Book Reviews 83

Hans Küng. The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion. GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2007.

HansKünghasputtogetherinThe Beginning of All Thingsaremarkablesynthesis of philosophical, theological, and scientific reasoning about our universe. He argues that religious views of the universe (understood assymbolic expressionsof themeaningof this reality) are compatiblewithscientific explanations.

This does not mean that science proves theology or that theologyundergirds scientific exploration, but that each has its own distinctive procedureforunderstandingreality.Küngbelievesthisrealityismorethanwhatsciencecanexplain,whichispreciselywhyweneedreligioninorderto understand reality fully. He emphasizes the limits of scientific knowledge. “Ifscienceistoremainfaithfultoitsmethod,”hesays,“itmaynotextenditsjudgmentbeyondthehorizonofexperience”(52).Heoutlinesthewaycosmology cannot examine the constraints of the cosmos in which we find ourselves.

The author acknowledges that science has its own procedures thatgivereliableandcomprehensiveknowledgeabouttheworldaroundus.Buthe goes further and defines physics as follows: “Its theories and models arenotliteraldescriptionsofrealityattheatomiclevel(naiverealism)butaresymbolicandselectiveattemptsthatdepictthestructureoftheworld”(8). By stressing the symbolic character of scientific explanations, Küng attempts togainafootholdfor religiousexplanationsof thesamereality.Onewondersiftheparallelcanbedrawntooclosely.Surelythesymbolicnatureofreligiousexplanationsdiffersfromthehighlymathematicalandtheoreticalsymbolsofscience,whicharetestedbyexperimentaldataandcause/effectanalysis.

Inhisdiscussionofcreation,Küngstresses the symboliccharacterofthecreationnarrativesoftheHebrewBibleandrepudiatesanyattemptto gain scientific knowledge from them. However, he feels justified in interpretingevolution in religious terms, as a creationby theGodof theJudeo-Christian tradition. He tries to use the fine-tuning of the cosmological constantstosuggesttheintelligentdesignoftheuniverse.Thisargumentistemptingtotheologians,butiftheuniversehasevolvedtoproducelife,the

The Conrad Grebel Review84

constantsoftheuniversearemerelythosethatweexperience.Itisimpossibletoextrapolatetootherpossibleuniverses,sincewehavenoexperienceofanyalternatives.

KüngproposesthatscientistsconsiderGodasahypothesis.Hereitseemstomethatheissteppingbeyondhisownwisethesisthatscienceandreligionshouldretainseparateprocedures.HedoesacknowledgethatthatthereisnodeductiveorinductiveproofofGod.Rather,heinsistsonapracticalandholisticrationalapproachtoGod(includingthewholeexperienceofthehumanbeing,especiallysubjectiveawareness).Küngarguesthatthehumanbeingismorethanthebody,morethanbrainprocesses,andstillamysterytoneurologists.Thisignorance,however,isusedasalogicalleaptowardsthe “mystery” of the cosmos, which is too easily filled by the idea of God as theprimalgroundofourexistence.

Intheplethoraofbooksaboutscienceandreligion,thisonestandsoutasmorecomprehensivethanmostbecauseitputsthediscussioninthecontextofaphilosophicalargumentaboutrealityandthewayweperceiveit.Küngreliesonadepictionoftheologyasametaphysicalprinciplethatgoes beyond the limits of scientific theories. He is too well-versed in the globalreligionstodescribethisasanecessaryleapandinsteaddepicts itas a choice. But such a choice would need to be justified in comparison withotherreligiousormetaphysicalexplanationsoftheultimatereality.ItwouldbeinterestingtoseeKüngusehiswideknowledgeofotherreligionsto compare the various religious cosmologies with current scientific descriptionsoftheoriginsoftheuniverseandlife.

Daryl Culp,HumberCollege,Toronto,ON

Book Reviews 8�

Robert W. Brimlow, What About Hitler? Wrestling with Jesus’ Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World.GrandRapids:Brazos,2006.

In What About Hitler? Robert Brimlow devotes considerable time toa critique of the JustWar tradition. He wrestles vigorously with GeorgeOrwell’s critique of pacifism; he argues pointedly that the Christian’s first concernmustbetoobeyJesus,nottoescapedeathorbesuccessfulaccordingto some short-term definition. And he points out effectively that rejecting killingmakessenseonlyifitispartofapersonalandcommunallifestylecommittedtopeacemaking.

Thereisagooddeal in thisbookthat ishelpful.Brimlowbringsaphilosopher’ssharpmindtohisextensivecritiqueoftheJustWartradition.I will not try to decide here whether his critique is finally successful, but his sophisticatedobjectionstocentralargumentsofimportantJustWaradvocates(St.Augustine,MichaelWalzer,JeanBethkeElshtain)offerchallengesthatnoJustWaradvocateshouldignore.“Justwartheorycontradictsitselfinthatitsanctionsthekillingofinnocents,whichitatthesametimeprohibits.Inaddition,justwartheorycanalsobeusedeffectivelytojustifyallwars”(105).

Brimlow is surely right that pacifism is impossible unless it is rooted inChristiancommunityandprayer,andthatithasnointegrityunlessitispartofapersonalandcommunallifestylethatnotonlyrejectsviolencebutactivelyengagesinworksofcompassionandmercytowardthepoorandneglected.

That said, I must confess that I found the book inadequate,disappointing, and occasionally annoying. The rambling Scripturalmeditationsatthebeginningofeachchapterwerenotveryhelpful,atleastnotforme.TheargumentthatJustWartheoryvalidatesOsamabinLadenasmuchasitdoesmilitaryresistancetoterrorismwasnotconvincing.EquallyunsatisfactorywasBrimlow’slengthyargument(139-46)thatJesuswasafailure. Even his final chapter arguing for the importance of a personal and communallifestyleofpeacemakingwasinadequate.Jesuscalledforworksofmercy–feedingthehungry,caringforthehomelessandnaked,givingalmstothepoor.Thatisallgoodandtrue.Butwhataboutgoingbeyondcharity to understanding the structural causes of poverty and injustice

The Conrad Grebel Review8�

and working vigorously to overcome institutional injustice? What aboutactivist kinds of peacemaking – whether Victim-Offender ReconciliationPrograms,sophisticatedmediationeffortsbringingtogetherwarringparties,orChristianPeacemakerTeams?

