Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality

Rating:
Summary: An important work
Review: All in all, I think the book was pretty dense, but it challenged some long-held evangelical assumptions that must be reformed for the future. This is an important book that helps to make evangelical thought more conversant with some of the major contributions in 20th century theology. It serves to help conservative christians engage other disciplines, as well as helping us to understand our faith in philosophical categories that more closely correlate to the Biblical presentation of a dynamic transformative Triune God.

Rating:
Summary: Through a glass darkly...
Review: I Corinthian 13:12 says that "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." Yet oddly, it seems that many who have theological interests seem to think that we can see all of theology in a crystal-clear way, and now that we 'have' this perfect knowledge, all we need to do is pass it down.

LeRon's excellent book Reforming Theological Anthropology is basically about Paul's point in I Corinthians: we DON'T have everything figured out. As we all see darkly now, we must work to understand that darkness through the light of Christ, as Christ related to the world: by interacting with people's understanding of the times. LeRon's book is very much about deconstructing some of the strong assumptions that we've come to accept as fact, and he challenges us to see that many of these 'facts' are, in fact, not facts.

This is a thick read: don't expect to blow through it and have full comprehension of it. For myself, I know that I probably woudn't have understood half of it if I hadn't had him as a professor who was willing to explain things in class. But don't be to quick to pass it by because of this...LeRon's work deserves careful consideration.

Rating:
Summary: Challenging and Transforming, if you are ready for it
Review: In the spirit of full disclosure, and in the Spirit of Christ that should characterize such interactions, I will admit up front that I am one of Dr. Shults' current teaching assistants. This implies, as one of the previous reviewers has noted, that I do have a bias in favor of Shults. At the same time, I am also very familiar with Shults' ideas and arguments. The critical reader is cautioned to note these possible strengths and weaknesses of my perspective.

I had not planned to review this book; a work of this quality hardly needs my endorsement. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to respond to what I found to be an unfair and scathing review of this book by Gannon Murphy. I trust that the discerning reader will recognize that Mr. Murphy has a personal axe to grind with Dr. Shults as a direct result of taking his theology class in seminary. The fact that Murphy largely disagrees with Shults is clear. Readers can judge for themselves whether Murphy's reasons for disagreeing actually make sense (although I recommend taking a look at the full web article he references for a more complete argument). I find many of Murphy's claims to be confused and possibly incoherent, such as the apparent notion that there is a monolithic "classical theology" characteristic of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin. My primary goal here, however, is to provide an alternative perspective to Murphy's clearly partisan reading of Shults.

Before I embark on that task, however, I will also remark how surprised I am to see Shults' character, motivation, and allegiances questioned in this fashion (which only gets worse in the full article). This is a personal attack that has no place in a book review. I will make every effort to not repeat such speculations about Murphy's personal motivations and character. I think Murphy's "axe" is apparent, especially in the longer article, but I will allow the reader to make this call for him/herself.

Reforming Theological Anthropology is based on a simple idea, which is decidedly not that we should abandon any theology corrupted by Greek philosophy. Instead, it is based on the observation that every great theologian in Christian history - including Murphy's five classics - used the best available science and philosophy of their day (even if they were sometimes unaware of it) and attempted to articulate a faithfully biblical set of doctrines for the living church. This is what it truly means to be reformed. Even Luther and Calvin, who admittedly attempted to recover lost biblical insights, still articulated those insights within a specific cultural context largely shaped by a prevailing philosophical-scientific worldview. Shults is simply suggesting that contemporary theologians should do the same. This is not a complete break from the past. It is a critical appropriation of what has come before in light of what is available now. Yes, the "now" may become obsolete, but then another generation of sharp minds will continue the ongoing task of reforming theology and the church.

This is a disturbing thought to some evangelicals who want to believe that we have most things already nailed down. For them, theology is mostly about arguing the esoteric fine points (which is why many find it inaccessible) and the goal of theological education is primarily to pass on this secure body of knowledge to the next generation of pastors. If you tend to view theology this way, as Murphy explicitly does near the end of his full article, then you will probably dislike Shults' book. Don't buy it.

If, on the other hand, you find evangelical faith to be compelling yet contemporary evangelical theology less so, this book is likely for you. Be warned that it is a challenging read. You may need to have a dictionary handy. It is meant for graduate level seminary education. Don't expect it to read like the Prayer of Jabez.

Having said that, by definition this book should be a bit confusing. Part of Shults' premise is that our mental categories need to be rearranged. You need to learn to think in radically new ways. This kind of rewiring can be a long and even painful process. You may discover allegiances to ideas (even unbiblical ones) that you were unaware you had. You may also find great hope. Do your best to suspend judgment, at least temporarily. My experience is that these ideas do eventually make sense, once you've dwelled in the new ideas for a time. I have found that it is worth the wait.

Note also that RTA was not only written for evangelicals, which may also concern some. Shults believes that the gospel is worth sharing with everyone, so that all might be invited into a transforming relationship with the infinite trinitarian God. How annoyingly evangelical of him.