founda

A Theological Journal
published by he
British Evangelical
Council
If the foundations
be destroyed, what
can the righteous do?
ISSUE No. 2
May, 1979
C 0 N T E N T S
'FUNDAMENTALISM'
Eryl Davies
THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE: SOME OLD
TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Rev John C.J.Waite BD
THE DANGERS OF AN INTELLECTUAL
APPROACH
Rev Donald MacLeod MA
EVANGELICALS AND SOCIAL ACTION
Rev Alan F.Gibson BD
MYSTICISM - AND A TOUCH OF
EASTERN PROMISE
Dr R.M.Jones
BOOK REVIEWS
Printed by W.A.Back, Brighton
Price 75p
P 1
p.lO
p.27
p . 34
p.38
p.48
FOUNDATIONS
EDITOR:
is a Theological Journal
published in November and
May by the British Evangelical
Council.
Rev Dr Eryl navies MA DD
23 Bryn Eithinog
BANGOR, Gwynedd, N. Wales
UK 1157 2LA
All MSS, Editorial Corres-
pondence and Publications
for Review should be sent
to the Editor.
ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Rev Alan Gibson BD
Rev Hywel R.Jones MA
Rev Peter Naylor MTh
BUSINESS MANAGER: Mr Aubrey J.Roberts
58 Woodstock Road North
ST ALBANS, Herts,
England, UK ALl 4QF
Tel: St Albans (0727) 53148
(Evenings only)
All orders for this Journal must be pre-paid
and should be sent to the Business Manager.
Please make out cheques and postal/money orders
to the BRITISH EVANGELICAL COUNCIL in
sterling. The price per issue is 75p post free.
1.
'FUNDAMENTALISM'
Eryl Davies
The message is loud and clear. Conservative evangel-
icals are wrong. Our doctrinal position and entire
intellectual apologetic are 'incoherent' and wrong;
Yes, affirms James Barr, "Completely wrong" (Funda-
mentalism, p8, SCM, 4.95). That is not all. He
describes us as "a pathological condition of Christi-
anity" (p318). Clearly the Oxford Professor feels
strongly and passionately about us; in fact, his in-
tolerant, bitter approach is hardly the best way to
debate theological questions.
Barr is convinced that 'Fundamentalism' (a term he
does not define) is based on a particular kind of
religious tradition in which Biblical authority
functions only as a 'form' providing a shield for
its cherished tradition (pll)" The point is basic 1n
his analysis. This tradition includes an emphasis on
the necessity of personal conversion and an insistence
on true doctrine which Barr finds distasteful.
Coupled with this there is also a distrust of exist-
ing churches, the emergence of evangelical organisa-
tions like U.C.C.F. which "provide a remarkably
stable ideological centre and point of reference" as
well as the importance of preaching, prayer, evange-
lism and eschatology. Our distinctive view and use
of the Bible are then seen as a basic, dominating and
cohesive force within the tradition. At this point,
Barr rightly concludes that the point of conflict
between ourselves and others is not over literality
but over inerrancy. However, our hermeneutic proce-
dure is deemed inconsistent, swinging between literal
and non-literal interpretations in a desperate
attempt to preserve inerrancy. The Harmonisation
Principle is firmly rejected and ridiculed (ppSS-70)
while our reasons for affirming inerrancy fare no
better. For example, the appeal to our Lord's atti-
tude to Scripture is described as a "grotesque argu-
ment" (p74) while, in Barr's view, it is nonsense to
2 ,
talk of the Bible's "claims" about itself , "There is
no 'the Bible' that 'claims' to be divinely in-
spired, there is no 'it' that has a view of itself . "
There is only this or that source, like 2 Timothy
or 2 Peter, which make statements about certain
other writings, these rather undefined , , . , "(p78)
His conclusion which we must challenge is that the
link between inspiration and inerrancy "rests on
one basis only: supposition , Here evangelicals go
over to a purely philosophical and non-Biblical
argument; if it was inspired by God, then how could
there be error of any kind in it ?" (p84) , Our atti-
tude to 'sound' literature as well as the quality
and inconsistency of our scholarship are then de-
plored (ppl20-159) and Bar r accuses us at the same
time of "large-scale rationalizing and naturalizing
of miracle stories" (p259) , Professor Barr con-
cludes his book with the prbvocative statement
that "we have to recognise that the liberal quest
is in principle a fully legitimate form of Christ-
ian obedience within the church, and one that has
deep roots within the older Christian theological
tradition and even within the Bible itself" (p344) ,
Despite its underlying bitterness, this is an
important book likely to exercise a significant
influence upon contemporary religious thought , The
author - Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of
Holy Scripture at Oxford University = is a Biblical
scholar of renown and his aim in this book is to
provide a theological analysis of 'Fundamentalist'
beliefs and practices, while he is addressing the
whole church, he feels a particular concern to
write for those people who remain uncertain con-
cerning their view of the Bible yet who are at the
same time attracted by the conservative evangelical
position. He hopes that through the reading of this
book such people will be dissuaded from accepting
our position and will make instead what he calls a
more "intelligent and deliberate decision" (plO) .
For these reasons alone we dare not ignore this
book nor deal with it in a perfunctory mariner.
Another reason for the importance of the book is
Barr's sustained attack on our doctrine of Scripture
and, in particular, inerrancy. Inerrancy is a key
doctrine currently overshadowing all other issues.
Barr's book illustrates this and indicates how con-
troversy over the Bible is at boiling point , We dare
not remain silent at such a critical time . For
example, he denies that our position is 'orthodox'
(pl68) andviews inerrancy as a development of the
later nineteenth century with its roots in the
scholastic Calvinism of theologians like Turretin.
At the same time Barr regards inspiration as in-
volving a long process of development involving the
use of sources, multiple previous editions, textual
changes and additions . The implications of such a
view are far-reaching . "There was in fact", affirms
Barr, "no single point at which the Scriptural text
was 'originally given'" (p294) . These and other
arguments need to be answered responsibly.
I want to suggest another reason why we should con-
sider Barr's book. Some of his observations are per-
ceptive and accurate . He chastises non-evangelicals
for their inconsistency in accepting a critical view
of the Bible while representing to their congrega-
tions the incidents and sayings in the Gospels as
if they were real incidents and actual words of
Jesus (p335). Their approach is dishonest . Barr also
feels strongly that it would be a "more honest and
sincere position" (p332) for evangelical clergy
within the Church of England and other mixed denomi-
nations to withdraw and form "strictly fundamenta-
list" churches , We heartily agree . Barr is also
perceptive enough to recognise the emergence of a
"newer current of evangelical opinion" (p228) which
he also calls the "younger" and "new conservatives"
(p229) who have since the sixties adopted a more
open, critical approach to the Bible. He illustrates
extensively how conservative evangelical scholarship
has compromised increasingly by "moving markedly
4.
towards the acceptance of standard critical pro-
cedures and results ... . " (pl45). Some of his exam-
ples are taken from the New Bible Commentary and
Dictionary. In addition, he criticises our failure
to grapple in depth with complex ethical questions
(p328) and our lack of creative theological think-
ing (pl6lff)" He describes us as having doctrines
rather than a theology and what theology we have is
fossilised, fragmented and uncreative . There is
considerable truth in this charge . For some years
now we have tended to stagnate in theology and to
concentrate on isolated doctrines like that of
scripture to the neglect of others .
I mention these details in order to indicate the
importance and, surprisingly, the usefulness of
Barr's book. Our reaction should not be entirely
negative. 'Fundamentalism' provides us with the
opportunity of looking more critically at our-
selves and, at the same time, of grappling with
some of the more important issues raised by Barr
and other critics .