Most important, Brimlow’s answer to the basic question, “WhatAboutHitler?”iswoefullyinadequate.HeopensChapter7(“TheChristianResponse”)withthecommentthat“itistimeformetorespondtotheHitlerquestion.”Hisanswertakesthreeparagraphs.Justonepage.Hehadalreadysaidnear thebeginning that his answer to this question is absurd (10). Ithinkthatanswerisfundamentallyinadequate.ItiscertainlytruethattheChristian pacifist believes that she must follow Jesus, even when this leads to death. Brimlow makes the point very well. If Jesus is God become flesh, ifGodraisedJesusfromthedeadonthethirdday,thenitsimplywillnotdotosay,“Sorry,Jesus,yourideasdonotworkinaworldofHitlersandOsamabinLadens.”

WemustfollowJesusevenwhenthatmeansdeath.ButthereisalotmoretobesaidtomakethispositionlessimplausiblethanBrimlowdoes.Itiswrongandmisleadingtolabelit“absurd.”IfJesusistheIncarnateGodwhoannounced the inaugurationof theMessianickingdomofpeaceandjustice,calledhisdisciplestostartlivinginthatkingdomnow,andpromisedtoreturntocompletethevictoryoverevil,thenitmakessensetoobeyhiscalltononviolencenow,evenwhenHitlersstillstalktheearth.Thisbookdoesnotofferaconvincinganswertothequestionitraises.

Ronald J. Sider,ProfessorofTheology,HolisticMinistryandPublicPolicy,PalmerTheologicalSeminary,EasternUniversity,Wynnewood,PA

Book Reviews 8�

Stanley E. Porter, ed. Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2006.

Drawnfroma2003colloquiumatMcMasterDivinitySchool,thiscollectionofessays tackleshowNewTestamentwritersuse theOldTestament.AnintroductoryessaybyStanleyE.Porterandaconcludingscholarlyresponseto the papers by Andreas J. Köstenberger provide a helpful orientingperspectiveandsummation.

Twoessaysdedicatedtogeneraltopicsintroducethevolume.DennisL. Stamps seeks to clarify terminology, contrasts “author-centered” and“audience-centered” approaches, and describes persuasive rhetoric in theearlychurchperiod.R.TimothyMcLayintroducesissuesconcerningcanonand scripture, and identifies “pluriformity” as “an essential characteristic of theScripturesoftheearlychurch”(55).

MichaelP.Knowles(Matthew)andPorter(Luke-Acts)botharguethattheevangelists’interpretiveperspectivesnotonlycenteronbutderivefromJesushimself.CraigA.Evans(Mark)andSylviaC.Keesmaat(Ephesians,Colossians,andothers)place thesedocumentswithin thepoliticalmilieuoftheRomanEmpiretostrikingeffect.PaulMiller(John)andKurtAndersRichardson (James) describe the use of OT characters, while James W.Aageson (Romans, Galatians, and others) and Köstenberger (pastorals,Revelation)providecontrastingperspectivesonreadingepistles.

Therangeoffociengagesthereader,andKöstenberger’sresponsesprovehelpful,providingadditionalinformationoracontrastingperspective.His adamant response to Aageson’s paper is particularly striking andunderscores significantly divergent methods and assumptions, as well as perspectivesontheimplicationsofPaul’shermeneuticsforthecontemporaryChristiancommunity.

This said, the volume’s overarching author-centered perspectivepromptsanuncriticalassumptionofcontinuitythat,inmyview,shouldbereconsidered.EarlyinthevolumeStampsappropriatelycriticizestheideathat“NTwritersusetheOT”becauseitis“anachronistictospeakoftheOTwhenreferringtotheperspectiveoftheNTwriterssincethedifferentiationbetweenoldandnewhadnotyetoccurred”(11).Thoughhesuggests“Jewishsacredwritings”(11)asanimprovement,repeatedstatementsintherestofthevolumeabouthowNTwriters,andevenJesushimself,use the“OT”

The Conrad Grebel Review88

reflect the prominence of such anachronism. Indeed, the difficulty runs deeper than Stamps suggests. While the

writersinthisbookattempttouncovertheintentionsandhermeneuticsofLuke, Paul, and even Jesus, these biblical figures neither read an OT (which implies a NT) nor consciously wrote Scripture (they sought to interprettheone(s) theyhad).Even thecommondesignation“NTwriters”proveshistoricallyanachronistic;themostthatcanaccuratelybesaidisthatthesepeoplewrotewhatlaterbecametheNT.MoreattentiontohowScriptureisdesignatedwithintheNTwouldhaveraisedthisissueandstrengthenedthevolume.

The book’s orientation leaves potentially significant discontinuitiesunexplored. For instance, what should we make of Paul’s distinctionbetweenhisownopinionandelements“fromtheLORD,”oncehiswritingbecomespartofaNT?Shouldourreadingofhisepistlesbeaffectedbythistransformationintoscripture,ashift that transcendshis“original intent”?The description of “Paul’s shorter epistles” as “rang[ing] from Paul’ssupposedlyearliestepistletothoseseeminglywrittensolatethatPaulwasdead when he composed them” (182) suggests further difficulties with an exclusivelyauthor-centeredapproach.WhatoftheshiftfromLuke’stwo-volumework(Luke-Acts) toa“gospel”andanon-“gospel”separatedbyJohn,ortheEmmausstory’sclaimthatthedisciplesseeJesusin“thelawofMosesandtheprophetsandthepsalms”onlythroughanimpromptuBiblestudyledbytherisenLord?Unfortunatelythesewritersdonotaddresssuchdiscontinuitiesathistorical,literary,andcanonicallevels.

A collection of essays has the benefit of various perspectives and the drawback of limited flow. The papers here are well written, engaging, andaccessiblefor interestedpeoplewithsomebackgroundin thesubjectmatter.Whilemostessaysdonotfocusonimplicationsforcontemporaryinterpretation, individual chapters would be helpful as supplements ororientation for studying a specific NT book. Several essays also situate themselves within broader scholarship, which proves particularly beneficial forthenon-specialist.

Overall, these writers do an admirable job of tackling a significant, complex issue.However,although thevolumeexploreshow“NTwritersused the OT,” it proves less satisfying for “Hearing the OT in the NT.”

Book Reviews 8�

Whilethelatterimpliestheperspectiveofatwo-testamentScripture,mostessayshereseektouncoverthepre-NTuseofScripture(notOT!)bywritersofwhatlaterbecametheNT.Thus,thisvolumeservesanauthor-centeredapproachwell,but itdoesnotaddressdiscontinuityin thetransformationfrom“authorialwritings”toChristianScripture.

Derek Suderman,ConradGrebelUniversityCollege,Waterloo,ON

Stanley Hauerwas and Romand Coles. Christianity, Democracy and the Radical Ordinary: Conversations between a Radical Democrat and a Christian.Eugene,OR:Cascade,2007.

