On Books

Review: Life’s Edge

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Life’s Edge: The Search for What It Means to Be Alive, Carl Zimmer. New York: Dutton, (forthcoming) 3/9/2021.

Summary: An exploration of how scientists attempt (and have failed) to define what life is and the quest to understand how life arose.

Philosophers talk about the meaning of life. Carl Zimmer offers us a glimpse into the world of scientists who are trying to define what is life. What is the definition of life and when can something be defined as alive? What about particles like viruses and prions that appear dead until they interact with other living matter? And how did life originate here, and has it in other places in our solar system and beyond?

Zimmer takes us on an exploratory tour of this question that begins in the Cavendish Laboratory in 1904 with John Butler Burke who believed he had created the missing link between inorganic and organic life when he released grains of radium into a sterile broth and discovered under a microscope that shapes were there and were dividing. He called them radiobes and he believed that the radium provided the “vital flux” to turn the constituent elements into blobs of protoplasm. Eventually, he was disproven by other scientists after enjoying fleeting fame.

Zimmer takes us through the history of research on life from van Leeuwenhoek’s discoveries of microscopic life, to the growth of neural networks in laboratories. We go with him to pools near the mouths of volcanoes where some think organic life developed to discussions with researchers studying vents in the ocean. We enter caves to learn of the homeostatic relationship between hibernating bats and parasites who live off them and can kill them if they draw too much energy from the bat. We read of research demonstrating the lifelessness of soil samples on Mars and a meteorite from Mars that may evidence signs of life. I learned that red blood cells have no chromosomes and cannot divide and multiply like other cells.

Zimmer recounts the efforts of scientists to re-create the conditions under which they think life arose, whether it is in forming a strand of RNA or figuring out how to form a lipid membrane of the sort that surrounds every cell. Some scientists believe that the constituents of life have to come together fast, within 10,000 hours, because of the entropic forces that would destroy the constituents. That leads some to believe that they will achieve this in the next ten years.

In the end, he comes back to the question of the definition of life, cataloging the many scientists have proposed. He introduces us to Carol Cleland, a philosopher of science who thinks the whole enterprise is flawed and that what is needed is not a definition of life but a theory of life that helps us understand what life is.

As one reads Zimmer’s account, one realizes what is so fascinating in this quest to understand life and how it is possible. Zimmer introduces us to so many forms of life and the wonder of a planet teaming with life from microbes to every other form of life including ourselves. Some religious believers dismiss this whole quest to understand life and its origins with a wave of the hand saying, “God did it.” I’m not so quick to dismiss these quests. I realize some see nothing beyond the physical reality. Others, and I include myself here, would recognize in every scientific discovery the wonders and wisdom of God. If someone replicates the physical processes by which life arose, I will be delighted rather than distraught. My faith doesn’t rest on the gaps in our knowledge remaining gaps.

Zimmer gives us a glimpse at the reality of science. He shows us both the amazing things we are learning about the world, and the questions that remain, some on which multiple generations of scientists will work. He shows us the mistakes, and the ways that continued research and the rigorous peer review processes of science correct those mistakes. He shows us the big questions and what we still don’t know. This is great science writing!

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher via Edelweiss. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Sinless Flesh

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Sinless Flesh: A Critique of Karl Barth’s Fallen Christ, Rafael Nogueira Bello. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020.

Summary: Drawing upon the doctrines of inseparable operations, grace of union and habitual grace, and original sin, argues against the contention of Barth and Torrance that the Son of God assumed fallen human flesh in the Incarnation.

You probably never discussed this question in Sunday school: was the human nature assumed by the Son of God sinless or fallen? We may have discussed this in seminary, but if so, it made no impression on me. Nevertheless, it distinguishes two giants of the twentieth century, Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance from most theologians in church history including Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin.

The author of this monograph argues that Barth and Torrance get it wrong. He doesn’t see this as heresy because both affirm the orthodox convictions that Christ was without sin and the relation of the two natures in one person. However, he would argue that this proposal has impact upon trinitarian relation, weakens the orthodox understanding of the hypostatic union of the two natures, and reflects a flawed understanding of original since with implications as to how Christ can act as the second Adam on our behalf.

