creation untamed: the bible, god, and natural …creation untamed: the bible, god, and natural...

CREATION UNTAMED: THE BIBLE,GOD, AND NATURAL DISASTERS,by Terence E. Fretheim. Grand Rapids:Baker Academic, 2011. Pp. 160. $19.99 (pa-per).

The book’s topic splashes vividly onto thecover with its title’s two-word assertion (cre-ation untamed) and its three players (the Bi-ble, God, natural disasters) perched over aphotograph of Hurricane Katrina’s catastro-phe: jumbled houses with structural innardsexposed, a battered pick-up, no visible human.Two prefaces introduce the scope of the bookand situate its originating contexts, followedby an introduction, five chapters, a conclu-sion, and a biblical citation index.

The introduction reviews readers’ recentawareness of outsized disasters, questioninghow we appraise the causality factor: Do hu-mans cause disasters? Does God? Is it someagency blend, such as God punishing us? Or docosmic events happen resultant upon merechance? How can we identify and understandbiblical assertions about the created moral or-der? Fretheim places God neither easily on noroff the hook. A key question emerges: “Howshall we speak of God’s relation to natural di-sasters and the suffering and death relatedthereto, both then and now?” (8).

Chapter 1 unpacks Fretheim’s sense thatthe world appears interrelational, good but notperfect. Exploring Genesis creation accounts,he redraws for us a dynamic we may havemissed: God commands without coercing,moves collaboratively to engage existing mate-

rial for new creative possibilities, delegatescreative responsibility to others, and surelyengages humans to assist with creation. Cre-ation, Fretheim suggests, is inevitably moreopen and messy than we may think. God doesnot necessarily override helpers’ efforts. Im-plications: Biblical creation is interdependent,relational, and communal, thanks to God’schoices. Words like “neat” and “orderly” bearonly part of the story. How the world comes towork, disasters included, must be seen in thecontext of such teamwork.

The second chapter draws again fromGenesis, the flood story providing a salientexample of divine and human hands mutu-ally involved. Is God’s creation less good thandescribed in Gen 1? As human sinfulnessemerges within the narratives, how now do wetalk about disasters that are natural or hu-man—or a blend of both? After some basicexegesis and careful reading, Fretheim chal-lenges hasty inferences about God: effects arenot inevitably to be construed as punishment;biblical characterization of God’s role is quitediverse, even almost contradictory; yes, hu-man sinfulness and yes, divine response—butpatterns vary. Ten points are offered, includ-ing the reminder that the God-human processis richly relational with agency shared; God ischaracterized by a range of emotions, not sim-ply anger.

In chapter 3 Fretheim turns his attention tobiblical Job, initially affected by disasters,some “natural.” Job’s dialogue with his friendsand his words hurled at God seem pitched totease out the causality nexus, but again deserve

76 Copyright © 2012 by Word & World, Luther Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota. All rights reserved.

fresh scrutiny. Bringing forward the characterof creation as collaborative, ongoing, andmessy, Fretheim helps us re-see the Joban“dramatic fiction” in all its provocative detail.Reading afresh is key: though moral evil is areality, the book of Job shows God presidingover a non-anthropomorphic creation, visitedby suffering we can call natural. The world—complex and diverse—is not so tightly tied tohuman doings as we may be prone to sup-pose, even while complaining of it. Job isshown to understand little and his friendsless. The book is not concerned, fundamen-tally, with whether Job’s suffering is deserved,leaving dangling the matter of why such aworld exists. Questions are more prominentthan answers!

In a fourth, very practical, chapter, Fret-heim moves us to familiar questions —“Whyhas God… How can God…” —offering sevenclaims that are typically made (e.g., God sendssuffering for a purpose), providing biblicalconversation points when people query suchthings. In numerous biblical passages God isquestioned about such matters, and good re-sponses may be gleaned. Noting that the mat-ter of suffering lies between explanation andmystery, Fretheim brings forward variouspoints useful for insight, potentially valuablefor people we all know.

The last chapter examines how humans(biblical and other) meet adversity: by faithand prayer. Fretheim explores reasons whypeople pray when in trouble, lining up biblicaltexts demonstrating possibilities. He opinesthat U.S. Christians may pray pragmaticallywith an eye on short-term gains, urging thatother strategies be developed. He also ad-dresses the challenge of and for Christians whono longer feel at home in their native faithstance, without yet having evolved an under-standing of prayer comfortable for them. Howwe image God is revealed in the ways we pray,Fretheim urges us, with the psalms being goodexamples of that. A brief conclusion sums upthe book’s argument.

The topic is an urgent one for people of faithwho want to live within their biblical tradition.Fretheim is a published veteran on this matter,a skilled and knowledgeable guide. His bibli-cal insights are fresh and useful, and the impli-cations offered are invigorating. The bookreads well without requiring extensive back-ground knowledge. It is obviously written forpeople with these questions and their conver-sation partners.

My single regret is Fretheim’s failure to dis-tinguish more analytically how “creation”overlaps the natural world and what it meansto live in both realms. “Creation” implies aframework of belief and may construct a worldwhere disasters need an explanation not nec-essary outside it. Fretheim’s concern is biblical(Judaic and Christian) tradition, though hemight have noted in passing that other tradi-tions deal very differently with suffering. Thewhole mystery of how humans seek to and canclaim to know who God is and what God does isalso the pushing-off point for this study,needing reference, perhaps.

Barbara GreenDominican School of Philosophy and

TheologyGraduate Theological UnionBerkeley, California

THE PEOPLE’S JESUS: TRAJECTO-RIES IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY, byRobin Scroggs; Marshall D. Johnson, editor.Minneapolis: Fortress,2011.Pp.241.$29.00(cloth).

Christianity is blessed with a vast collectionof extant literature presenting contrasting yetcoexisting views of Jesus, his ministry, hisdeath, and his resurrection. Few early Chris-tians, however, would have had the ability tocompose the writings we now recognize as theNew Testament. Early Christian literature waswritten by the educated people in society. Butwhat did the common people believe? This is

77

Reviews

the focus of Robin Scroggs’s The People’s Jesus.His stated goal is “to seek out the major lin-guistic centers around which the early churchfocused its faith and to trace their trajectories”(7). Scroggs pursues this goal by examiningthe texts closely for excerpts of oral traditionsthat predate the writings. By focusing on theearliest pieces of discernible tradition, Scroggsidentifies three specific Christologies, trajec-tories demonstrated by use in NT writings, butpart of popular faith prior to the dates of com-position. At the same time, Scroggs admitsthat there is much speculation to his research,and many of his questions have no confirm-able answers.

By isolating early liturgical fragments andideas, Scroggs identifies a christological trajec-tory of Jesus as Cosmocrator. The resurrectedJesus has been exalted and enthroned as rulerof the world (11). Effectively, Jesus replacesYahweh as the Cosmocrator—he doesn’tusurp the role from Yahweh, he simply as-sumes the throne (17). The typical title of thistrajectory is “Lord Jesus Christ.” The Cosmo-crator trajectory was most evident among Hel-lenistic Christian communities.

