SCJ 19 (Fall, 2016): 251–314 ineffective guilt (73). Vasko suggests that this sort of apathy is further compounded by the interpretive tendencies within the Christian atonement tradition, which works to maintain false notions of white moral innocence. This is not to suggest that Christian theology directly causes hegemonic violence, but rather an attempt to recognize that within Christianity, Jesus’ body is only redemptive when it is dead, passive, and submissive. Coupling this realization with the ways in which Christianity has aligned Jesus’ divinity with maleness and whiteness, Vasko suggests that atonement theology has contributed to white indifference to racial suffering by offering religious justification for sacrificial scapegoating. In Chapter Three a call is made for a hamartiology (theology of sin) that works to show the depths of bystander participation. Vasko roots the application of sin-talk for bystanders in the biblical language of lament, instead of blame or disobedience (118). Lament holds together both loss and hope, in a way that re-centers the plight of those who have suffered injustice. The chapter ultimately ties in voices from feminist, womanist, black liberation, and queer theologies as a way of offering up a critical reconstruction of sin for bystanders who are complicit in violence. Vasko eloquently explains that everyone is guilty of bystanding, in specific cases such as sexism or racism, as well as broader, economic instances such as the exploitation of labor in Western capitalism. In what is undoubtedly the strongest chapter of the book, Chapter Four provides a useful exegesis of Mark 7:24-30, the story of Jesus’ interaction with the Syro-Phoenician woman. Vasko uses this story to show that Jesus also socialized in an environment that privileged maleness over femaleness and held marked assumptions about ethnicity and race (177). By offering up “saving words” to the Syro-Phoenician woman, Jesus occupies a site of privilege. Vasko’s interpretation of this biblical narrative removes Jesus from his typical marginalized depiction as a way of asserting that all people have the capacity to exist as a bystander. Chapter Five brings forth a soteriological praxis for bystanders that attempts to create space for privileged participation in the work of liberation. Again turning to the ministry of Jesus, Vasko highlights that Jesus not only criticized the systemic injustice of imperial hegemony, he also modeled a new way of exercising power through relationship (193). This requires an embracement of vulnerability, which acts as a liberative spiritual praxis. Vulnerability has the potential to overcome apathy by uniting God’s basileia through compassionate involvement (240). This project exists as a useful reminder that despite the best efforts of Christians, each of us are guilty of existing as bystanders to oppression. However, throughout the book is a constant reminder that apathy runs contrary to Christian identity. Vasko gently encourages the reader to live a life of compassionate involvement with the world, even when it feels uncomfortable. J. TYLER CAMPBELL PhD Student University of Dayton Kelly D. CARTER. The Trinity in the Stone-Campbell Movement: Restoring the Heart of Christian Faith. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015. 272 pp. $29.99. Based on his dissertation, Carter offers a valuable contribution to the existing works on the history and theology of the Stone-Campbell Movement (SCM). Not only does he meet 254 Book Reviews the need for a monograph addressing the Trinitarian theology of the founders, he issues a call to the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches/Churches of Christ to give greater attention to the Trinity to revitalize the church’s ministry, worship, and mission. In the introductory, first chapter, Carter explains the lack of previous works on the Trinity in the SCM and the appropriate timing of the work. His monograph follows extensive prior historical analysis of the Movement, a current “identity crisis” in the Churches of Christ (15), recent SCM authors engaging the Trinity, and the recent attention to the Trinity in contemporary theology. The chapter ends with “An Excursus: The Trinity among the Disciples of Christ.” Here Carter explains the greater attention given to the Trinity by Disciples, specifically noting Joe R. Jones’ Barthian A Grammar on Christian Faith: Systematic Explorations in Christian Life and Doctrine. The second chapter analyzes the Trinitarian theology of Thomas and Alexander Campbell. Carter argues Thomas’s views were orthodox despite displaying a “relative,” “mild,” or “slight subordinationism” without questioning the “full deity of the Son” (4041, 46, 82). He demonstrates Alexander was classically Trinitarian, like his father, despite hesitancy to speculate and engage the subject. Particularly interesting is Alexander’s contention that the Calvinistic Trinitarianism of the Westminster Confession of Faith does not sufficiently give Christ the place He deserves by inappropriately focusing on the Father/Son relationship rather than the Logos of John 1:1 (50-54). Chapter three explains Barton Stone’s “Quasi-Arianism” (89). Carter settles on “quasi,” because Stone denied the creation of the Son, recognizing that he was “derived” and “begotten” (113). He summarizes Stone’s general position on the Second Person: The divinity in Christ cannot be equal to God because that divinity is God himself, and, according to Stone’s reasoning, that