read the instruction, the file name is Broad Topic. I attached the instruction with three articles. I need between 7 to 10 pages

The Reformed Theological Review42

difficulty with four interrelated aspects of its presentation. First and most significantly, by his initial definition of worship as human engagement with God the author ruled out the logically prior consideration of God’s engagement with humans in worship. To be sure, it is acknowl- edged that God presences himself with his people by his Word and Holy Spirit in their worship but thatis mentioned only in passing. I would maintain that in Christian worship all three persons of the Holy Trinity engage and empowerus. Divine activity enables human activity. Secondly, the author wrongly downplays the importance of worship by the assembled congregation and interprets the passages in the New Testament on the extent of worship as references to its location.

Thirdly, the author understands the words and acts of worship as expressive rather than as performative enactments ,i.e. worship is an expression of what we believe rather than the proper way of enacting and experiencing what we believe. Lastly, justice is not done to the centrality of the Lord’s Supper in Christian worship, let alone our participation in the heavenly liturgy via it and the praise associated with it.

Engaging with God is a timely work of biblical theology which combines sound evangelical scholarship with the gift for popular exposition. It is highly recommended for parish ministers and biblically literate lay people who wish to discover the range of teaching on worship in the Bible.

J o h n W . K leinio

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MARK By Moma D. Hooker (B lack’s NTC)(Hendrickson: Peabody, 1991),424pp., hbk., $24.95.

This commentary is the fruit of more than twenty years of research by Moma Hooker, Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. A third of the size of Robert Gundry’s recent massive work on Mark’s Gospel, Hooker’s commentary is written simply yet with evident command of the voluminous literature. The inclusion of eight additional notes (helpful but too few?) summarise her findings on a number of the most significant issues.

There is a wealth of information in these pages which will be of interest to all who want to understand Mark’s Gospel. In particular, when Hooker turns to the Old Testament as an interpretive background for Jesus’ words and actions she provides many helpful insights. Unfortunately, Hooker too quickly dismisses many traditional connections between the Old Testament and Mark’s Gospel (e.g. Isaiah 53 and Mark 10.45 pp. 248-9) and she too often appeals to the intertestamental literature.

However, this reviewer’s most serious problem with the commentary is Hooker’s relue- tance to affirm that Mark’s presentation is *an accurate historical record of what Jesus did and said’ (p.5). Even though in her Introduction Hooker claims to stand between two ,extreme’ approaches, one insisting that Mark was historically accurate in every detail and the other that he was freely creative in the interests of some kind of theological statement, the commentary itself reveals her critical presuppositions. She attributes Jesus ’ explanation of the parable of the sower (Mark 4.13-20) to the early Christian community rather than to Jesus himself (pp. 129־ 130) and explains the transfiguration as ‘an historical “happening” of some kind’ which ‘has been interpreted with the aid of Old Testament allusions to produce the narrative as we have it, but the two have been so fused together that it is impossible for us now to separate the two’ (p.214). When speaking of Jesus’ statement about the authority to forgive sins on the earth in

43BookReviews

Mark 2.10, Hooker remarks ‘Whether Jesus himself claimed this wider authority cannot be established with any certainty’ (p. 88).

In short, the great benefits of Moma Hooker’s impressive grasp of the literature and her lucid writing style are vitiated by her own critical presuppositions. The last sentence of her Introduction reveals the bankruptcy of such an approach: * it is for each individual reader of the gospel to decide the extent to which Mark’s interpretation rings true* (p.26).

M a rk T h o m pso n

EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY: A Handbook By Randolph Crump Miller ed., (Religious Education Press: Birmingham, Alabama, 1992),

304pp., $18.95.

This volume is the work of 12 American scholars, among whom are John B. Cobb Jr., Frederich Ferré, Randolph Miller and Karl E. Peters. Its structure is well-conceived and it serves as a very useful introduction to the history, significance, claims and consequences of an attachment to empirical theology. There are chapters on the history of empirical theology, its major themes, its connection with classical theology, its contribution to the main subjects of theology, and its teaching about pastoral theology.

What is empirical theology? It is not usual in a brief review to quote extensively, but in this case the lucid opening to Tyron Inbody’s essay says it all:

‘Empirical theology is a type of modem liberal theology. Its historical roots are embedded in the Protestant revolt against tradition and institutional authority and the effort to establish other grounds of authority for theology. Its impetus is the Enlightenment search for a reliable methodology. Its agenda is the liberal project to ground theology in human experience and to use reason to understand experience.

All empirical theologians are naturalists in the sense that they believe this world alone is the locus of purpose and value. They relinquish any world of transcendental causes or principles. Reality is the processes and relationships of this world; all theological meaning and truth lies within the natural world.’ To this definition Randolph Crump would add the basic ‘Americanness’ of empirical

theology (p. 5). It may be thought that an empirical theology would be impossible apriori. As Inbody’s

essay makes clear, however, the term ‘empirical’ is being used in a wider sense than that which would make knowledge depend on the sense. Religious experience is also involved. This widening of the definition does, of course, allow for a more ‘classical’ appearance for empirical theology. Furthermore it has the virtue of making use of a powerful ‘scientific’ term, while at the same time expanding the term to include far more than may be expected. Even such an expansion does not commend the empirical theology, however. Majorie Suchocki endeavours to demonstrate that empirical theology is a variation ‘within a common Christian tradition’ (p. 84). Her essay is well-written, but with the speedy dispatch of the category of revelation in favour of philosophy of religion (p. 89) the breach is absolute. One may choose classical theology or empirical theology, but they are genuine alternatives, inconsistent with each other. From my point of view, therefore, ‘empirical theology’ has little to contribute to the true knowledge of God.

P eter F. J ensen

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.