Working backwards, Scroggs reveals thenext trajectory as one that likely developedearlier in the life of the church: Jesus as Son ofMan. This Christology is apparent among Ara-maic believers, Palestinian Christian commu-nities prior to the writing of the SynopticGospels (24). Scroggs suggests that Jesus isconsidered the prophet of the coming Son ofMan, but Jesus himself is not the Son of Man(28–32). That identification is a result of latertheological interpretation, perhaps intro-duced by NT authors. According to this trajec-tory, “there is no resurrection….What liesahead is the coming of the Son of Man, just asJesus proclaimed before his death” (36).

The third trajectory is the earliest, that ofJesus as Christos. Scroggs identifies this titlewith Palestinian churches, which used thename as a title for Jesus, their Messiah. By thetime NT authors were writing, Christos had lost

its titular significance, but Scroggs posits thatthe name was based on a previous titular usagein Palestinian communities (48). Since Jesusdid not fulfill the role of political Messiah,Scroggs suggests that the title of Christos inPalestinian Christianity is based on Jesus’miracles (64).

After presenting these trajectories, Scroggsrelates them to the apparent evidence in thetexts. Ironically, he uses the earliest NT writ-ings (Paul’s letters) to trace the latest trajec-tory (Cosmocrator) and vice versa. Scroggsthen gives a close examination of several NTbooks to provide examples of how the earlytrajectories developed into more complex the-ology in the later life of the church. For exam-ple, he examines Paul’s writings to see how heincorporates the Cosmocrator trajectory intohis particular theology. Scroggs remains firmon the idea that Paul did not create the Chris-tology of Jesus as Cosmocrator, but rather in-corporated earlier traditions and even adaptedsome of the earlier beliefs to fit his purposes.Scroggs dedicates a chapter each to the trajec-tories found in the Synoptic Gospels, Paul,Colossians and Ephesians, Hebrews, Acts andRevelation, and the Gospel and First Epistle ofJohn.

Several presuppositions were evidentthroughout The People’s Jesus, most notablyScroggs’s suggested dating of the Gospels andother NT writings. Dating a Gospel later thanother scholars, for example, gives Scroggs amuch wider window in which to place the de-velopment of his trajectories. The dates ofcomposition were not the primary issue in hisbook, but I did find them distracting when Iwas not familiar with his reasoning. For a firstread of this author’s material, I felt rather un-prepared to follow his complex line of thoughtthat was clearly based on a lifetime of scholar-ship. Indeed, this book could be consideredthe capstone of a successful career, as it was thelast work completed by Scroggs before his death.Yet taken out of the context of the rest of his

78

Word & World 32/1• Winter 2012

writings, at times the arguments can be diffi-cult to follow.

For the average reader, Scroggs’s vocabu-lary is quite advanced. He makes ample use ofwords such as denouement, fulsome, parae-netic, tautologous, and thaumaturgic—just toname a few. Add to this to the abundant use ofGreek throughout the book, and Scroggs’swriting is very sophisticated. Even the readereducated in basic theological terminologycould find this book challenging at times. Ad-ditionally, Scroggs has a tendency to presentmultiple counterarguments to his point beforedrawing any conclusions. A reader focusingless than complete attention on the book mayfind his writing style difficult to follow. Forthese reasons, I would recommend use of thisbook in academic settings. Given the complexvocabulary and the presentation of so manycounterarguments, many readers will find hisviews to be most useful when presented asexcerpts, rather than trying to consume theentire book all at once.

The focus of The People’s Jesus is highlyspeculative, focused around the theories of theauthor, but with scant evidence to supportthem. The written word has unified Christian-ity for nearly two thousand years. Proposedbeliefs held by Christians in the latter half ofthe first century can certainly provide thereader with food for thought, but they are notlikely to change the longstanding traditions ofChristian practice. The most lasting impact ofScroggs’s proposed christological trajectorieswill be in the beliefs of individual readers.Without straying from orthodox Christianthought, Scroggs presents earlier viewpointsthat can still inform the faith of Christians to-day, and this book would be a useful tool forsomeone looking to expand their viewpointson Jesus and his work.

Katya OuchakofMcFarland Lutheran ChurchMcFarland, Wisconsin

JESUS AND THE POWERS: CON-FLICT, COVENANT, AND THEHOPE OF THE POOR, by Richard A.Horsley. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Pp.248. $29.00 (paper).

Do we interpret Jesus and the powers pres-ent in the first century through first-century ortwenty-first-century eyes? This seems to be theunderlying question motivating RichardHorsley’s new work, Jesus and the Powers.Horsley seeks to expose the anachronisticallyflawed methodology of many interpreters ofthe Bible and illuminate a better way, namely,reading the Bible in light of its “historical con-text.” Jesus and the Powers focuses on the dom-inant “powers” in the first-century setting ofthe Gospels, in particular the Roman Empire,and how Jesus’ actions and teachings shouldbe properly understood in light of this cultural,political, and religious environment.

The first three chapters of Jesus and thePowers describe the various “powers” thatwould have impacted a first-century audience.Horsley begins by considering the most prom-inent power, in his eyes—the Roman Empire.His reconstruction attempts to provide abroader, albeit negative, portrayal of the Ro-man Empire’s influence of power in the firstcentury than is typically understood to be thecase. Power in the first-century Greco-Romansense, especially through avenues of taxationand conquest, meant degradation of the pooror outcast and an enriching and empoweringof the wealthy or socially “included.”

He then looks at Israel’s covenantal foun-dation, most clearly seen in the relationshipestablished between Yahweh and Israel at Mt.Sinai. Horsley’s emphasis here is on the op-pressive, “imperialistic” rule of Egypt over thepeople of Israel, and how Egypt’s rule createdeconomic, social, and political problems forIsrael. The solution for this oppression wasGod’s liberation through the exodus, a solu-tion recalled through the covenant renewalfocus in Jesus’ actions and teachings. In the

80


third chapter, Horsley describes visionarytexts in Second Temple Judaism as well as pro-phetic and messianic movements through thefirst century that prepared the people of Israelfor Jesus and his movement against the Romanpower structures.

