhumanbeingscreatedinGod’simage,ecologyhelpsustofocusontheimmanenceofGodincreationandhistoryandGod’sroleofsalvationofhumanbeingswithinhistory.Thecontextofreligiousthoughtandbeliefisimportantinrelationships.Whilewecanconfirmtruthasanobjectiverealityitisknownandexperiencedinandthroughhistory.Ecologyallowsustoseecontingencyinmoralnorms.Normsmaydevelopovertimeinthelightofchangedrolesandrelationships.DenisEdwards(chapter4,pp.65-76)explorestheimportanceoftheIncarnationforourthinkingaboutecology,notingthatinProtestantthoughtthethree-foldrelationshipofGod,humanbeings,andcreationhasbeenreplacedbyhumans,GodandhumanredemptioninChrist.ItisrighttorecognisethatafullyChristianapproachtothenaturalworldcannotbelimitedtoatheologyofcreation,butmustinvolvebothcreationandsalvationinChrist,butthepromiseofanewheavenandanewearthshowssalvationforthewholeofcreation.ThisauthorgoesbacktoAthanasius,findingarobusttheologyofincarnation,‘wheretheWordinwhomallthingsarecreatedisalsotheWordoftheincarnation,theWordontheCross.’TheWordmadefleshispartofhumanevolutionaryhistory,andGodwithusispartofourbiologicalexistenceandthesystemsofthenaturalworld.HehelpfullyconcludeswithaquotationfromThomasTorrance(TheChristianDoctrineofGod:OneBeingThreePersons):‘Godhasdecisivelyboundhimselftothecreateduniverseandthecreateduniversetohimself,withsuchanunbreakablebondthattheChristianhopeofredemptionandrecreationextendsnotjusttohumanbeingsbuttotheuniverseasawhole.’Throughthelensofthesocialsciencesanumberofauthorsofferhelpfulinsightsintotheglobalmarketeconomy,thevoicesofradicalprotest,andthecallforsustainabledevelopment,challengingustoseetheflawsandfailingsinthese

arguments.PopeFranciscalledforanecologicalconversion,butthereisnoprospectofthiswithoutreformofthepurposesandgovernanceofcompaniesandcorporations.MarkHayes(p.86)observesthatthecorporatemindsethaslittleconcernfortheenvironmentnorthevulnerablemembersofsocietyandcallsforthecultofshareholderprimacytobedethronedandreplacedbythecorporationasacommunityofenterprise.IncontrasttomuchwesternthoughtLiberationTheologyhearsthecryofthepoorandaffirmsthattheloveofGodmustbeexpressedthroughloveofneighbour,andaddressenvironmentalissuesassocialrealitiesnotseparatedfromecologicalrealities.Globalisationhasseenthecontinuationofadisparitybetweenwealthandpowerandtheecologicalcrisishasemergedalongsidematerialpoverty.DanielCastillo(chapter8,pp.119-131)andJohnDeTavernier(chapter10,pp.149-163)discusstheflawsintheapproachofsustainabledevelopmenttotacklesuchdisparity.BothseetheBrundtlandReport(1987)asprovidingweaksustainabledevelopmentalongsideeconomicgrowth.LiketheWorldBankithasbecomeembeddedintheelitepowernetworksandhascontrolledthediscourseonsustainabledevelopment,withtheresultthatenvironmentalmovements,whichhavecalledthegrowthimperativeintoquestion,havebeensilenced.AlongwithPopeFrancistheseauthorschallengetheconsumerismofaglobalsystemthatprioritisessustaininggrowthoversustainingtheresiliencycapacityofEarth.Radicalenvironmentalismrejectsanthropocentrismandreplacesitwithecocentrismanddeepecology,whichseestheEarthassacredandworthyofreverence.ThemoremilitantgroupsadvocatedirectactionindefenceoftheEarth,butfailtorecognisethatecosystemsevolveandthatthereisnopristineconditiontowhichtheworldcanbereturned.Incontrast,MichaelYankoski(chapter7,pp.103-118)offersthereaderthechannelofpeacebuildinginaddressingtheecologicalcrisis.Heidentifiesecologicaldestructionas‘slowviolence’whereapparentlyinnocuousactionsintheshorttermhavedevastatingoutcomesinthelongerterm.Thesearedifferenttonewsworthyreportsofviolencewhichareeventfocused.TheecologicalviolenceoftheAnthropocene(themoderneraofhumans,identifiedasthemostrecentgeologicalera)emergesasdirect,structuralandculturalviolenceextendedoverlongperiodsoftime.Headvocatesaddressingthesituationthroughthemodelofconflicttransformation(ratherthanthemoreuniquecaseapproachofconflictresolution),whichseekstoattendmoreholisticallytheseunderlyingincompatibilities.RebeccaArtinian-Kaiser(chapter11,pp.167-177)takesupthethemeofecologicalrestorationthroughacomplexsuiteofpracticesencompassingwide-rangingecologicalgoalsandtechniquescorrespondingtoadiversityofdegradedenvironments.Sherecognisestheneedforamultidisciplinaryapproachrecognisingthecomplexityofhumanengagementwithlandscapesovertime.Thiswillinvolvetrade-offsandcostsintermsofhumanbehaviourandpublicinvolvement.Redemption,asconceivedbyrestorationists,seesreturningtothepastasawaytobringabsolutionandhealing.ButforChristiansitisGodwhobringsabout

