Steven D. CONE. Theology from the Great Tradition. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Pp. 752. $136.00 pb. ISBN: 978-05-67670-00-7. Reviewed by Ryan MARR, The National Institute for Newman Studies, Pittsburgh, PA 15237.

Steven Cone has gifted readers with an impressively thorough systematic theology in this hefty, 750+ page tome—Theology from the Great Tradition. Two characteristics of the monograph in particular stand out: first, the clarity with which Cone writes and, second, the organizational structure that he brings to the volume. Because of these two elements, students who are newer to the field of theology will have no trouble following the progression of Cone’s discussion, while more seasoned scholars should be able to quickly locate specific theological topics that are of interest to them. The book is structured around fifteen broad headings, or “modules,” ranging from Theological Foundations (Module I) through Christianity and the World Religions (Module 15)—with several fundamental theological topics (e.g., the Trinity, sin, the work of Christ, ministry and sacraments, etc.,) in between. Each module, then, is broken down into more precise sub-topics. For instance, the section on “Theological Authorities” has four chapters, treating in succession reason, tradition, religious experience, and then wrapping up with a historical overview of the relationship between faith and reason.

The final product represents a worthwhile addition to any theological library. The ideal context for utilizing this title in the classroom, however, is somewhat difficult to determine. On the one hand, Cone writes in such a way that his work should be accessible to a broad audience. He has taken the time to bold key points in the argument and ends each chapter with discussion questions that seem well-suited for an undergraduate context. On the other hand, the sheer bulk of the volume may prove intimidating for undergraduates, and some of the discussions, though presented with clarity, move into deep theological waters. The uninitiated might be better served to turn to a thinner introduction by, say, Alister McGrath, while Cone’s work would arguably work best in an upper-level seminar with theology majors or as the primary textbook for first year graduate students in a course on Christian doctrine.

For Catholic theologians, an additional difficulty is raised by Cone’s understanding of tradition. When he refers to “the Great Tradition,” Cone has in view landmark contributions by theologians from across the denominational spectrum. In Cone’s presentation, then, Martin Luther’s voice appears to carry as much weight as Thomas Aquinas’ (see, e.g., p. 51). Meanwhile, Cone describes his own stance as “non-creedal,” which he explains as holding that “the creeds do not have binding authority on the Church that would parallel that of Scripture” (p. 119). Catholic readers, of course, are naturally going to want further explication of such a statement, as when we speak of the Church we specifically have in view the gathered body of baptized believers who confess in common the faith encapsulated in the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds. Being bound by the Creeds does not capture the totality of the Church’s life, but it is an essential part of it. To put the matter somewhat bluntly, when speaking of the Church, Catholic theologians have a different reality in view than does Cone. This is no minor concern.

Undoubtedly, a Catholic instructor could utilize Cone’s text in a constructive manner, as long as students were given some guidance as to how Cone employs such concepts as tradition, authority, Church, etc. I’m certainly not implying that theological courses at Catholic schools must only assign texts written by Catholics. Nevertheless, if a teacher specifically intended to immerse her students in the Catholic tradition, Cone’s book would not be the best place to start. The problem, here, is that Cone will provide a survey of different viewpoints on a given theological question, and then either draw a conclusion that stands in tension with Catholic teaching or failS to provide his readers with clear guidelines for judging the merits of the different positions that he has outlined. The end result is more broadly ecumenical than distinctly catholic.

As an example, in a section on the number of books in the biblical canon, Cone claims that “relatively few doctrines are changed on account of either accepting or repudiating [the disputed books of the Old Testament],” and then in the next paragraph confidently states that The Gospel of Thomas and The Book of Mormon “must be repudiated … because they preach a different Gospel” (p. 63).While Catholics no doubt agree with Cone’s latter point—i.e., about repudiating the two books he mentions—to talk about rejecting a book that claims to be divine revelation automatically raises questions about who is to determine what is to be rejected and on the basis of what authority. In my view, Cone never sufficiently answers these questions. He draws on a diverse range of theological sources to discuss them, but it’s unclear why some authorities matter over others and how they should be weighted. Furthermore, a number of points that Cone presents as non-essential, or as open to a variety of opinions, are for Catholics fundamental convictions. For instance, Catholics understand the apostolic succession of bishops and primacy of the bishop of Rome not as functional ecclesial arrangements, but as integral to the very nature of the Church. Cone lands in a different place on these and other ecclesiological questions, which colors the way that he presents a systematic theology of Christian doctrine. Readers from different traditions will be able to learn a great deal from his discussion, though if a student is seeking a specifically Catholic presentation of “the Great Tradition” she will have to turn elsewhere.