{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02426202992317024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.834905660377358, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Adrian Thatcher, God, Sex, and Gender: An Introduction

Stassen not only relies heavily and uncritically on Taylor, he also seeks to replicate in some respects his method by entering into the business of seeking to vindicate the exemplars of his ‘incarnational discipleship’ in historical terms. This seems like a perilous process. At one level, Stassen uses examples that are completely uncontroversial. Those that think Hitler was right and Bonhoeffer was wrong are thin on the ground. It is a measure of the discipleship of Dietrich Bonhoeffer that he was able to discern the evil around him where other Christians acquiesced. But it seems strange to defend the notion of historical vindication in the name of Bonhoeffer and Barth, who were so wary of just such readings of providence. Does Stassen’s method survive in more difficult examples? In Taylorean style, Stassen introduces his own broad-brush terms such as ‘Platonic idealism’ (which is bad) and ‘Hebraism’ (good). I am dubious about the ability of these terms to hold up against a sustained analysis. There is also a certain circularity in play. Stassen selects a cloud of witnesses to his ‘incarnational discipleship’ who are its most successful exemplars, obviously. He then wishes to apply an evaluative process to this notion of ‘incarnational discipleship’, which will in some way vindicate it by dint of its actual historical outcomes—as per Nancey Murphy. However, he has chosen a group of heroes in the first place: they are only ever going to pass the test because they gained access to our attention on account of their saintliness in the first place. The other question I would put to Stassen’s notion of incarnational discipleship is its lack of interest in sex and marriage. Why, since Jesus specifically addresses sexual ethics in the Sermon on the Mount, is there nothing much about it in A Thicker Jesus, which has the Sermon as one of its key texts? ‘Incarnational discipleship’ has rightly tilted the balance in Christian ethical thinking away from matters sexual by showing how Jesus addresses power and violence. In this age of Eros, I think there is ample ground for an exposition of sexuality in the terms that Stassen suggests. Nevertheless, Stassen’s call to a deeper reflection and application of the person of Jesus in Christian ethics is timely, and his book certainly moved this reader to consider afresh the actual, real-world impact of a life lived in his footsteps.