We intend to discuss these questions and criti-
cisms in some depth in our Journal . We are not
prepared to ignore them. For example, in this
issue we have included an article on the subject
of inerrancy in the Old Testament. This article is
introductory in its aim and is not intended as a
reply to Barr; its role is the more restricted and
useful one of indicating what is our right approach
to the Scripture. The author not only emphasises
our Lord's attitude to the Old Testament but, in
addition, he touches on the question of literalism
and refers to some of the apparent contradictions
which Barr argues not only disprove inerrancy but
also make it appear ludicrous (p225).
Barr's claim that there is no essential -connection
between inspiration and inerrancy will be discussed
in the next issue of the Journal. This is a question
of major importance which will be considered along-
side the historical argument that inerrancy is a
5.
post-Reformation scholastic doctrine with a concomi-
tant rational apologetic unfortunately adopted, it is
claimed, by the Princeton Theologians Hodge and War-
field , Many critics like Barr argue that, apart from
the unwholesome influence of Aristotelian-Scholastic
philosophy, which allegedly came into Protestantism
via Turretin, there is no support for the doctrine
of inerrancy , We are told that even men like Augus-
tine, Luther and Calvin rejected inerrancy , In
addition, we intend to include articles in the next
two issues on form and redaction criticism and a
more general article on the theology of James Barr ,
Why are we discussing these questions and taking
notice of contemporary theological thinking?
Basically, we want to express, discuss and contend
for Biblical truth in a relevant, theological manner
without, like many critics, jettisoning the faith
"which was once delivered to the saints"! Our - con-
sciences are captive to the Word of God but we are
not obscurantists; by contrast, we are prepared to
give "a reason for the hope that is in us" ,
A final word by way of introduction , One immediate
criticism of Barr is that he uses important terms
without careful definition and such an imprecise
use of terms does not facilitate theological dis-
cussion ,
One term that needs careful handling is 'Fundamenta-
lism' ! Barr is not prepared to define the term
because he claims it is part of a "complex religi-
ous movement" which is easier to describe than define ,
He submits that 'fundamentalism' has three pronounced
characteristics: (a) a very strong emphasis on the
inerrancy of the Bible (b) a strong hostility to
modern theology and critical methods and (c) a con-
viction that those who do not share their religious
viewpoint are not really "true Christians" at all
(pl).
According to its original meaning in the period 1910-
20 when it referred to those in North America who up-
held the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, every
6.
evangelical should be a 'fundamentalist'. More
recently, however, the term has acquired an unfor-
tunate connotation and some evangelicals are partly
to blame . Some have implied that inerrancy involves
a crude literalist interpretation of the Bible and
this has often been coupled with an opposition to
scholarship as being intrinsically devilish . This
segment of evangelicalism has often been obscuran-
tist and sensationalist employing evangelistic
'methods that many of us deplore , As early as 1947,
Carl Henry in the United States expressed this dis-
quiet in his book 'The Uneasy Conscience of Modern
Fundamentalism' and in the fifties a considerable
number of evangelicals on both sides of the Atlan-
tic attempted to remove the fundamentalist label .
For example, in America H. J . Ockenga was one of the
first to propose 'New Evangelical' as an alterna-
tive descriptive term. In 1958 Dr Packer in his
'Fundamentalism and the Word of God' rightly des-
cribed 'fundamentalism' as an objectionable term
used more often as a term of 'ecclesiastical abuse'
and a 'theological swear-word' (p30) . While Barr's
use of the term is elastic and his terminology
fluctuates from 'old-fashioned Christian funda-
mentalism', 'average fundamentalist', 'normal fun-
damentalist', 'extreme and consistent fundamenta-
lism' to 'fundamentalist-evangelical' etc . yet he
is not prepared to distinguish between fundamenta-
lists or 'extremists' and 'moderates'! We are all
tarred with the same brush . This is unfortunate
because there are very important differences
between us . We accept inerrancy without reservation
and insist that inerrancy is a distinctive tenet
of evangelicalism. On the other hand, we reject the
label 'fundamentalist' because inerrancy does not
commit us to a naive literalism nor does it ential
the despising of scholarship .
Furthermore, Barr's knowledge of evangelicalism is
extremely limited . To claim, for example, that the
Scofield Reference Bible is "perhaps the most im-
portant single document in all fundamentalist
7,
literature" (p45) and a "pillar of conservatism'
(p348) is to betray his ignorance of wide areas of
evangelicalism in Great Britain where this particular
Bible is neither read nor consulted, Barr's failure
to define what he is attacking leads him to make
generalisations and a caricature that is far removed
from reality, His real target of attack, of course,
is not so much the extreme literalist but the doc-
trine of inerrancy, In this major line of attack he
is prepared to be imprecise and to import into a
term like 'fundamentalism' what he personally finds
to be offensive,
A precise use of terms in the contemporary theologi-
cal debate is extemely important if only for the
reason that complex and disturbing changes are taking
place within evangelicalism itself, A new type of
evangelical has appeared who accepts the fundamental
doctrines of the Gospel yet acknowledges in the light
of higher criticism that the Bible contains error and
that some of its teaching is culturally and histori-
cally conditioned, Terms even like 'inerrancy' and
'infallible' have been re-interpreted and adjusted to
critical thought, thus emphasising the need for pre-
cision and vigilance, Clark Pinnock, for example,
claims to believe in an 'inerrant' Bible yet he also
maintains that the Bible contains error, He thinks
it is an 'overbelief' to "identify God's Word with
the words of the Bible" ('Biblical Authority' edited
by Jack Rogers; Word, 1977). "Minute inerrancy", he
claims, "may be a central issue for the telephone
book but not for Psalms, Proverbs, Apocalyptic and
Parables" and he goes on to argue that belief in in-
errancy of detail is possible only for those, like
Warfield, who do not take the difficulties of the
Bible seriously" (see Hywel Jones, 'The Bible under
Attack' pp 9-31; Evangelical Press, for other
examples), Terms like 'inerrancy', 'infallible',
'trustworthy', etc, are all being qualified in the
contemporary debate by critics and evangelicals,
Similarly, Barr's attempt to bend the term
8.
'evangelical' to embrace modern theology and Bibli-
cal criticism illustrates the present ambiguity of
the term. One can also criticise Barr's use of a
term like 'scholarship' which he assumes to be
synonymous with a liberal, critical method. For
Barr this method is unquestionably right. His
position, he claims, is an 'open' one whereas ours
is 'a closed position' (pl85). But the Professor
needs to be more self-critical. Furthermore, if a
'closed position' means refusing to believe that
God has lied or made mistakes in his self-revela-
tion, we accept the description. We prefer to
believe that the Scripture is the inerrant Word of
God rather than the fallible words of men. Believ-
ing this we cannot approach the Bible in the same
way as Barr, This does not mean that we stop
thinking. Far from it. It does mean, however, that
we stop thinking sinfully and unbiblically.
Certainly the results of Barr's allegedly 'open'
approach are clear for all to see. It is signifi-
cant that on the same day 'Fundamentalism' was
published the same press published 'The Myth of
God Incarnate'. Barr is unrepentant. "The Funda-
mentalists", he acknowledges, "have perhaps been
right in one major point, more right, indeed, than
the main body of Christian opinion. They have per-
ceived, however dimly, that modern theology and the
critical study of the Bible have initiated, and
are initiating, massive changes in the way in
which Christians understand God and Jesus Christ.
Well-meaning persons, dazed and perplexed by the
fury of fundamentalist attacks on modern develop-
ments, have often answered that no essential of
the faith is changed ... Conservatives are perhaps
right in their instinct that this is not so, and
that major changes are taking place, with perhaps
even greater ones to come" (ppl85-6).
We are aware of these radical changes in belief
and deem it crucial that we insist on the doctrine
of Scripture taught by our Lord and His Apostles.
Those who reject inerrancy will, as Barr
9.
acknowledges, reject other cardinal doctrines, sooner
or later. What is at stake is nothing less than
Christianity itself.