Bello draws upon three doctrines to highlight the deficiencies in the idea of the Son of man assuming a fallen nature or what is considered non assumptus. First, the doctrine of inseparable operations is the idea that all three persons of the Trinity act as one. The assumption of a fallen nature would require separate operations of the Spirit to perfect what is effected by the Father and Son. Likewise in orthodox theology, the grace of union precedes habitual grace in the life of the incarnate Son. This is reversed in Barth and Torrance involves a growth in grace before the grace of union but raises questions about the hypostatic union of these natures if one grows into union with the other. Finally, the non assumptus view reflects a defective view of original sin. If, as is held in post-Calvin Reformed theology, original sin includes original guilt (that all of us sinned in Adam and are therefore guilty with him, then assuming a fallen nature means assuming Adam’s guilt and raises the question of whether Christ can act as the second Adam through whom we are made righteous (Romans 5:19).

Bello makes a strong case if one accepts the logical inferences drawn in his theological discussion. My hunch is that Barth and Torrance would not accept these inferences. At the beginning of this monograph, Bello quotes Gregory of Nazianzus, who in another context stated, “that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” He sees Barth and Torrance applying this idea to the fallen human nature. I fail to be convinced by Bello’s argument that a Son who had assumed a sinless human nature could “learn obedience” and be like us in all ways except for sin. It seems that one who bears Adam’s guilt without recapitulating Adam’s sin but rather bear’s humanity’s sin and Adamic guilt is truly the second Adam whose obedience makes the many righteous.

What my challenge is, being new to this discussion, is thinking through his argument. Does non-assumptus necessarily compromise inseparable operations? Does non-assumptus jeopardize our understanding of the hypostatic union of the two natures. Does original sin imply original guilt (which Calvin did not affirm)? And even so, does this call into question Christ’s fitness to serve as the second Adam? Bello makes a careful and rigorous argument deserving careful consideration. It both made me think, but also reflect on how what we believe about one thing has implications for other matters. I am also grateful for the irenic spirit of Bello’s argument. Difference is not always heresy, and one’s perception of a real weakness in the thought of another does not, for this scholar, diminish his respect for the substantial contribution of Barth and Torrance to the theological enterprise. All in all, this is a fine monograph and I look forward to further theological writing from this scholar!

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Reading While Black

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

Reading While Black, Esau McCaulley. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020.

Summary: A study of biblical interpretation in the traditional Black church that emphasizes the conversation between the biblical text and the Black experience and how this sustains hope in the face of despair.

Esau McCaulley describes his journey from southern roots to white evangelicalism and progressive scholarship and back to the Black church tradition. He recognized that both evangelical and progressive traditions didn’t offer the wherewithal to deal with the Black experience of slavery and racism and to sustain hope amid despair. McCaulley found this by going back to the Black church, both its biblically rooted resistance to slavery and injustice, and its message of hope of liberation, not merely spiritual but in terms of bodily status.

McCaulley offers this description of biblical interpretation how one reads the Bible while Black:

  • unapologetically canonical and theological.
  • socially located, in that it clearly arises out of the particular context of Black Americans.
  • willing to listen to the ways in which the Scriptures themselves respond to and redirect Black issues and concerns.
  • willing to exercise patience with the text trusting that a careful and sympathetic reading of the text brings a blessing.
  • willing to listen to and enter into dialogue with Black and white critiques of the Bible in the hopes of achieving a better reading of the text.

The next six chapters address issues facing the black community and how the tradition of Black church reading of scripture addresses each. The issues are: policing, political witness, the pursuit of justice, Black identity, Black anger, and slavery. The treatments are not exhaustive but are meant to point toward the resources of biblical interpretation open to the Black community. The concluding chapter centers on hope, which is the outcome of engaging the biblical text and looking for answers to these pressing issues. A “bonus track” goes further into the ecclesial, or church-centered aspect of this approach to biblical interpretation.

I will not go through McCaulley’s discussion of the six issues but focus on the first as an example of the approach he commends. First he begins with context, and his own experience of being stopped by police while at a gas station, as he was driving friends to a party. He then turns to Romans 13:1-2, often weaponized against the Black community. He observes how we often look at the instructions for citizens without considering the powers subject to God, and why, in Paul’s context the recipients of his letter are subjected to an evil empire by God. What the passage raises is a form of theodicy. McCaulley reads this passage canonically, setting Rome alongside Pharaoh (cf. Romans 9:17) in which God is glorified through his judgment upon wicked kings. If Moses was not sinful in his resistance to Pharaoh, then submission to authorities does not preclude calling evil by its name. Furthermore, verses 3 and 4 of Romans 13 speak to the just use of authority, to reward good and punish evil, and not the reverse. Policing that treats citizens otherwise ought to be reformed. It should not engender fear in those who do right, no matter the color of their skin. McCaulley observes then that how Paul deals with the evil Roman empire is not to refer to their evil but to talk about how just rule is exercised in a way that assures rather than arouses fear in the lives of the governed who do what is right.

