Alexander E. Stewart
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Alexander E. Stewart.
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2018
Alexander E. Stewart
Jeremiah W. Cataldo seeks to expose “the ideological forces that made law and restoration central within the Bible” (p. 239). He argues that these ideas (along with revelation and monotheism itself) were developed to help a small, marginalized, powerless, and fearful immigrant community preserve their identity by gaining socio-political power and land in Persian Yehud. This work builds upon his prior two monographs (A Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in Yehud [T&T Clark 2009] and Breaking Monotheism: Yehud and the Material Formation of Monotheistic Identity [T&T Clark 2012]). The substantial overlap with the arguments and conclusions of Breaking Monotheism would suggest that the additional contributions of this present volume could have been more accessibly presented in one or two (much shorter) articles. In chapter one Cataldo provides a broad overview of his main presuppositions and arguments. Building upon the foundational conviction that social-scientific criticism requires a rigorous stance of methodological naturalism (pp. 3, 4, 5, 7, 17, 53–55, 167), he seeks throughout the volume to explain how socio-political realities motivated the golah community to invent monotheism and the attendant ideas of revelation, law, and restoration. Cataldo argues that the origin of these ideas was “not the happy wellbeing of humankind. It was dirty, prejudiced, frightened, and consumed primarily with self” (p. 2). Yahweh is “entirely a social-political fabrication” (p. 167, cf. 16) representing “a desire for land and for a collective identity that is based on ownership of that land” (p. 196; cf. pp. 167, 211, 238). Cataldo briefly introduces the theorists Slavoj Žižek, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault and discusses the role their focus on relation and difference can play in decentering and deconstructing conventional scholarly assumptions (pp. 5, 32–47). Cataldo hopes to deconstruct prevailing conclusions about the origin of monotheism, law, restoration, and revelation and to reconstruct their origins in a manner “consistent with a materialist viewpoint” (p. 7). Chapter two utilizes Žižek’s theory on the productive aspect of contradiction to argue that opposition to intermarriage (Neh 13) utilized the concept of revelation to provide religious legitimization for social-political interruption. The Mosaic law was completely unknown in Yehud until Ezra introduced it (pp 63–64). Chapter three utilizes Žižek’s emphasis on the disintegration of authority as a revision of the identity of the “other” to argue from Haggai-Zechariah (symbols of the Jerusalem temple and crowns) that the biblical emphasis on the identity of the remnant community required the marginalization of the “other.” Chapter four utilizes Foucault’s discussion of the relational composition of power to argue that monotheistic law requires the radical exclusion of the “other” within Ezra-Nehemiah and Ezekiel. “The exaggerated emphasis upon exclusion betrays the remnant community’s attempt at remapping the distributed relations of power” (p. 153). Chapter five argues that Ezra-Nehemiah and Haggai-Zechariah demonstrate a constructive legalism in contrast to the established laws of Yehud as part of the remnant’s utopian reaction to their socially marginal position. Chapter six argues that the idea of an exile became a symbol of difference to separate the identities of member and nonmember in contrast to the historical realities of a plurality of exiles. Chapter seven builds upon the prior chapters to argue that
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2018
Alexander E. Stewart
162 nity of the elect. These idealized human figures, Kirk concludes, are clearly a widespread and wide-ranging reality in the literature of early Judaism; Judaism clearly maintained a special role for humans as God’s idealized agents. These agents are identified with God in various ways (including God’s sovereignty and receiving worship), and there is a notable absence of anxiety in this literature about applying divine attributes to idealized figures. After arguing his case with the examples supplied in Chapter 1, in Chapter 2 Kirk moves on to discuss the son of God title in the Synoptics. In the Synoptics, Kirk argues, the son of God is a Christological title that indicates that Jesus is king of the kingdom of God he is enacting in proclaiming it. In Mark, Jesus is son of God as the king who must suffer to come fully into his kingship; in Luke, Jesus is son of God as an idealized human figure who takes up the primordial call to rule the entirety of the created order on God’s behalf, and in Matthew, the title refers to the entire community who seek to serve God by following Jesus and his teachings. Chapter 3 is dedicated to a study of the title “son of man” in Mark. Again, Kirk comes to the same conclusion. In Mark, Jesus plays the role of son of man as an idealized human representative of God on earth. In Chapter 4, the focus is the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. Both these infancy narratives fit the idealized human paradigm. In Matthew’s infancy narrative, Jesus is depicted as the Davidic king who must suffer as the son of Abraham to fulfill his identity