* *
Reply to Article by Hywel Jones in Foundations 1,
(Nov 1978)
In his discussion of The Bearing of Regeneration on
Some Aspects of Pastoral Work (Foundations,!), Hywel
Jones argues the value of distinguishing theologically
between begetting and bearing. In begetting, the
Spirit works secretly and without the means of the
Word ,, However, when scripture speaks of regeneration
being 'by the of God' (Jas 1:18, 1 Pet.1:23) we
are to understand it of the conscious possession of
the new birth which comes with effectual calling and
conversiono
From one point of v1ew it matters little whether the
distinction is made or not, in that writers on either
side are equally concerned to maintain the sovereignty
of God in salvation . What causes anxiety is the use
to which such a distinction is put o The danger lies
in positing a temporal gap between regeneration and
calling or conversion , Archibald Alexander uses it in
this way when discussing the regeneration of people
brought under conviction during the 18th century
awakening at Northampton. Berkhof and Hywel Jones are
more concerned with the spiritual experience of the
children of believers , Berkhof speaks of a seed of
regeneration lying 'ungerminated' (?) until perhaps
years after, and goes as far as to say that 'in the
case of those who are regenerated in infancy there
is necessarily a temporal separation between regene-
ration and conversion' [Systematic Theology, p491].
While the distinction may be safe in Hywel Jones'
hands, it is open to much potential abuse. It clearly
implies, for instance, that a person may die uncalled,
unconverted and yet regenerate ('If God has regener-
ated them they will be brought to birth apart from
death intervening' H.Jones, Is such a person
10.
saved or not?
The biblical position is that regeneration, calling
and conversion stand and fall together. Regeneration
has no meaning apart from the truth of the gospel
addressed to our consciousness. There is no bibli-
cal or theological warrant for preachers to expect
a time lag between the effective work of the Spirit
and the exercise of faith. Pastoral difficulties of
discerning spiritual experiences should not lead us
away from the clear teaching of scripture .
What, then, of infants? John MUrray's position on
this is safe and scriptural:
'The salvation which is of the gospel is never
apart from faith. This is true even in the
case of infants, for in regeneration the germ
of faith (not, notice, of regeneration - IS)
is implanted . .. The person who is merely re-
generate is not saved, the simple reason being
that there is no such person. The saved person
is also called, justified and adopted.'
J . Murray, 'Romans' p27
The blind man must open his eyes before he can see,
but this gap between the two is not one of time . In
Thomas Boston's words, 'When the Lord opens the
sluices of grace on the soul's new birthday, the
waters run through the whole man'.
Ian Shaw (Cardiff)
* * *
THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE:
SOME OLD TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Rev John C.J.Waite BD
(Barry)
Our belief in the inerrancy of the Old Testament
Scriptures rests upon the unambiguous declarations
of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself as recorded in
the Gospels. It is evident to any unbiased mind
11.
that the Saviour went out of His way to vouch for the
total trustworthiness of the Old Testament, when He
affirmed: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to ful-
fil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled" [Matt.5:17,18].
"Without doubt", says Robert Lightner, "the last
part of this quotation grants inspiration to the most
minute part of Scripture and it thus also emphati-
cally gives Christ's view of the inspiration of the
whole." [T,S. T.S .p. 61] On every occasion that He
appeals to the Old Testament, we are left in not the
slightest doubt that the Lord holds it to be the very
word of God written, It is worth remembering that
when He thus validated the inerrancy of the entire
Old Testament, none of the original autographs was in
existence, The text of the Old Testament writings had
by this time suffered minor defects through scribal
transmission, The standard authoritative Hebrew text
was not established until at least the end of the
first century A,D, It will not do, then, to urge that
it is now pointless to insist on the inerrancy of the
Old Testament seeing that the original autographs
have been irretrievably lost,
Many modern evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic
are uneasy about using the term 'inerrancy' with
reference to the Scriptures, Indeed, we can put it
more strongly, They are actually contending against
the use of this term, This is not in fact something
altogether new, James Orr as early as 1910 raises
the point: "Does the Bible itself claim or inspira-
tion necessitate such an errorless record in matters
of minor detail? this is a violent assumption
which there is nothing in the Bible really to support"
[R & .. I p.214] His statement was made with reference
to what he considered to be minute matters of his-
torical, geographical, and scientific detail, Everett
F.Harrison writing in 1958 concludes an essay on The
Phenomena of Scripture with this astonishing state-
ment: "Unquestionably the Bible teaches its own
12.
inspiration. It is the Book of God. It does not
require us to hold inerrancy, though this is a
natural corollary of full inspiration." The whole
tenor of his essay implies that he himself has
doubts on the score of inerrancy.
Are we being pedantic and unnecessarily prec1se in
insisting upon the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy?
Is it something worth contending for? Is it an
essential part of our contending for the Faith
once delivered to the saints? This is no minor or
secondary doctrine. It is by no means enough to
claim merely, as Bernard Ramm does, that the
language of Scripture "is trustworthy for all the
theological and moral requirements of the histori-
cal existence of the Church" [S.R. & W.G.p.l79].
Nor to say with another" it was not God's
intention or purpose to secure inerrancy in peri-
pheral matters. 'Peripheral matters' include
Scriptural data which have nothing to do with
faith and life, such as minor historical details,
grammatical constructions and the like" [T.S.T.S.
p.l58- ~ s e p h A.Hill]. But these 'peripheral
matters' turn out to be not so peripheral. They
may include anything that, in the subjective
opinion of an individual, is not essential to faith
and life.
Our Lord's view of the Old Testament was that it
was entirely free from error of any kind. He made
no distinction between facts of history, geography,
science or theology. What some are pleased today to
call 'minutiae' or 'peripheral matters', the
Saviour encompassed within His clear and unequi-
vocal assertions regarding the absolute trust-
worthiness of the Old Testament Scriptures - "Thy
word is truth". "The Scripture cannot be broken".
Dr J.I.Packer has put the matter most pointedly,
"The question, 'What think ye of the Old Testament?'
resolves into the question, 'What think ye of
Christ?' and our answer to the first proclaims our
answer to the second .. To undercut Christ's
teaching about the authority of the Old Testament
13.
is to strike at His own authority at the most funda-
mental point" [F. & W.G. pp59f] The Old Testament is
divinely authoritative on all the matters of which it
treats. We are not at liberty to set aside nor to
explain away any statement in any part of the Old
Testament writings. It has all been out-breathed by
the God of truth who cannot lie. Says E.J.Young, "If
God has communicated wrong information even in so-
called unimportant matters, He is not a trustworthy
God" [T.W.I.T.p.l64]. A.A. Hodge and B.B.Warfield
plainly reveal what is at stake in contending for an
inerrant Bible when they jointly declared, "A proved
error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine,
but the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspira-
tion in making those claims" [P.R. Vol . IIp.245].
Seeing then that the inerrancy of the Old Testament
was clearly taught by Christ, to deny it is at the
least to falter in our submission to His Lordship
and at the most to impugn His character as the only
wise God. We hold to the doctrine because Christ
taught it. Taking this as our starting-point, we
confront the difficulties and problems which this
doctrine gives rise to. Some of these problems are
due to the present state of the Hebrew text; some
arise through conflict with modern scientific theory;
others stem from the difficulty of harmonising Bibli-
cal history and chronology with archaeological re-
search and extra-Biblical chronological data, and
yet others may be traced to wide differences of in-
terpretation resulting from divergent hermeneutic
principles. At the same time it has to be acknow-
ledged that many alleged discrepancies and contra-
dictions are due simply to a superficial misreading
of the text, while a host of real problems yield
fully to patient and reverent study.