I look at this and ask the question of how often have I heard the text taught in this way in the white church? Yet the implications for how those with police powers ought exercise them, as well as the obligation of submission, are both in the text. Both Pharaoh and Rome are in Romans. Yet where has this connection been made that speaks of how God judges evil empires and glorifies himself? Those whose social location is in the Black church in America see these realities in the text more readily than many of us.

I cannot read while Black. I read from a social location that makes me more aware of some aspects of scripture while missing others. What I’ve come to recognize as I’ve grown older is how much I’ve been blind to in scripture. I can only understand the whole counsel of God with the whole church. While I cannot read while Black, I can read with the Black church, to listen to their readings, always searching the text to see if these things are so. And what I find in many instances is that they are, and I had not had eyes to see. Open my eyes, Lord!

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Voices and Views on Paul

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Voices and Views on Paul: Exploring Scholarly Trends, Ben Witherington III and Jason A. Myers. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020.

Summary: A discussion and analysis of recent Pauline scholarship focusing on E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, John Barclay, Stephen Chester, and Louis Martyn.

As you may gather from my reviews, there has been a plethora of scholarship on Paul in recent years. This is one of those works that offers both a helpful review of some of the key scholarship in this field as well as evaluation that both affirms what the writers see of value, and offers some critique. Ben Witherington III has written a number of commentaries on the Pauline writings as well as a significant work on the new scholarship on Paul, The Paul Quest, first published in 1998, when much of the “New Perspective” scholarship was still a “new” thing. Since then, a number of the key figures have written newer works, in some cases revising their views. Also, in more recent year the “apocalyptic school” led by Louis Martyn has generated its own discussion and reading of Paul. And lastly, John Barclay has focused on the theme of grace and gift in Paul and Stephen Chester has contributed Reading with the Reformers, an effort to reconcile old and new perspectives.

The two authors divide up the treatment of these figures between them with Witherington contributing a chapter on N.T. Wright and the chapter on Barclay and Chester and Myers taking the chapters on E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and on Martyn and others of the apocalyptic school. Both offer overviews of key works, as well as appraisal. Here were a few impressions from my reading:

  1. There is an ongoing discussion of what kind of Jew Paul is. So much of the discussion has been around Paul and second Temple Judaism, but there was the observation that there may be more need to pay attention to Paul’s diasporan roots.
  2. I was impressed by the contrast between E. P. Sanders and James D. G. Dunn in terms of their engagement with their critics. Dunn was far more engaged than Sanders, and his later work reflected this engagement. The authors rightly note the wonderful model Dunn, who recently passed, gave us.
  3. I’m also struck by the greater nuancing that has occurred over time on what is meant by “works of the law” recognizing both the boundary conditions that were a barrier to Gentile inclusion and that Paul had broader understanding of what this phrase meant.
  4. Another matter for continued discussion is the status of Israel and the how the promise that “all Israel will be saved” will be accomplished. Will there be a single way of salvation or distinctive ones?
  5. Myers concedes that there is no accepted definition of “apocalyptic.” I did feel at times there was this “what exactly are we talking about” feel. It is apparent that these scholars may have much to contribute to the understanding of Romans 9-11, and do recover a dimension to Paul’s perspective overlooked by the New Perspective discussion.
  6. Finally, I have concluded that I really want to read the work of John Barclay and I’m intrigued by Stephen Chester’s project.

Probably the least appreciative treatment in this collection is Witherington’s of N.T. Wright. While acknowledging the overall value of Wright’s scholarship, Witherington has a number of critiques, including Wright’s ideas about Christ and Israel, supercessionist tendencies, his exaltation Christology to name a few. Witherington has a history of engagement with Wright, including a blog series on Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God that went to somewhere around one hundred installments. Unlike some who have argued for traditional views of Paul, Witherington carefully engages Wright, affirming helpful aspects of his scholarship, but also noting where he clearly differs.