It is not only Christians who find difficult the practice of engaging the world in constructive ways; not just believing that engagement should happen,butengagingthecomplicatedissuesofhowtoproceed,occupiesallkindsof people. In this volume we observe a Christian theologian (StanleyHauerwas) and a political theorist who is not Christian (Romand Coles)grapplewithsuchissuesinwaysthattrytothinkabouttherightquestionsanddisplayfruitfulpracticeswithinamutualpursuitofthetransformationand development of a flourishing political imagination.

The purpose of this collection of essays, letters, lectures, andconversationis toexhibitapoliticsthatrefusestoletdeathdominateourlives,resistsfear,andseekstouncovertheviolenceattheheartofliberalpolitical doctrine.Not onlydoes this bookdiscuss suchmatters, it seekstodisplaysomeoftheverypracticesitbringsintoview.Practicescentralto thisongoingconversation includeattention,engagement,vulnerability,receptive patience, tending, “microdispositions” and “micropractices,”waiting,andgentleness.Suchpractices,patientlypursued,mightmakeupalifethatispolitical,claimtheauthors,yetnotbeholdentoconventionalpolitics.

The Conrad Grebel Review�0

We witness Coles and Hauerwas engage each other as well asavast arrayof interlocuters in anattempt to cultivate apoliticsof “wildpatience”:SheldonWolin,CornellWest,EllaBaker,JohnHowardYoder,WillCampbell,RowanWilliams,JeanVanier,SamuelWells,andGregoryof Nanzianzus. Both authors here are exemplary in their own opennessandvulnerabilitytolearningfromtraditionsoutsidetheirown,andColesespecially soasheprovides insightful readingsofanumberofChristiantheologicalvoices.

Nonetheless, in the midst of their respectful and deep mutualengagement, Hauerwas and Coles exhibit at times a certain wariness inrelationtoeachother.Hauerwasworriesthatradicaldemocracywillbeanend in itself for which God becomes an afterthought, a superfluous place-holder,domesticatedandtamedinserviceofsomeotheragenda.Buthealsoworries thatChristiansdosomethingvery similarwhen theymistake theChristianfaithforagardenvarietyofhumanism.Coles,ontheotherhand,is concerned that Christian jealousy regarding Jesus may prevent propervulnerabilityandunderwriteakindofterritoriality.Hefurtherbelievesthatno matter how sincere the upside-down practices of the church may be,thesekindsofpracticeshaveawayofturningthemselvesrightsideup–andwithoutappropriatediscernmentonthepartofthechurch.

Ihavemyownworries.SometimesitfeelsasthoughColescomesclose to equating the insurgent grassroots political practices of radicaldemocracywiththepoliticsofJesus.Colesalsoseemstemptedtoturnthechurchanditspracticesintoaninstanceofradicaldemocracy.Perhapsthisisone reasonheclaims tobe so“haunted”by JohnHowardYoder,whohimselfisopentothecriticismthathethinksthechurch’spracticescanbetranslatedintotheworldwithoutloss.

Further, the extended conversation in this volume, while richlyinformedbyawidevarietyofinterlocutors–politicaltheorists,activistsofmanykinds,theologians,anumberofMennonitethinkers,andsoon–isintheendstrangelythinontheChristianexegeticaltradition.Whileweseeclose,nuancedreadingsofWolin,West,Campbell,etal.,wesearchinvainforthesamekindofcloseattentiontosustainedreadingsoftheBiblicaltext.ThisisnottosaythattheconversationbetweenColestheradicaldemocratandHauerwastheChristianisnotinformedbybiblicalideas.However,I

Book Reviews �1

wonder ifColes’sconcernforChristian jealousyofJesusalsoextends toChristianprivilegingoftheScripturaltextand,ifso,whatimplicationsthismighthaveforalong-termcontinuingconversation.

Jeffrey Stout, who in his own effort to revitalize the Americandemocratic tradition often converses with Christian theologians suchas Hauerwas, claims that this book gives him hope, since it takes theconversation between Christianity and democracy in a most welcomedirection.ThisbookalsogivesmehopeasaChristian,becauseitseekstofind ways for people to engage in the world that resist the violence and death thathavebeeninscribeddeeplyintothestoryofoursharedlives.Andpartofthathopefulnessincludespayingcloseattentiontopracticesthatcanbeembodiedonahumanscale,whetherasaradicaldemocratoraChristian.

Paul Doerksen,MennoniteBrethrenCollegiateInstitute,Winnipeg,MB

Laura RuthYordy. Green Witness: Ecology, Ethics, and the Kingdom of God.Eugene,OR:Cascade,2008.

LauraYordyhasavisionforchurchesengagingholistically inecologicaldiscipleship.ShebeginsherdiscourseinGreen Witness by briefly describing afantasycongregationthatfullyintegratesearth-friendlypracticesintoitsworshipanddailyactions.Yordyillustrateshervisionbyusingexamplesfromrealchurches thatare implementingecologicalpractices.Accordingto her, the greening of the church in North America has been limitedbecause of the ineffectiveness of education, difficulties with real change, powerlessnessofleadership,individualisminchurchlife,themagnitudeofthe environmental crisis, and the hope of technological fixes: “The point is nottomakethechurchaparticipantinthe‘environmentalmovement,’”shesays,“buttomakethechurchmorefaithfulbyincludingtheeschatologicalimport of creation in its performance of worship, … a ‘way’ of life thatpraisesandwitnessestoFatherSon,andHolySpirit”(161).

The author develops her thesis around the need for the church to

The Conrad Grebel Review�2

renew its understanding of the eschaton – “the fulfillment of God’s promises forcreation”(2).ThechurchistobeawitnesstothecomingKingdomofHeaven,theresultofChrist’sredemptionofallofcreation.Christiansarenot to be managers trying to fix the environmental crisis but witnesses of Christ’srelationshiptocreationthroughfaithfulecologicalpractice.

Yordy critiques the positions of three eco-theologians – LarryRasmussen, Catherine Keller, and Rosemary Radford Ruether – byobservingthattheyrejectseveralcentraldoctrinesofChristianeschatology.Shenotes the losses thatoccurwheneschatologydoesnot includeJesus,thesovereigntyofGod,ortheconceptofanafterlife.ShewritesthatourpracticestodayinrelationtoecologywitnesstoourbeliefinthefullnessoftheKingdomofGod.Thedoctrineofcreationshouldbeexaminedfromaneschatologicalframework,saystheauthor;God’sfutureviewofredeemedcreationiswhatmakestheChristiancreationstorydistinctfromviewsfoundinthe“commoncreationstory.”