There is a tendency among us to subscribe whole-
heartedly to this doctrine because we see it to be
clearly taught in the Bible and yet to fail to come
to terms with the problems that inevitably arise
when we relate the doctrine to what we find in the
14.
as they have come down to us. There are
errors in the extant Hebrew text of the Old Testa-
ment. There are what appear to be contradictions
and discrepancies . All these must be honestly con-
fronted and examined in the light of the doctrine .
We may have to admit that some of these problems
cannot be satisfactorily explained for the present .
If this is the case, we ought not to hesitate to
say so. This does not invalidate the doctrine . What
we can be certain about is that none of these prob-
lems constitutes an error in the Scriptures as they
were originally given . Our inability to solve them
due to the incompleteness of our knowledge.
The Most Basic Question of Interpretation
As we approach the various types of problems
occasioned by the doctr i ne of inerrancy, we do well
to remind ourselves of the extraordinary diversity
of sub j ect-matter and literary forms which are to
be found within these thirty-nine books of the Old
Testament - a veritable Divine library! Historical
narrative occupies about a third and prophetical
discourses about a quarter of the whole . Sublime
poetry is to be found not only in the Psalms, Job,
the Song of Songs and Proverbs, but extensively in
the Prophets and elsewhere . There are parables and
allegories and apocalyptic with its special use of
symbols. Even in what is straightforward narrative
the Biblical writers make use of vivid metaphor
and simile . The doctrine of i nerrancy implies that
the Bible means what it says . So often problems
arise for us because we have mistaken the real
meaning of what the Bible says. For example, when
we read in Exodus in the account of the crossing
of the Red Sea that "the children of Israel went
into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and
the waters were a wall unto them on their right
hand and on their left", we are not necessarily to
think of the waters piled up perpendicularly like
a literal wall. Moses is using metaphorical lan-
guage here. The parted waters of the Red Sea gave
15 .
the Israelites complete protection on both flanks so
that they were immune from attack. Similarly, when we
read in Joshua that the waters of the Jordan "stood
and rose up upon an heap" when the feet of the priests
carrying the ark of the covenant touched the brink of
the river, it is probable that we are not to under-
stand the language literally but metaphorically , The
damming of the Jordan some miles upstream from where
the Israelites were to cross, was still an extra-
ordinary event fully miraculous in its timing if not
altogether supernatural in its character .
We must be careful that we do not unwittingly dis-
parage the doctrine of inerrancy by literalizing
what is intended to be understood metaphoricallyf
analogically, symbolically or typically, In Jeremiah's
prophecy against Babylon in chapter 51, he employs a
number of vivid metaphors which would be sheer non-
sense if taken literally. He describes Babylon as a
"destroying mountain" though the city was situated in
an alluvial plain with not a mountain in sight , Baby-
Ion is so described either because of its high walls
or its inordinate pride and ambition , Later in the
same chapter the overthrow of Babylon is expressed
thus: "The sea i s come upon Babylon; she is covered
with the multitude of the waves thereof" . Yet t he
very next verse seems to state the exact opposite !
"Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a
wilderness, a land where no man dwelleth, neither
doth any son of man pass thereby" . But there is no
contradiction here . Jeremiah represents the invasion
of the Babylonian kingdom by the Medo-Persian army as
a tidal wave that overwhelms the entire nation .
On the other hand, we are not to t-ake what was clearly
intended to be understood literally as a metaphor or
a parable or an allegory . The third chapter of Gene-
sis is presented as an historical event and is so
treated in the New Testament , It is a record of what
actually transpired . (See 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 2
Timothy 2:13). The Book of Jonah is not a parable but
sober history through and through. The words of the
16.
Lord Jesus in Matthew 12: 39-41 settle the matter,
surely, beyond any doubt . At least one would have
thought so , Yet the tutor in Hebrew Literature and
Language at London Bible College does not hesitate
to classify the literary form of the book as "a
parable with certain allegorical features" [N.I.C.
p.lBl]. For one who would claim to be an evangelical
it is astonishing to see how he disposes of the
Saviour's testimony . " it is not strict exegesis
that is reflected in Jesus' use of the narrative of
Jonah and the fish, but the popular Jewish under-
standing, which the Lord took up and employed as a
vehicle for truth concerning Himself". Elsewhere Dr
Allen affirms his belief in verbal inspiration, but
he seems to be merely playing with words " If we
deplore such a misuse of Scripture, we must be care-
ful that we do not fall into the prevalent error of
far-fetched spiritualizations. If we hold the doc-
trine of inerrancy dear to us, let us beware that
we are not guilty of imposing a meaning upon the
does not rightly belong to them.
We pay mere lip-service to the doctrine of in-
errancy if we fail to take into account the variety
of literary forms to be found within the Old Testa-
ment , Our aim must be to arrive at the meaning
which was intended by the Holy Spirit when He moved
the minds and the pens of the men He used to record
infallibly His revelation , Poetry must be treated as
poetry, Hence when Isaiah prophesies that "the
mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in
the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above
the hills" [Isa.2:2] he is not to be taken to mean
that little Mount Zion will rise higher than Ever-
est! This is a poetic way of describing the spirit-
ual pre-eminence of Zion through the coming of the
Son of God Himself and His great work of redemption
so that the glorious Gospel first sounded forth from
Jerusalem. So Zion would become so conspicuous as
to be known eventually in the remotest parts of the
earth. When godly Job declares, "I brake the jaws
of the wicked" [Job 29:17], he is far from saying
that he resorted to physical violence to curb the
power and oppression of unscrupulous men. This is the
language of poetry He means that he used his author-
ity and influence to bring to an end their rapacious
cruelty.
Historical narrative must be treated as historical
narrative and not allegorized, though we must recog-
nise that metaphorical language can be found in the
record of historical events. He not infrequently find
anthropomorphic descriptions of God in prose narra-
tive. This is a unique form of metaphor. l-Jhen we read
in Genesis chapter 11, "And the LORD came down to
see the city and the tower
1
which the children of
men had builded", we are not to infer that this
points to any limitation in God" This language is an
accommodation to us that we may know that God is a
Person though He be an infinite SpiriL Such lan-
guage as this must be interpreted in the light of
those statements which declare that God is both
omnipresent and omniscient.
Especial care must be taken in interpreting the
language of prophetic prediction lest we claim a
meaning for Scripture which was not intended. Take
for example the remarkable prophecy concerning God
and Magog in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. Ezekiel
represents the land of Israel as being invaded by a
vast army comprising contingents from both remote
nations and more adjacent kingdoms equipped with
cavalary, chariots, bows, spears and swords, This
army is almost entirely destroyed upon the mountains
of Israel . The magnitude of God's victory over His
people's enemies is vividly portrayed: their dis-
carded weapons will provide Israel with a supply of
wood for their fires which will last seven years and
the corpses of the slain soldiers will take seven
months to bury, Now are we to take Ezekiel's lan-
guage literally? Is there to be some future war in
which the nations will make an assault upon Pales-
tine and revert to the use of cavalary and chariots
and all the primitive weapons of war? Patrick Fair-
burn rightly points out the absurd consequences of a
18.
literal approach. "It would be but a very moderate
allowance, on the literal supposition, to .say that
a million men would be thus engaged, and that on
an average each would consign two corpses to the
tomb in one day; which, for the 180 working days
of the seven months, would make an aggregate of
360,000,000 of corpses! Then the putrefaction,
the pestilential vapours arising from such masses
of slain victims before they were all buried! Who
could live at such a time? It bids defiance to all
the laws of nature, as well as the known princi-
ples of human action; and to insist on such a
description being understood according to the
letter, is to make it rank with the most extrava-
gant tales of romance, or the most absurd legends
of Popery". [Com. on Ezek.p.423] ,
In contending for the doctrine of inerrancy we
must spare no pains to ensure that we are not mis-
representing the true meaning of the Scriptures by
insisting upon aliteral interpretation where such
was not intended. It is of the utmost importance
that we formulate and implement valid principles
of interpretation. This may mean parting with some
cherished notions that we have always assumed to
b.e correct . It may even revolutionize our whole
understanding of Old Testament prophecy. It is,
however, a necessary corollary of the doctrine of
inerrancy that our interpretation should be in
harmony with the meaning that the Holy Spirit
intended to convey through the variety of literary
media that He has seen fit to employ .