The final five chapters illuminate the inter-action between these powers and the responseof Jesus and the nascent community of his fol-lowers. Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdomof God, for Horsley, seems to be the primarymessage of hope against the imperial powersoppressing the renewed community of God(101). In the fifth chapter, Horsley addressesone of the great power “struggles” in the NT,namely the exorcism of spirits or demons.Demon possession was not only traumatic on apersonal and community level, but it was alsorepresentative of the political oppression pres-ent for the Judeans in the first century. As hesays: “In the exorcisms Jesus expels the pos-sessing powers of Roman imperial rule andheals its effects. The ‘acts of power’ he per-forms empower the people in a restoration oftheir lives under the direct rule (kingdom) ofGod” (123). Horsley then seeks to redefine ourunderstanding of the concept of covenant inthe NT, opposing the idea that Jesus’ teachinginaugurates a new covenant and instead seeingJesus as bringing covenant renewal to Israel. Inlight of the economic pressures imposed onthe people through taxation and the disinte-gration of the community that resulted, Jesus’“covenant renewal speech” in Luke’s Sermon onthe Plain is to be seen as incorporating a strategyof resistance against the Roman Empire throughrenewal of the covenant and a call to communityunity, power, and liberation (cf. 140).

Horsley ends the book by engaging withactions and teachings that (directly or other-wise) result in confrontation with the RomanEmpire. In particular, Jesus “spoke truth topower,” especially through his teaching on thetemple and condemnation of the high priests,in order to proclaim political opposition to thedominant, imperialistic power(s) present in

Jerusalem. Horsley argues that the final eventin the passion narratives, Jesus’ crucifixion,was both a demonstration of Roman imperialpower and the key moment for the establish-ment of the community of his followers. It wasnot the resurrection but the crucifixion that“gave impetus for the expansion of the Jesusmovement(s)” and transformed “the powerthat was intended to intimidate and dominateinto the power that inspired commitment andsolidarity in forming an alternative social or-der” (199).

While Jesus and the Powers is helpful oncertain levels, it has numerous shortcomings.To begin with, this book is not for the faint ofheart. Horsley’s style and the knowledge andterminology he assumes the reader alreadyhas mastered (e.g., his very brief explanationand yet detailed use of Q, or his frequent ref-erences to Second Temple Jewish literature)would make the book a challenging readeven for fairly well read pastors. It is also un-clear against whom he is arguing in this book.His occasional references to John DominicCrossan and the Jesus Seminar may reflect hisdesire to critique liberal historical-Jesus schol-ars rather than contemporary NT scholarshipin general.

From a pastoral perspective, Horsley’santi-imperial hermeneutic is often overbear-ing and overstated, and it actually distracts attimes from some of the helpful points hemakes in the book (particularly when he com-pares the Roman empire with contemporaryAmerican foreign policy). His attempt to helpintroduce readers of the Bible to its historicalcontext simultaneously fails to explain howthis background should be applied to NTstudy. Followers of Jesus in today’s world needto be reminded that they cannot simply bringtheir own perspectives to bear on the biblicaltext. Context, of which history is a part, is vitalfor an understanding of the Bible. However,Horsley goes too far in an attempt to drivehome his point. Ultimately, his inability to seeJesus and the “powers” of the first century in

82


any other way than through his anti-imperiallens creates more problems than it solves.

David K. BryanLuther SeminarySaint Paul, Minnesota

THE MAKING OF PAUL: CONSTRUC-TIONS O F T H E A P O S T L E I NEARLY CHRISTIANITY, by Richard I.Pervo. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Pp 376.$32.00 (paper).

The Apostle Paul has always provokedstrong reactions from admirers and detractorsalike. He may, for example, be a preacher ofrighteousness by faith alone, a prime oppres-sor of women, an aggressive missionary whohijacked the Jesus movement, or the teacher ofGod’s righteousness for Jew and Gentile alike.Richard Pervo shows that such diversity of un-derstanding is hardly new. The Making of Paul,a meticulously researched study that bothranges widely and dives deeply, explores howPaul’s person and writings were presented andused in the first centuries of Christianity. Itsurveys both canonical and noncanonical writings,as well as interpreters eventually judged hereticalandthoseacceptedintotheemergingcatholic tra-jectory. Through the use of textual and literaryanalysis, he unfolds a story of how these diver-gent traditions embraced, rejected, and rewrotethe words and the life of Paul to answer thequestions they saw before them.

The author presses the reader to see that we“have” Paul only as those who came after himwanted him to be remembered. This is notdone to debunk the apostle or marginalize ca-nonical material deemed pseudepigraphal orahistorical. Instead, Pervo proposes contextsin which these representations were made andexplores how they illuminate the actual histor-ical task of wrestling with the Pauline gospel inreal-life circumstances. Even the simple act ofcollecting and circulating epistles is a creativeresponse to the demands of faith communi-

ties: “what has survived or been invented ormodified is the result of choices related to per-ceived current needs” (23). These choices re-veal the exercise of theological and pastoraljudgment. Thus, what the collectors of Paul’sletters or the appropriators of his authority didcenturies ago mirrors, to some extent, whatpreachers and church leaders do today. When-ever we interpret Paul, we appropriate a con-versation from which we are quite distant. InThe Making of Paul, Pervo seeks to bring usmore deeply into those conversations, to seemore clearly what it means to receive, to passon, and thus to reformulate Paul’s legacy.

While engagingly written, this book islikely too technical to be used as a primary re-source for teaching in the parish. Its audienceis more in the academy. Furthermore, the au-thor’s probing analysis can stray into distract-ing overstatement. Blunt assertions thatColossians portrays Paul as a watching andevaluating “Santa Claus” figure (17–18), orthat the strong narrative parallels between Je-sus and Paul in Luke-Acts elevate Paul beyond“just a bearer of the saving message,” and intoa “savior figure” who “bring[s] redemption toothers” (154–155) would serve the author’s ar-gument better if they were made as observa-tions about interpretive trajectories ratherthan as indisputable facts. While the audienceis not the pew, there are moments when Pervomakes it more challenging than necessary toemploy his insights in service to the pulpit.

As a historical study, this book does notspeak directly to current questions such as the“New Perspective” on Paul or debates aboutNew Testament sexual ethics; the issues it ad-dresses are more those of the scholarly guildthan of the church. However, in surveying howthe earliest transmitters of Paul used his wit-ness, Pervo gives us helpful models for con-sidering how the church today amplifies,downplays, or modifies elements of Paul’smessage. With some work and imagination,pastors could use these precedents to help illu-minate just which aspects of Paul’s legacy their

84


ministries embody. Pervo highlights, for ex-ample, how easily the dynamic power of gracecan devolve into mere morality; he also showshow surprisingly susceptible Paul’s writingsare to being stripped out of their Old Testa-ment moorings. Pauline authority can be usedin many ways, whether as an appeal to “cul-tured despisers” of Christianity (such as thesupposed letters of Paul and Seneca), or amore defensive presentation of the church as anonthreatening, strongly led model commu-nity (as found in the Pastoral Epistles), or anattempt to unify believers (such as the book ofActs). The analysis found in The Making ofPaul prompts consideration of how churchesinvoke, apply, or avoid Paul today. While thebook leaves the work of contemporary appli-cation to the reader, it does provide a tremen-dous amount of data to inform such reflection.Preachers can find here helpful critical obser-vations that will clarify the distinctiveness ofthe deutero-Pauline epistles when they comeup in the lectionary. Pastors will find rich in-sight into what was gained and lost when thepractical, particular letters of Paul were made,by his followers, into general pronouncementsintended to be universally applicable (25).

