The first of these two volumes is a clear, introductory level approach to the subject of the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ. We get ‘the titles of Christ’, then the delineation of Christ as suffering servant in Mark; king of Jews in Matthew; friend of all in Luke; word of life in John. Added to this is a ‘pentecostal’ emphasis on empowerment Christology with: Jesus as baptiser, healer. The section on the apostle Paul’s ‘focus on salvation; pre-existence of Christ; and cosmic re-creation both as a real human being and as a divine being’ (58) is more interesting, but even so is sketchy, and one has the feeling of almost ‘getting it out of the way’, as though the lecturer knew his biblical colleagues could do this much better. In a treatment of Christology in history, there is a discussion of Logos Christology (adequate), Monarchianism (less so) and the orthodoxy of Nicea and Chalcedon as all being inspired by the soteriological implications of having the right doctrine of Christ. This quickly jumps to the Christology of the Reformation period (Luther’s baby lying in manager is creator of world’) and concludes with proposing three tests for a sound Christology: its accordance with the Bible, its harmony with liturgy and prayer, and its helpfulness in soteriological terms. There is a good treatment of Tillich, Zisioulas, and Karl Rahner, with the terms like potentia obedentialisbeing well explained and there is a good lecture-style of clarifying stuff, glossing terms for students. (Is it, however, really worth devoting chapters to N. Krauss, and S. Grenz?) It is good to learn that Asian theology would tend to see ‘the cross as identical with human shame’; there is also a well-researched chapter on African Christology. Finally, there are separate chapters devoted to Benezet Bujo and Stanley Samartha as two-thirds world christologians. The conclusion, however, is that we should not ditch classical Christology but be fully Trinitarian and allow for mystery in our discussions.

My main reservation is that this book refuses to take sides. It seems to be ‘all things to all men’ and is all rather an accumulation of descriptions of positions taken. How, I wonder can ‘world’ and ‘postmodern’ Christologies fit with traditional/western ones when they seem to conflict? The over-reliance on tertiary sources (i.e. other general introductory textbooks) for the historical chapters is disappointing.

The Pneumatology is a useful resource and refreshing too, yet there are also places that are worrying for those with a commitment to orthodoxy, not least near the beginning where the World Council of Churches deliberations get mentioned without any evaluative comment (12–13).

There is sympathy for the Eastern complaint that the Spirit is not given his proper place. When he tries to pinpoint the weakness of Western Trinitarian theology it is in terms of the practical outworkings of no epiclesis [calling on the Holy Spirit in the eucharist]; not synodal or democratic enough; and too much clerical autonomy’. These are hardly the underlying theological issues, however, and the tying of any treatment to ecclesiology (‘the holy spirit in the church’) does betray a functionalism.

The book displays strengths of awareness of pentecostal and ecumenical movements. It is useful on the Catholics, Möhler and Scheeben; although seems a bit mixed up on the pneumatology of Mystici Corporis (74). Recent Catholic scholars like Montague and K. McDonnell are used to establish that baptism in Holy Spirit was key for early church, yet only Tertuillian is actually quoted. I am not sure that Rahner’s universal view of the Holy Spirit was built on Y. Congar’s ‘mystical body of Christ’ notion (118). We are not told how for Pannenberg the Spirit in the church resolves the individual/institutional tension. Moltmann is approved of for overcoming the sanctificans/vivificans (holiness/life-giving) dualism, but very quickly we are also approving of process views. ‘Whitehead never made reference to the term Holy Spirit but his idea can be explicated pneumatologically’. Not easily it can’t. The author appreciates Reynolds’ employment of mysticism as a bridge from Christian theology to process pneumatology (150). But does Christian theology actually need this?

Finally, to trot out the old adage that there is a great difference of spiritual import between thinking of the Spirit in terms of ideas and Spirit in terms of ‘image’ (161) may simply encourage the reader to think in ill-defined and vague ideas.

---