One other feature of this work, that I’ve seen Witherington do before is team up with younger scholars, noting very clearly their contribution to the work, and introducing them to the scholarly world. This is also a model of generous scholarship to be commended and encouraged not only in the theological world but in the wider academy.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Cubed: The Puzzle of Us All

/ rtrube54 / 5 Comments

Cubed: The Puzzle of Us All, Ernö Rubik. New York: Flatiron Books, 2020.

Summary: A memoir that explores both the role of puzzles in our life, and the creation and afterlife of the eponymous cube that bears the author’s name.

You’ve probably tried to or even succeeded in solving the Cube. I remember when one of these turned up as a Christmas gift to my nephew. He was about the only one who didn’t get much chance to try to solve it that Christmas day. We all took a turn at it, but the real challenge was getting it away from my brother, the logical one in our family. I don’t think any of us solved it that day.

This is the story not only of how this puzzle came into existence, but also on the value of puzzles in our lives. Along the way, we learn a bit about the puzzle’s creator. Ernö Rubik. Rubik is a Hungarian architect who always has loved puzzles from the time he received a 15 puzzle as a child. Not surprisingly for an architect, geometric puzzles always fascinated him.

Rubik believes puzzles are far more than mere diversions:

“Puzzles bring out important qualities in each of us: concentration, curiosity, a sense of play, the eagerness to discover a solution. These are the very same qualities that form the bedrock for all human creativity. Puzzles are not just entertainment or devices for killing time. For us, as for our ancestors, they help point the way to our creative potential. If you are curious, you will find the puzzles around you. If you are determined, you will solve them.”

Rubik talks about his fascination with the nature of the cube, and his movement from a 2x2x2 to a 3x3x3 cube. His account made me think about how the thing works. How is it constructed? How can you turn sides or layers on different axes?. After all that twisting, why doesn’t the whole thing fall apart? Actually early versions using rubber bands did. The main hint Rubik gives us is the cube none of us see in the center. He leaves most of the rest to us.

For a period, the Cube became wildly successful, not only in Hungary but globally. One has the sense that he was blindsided by all the fame. More than that, he discovers that the Cube is something of an altar ego, a “he” with its own existence. He recounts the fascination of children, the gratitude of adults, and the incredible cult of gamers, some who are able to solve it in under five seconds–something Rubik has never been able to do.

He rhapsodizes on the form and functions and colors of the Cube:

“Some objects at first sight are as baffling as assembly directions in Japanese (for those who do not read Japanese), but the Cube in its calm state is dramatically simple. When all the colors are in place, it suggests peace, a sense of order and security. The regularity of its shape, the recurrence of identical forms, the tranquility of the planes, the compactness of the closed form are in sharp contrast to all it means once it is brought to life, when it is in motion and changes.”

Rubik awakens us to not only the joy of puzzles, but also the wonder of the shapes around us. We see them all around us. Rubik reminds us to really look at them, and what it is about us that so fascinates us when we notice the intrigue of the world’s puzzles around us.

Review: The Brutal Telling

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

The Brutal Telling (Chief Inspector Gamache #5), Louise Penny. New York: Minotaur Books, 2009.

Summary: The body of an unknown man is found in the bistro of Gabri and Olivier, and Olivier is the chief suspect!

Olivier has been secretly visiting the cabin of a hermit living in a self-built cabin hidden in the woods near Three Pines. He brings groceries, shares stories, and is repaid with carvings and other items in the hermit’s possessions. The night after his last visit, the hermit’s body appears in the bistro jointly run by Gabri and Olivier, found by neighboring bookstore owner Myrna. The hermit has been brutally murdered with a skull-shattering blow to the back of the The hermit is unknown to anyone else in the village and when questioned, Olivier denies knowledge of him as well.

But how did the body get to the bistro? Who was the man? Why was he killed? And why is Olivier lying? These are questions Inspector Gamache and his team, joined by a young local officer eager to learn from Gamache, Paul Morin. It turns out that the body was placed in the bistro by the new owner of the Hadley house, Marc Gilbert. The Gilberts are turning it into a spa that will compete with Gabri and Olivier’s bistro and B & B. But Gilbert doesn’t appear to be the killer. He found the body in his foyer and moved it to the bistro. But who deposited the body at their doorway?

There are other suspects. Roar and Havoc Parras are part of a Czech community. It is revealed that the hermit had Czech connections. Roar has been cutting a trail for the Gilberts getting closer and closer to the hermit’s cabin. Havoc is an intelligent young man, seemingly content with working in the bistro, far below is potential. Gilbert’s father Vincent, a seemingly saintly figure who has worked with the mentally disabled, yet emotionally manipulative, just happens to show up, literally out of the woods.