YordycarefullystatesthatitisGod’slovethatgeneratedtheuniverse(57),andproceedswithhelpfulinsightsintotheconceptsofGodcreatingthe world out of nothing, the Trinitarian role in creation, the goodnessof creation, and the “Fall.” Christian ethics is described as discipleship– where the lives of Christ’s followers witness to the Kingdom throughworship,action,andcharacter.Yordyprovidesstimulatinginsightsintoeco-discipleshipbyprobingkeycharacteristicsoftheKingdom:peace,justice,abundance,righteousness,andcommunionwithGod.Theresultingpraxisissummarizedwellbyherstatementthat“Christians’witnesstotheKingdomisnot simplywatching,butpointing towardGod’sgracious creatingandredeemingactivitywiththeactivityoftheirownlives”(112).

Yordyseesthechurchservingasa“demonstrationplot”forecologicaldiscipleship.Shedevelopstheviewthateverythingthechurchpractices–here specifically its relation to the earth – should witness to Christ’s coming redemptionofallcreation.Itisfromwithincommunitythatthewitnessandpracticewillbestoccur.Theconcludingconceptcentersontheecologicalvirtue,patience.Yordyliftsitupasakeyvirtuewhilenotexcludingothermuch-neededvirtues.Shesaysitisourimpatiencethatplaysamajorfactorinourdominanceoverthenaturalworld.Butpatienceiswovenintothewebof the universe and reflects the character of God. “Part of the human need

Book Reviews �3

forpatience(aswellasothervirtues) is the imperativeforhumanstore-alignthemselveswiththepatientcharacterofGod’screation”(155).FromthisframeworkYordycallsustopracticeeco-discipleship.

The author develops logical arguments throughout her discourse,thoughatpointsthewritingstylerecallsthedoctoraldissertationonwhichthebookisbased.Theworkisintheframeofaconstructivetheology,anditleansheavilyonargumentsbetweenvarioustheologicalandphilosophicalpositions.Yordy formulates her thesis based on a broad array of authorsalongwithinsightsofherown.

Thisvolumewouldservewellasthebasisforseriousdiscussionbyadultsinterestedinarticulatingabiblicalandtheologicalresponsetotoday’senvironmental crisis, but it doesn’t include an extensive list of examplesofcreationcareactions.(Itwouldalsobehelpfuliftherewereanindexinadditiontothebibliography.)Upper-levelcollegestudentsinenvironmentalstudies would benefit from exploring the intersection between faith and ecologicalpraxisfoundinthistext.

Luke Gascho, Executive Director, Merry Lea Environmental LearningCenter of Goshen College, Wolflake, IN

Conrad L. Kanagy. Road Signs on the Journey: A Profile of Mennonite Church USA.Waterloo,ON:Herald,2007.

Conrad Kanagy’s profile of Mennonite Church USA is a good addition to earliersimilarstudiesofMennonitesin1972and1989.1Preferringbiblicalto sociological categories of analysis, Kanagy presents the data as “roadsigns and guideposts” in order to help Mennonites find their social, political, spiritual,andtheologicallocation,andtohelpMennonitechurchesconsiderthedirectionoftheirfurther“journeytowardthereignofGod”(24).

The first two chapters set a reading of the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah as the base for Kanagy’s data analysis.These chapters test the

The Conrad Grebel Review�4

dataforevidenceofamissionalintentionandvisioninMennonitechurchlife. Succeeding chapters profile Mennonite Church USA; explore church structure,polityandself-understanding;testconsistencyandorthodoxyofbeliefandritual;surveymanagementofresources;reviewrecentdisruptionsofMennonite“Christendom”;andassess the relationbetween thechurchandgreatersociety.Theauthor’ssummaryconclusionsharesthetestimonyof respondents as they reflect on the quality of congregational life and challengethechurchtowardgreatermissionalidentityandactivity.

Kanagy’s prognosis for Mennonite Church USA is disquieting yethopeful.While theauthorpredicts a “bleak future” (57), among“Racial/Ethnic Mennonites” he discovered signs of growth and renewal. Othersignsofhopeincluderelativelyhighratesofgiving,maritalstability,strongbeliefsaboutJesus,activepersonalpiety,andgreatersupportofwomeninministry(183ff.).

At least two issues emerge that deserve greater discussion andthought. The first is how to refer to the diversity of ethnic and racial groups comprisingMennoniteChurchUSA.Throughout the reportKanagyusesthegeneric term“Racial/Ethnic” to refer toAfrican-American,Hispanic/Latino, diverse Asian, and various Native American congregations andmembers.Yet“Racial/Ethnic”wouldalsoapply to thevariousCaucasiangroups comprising the church. One of the challenges in working out thetensionbetweenthemarginandmiddleofMennonitechurchhastodowithhowwerefertooneanother.Thetendencytoreduceourethnicdiversitytoonegenericcategory,oranimplicitus/thempolarity,isaperniciousproblemwithnoeasysolution.

Thisproblemisendemictodescriptivesociologicalsummaries,buteven more, it bespeaks the difficulty that Mennonite church organizations haveindealingwithanethnicdiversitythatrefusestobe‘settled.’Iwonderif this reflects the broader influence of theories of assimilation as opposed to theoriesofethnicpluralismintheAmericancontext.Itseemstomethatoneof the significant challenges in combatting racism in the church is to celebrate ourchaoticethnicityinallitsgloriousdetail.Thiswilldemandimaginativejustice in reconfiguring current structures of privilege. Our commitment to such justice will help us find better, more expressive, language with which tounderstandthemulti-ethnicfullnessofMennoniteChurchUSA.

Book Reviews ��

The second challenge concerns Kanagy’s exile hypothesis. ThishypothesisinterpretsthechangesMennoniteshaveundergoneasassimilationtoabroadersociety;thatis,thatMennonitesasexilesinAmericancultureandsocietyarelosingtheirtrueidentityandbecomingmoreliketheirhostsociety.ThisinterpretationmightbemorecogentifKanagyhadpresentedcomparativedatafromalargercontrolgroupthanconservativeProtestants(171). Increased levels of education, wealth, professional vocation, andurbanliving,togetherwithchangesinvariousbeliefs,support“theargumentthatMennonitesarebecomingmoreconformingtothevaluesandattitudesof the largersociety” (170,171).However,Anabaptismhas lookedmoreeducatedandurbanbefore.2

Putting a slight twist on Kanagy’s question of exile, the data maybe suggesting that Mennonites are finally returning from an almost 200-yearexileinruralAmerica.ThechangesKanagytracesmaybeinstancesofincreased biblical fidelity. Engagement with surrounding society, however messythatmightbe,couldbeatruerexpressionofAnabaptistpeoplehoodthantheisolationistpostureofmostrecentmemory.

