Alan Le Grys

Benjamin C. Sargent, Written for our Learning: The Single Meaning of Scripture in Christian TheologySargentBenjamin C., Written for our Learning: The Single Meaning of Scripture in Christian Theology (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016); x + 211 pp.: 9781498278560,

reading the Bible and Shakespeare, though, we often regard ourselves as the intended audience for the words, and this whole phenomenon has prompted Jem Bloomfield to write his first book. Bloomfield is an enthusiastic author whose exploratory spirit is infectious. With a watchful eye for similarities, he traces the disagreements over which biblical and play texts should be included in the canon, the ways in which the final texts have been variously interpreted and how performance has been used to enhance their resonance – though Charles Lamb, of course, thought Shakespeare should never be performed on stage. There are a couple of interesting chapters too on ways in which both canons are used in non-theatrical and non-religious contexts by adverts, novels and politicians, for example. By revealing something of how tradition, cultural associations and worldviews shape our reading, Bloomfield identifies ways in which words become empowered. As Bloomfield’s colleague at Nottingham University, Peter Kirwan, notes, the power of a book often lies not in what it is but in what we need it to be. Bloomfield is drawn to the Russian literary critic Victor Shlovsky’s belief that literature has the potential for ‘defamiliarization’, revealing the world in arrestingly fresh ways. History can do the same and so, Bloomfield states: ‘Part of the purpose of Words of Power is to help us look again at our own religious and literary reading, and to see it as bizarre, outrageous, eccentric and obscure’ (p. 14). In this he is successful in showing us how texts are as adept at reading us as we them. The question that some might have at the end of this book is whether biblical exegesis and Shakespeare criticism do, at the end of the day, have more to offer each other than some similarities? Does the imaginative and inconclusive creative reading of Shakespeare conflict too readily with the dogmatic squeezing of biblical texts into belief-systems? Does the mysterious subject of the divine will within the biblical poetry jar with the humanistic and experiential reflections of the Shakespeare plays? On the desert island can both volumes, though sharing a quirky and fallible human readership, have more of a relationship than merely sharing a shelf? I’m grateful to Jem Bloomfield for provocatively shaping these questions in my mind to see where they might lead and I hope more books from him are on the way.

27.00 (pbk)

The history of biblical interpretation suggests that in recent years more compassionate models of a ‘loving God’ have tended – at least in Western thought – to displace traditional understandings of God as a vindictive judge. In dialogue with Eric Siebert, this brief article focuses on one Old Testament ‘difficult text’ to suggest that serious biblical studies in general and pastoral studies in particular must take the ‘dark side’ of God far more seriously.

Difficult Texts: 1 Samuel 2.25:

in a way which gives a place for the Church to exist in the time ‘in between’ the ascension and the delayed parousia or return of Christ. The delay is necessary to allow time for individual and corporate human responses to God’s gift, so the ‘in between’ is a time for faith and growth in God’s grace. Burgess develops these insights through a dialogue with three other Protestant theologians who are influenced by Karl Barth, namely Thomas F. Torrance, Douglas Farrow and Robert Jenson. These secondary discussions are more detailed accounts of issues within Barthian studies and do not test out or challenge the basic framework by reference to alternative approaches. Burgess makes some well-argued judgements and generally finds Barth’s own position more lucid and persuasive. But at no point does Burgess subject Barth’s position to his own critique or evaluation. We are asked to be convinced because Barth’s position is sounder than the Barthian variants (e.g. p. 191). This gives rise to my uncertainty about Barth’s frame of belief. It is not founded on a strong theology of creation, so there is not an emphasis on God’s presence and activity in the world at large. This tends to rule out potentially fruitful understandings of God’s mission as being already at work in the world for the Church to discover and to engage with. It is at this point that ‘dialogue’ between Barth and Bonhoeffer (and Moltmann) could provide some valuable comparisons and pointers. The ever new contexts in which we are asked to respond to God are not allowed sufficient consideration because of the ready emphasis upon the objectivity given in revelation. ‘Natural’ theology is not seen as a partner to revealed theology because of the claim of the utter sinfulness of the human order (e.g. p. 66). This means that the ethical account of how God is mediated in loving the neighbour lacks development (e.g. pp. 87ff.). This book makes coherent sense but seems to be limited in how far it can connect with those who approach belief in ways other than that of Karl Barth.

Book Review: The God Who Speaks: Learning the Language of GodThe God Who Speaks: Learning the Language of God, JohnsonBen Campbell (Eerdmans2004), viii + 215 pp, US

history nor Christology proper but rather theological retlection on history on those aspects of the Jesus of history that are central to his continuing significance’ (p. x). Accordingly, he concentrates on four central aspects of Jesus. Each chapter deftly outlines modern debates surrounding each theme before moving on to discuss its theological implications. He begins with his Jewishness, stressing that Jesus was a particular kind of Jew within first-century Jewish life (here he also provides interesting discussions of Jesus’s attitude towards Gentiles and

18.00 pbk

Schuller focuses on petitionary prayer, arguing that the community’s determinism transformed prayer into a doxological activity, rather than a supplicatory act seeking provision of earthly needs. Discussing hellenization, Hengel notes that, while the community originated in opposition to Greek enculturation, in subtle ways (such as the use of Greek technology in constructing aqueducts) it was touched by the prevailing Zeitgeist (or Spirit of the age). Lim makes a strong case for knowledge of the Greek Old Testament by the writers of the pesherim. Harrington and Kugler both treat Halakhic issues at Qumran. Harrington sees the punctilious observation of purity laws as reflecting the community’s beliefthat in order to receive fresh divine revelation it had

Book Reviews : Paul's Mission

This is not an analytical commentary on the text, though the author is thoroughly conversant with scholarly work. Rather, it takes the reader through Luke’s writing in a number of sections. Although these, quite rightly, correspond to what Keith Nickle discerns as the natural divisions of the text rather than say, those chosen for the Revised Common Lectionary, readers will find it easy to match up to the lectionary selection.

Book Reviews : Purity Laws Not Abrogated

The third and fourth chapters analyse Pannenbergs theological method and his anthropology in the context of the preceding account of postfoundationalism. The author concludes that Pannenberg does not found his theological assertions about God on his anthropology, but that he does include both anthropology and theology sub ratione Dei. Consequently, he considers Pannenberg to be neither foundationalist nor relativist, and closest to his own position of postfoundationalism. This book provides a detailed introduction to this transatlantic debate, and an informative exposition of the work of van Huysteen. J. A. STEWART, THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

Book Reviews : A Reading of Revelation

and bereavement. So far as those completely outside the churches are concerned, evangelicals fail to appreciate the nature of our increasingly educated and pluralist society. Their programmes for conversion presuppose conservative Christian beliefs in their hearers, and this is no longer the case. The need, therefore, is to start afresh from the local community. For this to be effective firm policy decisions will have to be taken with regard to deployment of the clergy, the use of buildings, forms of worship, the life-style of the ministers, and parish boundaries. In much of this