redemption.ShehelpfullyquotesOliverO’Donovan(ResurrectionandMoralOrder)whosuggeststhattheresurrection(a)affirmsthegoodnessofcreation(ashavingitsownmeaningandpurpose)and(b)holdsforththepromisethat“allshallbemadealive”oneday.Itisthroughresurrectionthatcreationisbothrestoredandtransformedandmovesforwardandisenlivenedinnewways.ThechallengethroughouttheseessaysistherecognitionoftheworldasagiftfromGodandnotacommoditytobeusedandabused.Everythinghasintrinsicvalueandfood,forexample,isamaterialexpressionofGod’sloveandeatingishumanity’sparticipationintheextensionofthisdivineloveintheworld.InJohn6Jesusreferstohimselfasthe‘breadoflife’,andinthesucceedingparagraphshepointsoutthatwhatisneededisnotthefoodthattemporarilysatisfies,butthefoodthatreorientstheirlifealtogethersothattogethertheywillbecomepeoplewhocareforeachotherandprovideforeachother’sneeds.Thisrequiresalifeofdisciplineandcare.ItistheloveofGodinJesusthatredeemsandreconcilestheworld.Thus.ourparticipationintheEucharistrepositionsandreorientshumanityintheworld.Thisimpliesthatwehaveto:1)acceptresponsibilityfortheharmthatisbeingdonetothelandandcreatures;2)haveamoreeducatedapproachtoeating;3)thatChristiansshouldbemobilisersofchange.Thistextoffersarangeofusefulconceptsandchallenges,whicharewellworthexploringaswesearchforwaystoaddressthechallengesofglobalclimatechange.JohnWeaverBedford

AaronP.Edwards,ATheologyofPreachingandDialectic:ScripturalTension,HeraldicProclamationandthePneumatologicalMoment(London:T&TClark,2018),245pp.Inthisbooktheauthorseekstoprovideatheologyofpreaching.Itisatheologywhichcangivepreachersconfidencetoproclaimonanyoneoccasionatimely,immediate,andauthoritativemessagefromGod.ThistypeofpreachingissomethingtheyshouldbeabletododespitetherealityofScripturaldialectics,whenwheredifferentportionsofScriptureappeartocontradictoneanother.Todothis,hebringsintoconversation,thenatureofScripturaldialectics,thenotionofthepreacherasaherald,andtheoperationoftheHolySpiritinthepreachingevent.