Itmaybenecessarytoresistandevencritiqueassimilationtheoriesbased on the deeper resonance between Mennonites and various valuesofAmericansocietyandculture,suchasfreedomofreligion,freedomofconscience, and participatory governance of group life. The isolationistinterpretationofMennonite life from the16th through the18thcenturieshashadsomethingofaprivilegedstatus3andmayneedtogivewaytoamoresociallyengagedand integratedunderstandingofMennonite lifeasnormative.

This may be why Kanagy is so firmly convinced that the future of MennoniteChurchUSAlieswithcongregationscomprisingvariousminorityracial and ethnic groups. Indeed, it may be impossible to find future vitality in the church without following such leadership into social engagement.For observing these provocative issues in such a way as to raise furtherdiscussionofthefutureofMennonitecommunities,wecanbegratefultoKanagyforaninsightfulanalysisofMennoniteChurchUSA.

The Conrad Grebel Review��

Notes

1J.HowardKaufmannandLelandHarder,Anabaptists: Four Centuries Later (Scottdale:Herald,1975).J.HowardKaufmannandLeoDriedger,The Mennonite Mosaic: Identity and Modernization(Scottdale:Herald,1991).2 Richard K. MacMaster, Land, Piety, Peoplehood, The Establishment of Mennonite Communities in America, 1683-1790(Scottdale:Herald,1985),138.3Ibid.,139.

Ed Janzen,Chaplain,ConradGrebelUniversityCollege,Waterloo,ON

Earl Zimmerman. Practicing the Politics of Jesus: The Origin and Significance of John Howard Yoder’s Social Ethics.Telford,PA:CascadiaPublishingHouse,2007.

Interest in the theological ethics of John HowardYoder shows no signsof slowingdown. I amdelighted–andsometimesamazed–at the levelof scholarly interest inYoder’s writings today. Practicing the Politics of Jesus: The Origin and Significance of John Howard Yoder’s Social Ethicsis composed of seven chapters. The first six attempt to identify what shaped Yoder in ways that gave rise to his most influential book, The Politics of Jesus.The last chapter, which seems rather artificially connected to the others, provides Earl Zimmerman with an opportunity to state the significance of “thepoliticsofJesus,”asheseesit,forpeace-buildingeffortstoday.

Thisbook’suniquecontributionisthatitoffersthefullestaccounttodate of the influences on Yoder during the years he was in Western Europe (1949-1958). Having named some of the North American Mennoniteinfluences, the book attributes most of the “background” to his Politicstothese European influences.

Zimmerman is right to say that the realities of post-World War IIEurope were quite significant for the young Yoder, who arrived in France inApril1949toserveorphansandhelpFrenchMennonitesrecovertheir

Book Reviews ��

commitment to pacifism. And undoubtedly the debates about war in which heengagedduringthoseyearswereshapedbymemoriesofNazismandthehorrorsofthewar.

The author’s discussion of Barth’s influence on Yoder is framed differentlyfromthatofCraigCarter[seehisThe Politics of the Cross].MysenseisthatCarterknowsBarth’sthoughtbetterthanZimmermandoes.ButprobablythecarefulexaminationofYoderinlightofhisstudieswithBarth(as compared to other influences) will continue to generate discussion and debate.ZimmermanhascertainlyprovidedafulleraccountofNTscholarOscar Cullmann’s influence on Yoder than has been done before. This is helpful.

ThechapteronYoder’sdoctoralworkonsixteenth-centuryAnabaptismisalsothefullestsummarywehaveofthatworkanditsconnectionstohisPolitics of Jesus, although it would have had greater significance before therecentpublicationofanEnglishtranslationofYoder’sdissertation.ButZimmerman’sworkwillhelpthosewhohaven’tnoticedtheseconnectionsbeforetoseethemnow.WearefortunatewithThe Politics of Jesusbecause,aside fromhis doctoralwork, it isYoder’smost heavily footnotedbook.However,inadditiontohiswidereadingandformalteachers,itisimportanttosay,asZimmermandoes,thatPoliticsdidnotsimplyemergefromastudy.AccordingtoaccountsfromFrenchMennonites,youngYoderempathizedwiththosewhohadlivedthroughseveralyearsofNaziinvasions.

Zimmerman could also have included Yoder’s exposure to LatinAmerica.Inthemid-’60sandagainwhenworkingonPolitics,Yoderspenttime with Latin American Christians living in the midst of revolution.AccordingtotheologiansSamuelEscobarandRenéPadilla,heempathizeddeeplywiththemwhiledeliveringtimely,biblicalmessages(thusYoder’sbeing made an honorary member of the Latin American TheologicalFraternity).

One might get the impression thatYoder did not engage ReinholdNiebuhr’swritingsnearlyasseriouslyas,say,J.LawrenceBurkholder(26,57ff,107).Thatimpressionwouldbewrong.Whileinhighschool,YodertookacoursewithaformerstudentofNiebuhr’sattheCollegeofWooster,in which Niebuhr himself lectured once. Approximately fifteen years later, Yoder did significant research on Niebuhr at the University of Basel before

The Conrad Grebel Review�8

he gave his first lecture on him, and that produced an article. Finally, years later,YoderwrotetwosubstantiallecturesonNiebuhrthatwereincludedintheinformallypublishedChristian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution: A Companion to Bainton(soontobeformallypublished).

Again, one could get the wrong impression from the statementthatYoder “basically depended on Roland Bainton’s historical survey ofChristianattitudestowardwarandpeaceforhishistoricalscheme”regardingthe “Constantinian shift” (198). Yoder was an historical theologian. Formanyyearshe taughtcoursessurveying thehistoryofChristianattitudestowardwar,peace,and revolution;he readnumerousandvariedprimaryandsecondarysourcesgermanetothoselectures.Hehadthereforestudiedrelevant sources well before publishing the main essay articulating hisclaims.

Idon’thavespacetodiscussissuesraisedinthelasttwochaptersofsummaryandinterpretationforcontemporarypeace-building.HereseriousquestionsemergeregardingcontemporaryappropriationsofYoder.

Mark Thiessen Nation,EasternMennoniteSeminary,Harrisonburg,VA

AmyLauraHall.Conceiving Parenthood: American Protestantism and the Spirit of Reproduction.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2008.