Having said that, we must also add that because we
are fallible and sinful men, our application of
valid principles of interpretation may still be
coloured unwittingly by prejudice arid presupposi-
tion . Therefore, we must be careful not to insist
that our interpretation is the only correct one.
For example, the meaning of the word 'day' in
Genesis chapter one; is it to be understood of a
literal day of twenty-four hours? It might seem in
19.
the light of Exodus 20:9-11 that this must be so, The
reason given for the keeping of the sabbath day holy
is, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day .. " Yet the late Professor E.J,Young who was a
firm upholder of the doctrine of inerrancy states,
"For our part, we incline toward the view that the
days were periods of time longer than twenty-four
hours. We do this, however, not in order to find an
expedient for harmonizing Scripture with geology but
simply upon exegetical grounds. We are inclined to
think that the Bible itself implies that the days
were longer than twenty-four hours in length" [T.WoLT
p.l67] . Some of us may feel that it is precisely on
exegetical grounds that we are driven to a literal
interpretation here, It is interesting and perhaps
significant that Professor Young's son, Dr David A,
Young, is an associate professor of geology at the
University of North Carolina and in a recent book has
found fault with what he terms the "flood-geologists"!
The fact remains, however, that we must not claim
that our interpretation is inerrant, We may have to
say with regard to certain statements and passages in
the Old Testament, "I believe that this is what the
Scripture teaches, though others with equal sincerity
have interpreted it differently",
Having dealt with this basic question of how to
interpret the Old Testament, we now turn to consider
other problems to which the doctrine of inerrancy
gives rise, First we deal with:
Problems due to the Present State of the
Hebrew Text
None can dispute the fact that the text of the Hebrew
Old Testament has not been preserved faultless, Errors
have crept into the text through scribal transmission,
There are about 1353 variant readings in the margin of
the Hebrew Bible noted by the Massoretes - those
generations of Jewish scholars who sedulously worked
on the Hebrew text between AD 500-1000 to ensure its
accurate preservation. Most of these variant readings
20.
are of minor importance amounting to no more than
a difference in spelling. Some of the marginal
readings appear more appropriate than those in the
text. But what is important is that the Jewish
scribes did not attempt to alter the text itself
even when there was an obvious scribal mistake.
Their suggestions were always placed in the margin,
So that we may say that these very errors in the
text are remarkable evidence of the reverence with
which the scribes handled the Scriptures. They were
so concerned to hand on the text exactly as it had
come down to them. No other writings in the whole
of human history have been handled with such care
and faithfulness as the Old Testament writings.
Clearly it is possible to give only one or two
examples of this kind of transcriptional error.
Frequently numbers suffer in transmission" For
example in 1 Kings 4:26 we read, "And Solomon had
40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots and
12,000 horsemen". A little later in chapter 10:26
we find, "And Solomon . had 1,400 chariots and
12,000 horsemen." The identical statement is found
in 2 Chronicles 1:14. But in 2 Chronicles 9:25
there is the statement, "And Solomon had 4,000
stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen".
Taking the four statements together we can easily
see that 40,000 figure in 1 Kings 4:26 should read
"4,000", In the parallel records of Kings and
Chronicles there are a number of places where a
transcriptional error can be detected and put right
with confidence,
One other example must suffice. In 2 Chronicles 22:
2 we read that Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of
Judah was 42 years old when he began to reign. In
the previous chapter his father Jehoram is twice
stated to have been 32 years old when he began to
reign and that his reign lasted only eight years
(2 Ch.21:5,20). Further in this same chapter we are
told that Ahaziah was the youngest son of Jehoram
(v.l7), and also in chapter 22:1. Ahaziah's age is
clearly wrong and by looking at the parallel passage
21.
in 2 Kings 8:26, we find that his age when he succeed-
ed his father was in fact 22 years , Of course, the
Jewish scribes were every bit as much aware of the
obvious discrepancy as you and I are, but on no
account would they amend the text ,
These transcriptional errors in no way affect the
doctrine of inerrancy, For the most part they are not
difficult to resolve , They are to be found mainly in
the realm of statistics . Sometimes names of people
and places have suffered distortion , When it is
remembered that Hebrew was originally a consonantal
language with no vowel letters, similar words were
more easily confused. The marvel is that the Hebrew
text has been preserved so largely free from scribal
mistakes .
Problems ~ the Realm of Biblical Chronology
It is customary in many quarters these days to sneer
at the chronological system devised by Archbishop
James Ussher in the 17th Century from the biblical
data , But Ussher was not only a distinguished scholar,
he also believed implicitly in the inerrancy of the
Scriptures , He took the chronological data of the
Bible seriously, We may agr ee perhaps that the matter
is less straightforward than he assumed . It is possi-
ble that the genealogical lists in Genesis chapters
5 and 11 are incomplete , There may well be gaps in
these lists which seem to display evidence of a
symmetrical arrangement , If this is so we cannot
insist upon the year 4004 B. C. as the year in which
creation took place . The date of creation must be
pushed back well before this, it would seem. Even so,
in the light of Scripture it does not seem conceivable
that this date can be earlier than about 10,000 B, C,
Instead of ridiculing Ussher, we ought to applaud
him for his consistency . Believing the Scriptures to
be inerrant, he placed the utmost confidence in their
statements relating to chronology.
We might wish that there were more statements in the
Old Testament giving precise details of chronology.
Those that occur are clearly of great importance. We
22.
learn from Exodus 12:40,41 that Israel spent 430
years in Egypt . This figure is given twice in these
verses and therefore has some stress laid upon it .
It is not an approximate or round figure but an
exact figure . The other date of crucial importance
for Old Testament chronology is that given in 1
Kings 6:1 , This states that the fourth year of
Solomon's reign - the year in which he commenced to
build the temple = coincided with the four hundred
and eightieth year after the Exodus , The two
periods together enable us to account for over nine
hundred years of Israel's history . Few evangelical
scholars are prepared to take the second date at
its face value because it would point to an Exodus
in the 15th century and this conflicts with most of
the archaeological evidence we are told . The figure
of 480 years is reduced by regarding it as an ideal
figure corresponding to twelve generations of 40
years each . But as a generation would be strictly
nearer 25 years than 40, the period can be reduced
to about 300 years which is much more convenient
from the archaeological point of view, The New
Bible Commentary (R) deals with the statement in a
still more high-handed way by suggesting, "There
are indications that this verse may be a late gloss
in the text". In fact there is no evidence to cast
any doubt upon the accuracy of the text at this
point . If we believe in the inerrancy of the Old
Testament, that figur e must be taken as it stands
and it must be regarded as a key-stone in Biblical
chronology . That it conflicts with archaeological
evidence is a problem that has to be faced . But we
will come to that in a moment .
