Abstract
I will declare some interests before embarking on this review. First, the author is my former academic tutor, and now a friend whom I admire greatly. Second, as an enthusiastic subscriber to Process Theology, I expected to disagree with many of the book’s arguments. With that out of the way, I can get on to exploring the strengths and a few of the weaknesses of what I think is an important book for Christians and students of theology alike.
The book’s purpose is made clear from the outset. It asks ‘how human action can be transformed in the light of a classic theological understanding of God’ (p. 4), in contrast to popular trends that do the reverse. Engaging the essential tenets of classical theism (such as omnipotence, impassibility, etc.), the book intends to elucidate them afresh for the present day. This analysis then leads to reflections on what the practical implications of these tenets might be, and what the dangers are of their opposite. The author clearly explains each doctrine in a manner approachable to undergraduates and most interested readers, giving succinct arguments for the impact of their embrace or rejection on the Christian life and social action. The book flows well, with a beautiful pace and structure, making it an enjoyable read.
There is much to be praised about it: it is an approachable text concisely setting out the pillars of classical theism and their importance for twenty-first-century Christianity. The book states its case with sufficient theological depth, but without being verbose, dry or impractical, and is especially to be commended for those exploring the topic for the first time, such as students and ministry candidates. The sections that specifically engage with implications for Christian action are especially strong. Of particular interest to me was the way in which drawing from classical theism enabled helpful reflection on how Christians might engage with anger and power in organizing for social justice.
As I have already suggested, I expected from the outset to disagree with many of the book’s conclusions, but that is not to say that I thought they were argued badly. For me as both a process and practical theologian, the main weakness is that I felt there was little in the book to convince those who reject the classical view of its epistemic necessity. A central argument seemed to be ‘the risk of making our human experience the basis of our understanding of God’s love’ (p. 69). I would argue that there is no other way to understand or know God or God’s love than human experience – and that, indeed, the roots of classical theism in pre-Christian philosophy are themselves contextual and experiential, there being no ‘outside’ perspective. The author and I, it would seem, are operating from different epistemological starting points.
Overall, I feel that this is an important and useful text, despite my holding a different view. The book offers a perspective on classical theism that I find more palatable than most. It is reasonable, practical, and excellently articulated.