This work deals with history, and oftenwith the uncertain reconstruction of texts andevents of long ago. Pervo’s tremendous atten-tion to volumes of detail may feel like it addsanother layer of complexity. But for the onewho brings theological and pastoral discern-ment to this scholarly work, the effort will berewarded. Not all of the author’s judgmentswill convince every reader, but even then, hedoes not fail to inform. Pervo notes that Paul“continually urged his converts to think, towork out their own issues in accordance withthe grace they had received” (236). The Makingof Paul equips the student of the New Testa-ment to receive Paul’s legacy and do just this.

Eric W. EversReformation Lutheran ChurchMilford, Delaware

CHRIST THE KEY, by Kathryn Tanner.Lon-don: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Pp.322. $29.99 (paper).

Kathryn Tanner, who recently moved fromthe University of Chicago to Yale, has offeredone of the most important theological booksof the last decade in Christ the Key. The bookis the promised scholarly, updated, and deep-ened version of her moving and creative lec-tures published as Jesus, Humanity and Trinity.When one thinks of “scholarly, updated, anddeepened” one could easily imagine a tome ofa book filled with copious footnotes and long,esoteric prose, used best as a paperweight anda tonic for insomnia. But Christ the Key is noneof this; rather, this text is the best of theology inboth its scholarly depth and its readability. Aslim volume, it nevertheless packs a punch.The overall pursuit of the project is to reexam-ine the significance of Jesus Christ, providing aChristology that opens the Trinity to humanityand humanity to the Trinity.

Chapter one, entitled “Human Nature,” ex-plores anthropology through a rich dialoguewith Augustine, Genesis, and the church fa-thers. Tanner makes a strong case for a rela-tional understanding of human beings andshows how the human is open to otherness.This openness makes the human a trans-formational creature, a creature desiring andable to be transformed by that which is otherthan it—most fully, God. The human beingthen is plastic, that is, molded in relation toothers and the environment.

Chapters two and three wear the same title,“Grace.” Over these two chapters the authorprovides a rich discussion that focuses mainlyon the shape of Jesus’ union with the Trinitythat, through his humanity, we too are invitedinto. Tanner in these two chapters develops abeautiful picture of the mystical exchange thathappens between our humanity and Christ’sown. And this articulation sings because of herrobust mobilization of the Spirit. Another

85

Reviews

strength of these two chapters is a rich discus-sion of justification and sanctification.

The Trinity is the focus of chapter four.Tanner begins with a discussion on the incar-nate Word, articulating further how the hu-manity of Jesus is bound to the Word—thatwhere Jesus is found so is the Word, and wherethe Word is, so too is Jesus. This then movesher into a discussion of the relational life of theTrinity, showing wonderfully how the Father isthe Father as the Son is the Son only throughrelationship one to the other. From here shegoes into a discussion of soteriology, whereshe strings together beautiful paragraph afterparagraph on how all three persons of Trinityactively participate in the work of salvation.Keeping this from the systematically obscure,Tanner, with great precision, shows the threepersons’ action in the Gospels. But, what is notto be missed in this very lengthy chapter is theemphasis on the work of the Spirit, and howthe Spirit is about joining—joining Father toSon, Son to Father, Word to the humanity ofJesus, and Jesus’ humanity to our own. The ar-ticulation of the work of Spirit here is what re-ally sets Tanner’s offerings on the Trinity apartfrom other relational focuses on the Trinitysuch as those of Barth, Moltmann, and Volf(these last two become central in the nextchapter).

“Politics,” chapter five, to this reviewer isworth every penny of the book’s price. HereTanner takes on the recent popular ecclesio-logical and missional move of applying theTrinity and its relational core (which Tannerherself has articulated in earlier chapters) tothe relational life of the church. Tanner callsthis a political move, pointing to Moltmannand Volf as two of the major voices of thismove picked up by so many more popular au-thors and church consultants. Yet, throughoutthis hard-hitting chapter, Tanner shows thatthis theological move has significant prob-lems, explaining that when we so easily applythe relationality of the Trinity to human rela-tionships we lose the distinctive otherness of

the Trinity, we forget that the community ofthe Trinity escapes the human knower, thatthere is an asymmetry between the Trinity andhuman community. Her arguments here arequite convincing. Tanner then concludes thatit is a better approach to turn toward the rela-tional connection between Jesus’ humanityand our own, toward a more incarnational per-spective as it relates to human relationshipsand the church. She makes this case elegantly,opening up significant space for deeperthought on what this means for pastors andpractical theologians.

The book ends with two shorter chapters onatonement and the working of the Spirit. Thereis significance in these chapters as well. For in-stance, Tanner deals with feminist and woman-ist perspectives on the atonement and itssacrificial nature. But it must be stated that, atleast to this reviewer, these two chapters had ahard time living up to splendor of Tanner’schapter on “Politics.” They are significant andshould be read, but next to the brilliance of hercritique of Moltmann and Volf they lack thesame electric sizzle.

Christ the Key is a shining light in system-atic theology. Not only is it a creative offeringthat avoids the ruts of the countless systematictexts that simply tell us what other theologiansthink, but it actually offers a distinctive andrich perspective of its own. This is a book thattheologians will return to often and that allpastors should take the time to delve into. Itwill not disappoint.

Andrew RootLuther SeminarySaint Paul, Minnesota

86


LIBERATING LUTHERAN THEOL-OGY: FREEDOM FOR JUSTICEAND SOLIDARITY IN A GLOBALCONTEXT, by Paul Chung, Ulrich Duch-row, and Craig L. Nessan. Minneapolis: For-tress, 2011. Pp. 292. $33.00 (cloth).

What does the theology of Martin Lutherhave to say to the formidable challenge ofglobal capitalism and the injustices that resultfor the world’s most vulnerable? While Lu-ther’s legacy of standing against the spiritualtyranny of his day is well established, the issueof whether he colluded with or worked againstthe political and economic tyrannies of histime has long been a matter of debate. In Liber-ating Lutheran Theology, theologians PaulChung, Ulrich Duchrow, and Craig Nessan joina growing list of contemporary Lutheran theo-logians who see in Luther’s theology resourcesfor a liberationist theological approach totoday’s global challenges.