of God’s human agent enacting salvation on earth, and in Luke the narrative depicts Jesus as a second Adam, a human vicegerent who represents God’s reign to the world and fulfills faithful humanness before God. In Chapter 5, Kirk turns to Jesus’ exorcisms, nature miracles, and healings. These deeds of Jesus, Kirk argues, again fit the idealized human figure paradigm: Jesus’ ability to exercise power over demons, nature, and sickness demonstrates that God is at work through Jesus as his agent specially entrusted by God to demonstrate the advent of God’s own reign. In the penultimate chapter of the book, Kirk finally turns to the issue of intertextuality by looking at the citations of or allusions to the Scriptures of Israel relating to Jesus. Do these allusions indicate Jesus’ divinity? Kirk’s conclusion is negative; the Gospels’ deployments of scripture (e.g., Isaiah 6–910, 40:3, Psalm 110:1, 118:22–23, 26; 1 Kings 22:17) show how Jesus is God’s agent at the time of eschatological fulfillment. In conversation with these Scriptures, Jesus is the idealized Human One, the suffering Davidic messiah, the new Moses, the ideal Israelite, the embodiment of Israel’s story, and the bringer of salvation. This, Kirk concludes, is an exalted and rich human Christology which functions as an idealized human Christology. Kirk’s A Man Attested by God is thought provoking, and challenges mainline thinking and publications on the Christology of the New Testament. His thesis is convincing, and the debate it hopefully is going to create will be interesting to follow. It is my conviction that all future publications on the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels will have to take note of Kirk’s refreshing look at Jesus as an idealized human figure. For those interested in the Christology of the New Testament, this is a must read. Ernest van Eck Department of New Testament Studies, University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa 0002 Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation. Emerging Scholars. By Sarah Harding. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Pp. xvii + 451. Cloth,
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2017
Alexander E. Stewart
79.00.
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2016
Alexander E. Stewart
Külli Tõniste, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology at Baltic Methodist Theological Seminary in Tallinn, Estonia, integrates canonical and literary criticism to develop and demonstrate a methodology for a theological reading of Revelation. This is a revised version of her 2010 Ph.D. thesis at the London School of Theology. She claims “the purpose of this work is to propose a methodology for a canon-centered reading of Revelation and to demonstrate it in an interpretation of Rev. 21–22” (p. 1). In addition to this stated goal, Tõniste’s work functions as a very good introduction to the use of the Old Testament throughout Revelation. In Chapter 1, Tõniste makes the foundational claim that
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2013
Alexander E. Stewart
This is the fourth book in the series of “Handbook for New Testament Exegesis” published by Kregel Academic. As an exegetical handbook, the book starts with discussions on the General Letters’ genre, background, and theology (chapters 1 to 3). The core of the book, then, is made up of nine steps for interpretation and its homiletical presentation (chapters 4 to 6), with chapter 7 incorporating two examples of how these steps are done and chapter 8 suggesting resources for further study. In chapter 1, Bateman usefully compares the General Letters with other ancient non-canonical Greco-Roman letters in terms of the opening salutations, types of letter correspondence, the use of letter-writers as well as the phenomenon of pseudonymity. On the thorny issue of pseudonymity, Bateman defends the traditional view of the General Letters’ authenticity by drawing on the work of Terry L. Wilder and by making comparisons between the practice of GrecoRoman libraries and the early church. In chapter 2, Bateman outlines the history of the Greco-Roman world from 356 bce to 14 ce with respect to the political context. He then highlights their relevance to the General Letters, namely: • James and the wisdom theme (assuming that it is written in mid 40s); • 1 Peter and the household codes; • Jude and the rebellion theme (assuming a date of mid 60s). In particular, Bateman avers that Jude’s mention of the “ungodly” people relates to the historical context of the first Jewish revolt (circa 70 ce) which was underscored with messianic hopes. The suggestion is interesting but fuller justification, together with assessments on the mainstream views that the opponents are merely heretics, seems necessary. This raises another issue; the discussion on the occasion and date of writing for each of these letters are really scant, if not missing. In chapter 3, from a dispensational perspective (broadly speaking), Bateman traces God’s promises as seen in the covenants of the Old Testament and says that, because of what Jesus did, these promises are now fulfilled in the era when the General Letters were composed. The theologies of the individual books, with an overall emphasis on the theme of perseverance and conduct, are then sketched against the overarching promise-fulfilment background. From chapter 4 to 