Robert Muthiah, professor of Practical Theology at Azusa Pacific University, differentiates independence from interdependence, which is held in theoretical tension with the concept of The Priesthood of All Believers. He develops his thesis by examining biblical evidences, trinitarian typology, church history, and the truth-claims of modernity; consequentially, he arrives at his postmodern conclusions. Muthiah argues that the New Testament does not provide for “the establishment of a separated ministerial priesthood” in order to illuminate the discrepancy in the hierarchal concepts of ecclesiology (17). Herein, he effectively illustrates common theories of pericoresis, making these abstract concepts readily understandable; thus, this parallel work compares with the “three color” concepts of Christian Schwarz (Natural Church Development, The Three Colors of Your Spirituality, The Three Colors of Ministry, The Three Colors of Love). Muthiah challenges long-held presuppositions of how-to-do church as he outlines significant theological and ecclesiastical considerations for the church in the twenty-first century.

Muthiah braids three strands into one thesis: the biblical conception of the Priesthood of All Believers from a Protestant perspective; the Anabaptist interpretation of ecclesiology; and the postmodern phenomena of individuality. Finding the common thread of independence in this gestalt of priesthood, ecclesial separatism, and postmodernism, Muthiah thus posited his counterbalancing corrective of responsible community. He finds that a healthy community to be the both the goal and the corrective to self-centered faith and action. Muthiah has written his book in a format that is academically logical and systematically cohesive, leading his reader step-by-step from his hypothesis to his conclusion. However, in the conclusion he confesses that there is much more pragmatic work to be done before the theory can become practice.

The book has the distinct cadence of an academic thesis, although I did not read or find written anywhere in the text or its introduction that it was indeed a dissertation. In this regard, the book is densely written in a few places, requiring determination to press through the weave of its own theories and the stitched together reviews of the theories of others. As a book reviewer, I emerged from the final pages of this book with a sense of interest, as to how the three strands of Muthiah’s thesis add a unique application biblical interpretation to the subject of the priesthood of all believers—applied to the postmodern context. However, I am not quite sure what to do with the information that Muthiah has woven together. The challenge of the Church is to embrace the perpetual renewing of the Spirit of God.

Reviewed by John R. Miller

Leonard Swidler, Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue at Temple University, explores the challenges of faith and modernity. He has divided this book into four main sections, fluidly integrating its 36 chapters into a progressive and logical structure. He draws from modernity’s biblical scholars in order to defend his premise, which offers a way to amalgamate critical-thinking with an “inner encounter with the Transcendent.” Club Modernity adds Swidler’s voice to the conversations of Sartre, Borg, et.al.

Two curious things struck me as I began to read this book. The first is the physical format of the book and its binding. The format of its pages included minimal margins on both sides of the page, forcing the reader to nearly break the binding of the book’s spine to read the words located close to the book’s center. Likewise, there was no index or bibliographical citation at the close of the book, which for an academic book seemed odd. The second curiosity was the repeated inclusion of citations from Wikipedia. Normally, the academic world shuns Wikipedia and warns students to avoid it as an unreliable resource. Thus, for an academic like Swidler to use it several times seemed out of place. Additionally, the book seemed rushed to print, leaving multiple format, punctuation, and citation errors evident and unedited.

Swidler makes one minor presumption and two major assumptions in his attempt to defend his position. The minor presumption is seen in the academic language used, which borders on academic arrogance; one often wonders what audience the book is attempting to impress. The first major assumption noticed is how Swidler quickly makes claims and/or repeats the foundational claims of modernity’s liberal scholars, then goes on to build on their theories as being universally accepted. This is not the case for all biblical scholars, but Swidler has built a straw man that is ready to be defeated. The second is how he adds his own contributions to literary and biblical criticism, which champion the authorship of the gospel of Luke as being a woman (Luka), who wrote a “proto-Luke” as-well-as the authorship of the gospel of John as being written by Mary Magdalene, who was cryptically called the “beloved disciple” and referenced throughout the gospel.

Ironically, Club Modernity attempts to chart a middle way between postmodern critiques of the truth claims of the Bible and the proof claims of modernity. Swidler endeavors to satisfy the rigid demands of rationality over and against the mysticism of spirituality. Unfortunately, the book does not convincingly accomplish its goals. Undoubtedly, the book will find support in the circles of liberal scholarship and will dismissed as folly by the circles of conservative scholarship.

Reviewed by John R. Miller.