Nearly finished with this series. And the ordination commemoration book for this year arrived yesterday. Stuart saw me swithering over it in Blackwells at Oxford, and predicted that I wouldn't hold out long. I hate being predictable!
More of that later. Here's the two for 2001-2. The first helped me understand the intellectual and spiritual integrity, as well as the political and social agendas, of American liberal theology. The second is now a standard commentary on Paul's theological Matterhorn, his letter to Romans.
2001 Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology. Volume 1.
Before this book Dorrien the historian wrote a fine history of American Evangelical thought in the 19th and into the 20th Century. This is part of a three volume history of the theology that became a reaction to fundamentalism, both as religious and as political movement. Christianity in America is a rich, diverse, large-scale cultural given, and even today alignments of fundamentalism and liberal theology are largely on predictable party lines. Dorrien's ability to trace influential personalities, unravel cultural changes, understand the reflexive impact of politics on theology, and theology on politics, as well as his sympathy with the religious content of his own national history, make this an important three volume history. It is an account of a way of thinking that remains influential and an important corrective to current perceptions of American right wing Christianity.
2002, Tom Wright, Romans (Included in the New Interpreter's Bible, Volume X)
This completed my set of this major commentary. Like all sets, the contributions are mixed in value. One or two I can do without, and some are far too good to be imprisoned within a major set. Of the latter Wright on Romans, Brueggemann on Exodus, Fretheim on Genesis, O'day on John, McCann on Psalms and Craddock on Hebrews were worth publishing sepearately.
But Wright on Romans? - well of course a lot of folk think he is Wrong on Romans. Me - I think this commentary is one of the most refreshing and passionate treatments of the text I've used. I don't buy into all that he wants to make Paul mean - but neither do I buy into all that Moo, Fitzmyer, Cranfield or Dunn say. But for a readable and different take on Romans, justification and the mind of Paul, I now make sure I read Wright on whatever passage, and then check him with those who say Wright is wrong.
By the way, I have a presentation bound copy of James Denney on Romans, which used to belong to Professor James Orr. It is inscribed in Denney's precise neat handwriting,
"Rev. Prof. Orr, D.D. with kindest regards from James Denney".
It is one of my personal treasures. As much as any, or many, of the books I've bought over the years, James Denney's writing has been a reminder of the centrality of Christ, in whom the grace of God comes to us in holy judgement and merciful love. And whenever tempted to become cynical, trivial or self-serving in ministry, several pages of Denney pulls the heart back to the centre of things, to the Christ of the Gospel and the Gospel of Christ. I gladly gave three years of my life to doctoral studies on the intellectual biography of Denney. It was a debt waiting to be paid.
Comments