which is the same as another cannot be equal to the other because the concept of being equal implies there are two items of comparison. Further, Christ’s divinity is a feature of God’s indwelling of the Son, and not of the Son’s ontology. Further still, there is only one true God; there cannot be two, and the Son, if he has separate personhood from the Father, cannot be that one only true God (92-93). Already implicit in the above quote, this chapter reflects Stone’s rejection of mystery in the name Enlightenment rationalism; in contrast, Campbell left space for the mysterious of the divine and the ends or limits of human reason (96, 110, 128). In chapter four, Carter examines the historical and theological background undergirding the Trinitarian beliefs of the Campbells and Stone. Carter admits the difficulty of demonstrating the three men’s dependency on other authors because of their unwillingness to admit their dependency and their intention to faithfully rely on the biblical text. Next, he describes more general influences from sola scriptura and the empiricism and rationalism of Locke, and the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian aspects of 17 th- and 18th-century Latitudinarism in the United Kingdom. Analyzing the three men closely, he places Thomas within the context of a Trinitarian Latitudinarism. He describes Alexander’s influences from Locke, his father, and Adam Clarke and Moses Stuart’s engagement with the “the Eternal Sonship controversy” (154-157). For Stone, Carter builds upon Newell Williams’s work, connecting Stone’s Trinitarian beliefs to Isaac Watts. Carter recognizes Stone’s reliance on Watts for his belief in the “pre-existent human soul of Christ” but highlights ways Stone differs from Watts, leading him in a more Arian perspective (158). Carter argues that Stone misunderstood Watts’s later work on the Trinity, and he was influenced by non-Trinitarian authors, particularly Samuel Clarke. 255 SCJ 19 (Fall, 2016): 251–314 The fifth chapter includes the author’s assessment of the Trinitarian position in the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches/Church of Christ, the perspective of theologians at schools in these two branches of the Movement, a brief survey of church statements of faith, a summary of works on Trinitarianism after the first generation, and works discussing the Trinity by those in the Movement. The next to the last chapter highlights the benefits of giving greater attention to the Trinity in the Stone-Campbell Movement. Carter believes a strong Trinitarian emphasis meets needs in the areas of hermeneutics, theology, church identity, ecclesiology, soteriology, pneumatology, liturgy, sacramental theology, and missiology. The final chapter offers proposals on how to implement a new emphasis on the Trinity through means such as congregational statements of faith, courses at colleges and universities, and preaching. The chapters on Stone’s perspective and the historical and theological background for the Campbells and Stone are the strongest. The call to engage the theological understanding of the past, and modern theology’s efforts to let theology speak to the current milieu, are noble and helpful. Despite these strengths, and the important contribution this book makes to SCM studies, there are a few weaknesses to note. First, more argumentation to support the claim of Thomas’s mild subordinationism is required. In his Circular Letter, despite using the term “relative subordination,” there is enough imprecision in his argumentation and his willingness to grant full equality to the Son and Spirit to question the claim. Carter also links this mild subordination to a passage in another work in which Thomas discusses salvation. Unfortunately, the passage in question seems to be a reformulation of a portion of John Owen’s Sacramental Discourses. Second, insufficient attention is given to the question of disunity related to Trinitarian speculation and creedalism. Carter recognizes this impulse undergirding the founders but insufficiently explains how this concern could be addressed today. There is mention of our different postmodern context (256), the historical divisions related to the Trinity (230), and that statements of faith should still not be used as tests of fellowship (263), but how does one avoid disunity over the Trinity? Which Trinitarian theology is to be followed? Despite some evidence of rapprochement in recent decades, the filioque remains a source of contention for East and West. Moreover, the Assemblies of God recently dealt with Trinitarian controversy in the 20th century. Third, although Carter’s call to engage the Trinity for renewal is a valuable proposal, he seems to ask for too much of a focus on the Trinity (no blasphemy intended). As one example, Carter focuses on sacramental renewal, but this kind of renewal seems achievable through other means such as reflection on Alexander Schmemann’s explanation of symbol or Paul’s discussion of participation in 1 Corinthians 10. This volume would be a beneficial addition to a graduate course on the SCM or the Trinity. Ministers and scholars in the SCM should read the text to reflect on their own Trinitarian theology, that of their congregations or schools, their own heritage, the heritage and understandings of the early Christians who lived through Trinitarian controversies, and how they can teach and increase awareness of Trinitarian theology in the SCM. SHAWN C. SMITH Registrar Lincoln Christian University 256