Book Reviews God under Fire: Modern Scholarship souls.” in a genuinely loving fashion. If the Reinvents God. Edited by Douglas S. Of all the possible ways to assess contributors to God Under Fire estab- Huffman and Eric L. Johnson. Grand God Under Fire, perhaps the best is to lish anything in response to the Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, 325 pp., see it positively as an impassioned leading representatives of these two $21.99. plea for enduring faithfulness to the theological camps, it is, first, that “living tradition” of historic Christian although God’s ways and thoughts It is a privilege to review and recom- orthodoxy, and negatively as an are higher than our ways and mend a volume edited by two schol- extended critique of theological hubris thoughts, in fact he has made himself ars for whom I have the deepest in many of its contemporary manifes- known in a way that humans can personal and professional respect. tations. Of particular concern to the understand, and second, that the clas- Professors Huffman (of Northwest- authors of God Under Fire are those sical tradition is rich enough to handle ern College) and Johnson (of The progressive theologies that can be the kinds of questions and concerns Southern Baptist Theological Semi- grouped roughly into “constructivist” that are encouraging more progressive nary) have assembled an impressive and “developmentalist” camps. While thinkers to jettison the historic Chris- group of scholars broadly represen- constructivist theologies are beholden tian understanding of God. tative of the Christian tradition to in one way or another to the Enlight- This confidence in the truth and defend the God of “historic Christian enment skepticism of Immanuel Kant integrity of the classical tradition is theism” against the “imposters” put and thus insist that “a new Christian reflected in the basic structure and forward by revisionist, pluralist, lib- God more appropriate for contempo- substance of the book. Following an eration, feminist, process, and open- rary culture” must be “imagined” due impressive introduction in which the ness theologians. In short, God Under to our inability to know God as he is editors survey the living tradition of Fire is a challenging yet accessible in himself, developmentalist theolo- historic Christian theism along with volume that makes a significant con- gies are “less skeptical about our abil- alternatives being proposed by more tribution to contemporary discus- ity to know God” yet still claim that progressive Christian thinkers, God sions about the nature and attributes the God of historic Christian ortho- Under Fire is divided into two sections of God. Insisting that “there is far doxy must be abandoned. Since they that are related to one another as a more overall continuity among those are convinced that God is in time and superstructure is related to its foun- who adhere to historic Christian as such “is undergoing constant dation. In section one, which in many views of God . than discontinuity,” development as he interacts with respects is the most important section its twelve contributors set out “to humans and reacts to human actions, of the book, Mark R. Talbot, Eric L. provide a corrective to the major al- creativity, and cultural progress,” Johnson, and Gerald L. Bray outline ternative Christian versions of God developmentalists conclude that clas- the theological, philosophical, and his- being offered in our day and to sical theism must be rejected or at least torical foundations for challenging the present, as best [they] can, the God significantly revised because it fails to unrestrained arrogance of those who, of the Bible and of historic Christian- take both time and development seri- having accommodated to the intellec- ity: at once the most beautiful and ously. They suggest that in so doing tual milieu of the modern age, would attractive Being in the universe, yet classical theism reduces the God of remake God in their own image. Tal- also the most awesome, even terrify- Scripture to an essentially impersonal bot begins the volume by arguing that ing; a God who is supremely rela- being that is “distant and remote from “doubts about the God of classical tional and supremely sovereign, the humans,” and who as a consequence Christian theism” often reveal little absolutely transcendent lover of our is incapable of relating to his creatures more than a profound lack of confi- 80 dence in “the historic Christian view accurately characterized as simply classical tradition are virtually without of the Scriptures.” Talbot therefore synthesizing Greek and Roman measure, contemporary challenges to defends both the authority and the thought with biblical teaching. the traditional understanding of God “perfect errorlessness and fundamen- Rather, though undoubtedly influ- ought not be regarded as occasions for tal self-consistency” of Scripture and enced by their intellectual climate, the mourning, but rather as opportunities contends that truthful discourse about early church leaders decisively chal- for a compelling articulation of a view God is possible when it is grounded lenged