Inchapter1,EdwardsintroduceshiscentraltopicofhowapreachercanknowthespecificmessagethatGodwantstosaynow,inthelightofthemanyScripturaloptionsavailableandthepotentiallyconflictingviews(dialectical)foundindifferentScripturalpassages.Inchapter2,hearguesthatScripturaldialectics,suchastheapparenttensionbetweenthesignificanceoffaithandworksasseeninPaulandJames,existwithinafundamentalcanonicalandtheologicalunityandclarity.Inchapter3,hesurveysvariousphilosophicalandtheologicalunderstandingsofdialectics.Fromthissurvey,heidentifiesfour

primarydialecticalmodes:paradoxical,harmonized,hierarchical,andantagonistic.ThetensionsinScripture,hemaintains,canbeinterpretedatanyonepointinthesevariousways.Inchapter3,hearguesthattheconceptofthepreacherasanauthoritative‘herald',sentwithamessagefromGodthroughtheexpositionofScripture,isatheologicalreality.HepositsthisincontrasttowhatheseesasthediminishingofthisunderstandingofpreachingthroughtheanthropologicalemphasisoftheNewHomiletic.HethenillustrateshowthepreviouslyidentifiedScripturaldialecticbetweenfaithandworkscouldbevariouslyinterpretedbyheraldicconfidence.Inchapter4,hediscussestheroleandactivityoftheHolySpiritinsuchheraldicexpositorypreaching.Thisactivity,hemaintains,whileretainingcloseattentiontotheexpositionofScripture,meansthatpreachingshouldbeunderstoodasapneumatologicalmomentspecificforthecircumstancesandcontext.

Thisbookisadetailed,rigorous,andcopiouslyreferencedandfootnotedpresentation.Inthisandinstyle,itdemonstratesitsbasisinaPhDthesis.Itaddressesseveralquitesignificantissuesinhomiletics.Iresonatestronglywithanumberofthese.Theseinclude,theimportanceofpreachingasapracticeintheChurch.Thenecessityforatheologyofpreaching.TheholdingtogetherofScriptureandSpirit.Therefusaltofullyidentifyteachingandpreaching.Theconceptofaspecificpreachingmomentthatdoesnotseektoharmonisedifferencesinsomesystematicexplanationbuttodeliveraparticular,‘prophetic',message.

TheabovesaidEdwardsdoesmaketwoimportantacknowledgements.Oneoftheseisthattheissueheseekstoaddressisonlyparticularlypertinenttothosewhoacceptthetheologicalrealityofthepreacherasaherald.Thisacknowledgementhighlightsamoregeneralpointthatwhilehisworkisundoubtedlycoherent,itwillnotbeentirelyconvincingtothosewhodonotacceptsomeofhistheologicalclaims.So,forexample,Idonotsharetheideathatpreachingcanbereducedtotheonedominantimageoftheherald,evenwhenclaimedasatheologicalreality,nordoIfullysharehiscritiqueoftheNewHomiletic.This,ofcourse,doesnotmakehimwrongandmeright,itis,however,toacknowledgethatthesearecontestedissuesandthattherecanbemorethanonetheologicalapproach.Thesecondacknowledgementisthathisworkisintendedtobeconceptualandtheologicalratherthanpractical.Icertainlyagreethatweneedwritingonpreachingthatgoesbeyondthe‘howto’.Yet,attimesIfoundmyselfasking,butwhatdoesthisactuallylooklikeinpracticebeyondtheconceptualunderstandingofferedandthereferencestothepreaching‘greats’?Ialsofoundmyselfresistingwhatappearedtobealeasttheimplicitargumentthatifsomehowthepracticedoesnotmeasureuptothisideal,thenbydefinitionitisnotpreachingproperly,theologicallyunderstood.

ThisbookisaworkwhichseekstoengageavarietyofthemesnotleastpreachinganddialecticsandtodosoinawaythattreatsseriouslyandtheologicallyScriptureandSpirit.Whetherornotreaderswillacceptallofhisarguments,itisabookthatrequirestheattentionandrespectofthosewhowouldwishtodeveloptheirowntheologyofpreaching.Thisisthecasenotmerelyfortheanswersitprovides,buttheissuesitraises,andthedetailinwhichhediscussesthem.