6, Bateman proposes nine steps for interpretation. They are as follows: • preparation of one’s own translation; • identification of interpretive issues based on such a translation; • isolating major textual problems; • preparation of structural outlines/ diagrams; • identifying style, syntax, and semantics issues; • conducting word studies; • creating an exegetical outline; • formulating the passage’s central idea; • preparation of a homiletical outline. Jude 5–7 and Hebrews 10:19–25 are chosen as detailed illustrations in chapter 7. Chapter 8 is, in essence, a set of select bibliographies on the topics mentioned in the previous chapters as well as bibliographies for each of the General Letters (mainly commentaries). Bateman does not interact with many scholarly views, especially the critical ones. Most of the alternate views he mentioned, which are very often conservative ones, are listed in the footnotes. This work should be useful to pastors and Bible teachers who want to know how conservatives could approach exegesis of the General Letters. Also, it would be quite helpful to readers who intend to preach expository sermons from the General Letters. However, given the controversial nature of this part of the biblical corpus, more interactions are certainly desirable, especially with the dominant views of the critical circles. The handbook comes with a comprehensive glossary. Inclusion of scripture and subject indices would certainly enhance the value of the work. Josaphat C. Tam Evangel Seminary Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2011
Alexander E. Stewart
228 published evidence relating to the western gateway of the praetorium where Jesus’ trial before Pilate took place (pp. 97–119). Section Two commences with an essay by George Brook that analyzes the diverse methods of scriptural interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls (pp.121–40), and is followed by Keith Bodner’s work on the Samuel scrolls at Qumran that no serious narrative critic can afford to miss. The author illustrates how the scribes of these scrolls were actively engaged readers who appreciated the aesthetic nature of biblical stories and were familiar with analysis of plot, characterization, temporal settings, and the role of the narrator (pp.141–51). Next comes Stephen Andrews’s examination of the Kirbet Qeiyafa inscription that should be widely read in biblical scholarship. Upon its discovery in 2008, the inscription caused considerable excitement, as it was believed to represent the oldest evidence of a Hebrew text, one that in fact quotes Scripture. Andrews, on the other hand, settles the matter once and for all. He rightly rejects the exuberant assumption that the inscription contains indirect quotations or biblical allusions. It still remains an extremely important discovery that points to early cultural Canaanite literacy, but it does not compare in value with the Nash Papyrus or the silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom that attest to the existence of canonical Scripture (pp.153–68). I suspect that many Old Testament academics will find James Sanders’s review of the progress of Biblia Hebraica Quinta very useful (pp.169–78), and students of Early Christianity will welcome Larry Hurtado’s discussion of the physical and visual features of the early Christian manuscripts (pp. 179–92). But if there is one essay that almost all New Testament scholars must read, it is the concluding one by Paul Foster, who overturns many of the existing arguments regarding a precise dating for Papyrus Egerton 2 and P52 (pp. 193–211). The well-needed reminder is that paleographic dating is a serendipitously intriguing discipline that provides only a broad range for dating manuscripts. So scholars who advocate precise dates, such as 125 ce in the case of P52 “are engaged in an exercise in wishful thinking usually to back up theological claims that should be argued on other grounds” (p. 204). Readers will detect insights that can and should be applied to other New Testament papyri. The largely “all-star cast” of authors of this volume alone ensures a satisfying read for thirsty academics looking for a scholarly oasis. The volume brings to life new archeological and textual discoveries, challenges decades-old theories, and produces new ones that will stand the test of time. For these reasons and because it draws attention to areas of scholarship with which many of us are insufficiently familiar, it is a must-have for any library supporting the study of the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament. Beniamin Pascut University of Cambridge Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2011
Alexander E. Stewart