Still, as clues emerge and the cabin is discovered as the murder scene, Olivier emerges as the lead suspect, even as his answers continue to be evasive. Gamache learns of his estranged relationship with his father and the extent of his wealth. He owns much of Three Pines. Where did that money come from?

Gamache’s inquiries focus around a set of valuable carvings made from a redwood from an island off of British Columbia. He even goes there and comes back knowing who the murderer is.

Meanwhile Penny continues to develop Peter and Clara Morrow. As Clara prepares for a debut show with Dennis Fortin, he drops a homophobic remark. She debates whether to say something and risk her future. Moral dilemmas result for both Clara and Peter. Clara know Fortin could cancel her show. Peter is conflicted as he sees her success eclipsing his own. What does integrity, loyalty, and a marital bond require?

The story explores the relationships of fathers and children. Some of these had shattering “brutal tellings.” Penny explores the shaping influences of fathers on children and the dangers of festering anger and how murder begins long before the act.

It seems each of these get better than the ones before, and this has a number of “unfinished” elements that leave one wondering “what’s next?” I look forward to how Penny will unfold this tale!

Review: The Handmaid’s Tale

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1986.

Summary: One woman’s account of life as a “handmaid” in the dystopian society of the Republic of Gilead, an authoritarian religious society organized around the urgent problem of declining birthrates.

Many of you already know the story, either from reading the novel or the TV series or both. In a dystopian future brought on by an eco-disaster or series of disasters, the Republic of Gilead has taken the place of the United States (or at least part of it, at war with other “sects”). It is a world of steeply declining birth rates organized into a religious tyranny centered around the production of children, especially among the power elite. Commanders whose Wives ceased to reproduce were assigned Handmaids whose name became Of+Commander’s first name. This is the story of Offred. She has been trained for this sacred role by the Aunts, a severe group of women who indoctrinated them into the sacred task of child-bearing.

Offred was separated from her husband Luke after their attempt to escape this tyranny. She doesn’t know whether Luke is dead or alive or where her daughter is. Her daughter is the reason she is a Handmaid. She is fertile. Most of her life is lived in her room, or on strictly regulated shopping trips, birth celebrations, and “salvagings” where transgressors are hanged. Once a month is the Celebration, when she lays between the knees of the Wife, (following Genesis 30:1-3), while the Commander has very impersonal intercourse with her in the hope of inseminating her.

Much of the narrative hinges on transgressions, many of which become necessities either because the rigid life, or because the rigidities just don’t work–a house of prostitution where the elite men covertly go, which has become the refuge of Moira, Offred’s rebellious friend who is a survivor, doctors who offer to have sex when the Commanders fail, Wives who arrange surrogates, a Commander who wants to have a real relationship with his Handmaid, and an underground “Mayday” movement helping people escape. Atwood’s narrative explores what happens when tyrannous purity cultures bump up against human nature.

Of course the tyrannous culture has to be maintained, and it does so by “salvagings” that turn lynching into a religious ceremony, not unlike what happened in many parts of the Jim Crow south, with a system of informers, Eyes, as well as any of the people around one. The narrative develops around the choices Offred must make when presented with the demands of the transgressive system, risking life to choose survival for herself, and possibly for her daughter, along with answering to her own longings for intimacy.

As you can see, Atwood raises all kinds of questions for us. Is it possible to employ religion (or a quasi-religion) in the service of a tyranny and its aims? In this narrative, women are both close companions and the arch enemies of other women. What do we make of that? And can this dystopia happen here?

The events of the past year are too close for comfort. We have been threatened with the dissolution of our political and social order. Religion has been coopted for political ends. We are in a country of declining birth rates. We face the possibility of a global eco-disaster that many consider posing an existential threat that warrants drastic action, while others vehemently deny and defy.

Most of all, it seems to me that this is a work of resistance. Some see an illusion in the title to The Canterbury Tales. Many see in these stories subtle resistance to the existing religious and political order, even while on religious pilgrimage. Offred’s tale, a series of daytime narratives punctuated by nights, mostly given to reflection, seems also a tale of resistance, a way of fighting to maintain her identity when her life, indeed her body, is employed against her will to sustain the world order. What I see her is a cautionary tale for us all.