Churchly discussions of reproductive bioethics usually take place in thethirdperson.Themajoractors– thoseadvocatingforso-called“designerbabies”orforprenataltestingdesignedtoenableselectiveterminationofpregnancies–remaindistinctfromus,thenarrators,whocanrespondfromadistanceandwithdisgust.Suchconversationsalsousuallyoccur in thefuturetense,inanticipationofabravenewworldinwhichparentsshopfortheirunbornchild’shaircolor,IQ,andpersonalitytype.

Yet for readers with any connection to middle-class, mainlineProtestantism,ChristianethicistAmyLauraHall’snewbookrequiresashift

Book Reviews ��

from third person to first and from future tense to past. Her study requires readerstoasknot“Whatwilltheycomeupwithnext?”but“Howhavewecontributedtotheethosthathasengenderedsuchtechnologies?”

Hall’s wide-ranging survey of 20th-century Protestant ideas aboutfamily, social status, and scientific innovation suggests that the seeds of troublingtechnologiesweresownclosertoourecclesialhomethanmanyChristians like toadmit.Asshewrites,“a tradition thathadwithin it thepossibilityoflevelingallbelieversasorphanedandgratuitouslyadoptedkincameinsteadtobaptizeacultureofcarefullydelineated,raciallyencodeddomesticity” (10). By uncritically blessing both scientific advancement andan idealizedportrait of thenuclear family,Hall claims,20th-centuryProtestantism set the stage for technologies that would enable aspiringAmericanparentstoengineertheperfectchild.

The “germ-free home” stands at the center of Hall’s first chapter, which mines mid-century issues of Parents magazine and its Methodistcognate,Together. Thewarongerms,madepossiblebyproductslikeLysol,sedimentedracialandclassdifferencesbetweenthe“hygienic”familiesoftheassumedreadersandotherpeople’schildren.

The author’s second chapter looks at how the marketing of infantformulaandbabyfoodencouragedparentstoshifttheirtrustfrominformallyandfamiliallytransmittedknow-howtodictatesofthemedicalestablishment.Thischapter’sexaminationofthebizarre“Baby-Incubators—WithLivingBabies!”exhibitattheCenturyofProgressExpositioninChicagoin1933-34,whichallowedvisitorstoviewprematureinfantsstrugglingforsurvivalinside oven-like incubators, drives home the point thatAmericans werebeginningtoemployatechnologicalgazetoamacabreextent.

HallturnsinthethirdchaptertotheeugenicsmovementintheUnitedStates,whichwasendorsedbymanyprogressiveProtestants.ShecounterstheprevailingideathattheAmericanmovementwitheredasthehorrorsofNazi-eraeugenicsbecamepublicknowledge.Instead,shesuggests,“therearelinksbetweencurrenthopesforgeniusandpastattemptstovaccinatethe social body against the menace of poverty, disability, and deviance”(217). Hall’s final chapter moves into current bioethical debates by tracing connectionsbetweenthepromisesoftheatomicageandtheclaimsofthecurrentgenomicrevolution.

The Conrad Grebel Review100

The narrative throughout Conceiving Parenthood is provocativeandthorough.Thebookteemswithillustrationsandadvertisementsfrommagazines from the last century and this one, and all are accompaniedbypainstakinglyclose readings.At times,however, thecontourofHall’sargumentbucklesundertheweightoftheevidenceshepresents;sheseemsunwillingtoweigh,rank,andespeciallydiscarddatathatdistractsfromthetrajectoryofhermainpoint.Unfortunately,chaptersaveraging100pageseach will likely intimidate some readers who otherwise would benefit from heranalysis.

Theauthor’svoicealternatesbetweenthescholarly,thepastoral,andthe autobiographical. Sometimes the shift can be jarring, although noneof thevoicesby itselfwouldhavebeenup to thegreat taskHallsets forherself. Calling herself a pro-life feminist, Hall moves beyond historicalinvestigationandcriticalanalysistopastoralandpropheticchallenge.“Idoindeedtargetformoralinterrogationwomenlikemyself,”shewrites,“forourcomplicityinthenarrationsthatrenderotherwomen’swombsasprodigal”(400).Halltakeshercalltoactionbeyondprotestingtheeugenicwhiffofsomemodernreproductivetechnologiesandquestioningthe“meticulouslyplanned procreation” of the elite classes. She suggests a much broaderprogramofcompassionatevaluingofthosewho,forwhateverreason,aredeemedoutsidetherealmof“normal.”

Anabaptist readers will find much resonance with this book, especially with its call to resist market-driven definitions of what – and who –constitutesaproductivelife.

Thechallenge forChristianparents today,Hall says, is“to see thechildren in their homes, neighborhoods, and churches as unqualified gifts rather than projects, to identify ‘downward’ rather than to climb, and toallowtheirstrategicallyprotectedandplannedlivestobecomeentangledintheneedsoffamiliesandchildrenjudgedtobeatriskandbehindthecurve”(250).

Valerie Weaver-Zercher,writerandeditor,Mechanicsburg,PA

Book Reviews 101

Donald Capps. Jesus, the Village Psychiatrist. Louisville: Westminster/JohnKnoxPress,2008.

EarlyinthisbookDonaldCappsdescribesthebehaviorofasquirreldartingacrossabusystreet,thensuddenlyfreezingmidwayandracingback,onlytodartagain.Hecallsthisa“livingparable”(xv)andsaysweareintriguedbecauseweseeourselvesinthesquirrel’sdilemma.Icouldn’tagreemore.Infact,IfeltlikethatsquirrelasIwasreadingthisvolume,attimesrunningquickly to reach what I hoped was food for thought, and then retreatingswiftlyastheauthor’sbeliefsandmineclashed.

I started the book intrigued by the title, only to freeze in theintroductionat comments suchas these:peoplewithmental illnessesare“doingittothemselves”(xii),mentalillnessesare“aformofcopingand…thereforetypical…today”(xii),and“themethodswhichJesusemployedarecongruent…withmethods…demonstrablyeffective…today”(xxv).Thesestatementsportendwhatbecomesclearintherestofthebook.CappsisabelieverinFreudianpsychoanalysis,aschooloftherapyformulatedbySigmundFreudinthelate1800sandpopularintheUSinthemid-1900s.It treats patients with psychotherapy in the belief that insight into conflicts whichprecedetheillnesswillresultinhealing.

Thatparadigmofmentalillnessisrejectedoratleasthighlysuspectin the field of modern psychiatry. With the increasing use of brain scans andmolecular research,psychiatry ismoving inabiologicaldirection inwhichmentalillnessesareseenasdysfunctionalstatesofthenormalbrain.Psychoanalysishasnotproveneffectiveinmostmentalillnesses.