StuartBlytheAcadiaDivinityCollege,NovaScotia,Canada.

TimofeyCheprasov,LikeRipplesontheWater:OnRussianBaptistPreaching,Identity,andthePulpit’sNeglectedPowers(Eugene:Wipf&Stock,2018),152pp.InrecentyearstheEnglish-speakingworldhasbeenopenedtotheimportantdevelopmentswhichhavetakenplaceamongstthebaptisticcommunitiesoftheoldRussiaImperialEmpireanditslatermanifestationsintheSovietEmpireandbeyondthatinthefreeandindependentstateswhichemergedintheaftermathofthecollapseoftheUnionofSovietSocialistRepublicsintheearly1990’s.PriortothatandbeyondthebordersoftheSovietEmpire,theglobalnorthhadonlyalimitedunderstandingofthevirtuesandpracticesoftheoft-persecutedbaptisticcommunitieswhichcontinuedtoexistand,inmanycases,develop,despitethebesteffortsofJosephV.Stalin,NikitaS.Kruschev,LeonidIBrezhnevandtheSovietpolitburomemberstocrush,suppressandeliminatethem.SomeknowledgeofthereallivesofthesebelievingcommunitieswaspossiblethroughthevalianteffortsofwesternBaptistleaderssuchasEAPayne,DSRussell,DentonLotzandGerhaardClaas,whotookeveryopportunitytogetbehindthe“ironcurtain”andmeetbaptisticbelievers.Today,theecclesiallife,work,worshipandmissionofthesebaptisticcommunitiesthroughalongperiodofonehundredyearshasbecomeaccessibletousbyauthorsfromthewestsuchasWalterSawatsky,MaryRaber,AlbertW.WardinandGregoryL.Nichols,manyofwhomhavebeenintimatelyassociatedwiththeInternationalBaptistTheologicalSeminary,locatedinPraguefromthemid1990’s,throughuntilthemid2000’s,whenitrelocatedandwasre-formedastheInternationalBaptistTheologicalStudyCentreassociatedwiththeVrijeUniversityinAmsterdam.ThankstotheuntiringeffortsoftheacademicteamatIBTStherehasbeenraisedupagenerationofyoungerscholarsfromRussia,Ukraine,Lithuania,Kazakhstan,EstoniaandelsewherewhogrewupintheoldSovietEmpireasbelieversinthesebaptisticcommunitiesandarenowdevotingthemselvestothetaskofunderstanding,analysingandofferingtoawiderreadershiprespectableandauthenticaccountsofthelifeandnatureofthebelieverschurchesduringaperiodofrepressionandpersecution.LinaToth(neeAndronovienė),ToivoPilli,MeegoRemel,ConstantineProkhorov,LeonidMikhovich,AlexanderPopovandothershavedeeplyenrichedourappreciationofbelievingcommunitiesinthelocalsettingSovietbytheirdedicatedresearchandpublications.Timofey(Tima)CheprasovisanotherofthisyoungerIBTSgenerationofablescholarsnowservingasministerofBuryBaptistChurchintheNorthWestBaptistAssociation.HegrewupinaBaptisthomeinVoronezhinwesternRussiaandwasbaptisedintothechurch.Havingaskillwithlanguages,heplayedacrucialroleinthedevelopmentofaSchoolofPreachingformedattherequestoftheRussianBaptistleadershipbytheInternationalBaptistTheologicalSeminary,

