andygoodliff

Jane Heath reviews Campbell's Deliverance of God

Another review of Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God has appeared in The Expository Times by Jane Heath. Here are some extracts:

There are some books that are not merely right or wrong. One can chip away at cracks in the argument, but they remain monumental structures that stand out in the landscape. Lesser pilgrims can but visit them with respect and build round them with care. The Deliverance of God is a book like this. The exegesis may not convince all readers. The systematic problems may not be resolved to quite the extent Campbell suggests. The very method raises questions. For all that, Campbell’s work is an original and powerful model of how to write theology, because it seeks to integrate the various different sub-disciplines of theology on a scale and with a vision that is worked out in immense detail. It is also a penetrating and provocative critique of the use that has been made of Romans in every branch of theology in the last twenty centuries, especially in the last five. Any critique of Campbell must start from and move within this recognition of his book’s outstanding value.

... The Deliverance of God is an exciting and challenging book. Though charged with passion, it never sacrifices clarity, even across its thousand page spread. It aims to offer deliverance both to Pauline interpreters who are trapped in contractual frameworks in their exegesis and to a beleaguered church that is divided and in some ways limping under the legacy of the Reformation. It is written from the heart of Protestantism, but with a strongly ecumenical outlook that seeks ultimately to abandon the Protestant-Catholic divide in this discussion. It stems from long, contemplative study and its profound intellectual engagement with the history and exegesis of Paul in the West will make it a benchmark of scholarship, whose arguments and implications will be debated in the
academy for decades to come.

Hauerwas and Milbank in Conversation

Interesting evening listen to Stanley Hauerwas and John Milbank in conversation. Best line of the night went to Hauerwas when he said with regard to his book Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir 'I didn't want it to be a story of my successes, I'll leave that to Jurgen Moltmann [referencing Moltmann's autobiography A Broad Place]'.

Both Hauerwas and Milbank began life as Methodists and are not Anglicans. Milbank wondered whether this was because Methodists tend to be concerned, because this is how they began, with practice rather than theology. Methodism isn't that intellectual, it doesn't in general have a large body of theological thought, which I thought perhaps is also true of Baptists. Anglicans, (perhaps because they have more money), seem to invest in producing theologians, to the extent that Baptists are not that bothered. Certainly the opportunities in being supported for postgraduate study are much more limiting for Baptists than they appear to be for Anglicans (I know of a few Anglicans who are being supported by their diocese to do doctoral work, which I don't think would be true of Baptist associations, mostly because the money isn't there). The Baptist Union is able to support two people a year to do full-time doctoral work over three years and there are some more limited further studies fund which is aimed more at those wanting to do Masters level.

Milbank also said that 'the church is formed by the eucharist', which reminded me of a comment I heard made by Oliver O'Donovan about baptism being marginalised or just not mentioned in lots of recent theology. Baptists have generally over-emphasised baptism to the detriment of the eucharist (although as John Colwell points out in Promise and Presence some Baptists don't even require baptism these days!) Is the emphasis on the eucharist because baptism (is infants) is just assumed? Is it true that the church is formed by the eucharist and what does this mean for baptism?

Another comment by Hauerwas: 'we are now morally obligated to be greedy to keep the economy alive' Greed is seen as a virtue rather than as a vice, which is a big challenge for the church to see if we can offer ways of life that counter the need to be greedy.

An interesting couple of hours. If you've not yet read Hannah's Child it is a definite must read. Next up in London is a 2-day conference titled 'Seek the Welfare of the City' (25-26 November). The 2nd day including a roundtable discussion of Luke Bretherton's excellent book Christianity and Contemporary Politics involving David Ford, Nigel Biggar and Bernd Wannenwetsch. Then in February is a one-day conference at Spurgeon's College on 'Is Universalism an Evangelical Option?' with Robin Parry, Nigel Wright, Derek Tidball and Graham Watts.

 

Missionary God and Missionary Church

On the basis of others who have been praising John Flett's The Witness of God: The Trinity, Missio Dei, Karl Barth and the Nature of Christian Community (Eerdmans, 2010), I got myself a copy. It is well worth a read, by ministers and those involved in mission agencies alike. Flett establishes why its theologically right to say the triune God is a missionary God and the church is a missionary community. The major theme running the book is mission is not a second step, whether in a doctrine of God or a doctrine of the church. The church cannot be anything other than missionary. It is not an add on or an optional extra, because mission is an integral par tof God's being, not a secondary characteristic. For British Baptists, one of its 5 Core Values is being a missionary community. Steve Holmes in an article on trinitarian missiology, which Flett cites at various points, has already demonstrated why we claim God is a missionary God, and Flett goes further in developing this. Flett, alongside Nate Kerr and others, is critical of Hauerwas and co. and their commitment to practices (especially within worship as means of learning Christian character) as being too inward-looking and 'conceiving them without reference to the missionary act' (p.280). I'll be interest to see where this conversation goes and how Hauerwas and Wells will respond. (I think Hauerwas has delivered a paper this year in response to Kerr's criticisms in Christ, History and Apocalyptic).

Back online

Finally back online at home. So hopefully I can get back to blogging.

A few things that have caught my eye in last month:

Douglas Campbell responds to Francis Watson and Daniel Kirk

Tracey Rowland writes about the Pope on contemporary worship

plans for a book of Baptist biographies

a new book edited by George MacDonald on universalism