Craig Nessan, a theologian from WartburgTheological Seminary, sets the wider contextfor the book by beginning with Latin Ameri-can liberation theology and the critiques thathas leveled against Luther, particularly histwo-kingdoms teachings. Taking his cue fromBrazilian Lutheran theologian Walter Alt-mann, Nessan works to reframe Luther’s workon the two kingdoms to liberationist ends.Nessan insists that if Luther is understoodfrom the perspective of his own context, it be-comes clear that his “two kingdoms teaching isnot about two separate and unrelated realmsbut about two different types of divine activ-ity” (49), which is why Nessan talks insteadabout God’s two strategies in dealing with theworld. God’s right-hand strategy involves theproclamation of the gospel, while God’sleft-hand strategy deals with temporal institu-tions. Thus, God’s two strategies are distinctbut complementary, and if we “reintegratewhat tragically has been separated” (52), thetemporal realm becomes a place where Chris-

tian service takes the form of politicalengagement on behalf of the neighbor.

In part two of the book, Paul Chung, trainedand ordained in both Korea and the USA andnow teaching Mission and World Christianityat Luther Seminary, creatively comminglesLutheran insights with Asian theological per-spectives to productive ends. Chung beginswith critical appraisals of the current condi-tions of empire, colonialism, and economic in-justice, turning then to Luther’s thought as apotent resource for facing these challenges. Hefleshes out Luther’s prophetic legacy for theeconomic realm, emphasizing that Lutherlinked his understanding of mammon as “themost common idol on earth” with what Chungcalls his “sacramental understanding of socialdiscipleship” (86). Chung then shows how thisunion in Luther’s thought translates into a vo-cation of choosing God over mammon in so-cial contexts, which, if followed today, leads tomore just economic structures than currentglobal capitalist structures.

Chung then traces Luther’s legacy to Die-trich Bonhoeffer’s theology of resistance,which he believes is open to “prophetic dia-logue with the wisdom of the world religions”(97). Chung then identifies the lines of connec-tion between Bonhoeffer’s theology of resis-tance and Korean minjung views of suffering,resistance, and liberation. From there, Chungoffers his constructive proposal for doing “ir-regular theology,” theology done by second-generation minjung theologians, whichengages the inter- and trans-cultural realitiesof Asian contexts. Chung then uses Buddhistunderstandings of inter-being and Confucianresistance to unjust rulers to “enrich andtransform” Lutheran theology to speak to cur-rent instances of “global tyranny and the fe-tishism of capital expansion and accumulationfor pursuing profit” (145).

Part three of the book is written by UlrichDuchrow, former director of Lutheran WorldFederation’s Commission on Studies and cur-rently professor at the University of Heidel-

88


berg. He presents Luther’s critique of earlycapitalism and demonstrates how Luther un-derstands the church as an alternative to thecapitalist order. Just as with Chung, Duchrowunderstands the global context as a necessarilymultireligious one, and he explores how Lu-ther’s views of the intersections of religion andpolitics compare to those of Mahatma Gandhi.Duchrow sees that Gandhian views offer somecorrective to Lutheran thought, particularlyaround issues of violence. Duchrow concludeshis section by attending to recent ecumenicalwork and the consistent resistance to neolib-eral capitalism found there. The book draws toa close with a sense of urgency about marshal-ing all possible theological resources toaddress the death-dealing effects of globalcapitalism.

While there is much to praise in this vol-ume, the text at times struggles with cohesion.The first three sections of the book are eachwritten individually, with little engagementwith the other sections. This lack of integrationleads to several instances of repetition that canbecome a distraction for the reader.

The lack of conversation within the book’sfirst three sections is also a missed opportunityto explore more deeply where we think Luthergot it right and where we need to offer correc-tives. Take, for example, the divergent assess-ments by Nessan and Duchrow of Luther’s rolein the Peasants’ Revolt. Nessan defends Lu-ther’s stance vis-à-vis the peasants, arguingthat “[I]t was the peasants and not the princeswho obscured the true gospel during the peas-ants’ uprising” (44). Nessan concludes his as-sessment with the claim that Luther’s stanceagainst the peasants is consistent with his de-fense of the freedom to proclaim the gospel.Duchrow, on the other hand, states that Luthercomes to “tragically false conclusions duringthe Peasants’ War” (189) and “in light of to-day’s exegesis of Paul, one would need torethink Luther’s clash over the Radical Reforma-tion” (194). This is not simply one small pointof disagreement; rather, it is a point that affects

how one “liberates Lutheran theology” in rela-tionship to his two-kingdoms teaching, hisconception of Christian freedom, the ability ofChristians to work for reform in the politicalsphere, and the list goes on.

Finally, while one book on the “global con-text” cannot possibly be comprehensive, twoother limitations deserve mention. The firsthas to do with the way in which female andfeminist scholars make only scant appear-ances in the text. From the history of liberationtheology told with barely a reference to workby women scholars or mujerista theologians,to the analysis of liberation theology’s impacton systematic theologians in North Americaand Europe that ignores scholarship done bywomen, to the discussions of empire and colo-nialism that fail to engage recent scholarshipdone by women: if readers do not know better,they will think that women play almost no rolein “liberating Lutheran theology,” whichsimply is not the case.

The second major limitation has to do withthe relative silence about the African context.Both Chung and Duchrow attend briefly to Af-rica, and Duchrow aligns himself with the DarSalaam statement (2007) when it calls for “theend of trivializing the voices of African people”as they seek to expose the deleterious effect ofglobal capitalism (228). While this is an im-portant statement to make, the fact that thereare only a handful of references to Africanvoices in the text threatens to leave themtrivialized once again.

Overall, though, all of us who work to liber-ate Lutheran theology will find in this bookmany insights to broaden the understandingof how Luther can be a resource for proclaim-ing God’s good news to the world while work-ing against the injustices of our day.

Deanna A. ThompsonHamline UniversitySaint Paul, Minnesota

90


THE WESTMINSTER HANDBOOK TOMARTIN LUTHER, by Denis R. Janz.Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010.Pp. 147. $30.00 (paper).

Denis Janz is well known to Luther scholarsin North America. He published a fine study ofLuther’s relationship to late medieval Thom-ism early in his career. He is also the editor of aPeople’s History of Christianity, a multivolumework that focuses on the lives, practices, andinstitutions of the “common” folk. In thiswork, Martin Luther is again the object of hisattention. As the title word “handbook” im-plies, Janz has chosen fifty-eight theologicalterms from Luther’s works and provided ex-tensive definitions of each. The text beginswith “Anfechtung” and eventually winds itsway to “Worship.” In between are stops at top-ics such as “Descent into Hell,” “Grace,”“Law,” and “Trinity.”

Janz acknowledges in his introduction thatthere is hardly a need for another book on Lu-ther’s theology. But he wants to argue that a“handbook” approach can provide depth andsubstance along with accessibility. And heseems to have pulled it off. I found myself mov-ing from one topic to the next when I began toread this book. Of course, this means it lacksthe coherence of more systematic treatmentsof Luther. For that one should consult the workof Robert Kolb, Oswald Bayer, or BernhardLohse. But Janz’s volume does pull the readerdeeper into Luther’s thinking. The article on“Baptism” leads to the one on “Penance,”which leads to the one on “Sin” and so forth.Perhaps its unsystematic method is the mostauthentic way to study one of the church’smost unsystematic theologians!