Review: Christ and the Kingdoms of Men

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Christ and the Kingdoms of Men, David C. Innes, foreword by Carl R. Trueman. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2020.

Summary: Explores the civic and political responsibilities of Christians and the proper purposes of government.

This past electoral season underscores the urgency for the need of principled foundations for our political life and civic engagement. Here, as elsewhere, Christians ought look first at the foundations of their faith, as revealed in the scriptures. David C. Innes sets out to do this. It is important to note at outset that this is framed within a Reformed perspective reflecting theological convictions of Calvin and Abraham Kuyper.

Innes begins by grounding this theology in the Kingdom of God, revealed in his rule over creation, working through the vice-regency of human beings, even pre-fall, to fill and govern the creation, and in a fallen world, to provide various institutions of authority from the family to government to restrain evil and to provide for peaceable conditions allowing people to flourish secure in their life, health and possessions. With the coming of Christ comes not only redemption but the inauguration of God’s kingdom or rule that will transcend all earthly kingdoms, of which we are still necessarily a part, until the return of Christ.

Centering on Romans 13:1-7, Innes develops the proper role of government in the punishment of evil, protecting life and property, and positively protecting the exercise of piety and morality and liberty. Good governments praise the good. The challenge is governing in a fallen world, one where trust may not be assumed. Innes writes thoughtfully about the “political problem,” the tension between the power involved in government’s exercise of its proper role, and the restraints needed against excessive power. He explores Lockean government, upon which western democracies are modelled, both in the limits placed upon government and the creation of individual self-sovereignty under the law and its assertion of radical personal freedom.

Innes would argue for an ordered civil society in place of radical individualism, with limited government by the consent of governed under the rule of law. Running through this is the idea of subsidiarity, that what can be done at a lower level ought not be done at a higher or central one. Rights are what we would expect of one another. Following Romans 13, the proper response of one is submission to the government, save where this conflicts to obedience to God.

Up to this point, I would find myself in basic agreement. It is where Innes goes with the question of resistance that troubled me. He speaks of the role of inferior magistrates who ought act when those above them fail to act in the interest of the people. By this, he offers theological justification for the American Revolution. My problem is two-fold, at least. I do not find this principle of the inferior magistrate in scripture but only cited by the author in Calvin’s Institutes. Secondly, the same principle has been used to justify nullification in the lead up to the Civil War, and the secession of states that led to this costly and bloody war. Some use similar principles to argue for overturning authorities exercising public health powers in pandemics by mandating masks and other prudent measures for the common good (while ignoring ordinary measures like traffic laws that exist for similar reasons). At very least, it seems this idea, unless hedged about by the rule of law, may be arbitrary and dangerous to the public order.

I’m also troubled that this is the only form of resistance Innes proposes. I do not find any treatment of either the prophetic resistance of the Old Testament, nor the faithful resistance of the church against empire evident in Revelation. I do not see him put forward warrants for protest and non-violent resistance on the part of citizens that arguably in many societies has brought about political changes (I think of the Velvet Revolution of the Czech Republic). It does not seem that Innes envisions a society where people are subject to political oppression and do not have “inferior magistrates” to act on their behalf, unless this doctrine allows that leaders of such movements act in this role.

However, I must commend Innes on the concluding chapter for his discussion of citizenship and statesmanship. I do find here some of what I missed in the previous chapter in the role of a good citizen under tyranny. In more ordinary times, he also stresses the civic duties of citizens in the pursuit of the common good and the role of those who govern as statesmen who work, even in a pluralistic society, to preserve the liberties of all and the common good.

I think Innes offers a good, clear outline of a Reformed theology of government and the citizen. I would suggest that if one wants to read in this area, one not confine oneself to this book, but read more widely. Some suggestions may be found in the recommended readings. I would also suggest James Skillen’s The Good of Politics (review). Skillen comes out of the Reformed tradition, but draws on a much wider array of sources. However, this book lays out good basic groundwork for the basis and purpose and limits of government within God’s purposes, and the proper role of citizens.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Holiness

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

Holiness, John Webster. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003

Summary: A theology of holiness, beginning with holiness in the theological enterprise and then thinking about the holiness of God, the church, and the individual.