This book draws together two major fields of research—the history of Israel’s religion and biblical theology—while at the same time crafting an argument for an expanded conception of the deity’s identity. In Chapter 1, Sommer proposes a new framework for understanding the variability of ancient Near Eastern (ANE) deities. He renders the debate in terms of “fluidity,” which encompasses two aspects. The first, fragmentation, is the ANE phenomenon in which “there are several divinities with a single name who somehow are and are not the same deity” (p. 13). The second aspect of fluidity comprises “the overlap of identity between gods who are usually discrete selves” (p. 16), a feature of ANE thought commonly subsumed under the rubric “syncretism.” These categories apply to ANE religious systems, but not to Greek exemplars. Chapter 2 proposes a correspondence between ancient Israelite religion and the ANE model of fluidity. Sommer examines a number of biblical and extra-biblical texts, proposing that early Israel shared with its neighbors the impulse towards a belief in fragmentation. By re-analyzing passages featuring betyls (derived from bet ’el, “house of God”), altars, asherah’s, or mal’ak’s (typically “angel,” or “messenger”), Sommer argues persuasively for an Israelite worldview in which God could inhabit several different places simultaneously in a series of “small-scale manifestations.” This monotheistic instantiation of fluidity was challenged in some sectors of Israelite society wishing to preserve a less fragmented view of divinity—notably, in the Deuteronomic and Priestly circles, whose respective theologies are examined in Chapter 3. These two traditions reinterpreted hypostatic images borrowed from the less iconoclastic models of Israelite religion—the shem (“name”) and kabod (“glory”)—as aspects of the divine, rather than God’s fragmentary selves. In both cases, however, Israelite theologies maintained a belief in the fact that God has a body of some sort. Chapters 4 and 5 then describe the respective theologies of sacred space envisioned by the Deuteronomistic, Priestly, and epic (JE) writers. Sommer contrasts the Deuteronomists’ locative (centripetal) view with the Priestly writers’ utopian (centrifugal) view using a theoretical matrix developed from the work of M. Eliade and J. Z. Smith. He then develops a reading of origins in both the epic and the Priestly literature as inherently displacing and self-deconstructing. The unexpected dislocation of God’s self in these various traditions figures prominently in the sixth and final chapter, which lays out the implications of Sommer’s thesis for Jewish and Christian theologies. The model has always been present, he argues: Rabbinic literature (with its conception of the shekhinah), kabbalah (with the sephirot), and Christianity (in which an embodied God features prominently) have all inherited aspects of early Israel’s fluidity model. In an appendix on monotheism in Israel (pp. 145–74), Sommer attempts to reconstruct the degree to which Israel was monotheistic. A reformulation of the typical definition of “monotheism” permits Sommer to assert a higher level of monotheistic belief than is usually accepted. There will undoubtedly be detractors and modulations of Sommer’s thesis. Among other things, the introduction of post-modernist philosophy (along with its conceptions of deferral and deconstruction) in Chapter 5 strikes the present reviewer as unexpected in the trajectory of the thesis. Yet this departure from the predictable is not without merit, because it allows Sommer to enter into a discussion of difficulties in modern conceptions of the divine. Sommer addresses Jewish theology primarily (although Christians too can benefit from engagement), problematizing the conception of a disembodied God. This disembodiedness wrongly perpetuates a sharp dichotomization between immanence and transcendence; the fluidity model negotiates this distinction more competently than does the philosophical rejection of fluidity exemplified in the work of Maimonides, argues Sommer. Sommer’s apologia on behalf of Christianity’s fluidity is much-appreciated; one suspects Christian readers will be considerably more comfortable with his plea for recognition of an immanent, vulnerable, embodied God than he seems to assume his predominantly Jewish audience will be. Whether this plea for the reinstitution— or renewed recognition—of “fluidity” in Judaism’s conception of divinity will be heeded remains to be seen. Regardless of its eventual rhetorical force in theology, the book is a fascinating, ecumenical attempt to grapple with divine nature. Jeremy M. Hutton Princeton Theological Seminary Princeton NJ 08542
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2011
Alexander E. Stewart
Justification represents a direct response from N. T. Wright to his critics: particularly John Piper, who wrote The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, but also to Don Carson, Stephen Westerholm, Mark Seifrid, and Simon Gathercole. Wright does not attempt to set out any new arguments, but rather tries to set out his interpretation “in a new light and with fresh clarity” (p. 13). Wright’s tone when interacting with his critics ranges from condescension, to frustration, to bewilderment that they do not understand him, nor even seem to be listening to what he is trying to say (p. 21). In Chapter 1, Wright introduces the book with two illustrations: the first is of a geocentric friend (i.e., Piper and company) who keeps trying to convince him that the sun revolves around the earth despite all the evidence to the contrary (p. 19–20) and the second is of trying to do a jigsaw puzzle without all the pieces (p. 31). Wright argues that his reading of Paul will keep all the puzzle pieces in play: God’s promises to Abraham, incorporation in Christ, resurrection and new creation, the Jew-Gentile relationship, eschatology, the Holy Spirit, Paul’s use of the Old Testament, and the story of Israel (pp. 31–34). In Chapter 2, Wright sets forth the “rules of engagement” as “exegesis first and foremost, with