Another strength of Janz’s book is his will-ingness to let Luther speak for himself. Whilethere is a bibliography at the end of the book(more about that in a moment), there is a realconcern to have Luther’s own words shapehow a word or concept is understood. For ex-ample, the article on “Justification” has over

forty quotations from a wide variety of the re-former’s treatises and commentaries. But Janzis careful not to just string together phrases fromLuther’s writings. He organizes them in a way thatpays attention to the context and Luther’s owntheological development. He understands thedanger of simply quoting Luther without provid-ing the setting and occasion for his remarks. Over-all, this focus on original sources gives theHandbook an authentic feel. It also means that itshould remain relevant for years to come.

There are some items in Janz’s text thatmight be questioned. The bibliography seemedoverly concerned with the Finnish scholarshipon Luther. While this deserves mention, itseems a little one-sided. For example, to men-tion five Finnish texts while ignoring the im-portant work of Gerhard Forde is a littlepuzzling. Also, there is a distinct emphasis onLuther’s link with the Roman Catholic tradi-tion. Again, this is understandable given Janz’sown teaching position at a Jesuit university(Loyola in New Orleans). Topics on “Ordina-tion,” “Papacy,” and “Penance” certainly be-long in any guide to Luther’s theology. But theAnabaptists should be there as well. And soshould preaching. But these are not gamebreakers. Students and scholars of Luthershould be grateful for the Handbook. It pro-vides the reader with not only a “highlights”tour of Luther’s theology but it also takes theminside the Reformer’s thought.

Mark D. TranvikAugsburg CollegeMinneapolis, Minnesota

DEFENDING CONSTANTINE: THETWILIGHT OF AN EMPIRE ANDTHE DAWN OF CHRISTENDOM,by Peter Leithart. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVPAcademic, 2010. Pp. 373. $27.00 (paper).

Peter Leithart is that rare and wonderfulkind of theologian so engaged with the theo-logical tradition of the church catholic that he

92


lives and breathes it—and trusts it mat-ters—yet is intellectually curious and skepti-cal enough not to accept inaccurate andprejudiced historical caricatures at face value.He believes that the “historical stories we tellcontribute a great deal to our theology andpractice as Christians, so a distorted view ofConstantine and the civilization that followedhim is bound to produce distortions else-where” (Author Q&A).

Leithart believes many if not most theolo-gians in the present era do indeed have a dis-torted view of Constantine, and although thisapplies to much of the constructive and histor-ical work done in the field (and so alsopreached from our pulpits) it is especiallyinstantiated in the work of Mennonite theolo-gian John Howard Yoder and Duke ethicistStanley Hauerwas. Given the growing and sub-stantial influence of these two theologians, andespecially given their constant references toConstantinianism as the bogeyman, clearthinking about Constantine and his influenceis essential.

For the sake of full disclosure, readers of re-views in Word & World may know that I havewritten positive reviews of two very Yoderianand Hauerwasian books by Craig Carter inthese pages. Leithart takes issue with bothbooks because they develop their argumentsbased on the historical inaccuracies that un-dergird the theology of Yoder and his epi-gones. Unlike Leithart, I have simply taken thereceived wisdom concerning Constantine’s(supposedly negative) influence on Christen-dom at face value. I am chastened and chal-lenged by the scholarship of Leithart.

Here are some of the questions Leithartraises: What if a majority of the received wis-dom concerning Constantine and his legacyis wrong? What if the concept—Constan-tinianism—is premised on inaccurate inter-pretations of the historical record? And themost troubling question of all—What if someof the most enduring and influential construc-tive theologies of the last century, including

those of such luminaries as Stanley Hauerwasand John Howard Yoder, have been con-structed on this damnably false edifice? Whatif, in the end, all of these problems come downto a misunderstanding of baptism?

It is not surprising that Leithart, a strongproponent of infant baptism, would take is-sue with Yoder, a Mennonite, on the topic ofbaptism. What is surprising is that the paedo-baptist/Anabaptist debate pertains to dis-cussions concerning Constantine. And yet itdoes.

In the end it all comes round to baptism,specifically to infant baptism….ChristianRome was in its infancy, but that washardly surprising. All baptisms are infantbaptisms….Yoder failed…to give dueweight to “the interim, the interval be-tween the remission of sins which takesplace in baptism, and the permanently es-tablished sinless state in the kingdom thatis to come, this middle time of prayer,while [we] pray, ‘Forgive us our sins.’” Hefailed to acknowledge that all—Constan-tine, Rome, and ourselves—stand in me-dial time, and yet are no less Christian forthat. (341–342)

Leithart considers Constantine a Chris-tian—fallen, immature in faith in his earlyyears, paradoxical—but a Christian nonethe-less. Out of that operative assumption, he findsConstantine and his reign generative for awhole theology as a social science (11).

I have found that, far from representing afall for the church, Constantine providesin many respects a model for Christian po-litical practice. At the very least, his reignprovides rich material for reflection on awhole series of perennial political-theo-logical questions: about religious tolera-tion and coercion, about the legitimacy ofChristian involvement in political life,about a Christian ruler’s relationship tothe church, about how Christianity influ-ences civil law, about the propriety of vio-lent coercion, about the legitimacy ofempire. (11)

93

Reviews

This book is full of surprises. For example, Ihad not expected to have my thinking aboutthe relationship between the theology of bap-tism and political theology reinvigorated. Buteven more stunning, whereas most Christiantheology considers the end of sacrifice accom-plished by Christ and effected through thepractices of early synagogues in Babyloniancaptivity in absence of a temple, Leithart drawsattention to Constantine as perhaps the great-est figure (after Christ) who brought about theend of sacrifice.

First, Leithart notes that “Romans sacrificeChristians to protect Rome by fending off theunthinkable prospect of the end of sacrifice”(27). Leithart understands the phenomenon ofmartyrdom under Roman rule to be the logicalcorollary of Rome’s sacrificial practices, aswell as its defense mechanism for the same.“Constantine’s victory marked the end of theentire system of the Tetrarchy and the begin-ning of a new political theology. The changeshowed itself almost immediately. The rules ofthe triumph required Constantine to enter theCapitolium and offer sacrifice to Jupiter;Constantine refused. Diocletian’s empire wasbuilt on sacrifice, his persecutions inspired bya failed sacrifice. As soon as he defeatedMaxentius, Constantine made it clear that anew political theology was coming to be, a po-litical theology without sacrifice. It was a signalof the ‘opposition to sacrifice’ that he wouldhold to ‘consistently for the rest of his life’”(66–67). Furthermore, his future legislationcreated an atmosphere where sacrifice, as itwere, faded away (129). As they say, “I did notknow that!” We learn from Leithart that theU.S. Senate does not begin its sessions by slaugh-tering a goat, perhaps primarily becauseConstantine brought an end to such practices.So thank you, Constantine.