Many treatments of the theme of holiness either focus on or begin with the holiness of God. John Webster takes what seems to me a novel, but important approach and begins with the holiness of theology. That is, he considers “A Christian theology of holiness is an exercise of holy reason.” He begins with a critique of modernity’s idea of “natural reason” as “transcendent, ignoring the noetic effects of the fall. He argues in the doing of theology, this exercise of holy reason is critical:

“Christian theology is a particular instance of reason’s holiness. Here too–as in all truthful thinking–we are to trace what happens as reason is transformed by the judging, justifying, and sanctifying work of the Triune God. The sanctification of reason, moreover, involves a measure of difference: reason’s transformation goes hand-in-hand with non-conformity. Holy reason is eschatological reason, reason submitting to the process of the renewal of all things as sin and falsehood are set aside, idolatry is reproved, and the new creation is confessed with repentance and delight” (pp. 11-12).

Webster then turns to three aspects of holiness in scripture: the holiness of God, of the church, and of the individual. Beginning with the holiness of God, Webster considers the holiness of God as triune: Father, Son, and Spirit, holy in all God’s attributes and works. This holiness is evidenced in the establishing of holy relationships with his people, redeemed to be holy through the Triune God’s initiative.

He then turns to the church, described as a sanctorum communio. He grounds the holiness of the church in the electing, reconciling, and perfecting work of God, a theme of the grace of God in the holiness of the people of God that runs through this book. This holiness is evident in all of the church’s actions as they confess the name of the Triune God.

Finally, he discusses the holiness of the Christian. Here, too, holiness from beginning to end is the work of the Trinity, likewise in electing, reconciling and perfecting. This is through faith, both in death to sin and renewal of life expressed in freedom, obedience, and love, toward the end of fellowship with God.

Each section begins with a set of propositions which Webster unpacks in a treatment which, though concise is an eloquent and deep exploration of holiness. It reflects a Reformed vision that roots holiness in God’s gracious initiative. This is a slim book worthy of more than one reading and a good introduction to the work of a fine theologian.

Reading Scripture as the Church

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Reading Scripture as the Church (New Explorations in Theology), Derek W. Taylor. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020.

Summary: Brings Dietrich Bonhoeffer into conversation with three theologians concerning how the church reads and interprets scripture.

The printing press, the Reformation, vernacular translations and rising literacy put the Bible into the hands of many more Christians, leading to a rise of personal Bible reading, contributing both to personal devotion, and the rise of idiosyncratic interpretations. The latter makes it ever more apparent that scripture is meant to be read and interpreted as the church, within Christian communities.

Derek W. Taylor explores the contribution of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to the reading of scripture in community in a conversation with three other theologians: John Webster, Robert Jenson, and Stanley Hauerwas. Bonhoeffer was a leader in the Confessing Church movement that resisted Hitlerian tyranny, and the seminary community at Finkenwalde, a ministry centered around reading scripture within community. The central idea coming through in this volume is that of following this risen Lord who calls his people to follow him in discipleship into his mission in the world. Taylor unpacks this in four parts:

  1. The church as a creation of the word. Here he draws on John Webster’s idea of the church as creatura verbi. What Bonhoeffer brings to this is the idea of the risen Christ without whom the community of the church cannot exist.
  2. The church as an institution. Taylor brings in Robert Jenson who emphasizes the importance of reading within the traditions of the church, allowing how the church has read to influence how we read. To this Bonhoeffer adds the dimension of the living Christ who has been leading this church into all truth throughout history.
  3. Reading as a congregation. Taylor focuses on a leading exponent of ecclesial theology, Stanley Hauerwas. Hauerwas sees the church’s reading together as enacting the community. Bonhoeffer would counter that the gathered community is the place addressed by the risen Lord, and led by him into discipleship.
  4. The church as missional community. Here, Taylor doesn’t draw upon a particular theologian but notes that Bonhoeffer’s missional theology is inherent in the question “Who is Jesus Christ for us today?” that addresses the community in its given context.

The most significant conclusion to this discussion for me is one Taylor makes in his epilogue. He states:

By examining the church in terms of its identity-defining relationships, I have suggested that this hermeneutic is not a method but a posture and that this posture can be most succinctly summarized as the ongoing act of discipleship (p. 258).

For Taylor, scriptural interpretation can never be codified into the fabric of the church nor its history of interpretation. Rather, the risen Lord speaks through scripture leading his people, forming them as disciples and leading them into mission, helping them to be both ever true, and ever new in their life together and work in the world. Taylor brings Bonhoeffer in conversation with three theological interpreters of scripture, and adding his own insights, offers a rich account of how we might read scripture as the church.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.