Another area of difficulty in the realm of Biblical
chronology concerns the regnal years given for the
kings of Israel and Judah during the period of the
divided monarchy . The problem is how to harmonize
the two sets of data for Judah and Israel . A date
which all are agreed upon is that for the fall of
Samaria, i.e. 722 B.C. It is also generally agreed
that Solomon's reign commenced about 971 B.C. This
23,
latter date is arrived at on the assumption that two
names in Assyrian records refer to the Ahab and Jehu
of the Bible, The only way of fitting all the regnal
years mentioned in the Books of Kings into this
period of 250 years is by postulating that there were
several eo-regencies in Judah, The work of Edwin R,
Thiele in solving many of the problems of the chrono-
logy of this period in this way has certainly demon-
strated that all the figures can be satisfactorily
harmonized, But everything depends upon the correct-
ness of identifying two names in Assyrian records
with the Biblical Ahab and Jehu, The late Dr, Oswald
T,Allis, an Old Testament scholar of great stature,
was unconvinced by Theile's thesis and held that the
almost universal assumption that the kings mentioned
in the Assyrian records are the Biblical Ahab and
Jehu, was unproved, Allis was uneasy that some of
Theile's harmonizations were at the expense of some
of the Biblical data,
Again the point for us to bear in mind is that we
must not claim that such solutions as Theile and
others have proposed are unquestionably correcL We
do value all reverent endeavours to deal with the
problems of Biblical chronology, We may not be
completely successful in our efforts to find solu-
tions, But whatever be the degree of our success, the
chronological data in the Old Testament are self-
consistent, That we may not be able to prove them
to be so does not impair the doctrine of inerrancy,
Problems Arising from the Conflict Between
Archaeology and the Old Testament
Let us acknowledge right away that the science of
archaeology has in many ways provided background
information which has shed no little light upon the
text of the Old Testament, Ancient Near Eastern
studies came into their own during the nineteenth
century, Through the decipherment of Egyptian hier-
oglyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiform along with ex-
tensive excavations of ancient ruins, centuries of
24.
human history have been unveiled and vanished civi-
lisations have been rediscoveredo The Hittites, so
frequently mentioned in the Bible were completely
unknown outside the Scriptures until the latter
part of the last century. Their state archives were
recovered through archaeological excavations in
Asia Minor, providing a wealth of information about
their history and Yet we must be careful
not to exaggerate the importance of archaeology for
the study of the Old Testament . Allis puts the whole
matter into proper perspective when he comments,
"We need however to remember that while in many
cases the biblical writers assume a.nd presuppose,
on the part of their readers, knowledge which we of
today do not possess and which we must obtain, if
at all, from extra-biblical sources, the reason
that much of the information of this nature is not
recorded in the Bible itself is that, however
interesting and even valuable it may be, it is not
of vital importance" . (T. O.T . I . C. C. p.J)
There is a very real danger that we may pay too much
attention to the evidence provided by archaeological
research and accept its findings uncritically . With
all sciences we confront the problem of how to
terpret the objective evidence set before us , In
archaeology this problem is further complicated by
the possibility that a site being excavated has been
wrongly identified, This possibility is a very real
one in Palestine. The very fact of its being the
land-bridge between the two great civilizations of
the Ancient Near East, meant that it was relatively
densely populated and that many diverse races
settled there in the course of the centuries. Add to
this the fact that only a small part of any site is
normally excavated, and it becomes rather evident
that our confidence in archaeology must be less than
total. The classic example is surely Jericho. The
site of what is believed to be ancient Jericho has
received a great deal of attention from successive
generations of archaeologists. Professor John
Garstang was confident as a result of the
25 .
excavations which he carried out in the 1930s that
the Bronze Age city of Jericho was destroyed about
1400 B, C, For the next twenty years or so a 15th
century date for the Exodus was widely accepted ,
Since 1952, Miss Kathleen Kenyon has c arried out
further explorations and her conclusion is that
there is almost nothing left of the town which Joshua
captured , She insists that the town he captured "must
have been very small" . Although the narrative in
Joshua makes it clear that Jericho was a formidable
city and immensely strong, the modern archaeologist
on the basis of his very slender and ambiguous evi-
dence is ready to correct the biblical account , Dr
G, E, Wright makes this pronouncement: "Investiga-
t i ons at the site of Jericho itself, however, have
been inconclusive Perhaps in Joshua's time
Jericho was already an uninhabited tell or mound or
ruins; or perhaps the centuries have mez'ely eroded
all signs of the Israelite victory". [N. G. M, 1957].
Yet it is precisely on the basis of archaeologi cal
findings that Old Testament s cholars who consider
themselves thoroughly evangelical ar e prepared to
modify and alter the clear statements of Scripture,
whether chronological or circumstantial, to tie in
with archaeology , For example , Arthur Cundall i n his
Tyndale Commentary on Judges r educes the entire
period of the Judges to a bar e two centuries on the
basis of the archaeological evidence for the des-
truction of sites in Palestine , Yet Jephthah whose
career falls well within the Judges period speaks
of Israel's occupation of Transjordan for 300 years
(Jdg , ll:26), Mr Cundall remarks on how closely this
period of time corresponds to the total years given
for the various judges up to this point , But he goes
on to say "the actual interval between Israel's con-
quest of Transjordania and the rise of Jephthah was
no more than 160 years". [T.C. p.l45]. What do we
do about Jephthah's precise statement? Mr Cundall's
solution cuts at the roots of Biblical inerrancy,
"The reference to the 300 years", he says, "may be
an editorial amplification of the remainder of the
26 .
verse, or it may be a broad generalization for
approximately seven or eight generations, or it may
represent Jephthah's rough guess, since he would
hardly have access ~ reliable historical records."
This, alas, is rather typical of much so-called
evangelical scholarship today. Archaeology is the
final court of appeal . The Old Testament must be
adjusted so that its statements do not conflict with
what the archaeologist claims the objective evidence
of excavated Biblical sites implies . A more recent
example of this is to be found in Dr Allen's
commentary on Jonah . He considers the author of the
Book wrote long after the city of Ninevah had been
destroyed . One reason he advances for this is "Its
colossal size in 3:3 reflects the exaggerated tra-
dition echoed by the fourth-century Ctesias rather
than literal fact" [N. I . C. p . l86].
The tendency to rely upon archaeology on the part
of conservative scholars stems from the earlier
years of this century when the spade seemed to be
confirming the Bible and confounding the critics .
But its help was grasped for the wrong reasons . It
was as though the Old Testament needed this kind of
evidence to confirm its veracity. So that confidence
in the truth of the Scriptures was not built upon
the doctrine of inerrancy, but upon external evi-
dence brought to light through archaeological ex-
plorations . Having leaned upon archaeology for
support, many evangelicals find themselves in a
difficult position when its findings do not corro-
borate the Biblical record .
The salutary lesson that we may learn from this is
surely that our confidence in the complete trust-
worthiness of the Old Testament must rest not upon
the availability of external corroboration whether
in the realms of history, geology or archaeology,
but solely upon the claims which the Scriptures make
for themselves - supremely upon the categorical
declarations of the Son of God Himself.
27 0
Abbreviations used 1n 'The Inerrancy of Scripture
T. S. T. S. The Saviour and the Scriptures
R & I Revelation and Inspiration
S. R. & W. G. Special Revelation and the Word of God
F. & W. G. Fundamentalism and the Word of God .
T. W. I.T. Thy Word is Truth
P. R. Presbyterian Review
T. O. T. I . C. C. The Old Testament its Claims and Critics
N. I.C. New International Commentary
N. G. M. National Geographical Magazine
* *
*
THE DANGERS OF AN INTELLECTUAL APPROACH
Rev Donald MacLeod MA (Glasgow)
Let me first of all make clear my own position. "My
relation to real scholarship will probably remain all
my l i fe that of an unfortunate lover" - these words
of Emil Brunner express it perfectly . I am not a
scholar, but I do share Machen's conviction that,
"Never was there a stronger call of God than there
i s today for a vigorous and scholarly defence of
the faith". In the wilderness of contemporary
irrationalism, evangelical Christianity must pro-
ject itself as an oasis of reasonableness .
Nevertheless, there are very real perils in the
habits of the studious and book-minded Christian,
and my duty for the present is to draw attention to
some of these.