John Howard Yoder is widely recognized asone of the greatest apologists for radical Chris-tian pacifism. Leithart’s most significant theo-logical contribution in this book is to vitiate

Yoder’s historical claims and the force of thoseclaims for his apology.

Yoder claims that the church slid or fellinto Constantinianism from an earlier re-nunciation of violence and war. In fact,things are more messy and complicated,and therefore Yoder is wrong….[I]nshort, the story of the church and war isambiguity before Constantine, ambigu-ity after, ambiguity right to the present.Constantine is in this respect a far lesserfigure than Yoder wants to make him(278).

Leithart achieves the goal he sets for him-self of writing a book of Christian politicalthought that attends to the “gritty realities ofhistory” (29). Really, this book should be re-quired reading for anyone who has read any-thing by John Howard Yoder or StanleyHauerwas, anyone who has tossed the conceptof Constantinianism into the fray in a theologi-cal conversation, or anyone who would like tothink clearly about what a robust and baptizedpolitical theology might look like in a new eraof empire.

It also helps that Leithart is polemical, au-thentic, and at times witty. Consider this sen-tence, “Yoder’s Augustine is so far from thereal Augustine that it is difficult to find a re-sponse beyond pointing to a copy of City of Godwith the exhortation Tolle lege” (287). Or thisone, tossed into the middle of the book:“Constantine was not just a Christian; he was amissional Christian!” (88). I imagine Leithartmay be able to claim to be the first person towrite a book on missional Constantinianism.Maybe they should have thrown “missional”into the subtitle to sell more copies!

Clint SchneklothGood Shepherd Lutheran ChurchFayetteville, Arkansas

94


PATHS NOT TAKEN: FATES OF THE-OLOGY FROM LUTHER THROUGHLEIBNIZ, by Paul R. Hinlicky. Grand Rap-ids: Eerdmans, 2009. Pp. 385. $50.00 (pa-per).

In this aptly titled volume, Paul Hinlickyboth addresses what he sees as the wrong di-rection taken by Lutheran theology in themodern era and offers his own unique alterna-tive road forward for a postmodern Lutherantheology. In embarking upon this journey, inthe postmodern era Hinlicky seeks to go for-ward in theology, away from modernism, bygoing back to something pre-modern. In par-ticular, he wants to go forward into a post-modern Lutheran theology by escaping thedualistic, anthropologically centered, and“noncognitive” approach to theology groundedin the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, by ap-proaching theology through the “theologicalphilosophy” of Philip Melanchthon andGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (4–5).

In undertaking this enterprise, Hinlickyidentifies from the outset that he is both em-bodying something and rejecting something in“postmodernism.” Hinlicky identifies his pro-ject as postmodern in the sense that in under-taking it, he rejects some assumptions presentin modernistic approaches to theology. In par-ticular, Hinlicky rejects the Kantian dualismbetween the existential or noncognitive andthe essential or rational as well as the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation(4–6). Yet, Hinlicky’s project is not post-modern, in that he rejects the propensity to-wards relativism and pluralism.

Hinlicky understands the modern Kantiantrajectory in Protestant and Lutheran thought,beginning with Schleiermacher and includingto some extent the theology of Karl Barth, andthe reaction to it in “radical Lutheranism,” tohave departed from what was basically aCyrillian, Augustinian, and Trinitarian es-sentialist and rational theology in the thoughtof Luther to a subject-centered existential ap-

proach to theology (10–12). Hinlicky statesthat he is not rejecting the existential ap-proach but arguing for its belonging to-gether with the essential approach (6–8). ForHinlicky, that these two belong together is seenparticularly in Luther’s understanding of justi-fication expressed in terms of the happy ex-change between Christ and the sinner, whichHinlicky identifies as a participatory approachto justification in which the Holy Spirit actu-ally makes the sinner righteous (145–148).

Hinlicky identifies the breaking point be-tween the essential and the existential in thehistory of Protestant thought as occurringwithin the theology of Melanchthon. Hinlickydraws a distinction between the earlier Melanch-thon—and his idea that to know Christ is toknow him in his benefits—with the later andmore Aristotelian Melanchthon. Hinlickyidentifies with this more Aristotelian, rationalMelanchthon and even seeks to show the har-mony between this approach to Lutheran the-ology and the metaphysical theology ofThomas Aquinas (7). While the former side ofMelanchthon appears in the Reformer’s doc-trine of justification expressed merely in fo-rensic terms, the latter side of Melanchthonmay be seen in his concern for the human asthe imago Dei (24–27). This latter side ofMelanchthon represents a path not taken inLutheran theology that might have avoided theKantian error of dualism and the subsequent“disappearance of the Holy Spirit” from Lu-theran theology. Instead of abandoning the es-sential for the existential, the real for theforensic, and the Holy Spirit for a “theologicalbinarism,” in which salvation is a transactionbetween the Father and the Son for the sakeof the humans sinner as well as a new sub-jective impulse, Protestantism and the Lu-theran tradition might have saved themselvesfrom its modern enslavement to Kantiansubjectivism if they had followed the alter-native route of the later Melanchthon (10–12, 175–177).

Yet, says Hinlicky, in the person of Leibniz

96


Lutheranism has one example of a thinkerwho exemplifies this kind of Melanch-thonianism. Hinlicky understands Leibniz,like Melanchthon, to be a moderating figurewho serves as an alternative to the Pelagianismof the Kantian turn towards the subject on theone hand, and a depiction of God’s work assomething that rules out human choice on theother. Human willing and divine willing arenot incompatible, because God forms the con-text for human willing, which takes place aspart of the imago Dei (24, 26–27). In this way,Hinlicky understands Leibniz, like Melanch-thon, as a theologian exuding a certaincompatibilism between the willing of God andthe willing of the human being. Suchcompatibilism parallels the understanding ofjustification as being participatory in nature.Furthermore, he understands Leibniz to pres-ent a certain general pneumatology evident inLeibniz’s monadology and theodicy in whichthe world is understood as the creation, which

God made and sustains, and in which the hu-man finds her identity as a creature of God inthis best of all possible worlds (13, 30). Suchpneumatological metaphysics work out in cre-ation through what Hinlicky describes asGod’s working good through what appears tobe evil, in theodicy both in the thought ofLeibniz and in the theology of Luther throughthe reformer’s discussion of the theology of thecross and the hiddenness of God (279).