the fundamental assumptions of God that squares with the God of in God’s necessary, sufficient, clear, and thinking of pagan thought and historic Christianity and of Scripture. and inerrant revelation of himself in profoundly reoriented Western intel- A number of years ago the editors the words of the Bible. Johnson then lectual life toward the revelation of of Christianity Today challenged clas- affirms “the realism of orthodox God.” sical theists to interact thoughtfully Christianity and the necessity of logic In the second section of the book with the questions being raised by for knowing anything about God, but the remaining contributors then estab- thinkers who could no longer accept he maintains that the finite capacities lish that the classical view of God many of the established assumptions of human reason cannot be allowed remains untarnished despite the about the God of historic Christian to determine what we think God’s attacks of progressive scholarship in orthodoxy. That God Under Fire repre- nature is or to legitimate the reinter- its many contemporary manifesta- sents a deliberate response to this pretation of some Scripture that tions. While all of the chapters dem- challenge is evidenced by the format appears to contradict other ‘preferred’ onstrate that the view of God cham- of the book. The title of each chapter Scripture.” Suggesting that mature pioned by the classical tradition is takes the form of a question that is thinkers appreciate paradoxical truths vigorous enough to withstand the then answered in the discussion that because they recognize “the limits of assaults of its major detractors, the follows. Contributors interact with a human reason,” Johnson challenges means by which the various contribu- range of critical views and then defend the “unvirtuous use of logic” that tors do this varies from chapter to the classical view of the doctrine being leads many progressives to arrogantly chapter. To vastly oversimplify the attacked in a fashion that demon- suppose that their minds establish the matter, whereas Paul Helm, R. Dou- strates that the critiques are ultimately standards of what can and cannot glas Geivett, James S. Spiegel, Patrick without merit. God Under Fire is a be. Finally, Bray concludes the first Lee, Bruce A. Ware, and D. A. Carson serious, substantive volume that section by defending the classical tra- offer fresh yet relatively conventional demands a serious, substantive dition against the charge that it was discussions of God’s timelessness, his response. One can only hope that corrupted by Greek philosophy. Find- relationship to evil, his providence, his progressives who are clamoring for ing the key to the classical tradition in impassibility, his Trinitarian nature, their voices to be heard will be open the doctrine of the Trinity, Bray insists and his love respectively, William minded enough to engage the argu- that although many of the words Lane Craig and Charles E. Gutenson ments presented in this fine volume. classical theists use “come from one offer thoroughly orthodox yet still pagan Greek philosophical source or more innovative discussions of God’s Paul Kjoss Helseth another,” such dependence is not ipso foreknowledge and his immutability. Northwestern College, facto evidence that the classical tradi- Gutenson, for example, affirms divine St. Paul, MN tion is a compromised tradition, for immutability while rejecting divine the early church redefined these bor- eternality, i.e., while insisting that God The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Bib- rowed expressions in terms that were is present to, rather than outside of, lical Theology. Essays in Honor of Paul consistent with “the pattern of Chris- time. What each contributor makes J. Achtemeier on the Occasion of His tian truth” revealed in Scripture. As abundantly clear, among other things, Seventy-fifth Birthday. Edited by A. such, the early church “cannot be is that because the resources of the Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera. 81 Louisville/London: Westminster/ lypse of John” by David Aune; cannot resist saying that readers John Knox, 2002, xv + 300 pp., $25.95 “Preaching and Ministry in the Service should consult the outstanding work paper. of the God of the Bible” by Elizabeth of John Frame in this regard, The Doc- Achtemeier. The listing of names trine of God (Presbyterian and Andrew Das and Frank Matera, indicates that the contributors are Reformed Publishing Co.). former Ph.D. students of Paul well-known for their work in biblical Jack Kingsbury’s fine work in nar- Achtemeier, have edited a number of studies. rative theology is put to good service essays focusing on the doctrine of God Many honorary volumes solicit in his stimulating essay on “God” in to honor their Ph.D. supervisor. Prob- essays on a topic of interest to the con- Mark. Kingsbury demonstrates that ably the best way to capture the scope tributor, but this volume pursues one liberalism and even redaction criti- of the book is to list the essays and topic in biblical theology, i.e., biblical cism failed to read Mark on its own authors: “In Appreciation of Paul J.