The basic danger is that we shall forget the
depravity of the human intellect. We quite willing-
ly grant that sin has enslaved the will and alien-
ated our affections from what is good and true. But
we are inclined to overlook the effects of sin in
the realm of pure reason, to imagine that the Fall
has left our cognitive faculty intact and that if
we only lived up to our convictions all would be
28 .
well. The Biblical representation, however, is
quite different . Our understandings are darkened,
and this has been only partially corrected even in
the case of the regenerate. The Fall has left in the
mind a carnal bias and prejudice which will always
seriously hinder us in our efforts to arrive at
truly spiritual judgements , There is no more diffi-
cult task in the believer's life than to think
Christianly, and to do so consistently. It requires
constant and conscious effort, and in all our
reading and study we have to remember the many
affinities with the world, the flesh and the Devil
which our minds still retain .
Again, orthodoxy, vitally important though it is,
is not salvation . We may be interested in the truth;
we may be enamoured of the theological process; we
may be meticulously accurate both in our apprehen-
sion and exposition of the Christian faith; we may
be zealous in its propagation and defence as we
understand it - we may be all these and still be
strangers to the grace of God , V may speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, we may have the gift
of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all
knowledge, and yet be nothing . (1 Cor . 13: 1-2) . "Men
may continue to mai ntain in theory an orthodox
creed, and yet may manifest such deadly hostili ty to
vital piety that they must be considered the enemies
of the cause of God and the work of the Spirit".
These solemn words from Archibald Alexander place
in clear focus before those of us who cherish our
orthodoxy the need for constant self-examination.
And there is, of course, a corollary - the need for
charity in our judgment of the less orthodox , "The
deepest life of godliness," said 'Rabbi' Dun can,
"may coexist with muddled doctrine. But that is no
argument in favour of obscurity".
The third danger is that reading and study may be-
come a cult in its own right, engrossing our atten-
tion to the neglect or exclusion of other duties.
It may become a tyrant intolerant of prayer, Bible
study, Christian fellowship and even public worship.
29.
This is insufferable . To be in a position where we
prefer any book of human composition to the Word of
God is to be backslidden . We must ruthlessly subordi-
nate all our study to the glory of God, our own edi-
fication and the evangelisation of the world . "I have
no interest whatever
1
" said James Denney, "in theolo-
gy which does not help us to eva.ngelise". Nor should
we be blind to the fact that one may study theology
and related subjects from very wrong motives , Since
study of any kind is an exhilarating, pleasurable
activity, the desire of theological knowledge, as
Cunningham pointed out, "may originate in a mere
love of knowledge as a means of intellectual exer-
cise and cultivation"; or in what is worse - "a
zegazd to wealth or power or fame" .
Another very real danger is that we may give the
impression, or succumb to the impression, that
Scripture can be understood only by the academi-
cally initiated , It would be utterly wrong to deride
the value of a knowledge of the original languages
and of commentaries, expositions, dictionaries and
other helps, to those who are interested in a r r ~ v n g
at a true understanding of the Word of God , The logi-
cal conclusion of such an argument would be to put
the preacher himself out of business, since, in the
last analysis, his office is simply to be a ' help'
towards a practical understanding of the Scriptures.
But we must not institute a priesthood of the
expert, nor imbibe that habit whereby men despair
of understanding a particular passage simply because
they have no commentary to hand . Every such tendency
must be met with a firm emphasis upon the Protestant
doctrine of the perspicuity of the Word . It is for
wayfaring men . "All things in Scripture are not
alike plain in themselves
1
nor alike clear unto all
1
"
says the Westminster Confession; "yet those things
which are necessary to be known
1
believed and obsez-
ved1 for salvation
1
are so clearly propounded and
opened in some place of Scripture or other
1
that not
only the learned
1
but the unlearned
1
in a due sense-
of the ordinary means
1
may attain unto a sufficient
30.
understanding of them". This applies equally to
Christian doctrine. The ordinary Christian commonly
regards such doctrines as the Trinity, the Incar-
nation, the Sovereignty of God, and so on, as some-
how beyond him and irrelevant to him. Yet these
doctrines are the stuff of the most elementary
Christian experiences . Every believer, however
deficient his acquirements in theological litera-
ture, should make it his habit to meditate upon
them and learn to handle them to his comfort and
edification in every kind of spiritual situation.
Yet another danger facing us as evangelicals is
that of becoming pre-occupied with intellectual
respectability. Symptoms of this abound: the
desire among students for the ministry to secure
the imprimatur of the universities, regardless of
the fact that the courses of study are seldom
evangelical and have but little bearing upon the
real work of the ministry; the tendency to demon=
strate ostentatiously that we are academically
contemporary, having read all the most recent
works, especially of non- Evangelicals, regard-
less of their intrinsic value; the willingness to
concede to science as much as Evangelicals possi-
bly can; the interest in ecumenical involvement
(which has tragically diverted our best scholars
from the desperately needed work of positive ex=
position, especially in Biblical and Systematic
Theology); a growing reluctance to link inspira-
tion with inerrancy; and such an over-eagerness
to welcome the pro-Christian utterances of the
famous that we often give the impression that
Christ is immeasurably indebted to any leader of
public opinion who does Him the honour of being
converted. Behind all these is the fact that we
are far too much intimidated by the brilliant arra,y
of scholarship which stands against the Church; we
forget that the world is inevitably against the
Church; we forget that by and large the scholars,
especially the second-rate ones, have always been
in opposition; that it was the princes of this
31.
world who crucified the Lord of glory, and the leaders
of public opinion who rejected Him. "True Christianity,
now as always", said Machen, "is radically contrary to
the natural man, and it cannot possibly be maintained
without a constant struggle". To expect a rapprochment
is utterly futile.
We must further remember the spiritual peril involved
in reading the arguments of other men against the
Christian faith. This is not to say that we are at
liberty to opt out of this labour, Intelligent and
meaningful contact with the world must be based on an
understanding of its principles and priorities; and
the task of theological demolition (one of the most
urgent of the hour), demands an expert knowledge of
the structural weaknesses of non-Evangelical systems.
But our attitude to the books and arguments of un-
believers must never be cavalier. It may be fatal to
approach them in a self-confident spirit. After all,
our basic premise is the depravity of even the re-
generate intellect. In other words, our minds con-
tinue to have affinities with the sceptical argu-
ments; which, in addition (and let us make no mis-
take about this), are often highly plausible and un-
settling. Every time we approach an anti-Christian
or anti-Evangelical book, we need to put on the whole
armour of God. Otherwise we most certainly shall not
be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. The
danger is particularly acute for those students who
are attending non-Evangelical colleges. With only a
minimal prior knowledge of the content of the
Christian faith, and the arguments in favour of its
validity, they venture, sometimes with a boundless
confidence, into the lions' den of the world's
specious arguments, imagining themselves immune. It
is not surprising that the casualty-rate should be
high.
Finally, there are dangers in the application of
philosophy, reason and scholarship to the theologi-
cal process itself.
We must abandon, for example, the hope of
32.
demonstrating, upon the ground of logic alone, the
validity of Christian doctrine, Not even the arti-
cle of the divine existence is a truth of reason,
It is a truth of revelation, Not that we have less
than certainty upon this question, but that the
being of God is an ineradicable datum of the human
consciousness, and not a fact which requires specu-
lative demonstration , We believe in order to under-
stand.
Then there is a precisely opposite danger - that
familiarity with Christian teaching may blind us
to the sheer marvellousness of its central empha-
sis upon the love of God . The fact of such a love
is very far from being self-evident , Conscience
does not teach it; providence does not teach it;
the mind of man did not conceive it , It is a
sovereign, optional thing, certainty upon which is
possible only because God has revealed it by His
SpiriL
Again, we must beware of reluc tance to accept one
truth because we cannot reconcile it with another,
This is especially true of such doctrines as divine
sovereignty and human responsibility , "Those who
will only believe what they can reconcile", said
Spurgeon, "wi ll necessarily disbelieve much of
divine revelation, It were much better to believe
the truths and leave the Lord to show their con-
sistency." "I believe in predestination without
cutting and trimming it", he writes later, "and I
believe in responsibility without adulterating and
weakening it." We must be prepared to receive a
doctrine on its own independent evidence, irres-
pective of whether or not we can reconcile it with
others .
