2004

Works include both ‘proponents ’ and critics. Reviews for the RO series will appear in brackets after the listing. For other reviews of listed books, see below under “Articles and Reviews.” To suggest additions or corrections, please email Jerry Stutzman at jstutzm4@calvin.edu.

The Review of Faith and International Affairs, 2012

https://web.archive.org/web/20130501204207/http://www.rfiaonline.org/extras/articles/777-radicals-reformers-and-revivalists

2010

Book review of:

Left History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Historical Inquiry and Debate

2016

Reviewed by Niall McKay http://ctt.canterbury.ac.nz An Insurrectionist Manifesto is a complex collection of politically resistant approaches to the hallowed spaces of (Christian) theology. Arranged philosophically around the fourfold Heideggerian categories of earth and sky, god and mortals, and with an ironic nod to the form of the New Testament evangels, An Insurrectionist Manifesto seeks to (re)discover insurrection within, behind and below the presenting theological traditions. In particular, the binding good news for the key contributors-Ward Blanton, Clayton Crockett, Jeffrey W. Robbins and Noëlle Vahanian-is that the relativisation of theological transcendency has opened spaces for reclaimed political immanence and that the resurrection of the body natural might become insurrection for the body politic. An Insurrectionist Manifesto proposes an ambitious task of reframing the intersection of theology, theory and politics in a new way. And the breadth of the undertaking could well leave the reader lost in the middle of an ocean of competing currents. The introduction, then, is a critical aspect of this work, and clearly outlines what kind of insurrectionist theology these 21 st century evangelists will proclaim. Not surprisingly, the first "filiation" of this insurrection is with radical theology, with the traditions of thought around and against Christian orthodoxies which poke and prod the weaknesses and infelicities

© Ashgate

Much of the debate on the validity of radical and radicalisms as descriptors and their continued usage as explanatory categories hinges on several important issues: our ability to accurately comprehend and reconstruct the reality of a past in flux; precise selection of ideologically neutral words to convey the meaning of that past to present day audiences; and nuances. The strong dependency of radicalism on context has been correctly highlighted by several scholars. Context is naturally also central to any discussion that seeks to distinguish between at one extreme, the demand for fundamental, revolutionary transformation, and at the other gradual, evolutionary change. Yet contrary to those historians who have at times insisted on a sharp distinction between radicalism and reform, we think it more helpful to characterise that relationship as flexible and interwoven rather than static and oppositional. To take an example, neither term entirely captures either the disposition or the full agenda of all participants at every moment during the English Revolution who – against the backdrop of Civil War and regicide, the sinful shedding of ‘innocent’ blood (which was believed to be a pollutant that defiled the land), harvest failure, murrain, famine, destitution, outbreaks of plague, sick and maimed soldiers, and the charitable needs of widows and orphans of slain combatants – participated in campaigns to release people imprisoned for debt, introduce liberty of conscience, initiate constitutional, ecclesiastical, educational, electoral, legal, medical, and taxation reforms, abolish the maintenance of ministers by tithes, and promote free trade. Again, any juxtaposition of radical with moderate or conservative must be determined entirely by context, rendering it a situational or relationship term rather than something indicative of content. Indeed, making radicalism synonymous with extremism, moderation with restraint, and conservatism with preservation can at times be unnecessarily restrictive (radicalism’s relationship with conservation and innovation will be discussed shortly). Otherwise what are we to make of seemingly oxymoronic yet suggestive couplings such as Catholic radicals, Royalist radicals, and so-called radical conservatives like the Clubmen? These unusual conjunctions alert us to the interpretative possibilities of recasting radical and radicalism as fluid, situational categories that contravene conventional boundaries in complex ways. Given these difficulties, not least because the meanings of words are supplied rather than inherent, it might be best therefore to eschew definitions of radical and radicalism. To appropriate a famous quotation, we may not be able to define early modern English radicalism, but we know it when I see it. In sum, what radical and radicalism give us with one hand – comprehensibility, coherence, and homogeneity – they take away with the other – anachronism, inconsistency, and heterogeneity.

Scottish Left Review, 2003

Victorian Literature and Culture, 2016

Illawarra Unity, 10 (1) pp 58-65, 2010

Rowan Cahill and I have lived with the idea of this book since December 2001, when Ian Syson, an independent publisher from Melbourne, suggested to us that we might write about Sydney for a series of books on ‘radical cities’ published by his company, Vulgar Books. The organizing idea was a walking tour of about 50 places associated with radical events or people in the city, each site identified on a map, described in a short slab of text, and illustrated by two images: one of the site as it was at the height of its radical notoriety and another as it is today. The first in the series, Radical Melbourne, had sold a couple of thousand copies and Ian was anxious to capitalize on this success.