Scripture & Theology

Where I have some evaluative comments of my own to intersperse, these shall be in bold italics.

Many of us owe much to Oliver O’Donovan and it seems fitting that one whole volume (A Royal Priesthood? The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically) of this project should be dedicated to an interaction with his work. Craig Bartholomew with that skilful knack he has for summarising, says of O’Donovan’s understanding of Resurrection and Moral Order (1986): ‘the creation order is real and holds for all, but in a fallen world it cannot be grasped outside of Christ’ (22), how God condescends to somehow include even violence (e.g. as described in Joshua) within his revelation and concludes: ‘I take it that he would be happy to describe the overarching theme of the Bible as the kingdom of God.’ Bartholomew goes on to insist that it is to O’Donovan’s credit, in contrast with S Hauerwas, that the whole of the Bible, OT included, needs to be instilled into our (political) theology, mentioning ‘his assertion of the need for an architectonic hermeneutic, or one that does justice to the shape of the edifice of Scripture as a whole. Motifs such as that of exodus or shalom must not be arbitrarily abstracted from the building of scripture, but must be read in the context of the narrative structure of Scripture as a whole.’ (37) In the response in the special Studies in Christian Ethics volume O’Donovan had made it clear that ‘thought cannot live sola narratione. Narrative thought can authorise, but cannot supply, a deliberative discourse’ (Response, 94) and shows more affection for the historico-critical method and its desire to get to what was the animus of the writing of texts as distinct from the strictly canonical approach advocated by Walter Moberly in the spirit of Brevard Childs. O’Donovan thus responds: ‘We shall not understand Deuteronomy without understanding why it is all put in Moses’ mouth.’ (65) It will be impossible to be absolutely sure of just what was going on and thus what was meant, but we can get some idea. The other issue with Moberly is that the latter thinks we can re-read the OT as if we were not thinking about Christ: O’Donovan admits he is not all that interested in the Pentateuch since the NT draws the centre of gravity of the OT towards its end: Jeremiah seems the central figure.

It is perhaps fitting that in this volume most of the best moments come when the orchestra and its other soloists quieten down and allow the pianist to respond in this concerto. O’Donovan dates the anti-Christian enlightenment pretty late (around the time of French and American revolutions and their state/church separation), and questions what Chris Rowland means by ‘counter-cultural’. Perhaps O’Donovan has to be re-read for his condensed style to yield meaning, but to show the Augustinian connection of ius to iustitia and iustificatio and question Tom Wright, playing on his home ground, asks as to whether there really was much of an Emperor cult in Pauline times while teasing the NT scholar for trying to make every theme a ‘narrative’—some of this shows the genius in service of the gospel at its best. The best essay which draws the longest response from O’Donovan is that by Jonathan Chaplin whose detailed familiarity with the former’s work is apparent. He pinpoints O’Donovan’s preference for early modern Christian political liberalism—subsequently corrupted and ‘democratised’ by the later Enlightenment, neo-Thomists included, and counters that God works through more institutions than merely that of political government and that when he does so he is not always necessarily judging in a strongly interventionist sense. This leads to O’Donovan describing the difference between ‘justice’ (pre-fall) and ‘judgement’ (presupposing the fall) and coming over cynical about the worth of ‘separation of powers’ and the usefulness of Leviticus 25. What remains is an original and refreshing evaluation of the foundations of Western political systems. ‘The ideas and ideals of Christendom were thought through by monks and bishops, counsellors and advisors. They proposed an ideal for the behaviour of government, and they gave reasons for it…I have never argued (pace Kreider) that a tendency to coercion was not “endemic”, merely that it was not logically implied by the concept of a Christian state.’ (343) O’Donovan is just the right polymath theologian to draw out the best from his sparring-partners.

What is already valuable and exciting is the sense of how, without repeating themselves, the participants seem to be moving on and deepening their understanding of this area and there is much wisdom and stimulus for thought as a result—for those prepared to make the effort to engage!