all historical tools in full play . . . to support and illuminate a text-sensitive, argument sensitive, nuancesensitive reading” (p. 51). In Chapter 3 Wright describes the worldview of firstcentury Judaism in terms of its controlling narrative. In Chapter 4, Wright discusses “justification” and argues for four key components: law-court, covenant, eschatology, and Christology (pp. 11–12). These four components drive his interpretation of Paul throughout the book. Justification is only one part of Paul’s soteriology and should not be viewed as the whole (pp. 87, 102). In chapters 5–8 Wright dives into exegesis and discusses Galatians (particularly in light of Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Antioch), Philippians 3, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Corinthians 5:21 (interpreted as an embodiment of the covenantfaithfulness of God; p. 166), Ephesians, and finally Romans. Several of Wright’s emphases are invaluable and deserve careful attention: the hermeneutical importance of history and reading the NT with “first-century eyes” (pp. 37, 47), the necessity of works in a believer’s life (pp. 108, 147, 184–85, 237), the indispensible role of the Spirit in salvation (pp. 188–90, 236), and incorporation into the Messiah as the truth to which people who speak of imputation are pointing (pp. 206, 228–29, 233). Two controversial interpretive decisions, however, run throughout the entire book: an interpretation of pistis Christou as “the faithfulness of Christ” instead of “faith in Christ” (contra J. D. G. Dunn and Barry Matlock), and an interpretation of dikaiosynē theou (righteousness of God) as “covenant faithfulness of God” so much that “faithfulness” becomes a translation equivalent for dikaiosynē at many points (pp. 67, 178–79, 198, 201, 203, 206, 217, 223, 242). These interpretive decisions are foundational for Wright’s exegesis. By understanding dikaiosynē theou as the “faithfulness of God” Wright does not seem to heed his own warnings that different words cannot simply be telescoped into each other (pp. 71, 226): faithfulness to a promise is not the same as judging with justice. The phrase that carries the semantic and conceptual weight of “God’s covenant faithfulness” is more likely pistin theou (“faithfulness of God”; Rom 3:3) or pistos theos (“God is faithful”; 2 Cor 1:18; within a context affirming God’s faithfulness to all his promises in the Messiah). Paul’s intentional rejection of a theocentric reading of Habakkuk 2:4 (“my faithfulness” in the LXX) in Romans 1:17 should also be noted. Despite Wright’s clear description of what it means for a judge to be righteous within a law court setting (pp. 69, 184, 212, 214; fair, impartial, just), this information is only used to argue for justification as a verdict, as opposed to imputation, and is not given any weight in determining what Paul means when he says that God, the judge, is righteous. Despite these concerns, Justification remains a well-written, persuasive articulation of Wright’s position, littered throughout with flashes of brilliant exegetical insight, which deserves to be read by everyone interested in the debate, friend and foe alike. A careful reading will very likely result in a paradigm shift, or at the very least, a better understanding of Paul in his first-century environment. Alexander Stewart Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, NC, 27588
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2011
Alexander E. Stewart
99 of the contested areas of Pauline studies related to the Letter to the Romans. Chapter 1 provides a theoretical understanding of Justification theory (e.g., contractual soteriology), the preferred way in which Campbell describes the conventional Lutheran approach. Chapter 2 points out significant intrinsic concerns with Justification theory. Chapter 3 outlines Campbell’s alternative soteriology based on Romans 5–8, which functions in transformational and participatory terms. He compares the two and notes traditional Justification theory’s incompatibility with Paul’s other writings. Chapter 4 looks at Justification theory’s construal of Judaism as a monolithically perfectionist movement; chapter 5 points out its weaknesses with regard to conversion, e.g., rationalism and individualism. Campbell’s use of social-scientific theories of conversion is particularly probative and convincing, especially with regard to its relational and communal nature. Part 1 concludes with chapter 6, in which Campbell demonstrates the way scholars’ various proposals fail to convince, thus moving beyond both old and new perspective readings while engaging “broader theological and ecclesial debates” (p. 168). Part 2 opens with chapter 7 and provides an introduction to Campbell’s hermeneutical approach, influenced by the work of Michael Polanyi. Furthermore, he contends that an overreliance on etymological studies and a penchant for question-begging have previously hindered debate with regard to Justification discourse. Chapter 8 convincingly argues that alternative readings of Luther and other Reformation leaders indicate that their soteriological views were more variegated than Justification theory allows. Chapter 9 points out real connections between Justification discourse and the intellectual and social aspects of modernity; this has resulted in an uncritical acceptance of key aspects of this discourse. Part 