In something of a paradox, Hinlicky doesnot think that the not-taken path of Melanch-thon and Leibniz is altogether not taken, afterall. Instead, he understands the later, Trinitar-ian theology of Karl Barth in this light. More-over, Hinlicky finds conversation partners forthis view in Barth’s Trinitarian successorsWolfhart Pannenberg, Eberhard Jüngel, andRobert Jensen (3, 251–252, 292–293), andurges his readers to take this path themselves,furthering the work he has begun and pioneer-ing new aspects to it by addressing related

98


Created for today’s working preachers • FREE resource to inspire better preaching

• Timely, compelling and trustworthy content

• Deeply grounded, biblically and theologically

workingpreacher.org

www.workingpreacher.orgBrought to you by the Center for Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary

First-rate (and Free!) Preaching Resource

questions he himself has not undertaken(283).

This book provides a metaphysical andnatural theology of creation as the work of Godand the human as the imago Dei as an interest-ing alternative to Kantian dualism. There are,however, also several drawbacks. One suchdrawback is Hinlicky’s categorization of radi-cal Lutherans, such as Gerhard Forde, asKantians, without sufficient qualification orexplanation, especially considering the chargeof Pelagianism, which he levels at the Kantianapproach to theology (155–156). The idea thatradical Lutheranism has neglected the theol-ogy of creation is by now a common theme, butto associate it wholesale with Kantianism isperhaps going too far. Moreover, although hedoes not hide them from the reader, Hinlickycould be more forthright about his own evan-gelical Catholic theological presuppositionsand leanings, especially when he is to some ex-tent claiming to convey and interpret the theo-logical legacy of Luther via the Finnish school’sinterpretation of justification, and purportingto show the compatibility of “Lutheran exis-tentialism” and “Catholic essentialism” (283).Failing to acknowledge his own perspectivesup front, he causes the reader to wonder if theyprejudice his reading of Luther and move awayfrom a theology of human passivity to one ofhuman participation in the divine work.

Furthermore, on a practical note, there ishardly any convergence between Hinlicky’sproposed metaphysical, and Christian minis-try. The “theology” of Hinlicky as expressedhere is certainly of an “academic” and philo-sophical nature rather than one oriented to-wards proclamation and divine service.Nevertheless, this work of Hinlicky’s standsout as an original approach to the issue of howto do Lutheran theology in today’s post-modern environment. Readers may find inthis volume an interesting way of addressingthis issue, and may indeed further Hinlicky’sthought by addressing questions concerning

anthropology raised by Hinlicky but notaddressed by him.

Joshua C. MillerLuther SeminarySaint Paul, Minnesota

DISRUPTING HOMELESSNESS: AL-TERNAT IVE C HRISTIAN AP-PROACHES , by L aura A. St ivers .Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Pp. 160.$18.00 (paper).

Laura A. Stivers has given the church anamazing gift in Disrupting Homelessness: Al-ternative Christian Approaches. This bookgives clergy and lay leaders the tools needed tofaithfully engage our congregations in minis-try that can disrupt the patterns of homeless-ness with which we live. Her writing helps usreset our perspective and function out of aposition of informed compassion. Stiverssets up an extremely accessible format forleaders to use with ministry groups, as herbook demystifies the systems, policies, andcurrent practices around homelessness. Shewalks us through a study of the history, ourown common misunderstandings and ideolo-gies, and on into the most effective and faithfulactions for ministry. In her book, Stivers pullstogether the most relevant work done in thisfield and shares it with us in user-friendly lan-guage. She ends each chapter with a straight-forward conclusion as well as providinghelpful study questions. The book is con-structed for use in group settings as she leavesus with great opportunity for dynamic groupand contextual interpretation.

Stivers states, “The primary task of Chris-tian faith communities is ‘truth work,’ that is,embodying the ways of Jesus and speakingtruth against death-dealing realities” (19), andgoes on to say, “As Christians, we ought to beoutraged that anyone is homeless or lives insubstandard housing when we consider thecall from Isaiah and other prophets to God’sjustice of housing the homeless” (21).

99

Reviews

Stick with it through the front end of her ar-gument—the challenges of homelessness canseem daunting and beyond us as we look itsquarely in the face. Stivers takes the bull bythe horns right out of the gate and fully engagesin this “truth work,” as she names all of the is-sues we are up against when we claim a willing-ness to engage in this ministry. She comes backto each of these challenges, however, in the restof her work with great courage and hope. Shehelps us to comprehend why some of our com-mon practices and ideas are not working wellas we seek to reach out to those who are experi-encing poverty and homelessness in our soci-ety. Stivers untangles the realities of racismand “inequalities of power” that exist for all ofus, helping us to see clearly where each of ushave voice and power to make a difference forothers. She inspires the “outrage” that sheclaims for us with usable strategies and acces-sible processes.

Stivers address the specific American prob-lem we live in as she argues that “attention tostructural causes of homelessness is cruciallyimportant” (53). We are then given a processand attainable common language to use in ourattending. She delivers the information need-ed to achieve a communal wisdom via faithconversation as well as simple terminologyand truth telling about systemic mysteries wekeep hidden behind our versions of the“American Dream” (43). Stivers holds up amirror for us and gently allows us to face thedeified “American Dream” that has unknow-ingly directed so much of our emotion, think-ing, and behavior around housing issues. Shefaces our idolatry (my term) with us as she tellsthe truth through narrative, using the voices ofothers to tell our common story.

Her return to agency throughout her workis hopeful in that it reminds us of the God-given strength each of us is granted. She helpsus to step back from our tendencies to rescueor blame and leads us toward more productivecommunal thinking that includes those weseek to “help” with our ministry energy. She

helps us define the subgroups and differingneeds within the homeless community as sheassesses current practices and programs. Inthis assessment, we see how some ministry ap-proaches are effective for some but not allthose in need.

In chapter 6, Stivers teaches us to “prophet-ically disrupt” and become a “More Compas-sionate Society” as she lifts up advocacy as thekey element of what she describes as a neces-sary “social movement” (105). She shows usthe power of what it means to be God’s peoplewhen she states:

While money has considerable influencein our political system, we are still a de-mocracy, and large coalitions can have po-litical clout.…Christians and churchcommunities are called…to be in solidar-ity with the most exploited and margin-alized by participating in a movement forsocial and economic justice.…It is alwayseasier to deny complicity in oppressivesystems if we have done individual gooddeeds and have not been overtly exclu-sionary. God, through the example of Je-sus Christ, calls us to more, however. Jesusdid not revel in his own purity at the ex-pense of injustice but instead challengedunjust systems, whether it was his society’sunjust treatment of lepers (Matt. 8:3; Mark1:40–45; Luke 17:11–19) or the highly usuri-ous money-lending system at the temple(Mark 11:15–19; 13:1–8). (121)

Stivers ends her book with a set of accessi-ble tools to live out this vision and becomecongregations that effectively engage in com-passionate ministry for those who are living inpoverty and homelessness. She allows spacefor a wide range of theologies within thismovement and activity as well as the grace toenhance and embrace our current work.

Kristen JacobsonCentral Lutheran ChurchMinneapolis, Minnesota

100


creation untamed: the bible, god, and natural …creation untamed: the bible, god, and natural...

Documents