Book Review: Transformation Theology

Oliver Davies, Paul Janz and Clemens Sedmak, Transformation Theology: Church in the World (T & T Clark, 2007) 179pp (with thanks to T & T Clark for a review copy)

In 1998 Radical Orthodoxy was launched as a new way of doing theology (although its seeds can be traced back to 1990 and Milbank's Theology and Social Theory) and in 2007 with this book, we have Transformation Theology, another new way of doing theology. The last few years has witnessed a new era of theology at King's College London and this book is the first fruits. In a similar way to the fact that I find Radical Orthodoxy often incomprehensible, unfortunately having read this book, I'm not sure I'm completely the wiser what Transformation Theology is.  In the introduction they say 'Transformation Theology ... seeks to provide a groundwork for bridging the gulf that often exists between academic theology and the community of faith' (p.3).  On the basis of this book there is a long way to go. The book is divided into six chapters, with each author responsible for two (Davies on doctrine, Janz on philosophy and Sedmak on ethics).  The two chapters by Oliver Davies are by far the most readable and interesting.  Davies' concern is to ask if Jesus remains fully human where is he? He argues that we need to recover a sense of the ascended Christ and heaven as a place. Here it would have been interesting to see where Davies agrees or disagrees with Douglas Farrow's important work Ascension and Ecclesia.

It might be that in the future this book as the beginnings of Transformation Theology will be seen as important and groundbreaking, but to this reader at the moment I can't see what it is and what is trying to do or say. I still say one of the marks of good theology is that it is readable and on that score this book fails. Why theologians have recently seen the need to create new Theologies (with a capital 'T') I don't know. I'm happy to say that it seems I am not the only reader who struggled with this book - see Ben Myers here, although Ben seems to have grasped more of it than me and on the basis of his review, I would agree with some of what he liked.

Comments

[Ben Myers]

Hi Andy: "I still say one of the marks of good theology is that it is readable and on that score this book fails." Yes, but unlike some of the Radical Orthodoxy books, this one isn't unreadable because of the difficulty of the concepts, or the philosophical depth, etc -- unfortunately it's just not very well written, and one doesn't feel as though the authors have a very clear sense of what they're trying to do.

[ash]

I haven't attempted to read any of this book yet, but it does strike me as topsy-turvy to try and create a Theology in this way. I would think the best thing to do is persue theology systematically, and let history judge whether what you did was start something new or not. Self-consciously setting out to do so, I think, especially without any clear direction, is a flaw.

[andy goodliff]

In the authors defence I think they feel they have a clear sense of direction, I'm not just sure I understand it, but I agree with your other point that declaring a new way of doing Theology is not the best way to do theology. I think as someone has suggested in the comments to Ben's review that there is something about funding lurking behind all this.

[ash]

I wouldn't be terribly suprised if it had a little to do with funding (you and I both know it's a terribly underfunded department as it is!) but I think Davies has been moving in this direction since he came to King's (his inaugural lecture being an example). I suspect (and hope) that it's at least a mixture of conviction and need...

[Jack]

As with any start in theology, much will hang on what follows after the prolegomena. So we'll have to wait and see in this case. For a contrast with the 'launch a new movement' way of getting on in theology, one might consider John Webster and co. up here in Aberdeen who simply seem to work steadily away on dogmatic questions without much fuss.

[Ben Myers]

Yes, John Webster sets a wonderful example of theological modesty and humility. He has a much better chance of starting a real "movement" -- not because he's interested in "movements", but because he's interested in theology.