dctheology.org

Michael Letchford of the University of Bristol recently reviewed Theological Theodicy in the journal Theology [116.4 (July/August 2013): 283-284]. His review is of the kind that merits a response because it could leave a false impression of both my self-understanding and aims in this book.

After the summary section of the review, Letchford points to two flaws he sees in the work. One is that I am “overly dogmatic” in the book since mine is “not a broad overview of the subject in which rival outlooks are properly examined” but simply reflective of my own perspective. A sweeping remark following the noted flaw is that, “Irritatingly, he persistently generalizes all Christian belief as assenting to this viewpoint.” And two, “the book fails to signpost the nonspecialist reader.” In other words, the reader is left unaware of rival accounts. Both of these perceived flaws are related. Let me make two passing comments.

By the way Letchford introduces his review, I take it that he approached TT with an expectation that drives the “Cascade Companions” Series, one that serves to introduce readers to a field of inquiry, and in this regard, the expectation is understandable. Truth be told, that is what I originally intended with the volume, but as I began to work through it, I came to realize that I could not do justice to “theodicy” as a topic in under 30k words (the length typically asked of a Cascade Companion). So, I decided to approach the subject in two alternative ways: First, I would offer a survey of sorts but of one particular approach to theodicy. This is a practical, apophatic, and history of ideas approach, and it is embodied in the works of David Bentley Hart, John Swinton, David Burrell, Stanley Hauerwas, Ken Surin, and Terrence Tilley. In doing this, I aimed toward a second goal: to offer a dogmatic sketch of the subject, taking as my cue John Webster’s approach to such topics as Scripture and holiness. Therefore, the volume is precisely meant to be “dogmatic” in the technical sense of the word, i.e., in terms of Christian dogmatics or speech. I discussed this change of approach with Wipf and Stock, and they were willing to keep the volume in the CC series.

As for the passing remark that I irritatingly generalize all of Christian belief to my own viewpoint, I will simply point to several quotes to expose the uncharitable nature of such a claim. I set the tone on p. 19: “What follows is an account that is self-understood as a theological reconstruction and counterproposal to what is often considered to be a philosophical concern” (emphasis added). I also say on p. 40: “Several remarks are in order so as to set this exercise on a specific course” (emphasis added). And finally on p. 42, I state, “As an act of transparency, it should be noted that what follows are alternatives the author finds most compelling in light of theodical concerns . . . they constitute one set among many other possibilities”. Simply put, Theological Theodicy does not pretend to be otherwise than a single, constructive proposal in the field of Christian dogmatics. It is lamentable that Letchford could not take it for what it explicitly aimed to be.

(Note: As part of this research blog, I will take time every now and then to respond to reviews of my work as a way of interacting with reviewers and clarifying arguments.)

Chris Green of the Pentecostal Theological Seminary was kind enough recently to review RPE for Pneuma (see 35.1 [2013]: 108-109).  I was very happy to hear Green would be reviewing my work, not only because we share some theological affinities but also Green is one of the most exciting young theologians on the Pentecostal scene today in that his constructive creativity coincides with his expansive awareness and interactivity with past and present voices. Such talent no doubt is one of the reasons why at such an early stage of his career he was asked to be one of the associate editors of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology.

I think Green captured much of my argument and was able to articulate it in fresh ways that made sense to me. I suppose I was aiming “to critique and alter the Pentecostal ethos,” at least as it currently is sustained within North American contexts, but doing so, at least for me, required moving to the ethical domain of inquiry (hence the title). And yes, my concerns largely were aimed at offering an account of Pentecostal existence that can be sustained within “ordinary time” and that calls for “a dramatic ecclesiological shift in Pentecostal imagination and praxis.” I am not sure I was able to express these aims so directly, but those were largely my concerns, and I am happy to note that Green could see and articulate them.

Finally, Green raises the issue of my focus on North American Pentecostalism and suggests that readers may be bothered by this. I appreciate Green taking time to show that my focus was not meant to reify or romanticize this context, but let me take the opportunity to make some additional claims. In this work, I didn’t want to be survey-esque, speaking of Pentecostalism expansively from the global perspective (which is an important part of Pentecostal/charismatic research today) since I believe a number of Pentecostalisms do exist and their categorization under a single heading is at the end of the day tenuous (and I realize that the title of this book may contribute to this state of affairs). But to make the kind of normative critiques and offerings that drove my argument in the first place, I needed to establish from the beginning a very particular location, and that one, obviously, had to be my own. If one of my aims was to show the inconsistencies and breakdowns of a tradition, then delimitation of the tradition in question had to be narrow. Ultimately, that is my justification of the scope.

My colleague Bo Lim and I are writing a commentary on Hosea through the Two Horizons Series by Eerdmans. Needless to say, I have found it overwhelming how Hosea, particularly Hosea 1-3, has been used and interpreted by people is so many different ways. Such variability ultimately says more about the readers of Hosea than Hosea itself. Nevertheless, one must account for these uses in one way or another.

I would welcome thoughtful reflections on the challenges Hosea presents to contemporary readers.

Hope everybody enjoyed the joint meeting of SPS/WTS at Seattle Pacific. Overall, I take it to have been a good meeting.

Not sure if people understood my paper at the SPS panel on holiness; I have significantly revised it since the presentation, and it is due to appear in Lee Roy Martin’s edited volume on The Future of Holiness (forthcoming via CPT Press). In part, I take on the tradition of prohibitions within Pentecostalism with an eye to advancing the discussion.

Steve Rankin, University Chaplain at Southern Methodist University, recently cited my book in relation to the Newtown tragedy    http://stephenrankin.com/where-was-god/

Honestly, I am very torn inside about all of this. Very angry, horrified, and sad.  I don’t assume that my work will be helpful at this stage of our collective mourning, but I wrote this book with the full awareness that these kinds of tragedies can and do happen.

May we look to God and one another for healing and support, and may we especially remember the families of those who lost their lives through our prayers and efforts to prevent something like this from happening again.

I recently had a very good experience teaching in a pre-PhD research program for students at Semisud in Quito, Ecuador. What most excited me was their motivation and energy. Many were very well-read and thoughtful. The future looks bright for the church, just that we (northern hemisphere, transatlantic culture) may have to go where the action is rather than expect it to come to us.

For some time, I had been hearing Wesleyan scholars and students both praise and desire an alternative to John Webster’s important work Holiness. Thanks to the editors of the Wesleyan Theological Journal for allowing me to post my recent article on the subject. Thanks also to Prof. John Webster, who not only is a great scholar but who also was a gracious and engaging host when I visited and lectured at Aberdeen last April.