DespitemymomentaryfreezeIdashedon.Thebookisshort,only131pages,andisdividedintotwoparts.Part1isanacademicexplanationof psychoanalytic terms such as conversion and hysteria, and Part II isan analysis of seven cases of Jesus’ healing. The cases (two paralyzedmen,twoblindmen,thedemon-possessedboy,Jairus’sdaughter,andthehemorrhagingwoman)areusedtoillustrateCapps’sthesisthatJesusdidnotusemagictohealmedicalillnessesbutemployedtherapeutictechniquestohealpsychosomaticillnesses.FullunderstandingofPartIrequiressomepriorknowledgeofandbeliefinpsychoanalyticprinciples,andthusmaynotbeofinteresttothegeneralaudiencethatCappstargetsinhisintroduction.Part

The Conrad Grebel Review102

2maybeeasierforgeneralreadersbutstillrequiressomebackground.It was surprising to me that Capps uses a blend of psychoanalytic

descriptionsandmoremoderndiagnosticcriteriafromtheDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(the“DSM,”withDSMIVbeingthefourthversion,publishedin1994).Iwasinpsychiatricresidencyinthelate1970s when the first draft of the DSM was published and thus my training focusedheavilyon it.TheDSMwasknowntobeanattempt todescribeconditionsobjectively,replacingthepsychoanalyticmodelofmentalillnessthattheorizesaboutetiologyorcause.

Capps’sreviewoftheminutedetailsofdiagnosticcriteriaofconversiondisorder,factitiousdisorder,andsomatizationdisorderfromDSMIVwasdifficult to read through. His attempt to apply them to persons who lived 2000 years ago and whom the Bible describes only in barest detail wassimplyperplexing.Readingthecases,IfoundmyselfskimmingthroughtheacademicmaterialtogettotheinsightsaboutJesus.ThisiswhereIfoundthebookprovocative;forshortperiodsIactuallyenjoyedmyself,notfeelinglikeasquirrelatall.Capps’ssuggestionthatJesusdidnotusesupernaturalpowerstocurepeoplebutactuallylistenedtothemchallengedmetostopdiscountingJesus’healingstoriesaseasyforhimbecausehewasdivine.

Capps’s insights regarding the healing of Jarius’s daughter areexcellent.Forexample,hepointsoutthatJairus’sdaughterwastwelve,thuson the cusp of marriageability, representing to her father an opportunitytoincreasehiswealthbymarryingheroffwell.Theauthor’sthoughtsonJesus’understandingofthesocialcontextofillnessesandtheimplicationsofwellnessaretantalizingbuttoobrief.EachtimeIwouldbeginthinking“Nowhe’sgettingsomewhere,”thechapterwouldend.

I finished the book hungering for more. Completing the analogy of the squirrel, I had braved all the academic traffic, only to find that the delectable pileofinsightfulspiritualnutsIwashopingforwassmall.

Janet M. Berg,M.D.,Psychiatrist,EvergreenClinic,Kirkland,WA

Book Reviews 103

ChrisK.Huebner.A Precarious Peace. Waterloo,ON:HeraldPress,2006.

OnerealizesquicklyuponreadingA Precarious Peace thatadesireforasolidthesisarguedwithclean,crisp,logicalwarrantsandbrought“togetherinto some final programmatic statement of a position” (29) will be entirely frustrated.Nolastwordcanbegivenbecausewordsandpositions,nolessthanpoliticsandpower,areprecariousforthoseintheChristiancommunity(58).

The precariousness that Chris K. Huebner places at the center ofhis Yoderian study of Mennonite theology, knowledge, and identity de-centers anyattempt tooffer a lastword.This is abookwhoseproject is“disestablishing, disowning, dislocating” (23) without reconstructing itssubjecttheoretically.AssuchthereisnoargumentthatHuebnercouldbecriticizedfornotshowingadequately.Hehaspromisednot toprovideanaccountofwhatpeaceis, andnooneaccountofpeaceisgivenhere.Instead,inarandomsampling,therearestoriesaboutAlzheimer’s,AtomEgoyan’sfilms, friendship, speed, and Zizek.

Theargument–or,asHuebnersays,“commontheme”(30)–issimplythatpeace ischaracterizedbybeingprecarious.Forpeace tobeanythingelsewouldrequireacoerciveintervention.Peacecomestousasagift,givenbyChrist,andlikeallgiftsitisbothradicallyoursandoutofourcontrol.

While the political and ecclesiological ramifications of Yoder’s vision have been noticed, applied, and extended in various contexts, theepistemologicalquestions thathis investigations suggesthavedrawn lessattention.ThisiswhatHuebnerisaboutinthisvolume.Iparticularlylikethedescriptionofhisapproach:“Letusgroupthiscollectionof impulsestogetherunder theheadingof standardepistemology.…What follows…isaseriesofgestures towardacounter-epistemologythatarisesfromthechurch’s confession that Christ is the truth. Here truth will appear to beunsettledratherthansettled.…Itarisesfromanexcessiveeconomyofgift,and thus itexistsasaseeminglyunnecessaryandunwarranteddonation”(133-34).

ThislanguageofgiftgivesmuchofHuebner’sdiscussiona“spatial”feel.Toelaboratehisconceptionofpeaceheinvokeswordslikediaspora,settled, patience, gesture, scattered, speed, or territory. I am stronglyimpressedbyhowHuebnerisabletomove,andtomoveme,inspaceand

The Conrad Grebel Review104

time throughout this book.The discussion has an embodiedness missingfrommuchofthetheologicalendeavor.

The book’s biggest strength is the reworking of our perceptions,actions,emotions,anddispositiontowardsprecariousness.IteachChristianethics at a small Mennonite liberal arts institution to students who aremostly not convinced pacifists in either action or epistemology. I find this an enormously difficult and somewhat stressful task. This is not surprising, because many of them are just beginning their education in the ethos ofChristiancommunity.While reading thisbook Inoticed that in classmystatements were clearer, my mode of engagement more patient and lessanxious, andmyanswersmorecharacterizedby theopen-endedness thatcharacterizesthegift.

Huebner has written a course of therapy for those who believe inpeacethatwill,ifweletit,deepenourengagementwithpeace,makeusmorecomfortablewithitsprecariousness,andorientustowardstheChristwhogivesusthispeace.Huebnerskillfullycallsintoquestionourassumptions.Somedebatesevaporateunderhiscritique,asinachapteronMilbankandBarthcalled“CanaGiftbeCommanded?”Otherscondenseastheauthorbringstogetherquestionsnottypicallyaskedatthesametime,asinachapterwhereheemployscontemporaryphilosophersandculturalcriticstoshowhowmartyrdomshapesthegiftofpeace.