thenbasedinPrague,in1999andwhichworkedoutofBryanskinsouthwestRussiaundertheinspiredleadershipofDavidMBrown,amemberoftheIBTSFacultyandanauthorityonpreaching.Thebookdevelopedoutofthatpreachingschool,TransformationalPreaching,continuestobewidelyusedasatextbookinRussia.ItwastranslatedfromDavid’sEnglishmanuscript,byTima.David’sinfluenceandencouragementledTimatostudyatIBTSinPrague,wherehegainedaMastersdegreeintheologyandlateraDoctorate,onwhichthisbookisbased.ForTimaanimportantquestionhasbeenhowthechurchinRussiahasbeenformedandshapedoverthepastonehundredyearsbytheweeklyexpositionoftheWordinthemainSundayservice.ThecommonpracticeamongstmostBaptistcommunitiesinRussiahasbeen(andformanyitstillis)tohavethreesermonspreachedintheprincipaltwohouractofworship.Thisexposuretopreachinghasbeenformativeinshapingthebelievingcommunities.HehasexperiencedfirsthandweekbyweektheworshipandpreachingofaRussianBaptistchurch,butinhisresearchhehassoughtthehelpofothers,fellowstudentsatIBTS,churchesinRussiabybothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchtoexploretherelationshipbetweenthepreachingministryandthevirtuesandpracticesofthecommunitiesinwhichthepreachingtakesplace.InthisrecentlypublishedbookTimaseekstoexploretheidentityoflocalRussianBaptistcommunitiesbasedonhisownexperience,researchandmaturereflectionofthepresentrealties.TimaexploresthewayOrthodoxyisbuiltintotheRussianspiritualcommunityandhepicksoutseveralkeythemesoftheosis,sobornostandcharismaticpreachingtoreflectonthewaybaptisticcommunitiesdeveloped.Tima’sreflectioninteractswiththetheologicaldiscourseofJWMcClendon,Junior,andhisnoteablethreevolumeSystematicTheologyandtheinfluenceofMcClendon’swritingandofhisfriend,ParushRParushev,canbeseeninTima’swork.TimasearchesforinsightsastohowthisheavydoseofRussiansermonisingbothshapes,andisshapedbythebelievingcommunities.Hecomestotheconclusionthatthepracticeofpreaching,filledwithinherentdangers,isoffsetbythesupportofBiblereadingcommunallyandthedevelopmentofcommunalhermeneuticsguidedbytheHolySpirit.MostBritishBaptistsexperienceonlyonesermonaSunday.Nevertheless,perhapsweneedtoreflectoneventhedangersofonetwentyminutemonologueifitexistsapartfromacommunitywherecommunalhermeneuticsarepracticed?Inevitably,whilstthisbookopensupinaremarkablewayimportantaspectsofRussianbaptisticlifeatthegrassroots.IbelieveitprovidesvitalmaterialforreflectionforallwhoengageintheworkofformationforthoseseekingtoministertobelievingcommunitiesnotonlyinRussia,butalsoelsewhere.KeithGJonesBaptistHistoricalSociety