3 opens with chapter 10, which delineates a conventional reading of Rom ans 1:16–4:25 and provides a useful outline of scholarly views that support this reading, including helpful bibliographic information. Chapter 11 presents thirtyfive further exegetical difficulties with the conventional reading. This is in addition to the twenty-one intrinsic, systematic, and empirical problems introduced in previous chapters. This argumentative tour de force reveals vulnerabilities within the Justification discourse and requires engagement by those committed to the conventional reading. Other scholars have noted some of these and have also offered revisionist readings, but chapter 12 shows that the alternatives of Francis Watson, E. P. Sanders, J. D. G. Dunn, and Stanley Stowers ultimately fail as viable alternatives to Justification theory. Parts 4 and 5 cover Campbell’s apocalyptic and rhetorical rereading of Romans 1–4. Campbell contends that Romans was written “to defend Paul’s gospel against the depredations of certain hostile countermissionaries” who were about to arrive in Rome. Thus, Romans 1–4 is understood as Paul’s preemptive attack on the false gospel that is presented by “the Teacher” and not as a systematic presentation of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, which does occur in Romans 5–8 (p. 508). Campbell thus concludes that when Paul writes “God justifies the ungodly,” he means that God provides deliverance from sin’s bondage to those who cannot free themselves, which in turn expresses God’s love and grace in an unconditional manner (p. 934). While Campbell is convinced that Paul continued to be Torah-observant after his conversion, it is not evident that this changed three years into his mission, as Campbell argues (pp. 165, 170). Paul’s “rule in all the churches” was that each should stay in the social situation in which s/he was called (1 Cor 7:17–24). Would not Paul follow his own rule? The continuation of previous social identities “in Christ,” which should be an implication of Campbell’s argument, is muted because of his reliance on J. L. Martyn’s approach to apocalyptic. Campbell does concede, however, that Paul may allow for this under certain circumstances (p. 811). I would suggest that previous social identities continue “in Christ” in a reprioritized manner. This highlights the social identity-forming aspect of conversion but would also include the fundamental significance of previous identities in this process. The challenge is: can one develop a consistent view of apocalyptic in Paul that allows for this type of continuity? J. Brian Tucker Moody Theological Seminary Plymouth MI 48170
Biblical Theology Bulletin | 2018
Alexander E. Stewart
106 Still, pluralism without principle pursues merely peace without justice. To the contrary, the many issues of urban life “taken together pose a fundamental issue of justice” (p. 15), having to do, above all, with how we have organized the metropolis into central city and suburbs. Beginning with Springfield’s situation, Copeland formulates “three ethical principles”—“respect for the integrity of all persons, concern for the disadvantaged, and commitment to the good of the whole community” (p. 69)—and illustrates their relevance to various decisions his public life required. Moreover, “the drive to think about injustice and how to overcome it arises from faith” (p. xi) and, in his case, from Christian faith. It is, he explains, faith in the God of grace and God’s call to serve those in need found in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan— a faith misconstrued if its calling is confined to personal charity and compassion and fails to include pursuit of social justice. Indeed, Copeland underscores his “experience of God right in public life” (p. 67), implying, although he never quite says it, that all who pursue justice have, whether they know it or not, the same experience. Copeland also formulates two “fundamental values” (p. 124) for our public commitment, namely, freedom and diversity. Not simply absence of interference, freedom means the conditions allowing one to develop capacities and, thereby, “shape reality,” and “used well,” freedom “makes possible even more freedom” (p. 76). Not simply dif ference, full diversity means interchange in the context of social justice with others unlike oneself, and “the richer life” (p. 80) thereby enjoyed is itself, if I understand rightly, a basic condition of freedom. On my reading, these two values give substantive content to Copeland’s three principles, defining what it means to respect everyone’s integrity, especially the disadvantaged, and seek the common good. And Copeland is convincing in his claim for “true diversity” as not only “essential to the future of our cities” but also, “if achieved, . . . the most profound gift of contemporary U.S. cities to humanity” (p. 81). Copeland embodies what many teachers of ethics can only wish for: the union of creative theory with public action that makes a difference. The result is a remarkable book. Accessible to any reader concerned with urban justice, its “lessons in public policy from America’s heartland,” both for students of religious social ethics and citizens concerned about justice, multiply when read and reread, and its faith in the promise of our life together is compelling. Franklin I. Gamwell The University of Chicago Chicago IL 60637