Iclosewithquestionsofferedinresponsetoaquotationattheendofawonderfulchapteron[Paul]ViriloandYoder:“Butbecausethisgoodnewsinvolvesabreakingofthecycleofviolencethatincludestherenunciationof logistical effectiveness and possessive sovereignty, it can only beofferedasagiftwhosereceptioncannotbeguaranteedorenforced”(130,emphasismine).HereHuebnerseemstowanttoguaranteeacertainshapetopeace.Butifpeaceisalwaysprecarious,isitalsotruethatonlypeaceisprecarious?Isn’ttherealsoprecariousnesstotheexerciseofpower,theattempttogovern,ortheattempttocommunicateinthelanguageofcultureandnotonlygospel?Canwenotrecognizepeaceandprecariousnessevenwhen theyoccur (miraculously) inspiteof force,clumsy intervention,ormisguidedattemptstocontrol?Ormustpeace,inordertoremainprecarious,guardagainstalliancesthreateningthatprecariousness?

At points Huebner eagerly recognizes that those practicing peacearealsoalways implicated in theviolentexerciseofpower (seechapters

Book Reviews 10�

8and12).Butatotherpointstheshapeofthepeaceheaversseemsover-determinedbythedemandofprecariousness.Isn’tatrulyprecariouspeacealso willing to explore the possibility of remaining settled, existing in ahappy exchange, or flourishing for a moment in effectiveness?

Trevor George Hunsberger Bechtel, Religion Department, BlufftonUniversity, Bluffton,OH

Tripp York. The Purple Crown: The Politics of Martyrdom. Scottdale:Herald,2007.

The Purple Crown: The Politics of MartyrdomengagesquestionsthathavepreoccupiedAnabaptists forcenturies:What is theappropriatepostureofpeace-lovingChristiansinaviolentworld?ShouldChristiansbepolitical?

As a work of historical theology, this book will appeal most totheologiansandchurchhistorians.ButYork’sprose,ifrepetitiveattimes,is accessible (and gender inclusive). Anyone who finds the subject matter compelling can approach this study. Some will find it inspiring; others will find it most valuable as a representative piece of a particular kind of Christian dogma.Attheleast,itwillprovokepassionateconversation.

According to York, Christians must be politically active earthlycitizens,butwithanimportantcaveat:theirpoliticalpostureisoneofexile.Theyarehereonearthtorepresentheaven.Thus“martyrdomisthe politicalactbecauseitrepresentstheultimateimitationofChrist,signifyingalifelivedinobedienceto,andparticipationin,thetriuneGod”(23).

BeginningwithadiscussionoftheearlyChristianmartyrsunderRome,YorkinterpretsmartyrdomasapublicperformancethatbearswitnesstothetriumphofChristthroughameanssuperiortorhetoricorargument.Indeed,martyrdomisacosmicbattle“betweenGod’speopleandGod’senemies”

The Conrad Grebel Review10�

(29-30).FromtheearlyChristians,theauthormovestoadiscussionofthe16th-century Anabaptist martyrs, and finishes with a biography of martyred SalvadoranarchbishopOscarRomerothatislikelytobeengagingevenforthosewhodislikeYork’stheology.

Yorkdeservesmuchcredit forwritingoneof themoreecumenicalmartyrdomstudiesavailablefromaMennonitesource.HefocusesalwaysonthebroaderChristiancontextandresistsAnabaptisttribalism.Butreaderswho value interfaith cooperation may find his work problematic.

The Purple Crown is peppered with references to “the people ofGod,” and while York acknowledges that this group is hard to define, he remainsrigidinhisChristianunderstandingofthephrase.“OnlywherethetriuneGodisworshippedcantherebetruesociality,”heasserts(110).Thisclaimis typicalofYork’s languagethroughout.HeconsistentlydismissesanysocialorpoliticalrealityoutsideofChristianitybylabelingit“false,”anideologicaltacticthataddsnomeattohisarguments.The Purple Crown is hardly the first theological work to claim that Christianity is inherently politicalbyvirtueofitsallegedsuperioritytoeverythingelse,andifYorkistobefaultedforexcessiverelianceona“church”vs.“world”binary,itmustbesaidthathedidnotinventit.Still,hedoeslittletomakeitfresh.

TheauthorincludesalmostnodiscussionofcontemporarypoliticsorhowChristiansmightshouldertheiraccountabilityinamoderndemocracy.Rather, government is simply “the state,” an ill-defined monolith that kills andoppressesChristians.Christians arepoliticalbecauseas followersofChristtheystandinoppositiontothestate,evenuntodeath.Thiscircularargument is theheartofThe Purple Crown, thereby confining the book’s appealtothosewhoshareYork’sdualisticworldview.

Yorkcomesclosest toundermininghisowndualisminhischapteron16th-centuryEurope–thestrongestinthebook–inwhichhediscusseswithadmirablenuancehowbattlesoversemanticsledChristianstokilloneanother. Recognizing the difficulty of resolving these doctrinal issues, York pointsusinsteadtothemartyrdoms;suchperformances“giveussomethingbywhichwecandiscernwhichactsaregood,beautiful,andtrue.Maybethen it ispossible todistinguish thedifferencebetweenapseudo-politicslocatedinearthlyregimesandanauthenticpoliticsconstitutedbynothingotherthanthebrokenyetrisenbodyofChrist”(97).

Book Reviews 10�

The definition of “politics” is contested territory, and my frustration withYork’stheocraticversionmayreveallittlebeyondmyownpartisanship.Nonetheless,thelabels“pseudo-politics”and“authenticpolitics”strikemeasironicallyself-defeating.Nothingismoreendemictothepoliticsof“earthlyregimes”thanclaimsofpurityandauthenticitythatservetodiscreditsomepeoples while elevating others to positions of supposed greatness. “Thevisiblechurchis importantnot justso theelectcanknoweachother,butbecauseGodhaspromisednottoleavetheworldwithoutawitnesstoGod,”Yorkcontinues;“ThisisthesortofgiftthatexposesfalsecitiesfromthetruecityinanefforttobringallcitiesundertheruleofChrist”(98).

This crusader-like language leaves us no room to approach non-Christianswithanyhumility.Despiteitsnonviolentintent,IdoubtYork’schauvinisttheologywillbringusclosertothe“peaceoftheearthlycity.”

Stephanie Krehbiel,independentscholar