JohnHughesandAndrewDavidson(eds.),TheGodWeProclaim:SermonsontheApostles’Creed(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2017)ThiscollectionofsermonswereoriginallydeliveredatJesusCollegein2013.It'sasecondcollectionofsermonsfromthecollege,anearliersetgatheredtogetherundertheheadingTheUnknownGod:SermonsRespondingtotheNewAtheism.(ForanotherexampleofsimilarkindofcollectionseealsoHeresiesandHowtoAvoidThem).ThiscollectionfeaturesJanetMartinSoskice,SimonGathercole,AnnaWilliams,ChristopherCocksworthandSamWellsamongstthepreachers.TheideaofasetofsermonsontheApostle’sCreedisnotnovel,manypreacherswillperhapshavedoneasimilarkindofexercise.AndthisbookwillsitonmyshelfnexttovariousotherreflectionsonthisCreed,joiningmostrecentlyBenjaminMyer’sexcellentshortaccount.ThisshortbookwouldmakeanexcellentgifttoanewChristian,andwouldalsotheaidpreachernexttimetheycometodothatseriesontheCreed.Teachingthefaithisavitaltaskinanygeneration.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-SeaStanleyHauerwaswithRobertJ.Dean,MindingtheWeb:MakingTheologicalConnections(Eugene,OR:Cascade,2018).PeoplekeepinvitingHauerwastospeakorpreachandsohekeepspublishingtheresults.Herethenisanotherbookofessaysandsermons.SermonshaveincreasinglybecomeoneofthekeymodesHauerwasdoestheology(seeDisruptingTime,TheCross-ShatteredChurchandWithoutApology).Alongsidethe22sermonsinthiscollectionareessaysonJeanVanier,Bonhoeffer,Kierkegaard,JohnHowardYoderandaresponsetoTrump.TheessaysonYoderandTrumpmanywillhavealreadyonline(theywerepostedontheABCReligion&Ethicswebsite).ThetitleofthisnewcollectioncomesfromRobertDean,whohadeditedthisbooktogetherandprovidesanintroductionandepilogue.(DeanwrotehisdoctorateonHauerwasandBonhoeffer.)TheintroductioncomparesHauerwaswithPeterParker/Spiderman,bittenbythetheologybug.DeanarguesthatHauerwas’workisbestunderstoodasapocalyptic—centredonJesusChrist.DeanpicksupHauerwasuseofthemetaphorofthewebasadescriptionoftheology,soanotherreasontocallhima‘kindofSpiderman’!TherevelationofJesushascreatedweb,andHauerwasunderstandsthetaskofthetheologianasonewhichtendstothatweb—‘torepair,discover,andmarkarticulatetheconnectionsnecessaryforChristiansfaithfullytomaketheirwayintheworld’(p.11).DeanhasprovidedahelpfulserviceinhighlightingthiswayofdoingtheologyinHauerwas.

IntheepilogueDeancomparesHauerwas’styleofpreachingtothoseofAndyStanley,foundingpastorofNorthPointMinistires,Inc.Stanleyarguesforpreachingthatmajorsonapplicationandinspiration,whichofcoursearebothsorelylackinginthesermonsofHauerwas.DeannamesHauerwasasdelivering‘pointlesspreaching’inthatHauerwasbelievespreachingneedstobeattentivetothebiblicaltext(andoftenwiththelectionarymorethanonetext).Hauerwas’sermonsarebasedontheconvictionthatinscriptureisawordweneedtohearandthatthetriuneGodmakesusholy,thatis,asheasalreadysaid,hissermonsarethebestdemonstrationagainsttheclaimthatHauerwasdoesn’tdotheology.WhileStanley’ssermonsseektohelptheindividualtransformtheirlives,Hauerwasseesthatthetransformationofourlivesistheworkofscripturere-definingourlivesthroughthestoryittells.TheessaysandsermonsarethenjustanotherexampleofHauerwasseekingtomaketheologicalconnectionswiththeexemplarministriesofVanierandBonhoefferandinthecontextofYoder’sabuseandTrump’spolitics.WhiletherehasbeensomethingofabacklashagainstHauerwas—inparticulartheresponsetotheYoderessayhasbeendivided—Istillfindhimoneofthemostinterestingtheologicalthinkersandwriters.AndyGoodliffBelleVueBaptistChurch,Southend-on-Sea

