Skip to main content

Long time no blog...and Rod Garner

It has been a long time since I blogged anything here - but I have had a very busy few months. I was ordained to the Dioconate on 3rd July and have moved the whole family a hundred miles north to serve in Liverpool Diocese for the next three to four years. Thus reading and thinking has been somewhat replaced by removal vans and boxes, clerical robes and school assemblies -- all of which I love! As a new pattern starts to emerge for us here I have found time to begin reading and thinking again. Today is my official research day, so I shall be working on my PhD, but I've just enough time to blog a few thoughts about a book I've just started reading hot off the presses. It is Rod Garner's On Being Saved: The Roots of Redemption (DLT, 2011). I was there at the book launch last week and picked up a copy. The book is short and pithy, in places quite poetic, and makes an interesting argument (though I hasten to add not a new one and certainly not with the depth of scholarship one might expect from a Diocesan Theological Consultant - though, in fairness, I think this latter issue comes from a desire to appeal to popular readers).

Garner locates his work as a critique of a view of humanity that renders us at our most basic wretchedly sinful and twisted at the core. His approach is to take the human creature optimistically and positively. This doesn't mean he shirks the realities of sin and brokeness, but rather that he relativizes thier significance for the narrative of salvation. Key to this is his account of doubleness. He writes, "the human heart, properly understood, is a repository of light and lies" (p.14). This proper understanding means that an account that focuses only on our wretchedness is fundamentally flawed by its partiality. To my reformed ears this has the potential to be a bit wishy washy. But if Garner can sustain the argument theologically and give it a proper biblical and theological orientation, opposed to the kind of post-Enlightenment and Wiggist optimism that informs the modernist paradigm, then this work might be significant in that it communicates well to the popular reader. The effect of this reworking of theological anthropology is a rethinking of the doctrine of redemption. This is where my reformed ears start burning a bit because Garner is bold in his revisioning, though sometimes a bit haphazard. This is only an initial impression, and more attention must be given to the book before I come to any firm conclusions.


The really pleasing thing for me in this is that Garner is a Priest-theologian, and remains a parish incumbent in Southport. It is really refreshing that a diocese is willing to support someone with that sort of vocation without wanting to shove them into a university chaplaincy role or prohibit their non-parish related interests. it makes me pleased that we moved to Liverpool Diocese.

Comments

Rev R Marszalek said…
ah you have met Garner - so glad.

Popular posts from this blog

What Do You Call a Group of Theologians?

I think the answer should be "an argument", but perhaps that's unfair. I can test my theory this next week, which sees the start of the annual Society for the Study of Theology (UK) conference on the theme of Holy Writ? (The question mark is very suggestive). It looks really good, and the list of plenary speakers is great: Alex Samely (Manchester); Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter); Henk van den Belt (Amsterdam); Walter Moberly (Durham); Anthony Thiselton (Nottingham); Hugh Pyper (Sheffield). The conference lasts several days and is convening this year at York University. I hope to be able to blog a few thoughts from the conference and some info about the plenary sessions, but I shall be presenting a paper at one of the themed seminars on Wednesday afternoon on the interpretation of Barth's ethics of responsibility so may be a bit distracted until then. So watch this space for more info...

Barth on defining the authority of scripture, and issues in the Anglican communion

Barth is notorious, particularly amongst evangelical scholars, for his view of the authority of scripture. He is right, I think, to argue that scripture's 'authority' is relative to the authority of Christ. This is precisely why his threefold definition of the Word does not privilege scripture, but acknowledges its principal witness to the 'wordiness' of Jesus (John 1 - a passage of which Barth was very fond). Where I think his approach to scripture becomes more complicated, and difficult to understand, is in passages relating to moral authority, such as this one: All biblical imperatives - and we do not say this to impugn the authority of the Bible but to define it - are addressed to others, and not to us, and they are addressed to others who differ greatly among themselves, to the people of Israel in different situations, to the disciples of Jesus, to the first Christian churches of Jews and Gentiles. Their concreteness is that of a specific then and there...This

My new book! Faithful Living: Discipleship, Creed, and Ethics

I’m a little late flagging this up here, but my book Faithful Living: Discipleship, Creed, and Ethics was released by SCM Press in December 2019 — a little bit earlier than expected (and hopefully in time for a few last-minute Christmas presents!). The basic premise of the book is a bit of a thought-experiment: I am interested in the kinds of decisions and actions that may be inferred or implied for those who believe and regularly recite the Nicene Creed. I don’t pretend this is an exhaustive moral commentary, nor that the basic approach isn’t without some qualification, but I do try and join the dots between the confessional substance of the Christian faith (with which many worshipers are familiar because of liturgical confession) and the every-day choices that most Christians are required to make. It comes from the conviction that doctrinal commitments implicate our moral lives. The blurb summarises it as follows: How can the things we do and say in Church impact our lives and s