RichardHarries,HauntedbyChrist:ModernWritersandtheStruggleforFaith(London:SPCK,2018)240pp.RichardHarrieswillbeknowntomanyasformerlyBishopofOxfordandsomeonewithabroadrangeofinterestintheology,medicine,literatureand,fromhisseatintheHouseofLords,humanrights.HeisacontributortoRadio4.Inthislatestwork,heselectsaslateoftwentysignificantauthorsofhischoosingwhoaddressedmattersoffaithintheirwritings.By“modern”heincludeswritersspanningDostoevskytoMarilynneRobinson.HelooksateachauthorthroughthelensofoneormoreoftheirwritingstosetdownhowtheypresentedkeyissuesTheadvancecopythatIreceivedcarriedwhatIassumewasaworkingtitle“Whyarewehere”onthefrontcover,followedbythesubtitle,andthepublishedtitleasaboveonthespine.(PresumablyHauntedbyChristwasthemorearresting).Buttakentogether,theyneatlycapturethethreemaintypesofwriterspresented:thosewhobroadlywritefromwithintheChristiantraditionevenifnotalwaysuncritical(C.S.Lewis,ElizabethJenningsandT.S.Eliot);thosewhowritefromDoverBeachintheebbtideoftraditionalbelief(R.S.Thomas,MarilynneRobinsonandFlanneryO’Connor)andthoseoutsidethetraditionyetwhoarestill“hauntedbyChrist”-oratleastpursuethemestraditionallyassociatedwithfaith(SamuelBeckett,StevieSmithandPhilipPullman).Theseshortessaysofferabriefintroductiontothewriterfollowedbyanalysisoffaiththemesthathavegrippedthem.LordHarrisisaperceptivecommentator,

illustratinghispointsfromthetexts.Itisgoodtoberemindedthattheologians,historiansandpastoralcommentatorsdonothaveamonopolyonthesearchformeaninginasometimesapparentlyrandomexistence,exploringtheseriousnessandjoyofthehumancondition.Iftherearenosurprisesinthechoiceofsubjects,nonethelessitisgoodtorevisitauthorsormaybefindforthefirsttime.Thesehavewrestledwiththecontoursofthehumancondition:ofsinandgrace,oftemptationandredemption,ofholinessintheeverydayandtheexceptional-eveniftheydidnotalwaysuseacceptedreligiousterminology.AseverinanycollectionitisinvidioustoidentifyoneessayagainstanotherbutIfoundtheexplorationsoflessanticipatedgemslikeStevieSmith,ShusakuEndoandWilliamGoldingcaughtmyattention.Abooktodipintoratherthanreadinonesitting,LordHarriesbringsathoughtfulappreciationtohissubjects.Allbartwooftheauthorsaredead.Thisvolumetomecriesoutforasuccessor(maybeithasalreadybeencommissioned)thatwillmovefrommoderntocontemporarywriters,wheretheinfluenceoffaithhasfurtherrecededinWesterncivilizationandyetstillfindsthosewhowrestlewiththegreatthemesoffaithintheirowncontextbystoryorpoetry.MaybeBenjaminZephaniah,MargaretAtwoodorJ.K.Rowling,(Regent’sParkCollege’salumnus)MichaelSymondsRoberts,orperhapsthelateDennisPotterwouldbecandidates.Contemporarysongwritersmightalsobethoughtworthyofinclusioninsuchavolume,ormaybedeserveonebythemselves—althoughprobablynotbyLordHarries.StephenCopsonCentralBaptistAssociation

PaulBeasley-Murray,RetirementMattersforMinisters(Chelmsford:CollegeofBaptistMinisters,2018)PaulwasspurredintoactionbyconversationswithretiredBaptistministerswhofeltmarginalised.Hesetouttoconductaqualitativesurveybasedon17face-to-faceinterviewswithministersfromtheEasternBaptistAssociationandafurthergroupof36fromassociationsacrossthesouthernhalfofthecountry,whocompletedanextensivequestionnaire.Threeofthosewhoansweredthequestionnairewerewomen,althoughalltheface-to-faceintervieweesweremen.PaulstatesthattheEasternBaptistAssociationhasonlyoneretiredwomanminister,whoisnotingoodhealth.Thefirstsectionofthebookrecountstheface-to-faceconversations.Pauldescribestheseministersas‘heroesofthefaith’whohaveexperiencedthehighsandlowsofministryandoflife.Whilemanyoftheseinsightsarevaluable,overall,Ifeltthattheyexpressedagreatdealofnegativity.Werecognisethatourreflectionsonlifeandministrywillalwaysbeaffectedbyourindividualexperiences.Iamawarethatmyownpositiveexperienceoflifeandministryhasshapedmyownreflections.ThisisnottosaythatIhavenotexperiencedsomeofthemoredifficultsituationsrecounted,butIhaveseentheseasplacesforfurther

growthandreflection.Theconcernaboutthepastoralsupportandfriendshipsexperiencedbytheseministersseemedone-sided.Whiletheysaidthattheyrarelygotinvitedtothehomesofotherpeople,theauthordidnotaskhowoftentheseretiredministersinvitedpeopleintotheirownhomes.Asoneoftherespondentssaid:‘Ittakestwototango!’Itisdifficulttoanalyserelationshipsbetweenministersandchurches,whichareoftencomplexandaffectedbypowerstrugglesandtheologicalpositions,andwemightwonderhowmuchtheexperiencesrecalledbytheseministersreflectedtheirownpersonalities.Itwouldalsobeinterestingtoknowhowdifferenttheanswerstomanyofthequestionsaboutrelationshipsandfriendshipswouldhavebeenifaskedwhiletherespondentswereinministryasopposedtowhenretired.Itiswellattestedbyotherauthors(suchasAlbertJewell’sworks:SpiritualityandAgeing;Growoldalongwithme;Ageing,SpiritualityandWell-being;JamesWoodward,ValuingAge.PastoralMinistrywithOlderPeople;andRichardRohr,FallingUpward.Aspiritualityforthetwohalvesoflife)thatretirementbringsalossofstatus,positionandraisond’être,whichmaywellbereflectedinthemorenegativeanswersaboutchurchandrelationships.Thesecondsectionofthetextdiscussestheretirementexperience.TheauthorcertainlylaysthefoundationforchallengingtheUnionandtheAssociationstoexploreandputintopracticeourBaptistconceptofcovenantingtogether.Readersmightusefullygivetimetoexploringthenatureof‘covenant’andexamininghowthisisunderstoodandwhatareitsimplicationsfortherelationshipbetweenministersandchurches,Associations,andUnion.Maybeanotherareathatmighthavebeengivenmoreattentionistheunderstandingofordination,whetherthisisfunctionalorsacramental.Ifcallingandordinationareseenassacramentalthenotheraspectssuchascovenantalrelationshipsandcontinuingministryfollow,whichsomeoftherespondentsrecognised.Inconductingtheinterviews,Ibelievethatanopportunitywasmissed.Forwhilethespousesofthesemaleministerswerepresent,theirownreflectionsandfeelingswerenotsought.Thiscouldhavetakentheformofasecondinterview,andwouldhavegivenanaddeddepthtotheanalysis.Thethirdsectionofthebookexploresthechallengepresentedbytheseinterviewsforthosewithpastoralresponsibilityforretiredministers.ThesenseofdiscontentandbeingignoredbythewiderBaptistfamilyneedstobeaddressed.ThechallengetolearnfromtheAnglicanpatternishelpful:preparationforretirementandthedeploymentofretiredclergy,especiallyatatimewhenmanychurchesarewithoutpastoralministry.

Paul’ssurveyrevealssomedisturbingpicturesofrelationshipsbetweenretiredministersandtheregional/nationalBaptistleadership.IdobelievethatweneedsomedegreeofhonestcriticismofthewayinwhichourUnionandAssociationstructureshavedevelopedinrecentyears.Wemightaskwhetherwehavereplacedcovenantwiththetrappingsofmanagement:contractualarrangements,organisation,power,authority,andcontrol?

ThistextisausefulsnapshotofretirementfromasmallsampleofretiredBaptistministersandisachallengetoministersinpastoralministry,whohaveretiredministersintheircongregations,andtothoseregionalministersinwhosepastoralcaretheyreside.Toalloftheserespondents,togetherwithusthereaders,IwouldunreservedlyrecommendFallingUpwardsbyRichardRohr,whichtakesapositivelookatgrowingoldandretirement.IwouldalsorecommendRohr’sworktoallinministry,encouragingustoreflectonthemeaningandpurposeofourlivesinChrist,beforeandafterretirement.JohnWeaverBedford