Similarly, we must beware of trying to impose our
system upon the Word of God . This charge is often
brought against Calvinism, but here, I trust, is
where it is least applicable . Calvin's system,
according to Professor J . K. S. Reid, "is certainly
logical in the sense that the argument moves
carefully step by step from one point to the next.
But, including elements not easily (or at all)
33,
capable of being harmonised - a complexio opposi torum."
It is against Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism that
this charge may most aptly be brought, since both of
these start out from the philosophical premise that
ability limits obligation, "Man is not able to believe,
therefore he cannot be required' to believe," says the
Hyper-Calvinisto "Man is required to believe, there-
fore he must be able to believe," says the Arminian .
But we are all liable to this error, even in our
treatment of single texts . "That is truth," James
Denney would sometimes reply to a suggested exegesis,
"but it is not the truth taught in the text."
In conclusion, let us remind ourselves of the need to
be careful that all our opinions are brought to the
bar of Scripture. It is very easy, in support of a
particular opinion, to cite a great name, and to be
content with that , But no extra-Biblical writers -
not the Fathers, not the Reformers, not the Puritans -
are to be followed implici tly " Let us follow the
maxim, "See this in the New Testament for yourself",
and then we shall not have cause to lament with
Hamish MacKenzie, "Some who were trained in a theo-
logical school which scorned 'proof texts' and looked
upon the employment of Holy Writ almost as a sign of
cultural barrenness, are now deeply ashamed of their
lack of facility there" They will never make it up in
this life. " Certainly experience teaches that many
Evangelicals profoundly loyal to such doctrines as
the deity of Christ, the substitutionary nature of
His work, the personality of the Holy Spirit and the
endlessness of future woe are seriously embarrassed
when asked to substantiate these convictions from the
Word of God , The consequences for the effectiveness of
our witness are incalculable .
Evangelicals today are gradually recovering their con-
fidence after a long period of intellectual inertia,
They are awakening to the fact that the conflict
between them and Modernism is not, even on the
34.
academic level, by any means an unequal one. But,
even as we enter with a new zest and zeal into the
struggle we must exercise a constant watchfulness,
The symptoms of intellectualism already exist -
not to afford opportunity to hurl the one at the
other the charge of backsliding and apostasy; but
to alert us together to the dangers which lurk in
the Church's perennial commitment to give a reason
for the hope that is in her,
(Reprinted with permission from the Evangelical
Library Bulletin)
EVANGELICALS AND SOCIAL ACTION - an agenda for
consideration
Rev Alan F. Gibson BD
(Canterbury)
NECOSE is the mnemonic not for a little known
trade union but for a little known conference held
in the Autumn of 1978. Its full title was the
National Evangelical Conference On Social Ethics
and it was a refreshingly frank brotherly (and
sisterly!) exploration of the theoretical basis
for evangelical engagement in the realm of social
action. Like many other conferences it managed
to ask more questions than it answered and it would
be salutary for us to. consider what some of these
questions are. They are suggested here as an agenda
for evangelical discussion, in the hope that
readers of this journal might also be among those being
provoked to think and write about them for our
mutual good.
For starters, as they say, current positions need
to be explored. Social ethics is a growth industry
among evangelicals and any who have followed
developments since Lausanne will be aware of this.
In this country the activities of the Shaftesbury
35.
Project and the emergence of the Third Way magazine,
although neither owes their origin to Lausanne, are
indications of the trend. Those of us who are not yet
'into social ethics' will need to be appraised of what
is being thought, said and proposed as this is the
chief area of theological reconstruction in Third
World countries . We ourselves do not live in a vacuum
and we cannot afford to be insulated from all this ,
Since, theologically speaking, this is where the
action is, then we ought to be asking what our brothers
are saying to us and why.
To be specific we shall need to make a critical
assessment of the theology of contextualisation. The
word 'critical' is not used here to be deliberately
negative but, theological band-wagons being what
they are, it is better to look carefully before we
leap on . There is already evidence that some are too
ready to discard most traditional theological insight
as 'out-dated' . We are even being told that it is no
longer justifiable to speak of one theology for the
world Church and we must have a particular theology
worked out for each cultural context . Does this
thinking involve our rejecting all the 'absolutes'
Schaeffer speaks of? Or should we rather be learning
how to apply one timeless theology to each cultural
situation? When Paul urges Timothy to "keep the
pattern of sound teaching" [2 Tim.l :13] he uses the
noun U n O T U n W O ~ ~ a word used for the architect's out-
line sketch of the building he is planning. He will
later go on to fill in the details, but he does not
discard the original outline . Orthodox evangelicals
have humbly recognised that what has been revealed
to them is God's outline pattern. We shall need to
fill in the details for that part of the building
to be occupied by each cultural group, but is that
the same as insisting that the whole plan has to be
re-drawn?
The positive value for us of theological thinking in
other contexts, however, must not be overlooked . The
colonial days of exporting the white man's missionary
36.
complete with pith helmet and pre-packed theology
have given way to a cross-fertilisation of ideas as
reciprocal as international trade" In some places
our brothers are hammering out their ideas in
churches seeing a growth rate much more rapid than
our own, Interaction with them is going to be an
essential feature of any theology which claims to
be contemporary and the social dimension is one of
its striking features. How else could we expect
churches in revolutionary Latin America, crisis-
ridden Africa or famine-stricken Asia to speak to
us?
Since true evangelicalism is defined in terms of
our attitude to the authority of Scripture it is
often the interpretation of that Scripture which
gives rise to differences among us" This is
certainly the case in respect of social ethics and
a consideration of current hermeneutical principles
might uncover the bases underlying the variety of
practical policies within the evangelical world"
Such a study would take in the relationship of Old
Testament moral teaching to the fuller light of
New Testament revelation" Our methods of exegetical
study would also come under this heading and
especially the validity of induction ism when
applied to ethics" Is this an attractive short-cut
to solve today's pressing problems or does it have
particular dangers? What is being called the 'new
hermeneutic
1
also raises the matter of deriving
our principles of interpretation frnm within
Scripture i tselL A man may be an evangelical but
not a consistent evangelical and unaware of his
departure from Biblical principles" In a loving
spirit we should reflect on the implications of
this for ourselves as well as others,
Another issue to be faced today is the relationship
between social action and the verbal communication
of the gospel. Is the current vogue for evangelical
engagement in the world diverting some from their
preaching ministry to the world? There are
evangelicals who seem to suggest that the Kingdom of
God can be brought in without evangelism, Is it valid
to speak of structures being redeemed without the men
who comprise and operate these structures bei ng re-
deemed? Would we be better to view social action as
an imitation of God's wor k as Creator rather than His
work as Redeemer? Since there is clear Biblical man-
date for both good works and good words as part of
our Christian testimony how are they to be related?
Perhaps the answer to this last question lies in a
study of the role of the local church in nurturing
social action as well as worship and evangel i sm.
It is understandable that those Christians who give
most thought to the field of ethics are those with
a professional interest in society's moral issues "
But are their churches providing them with the
theological tools and Biblical support for their
work? How can we expect the pastor to do this when
many of the moral dilemmas faced by the church
member s are posed by a fast moving technological
society in whi ch the pastor is a layman? Unless he
is aware of their problems, however , he will be ill-
fitted to include truly relevant applications i n his
preaching ministry . Think too, of the pressures being
faced by our members , missionaries or otherwi se, who
are working in developing countries overseas , Are
these brothers and sisters right to look to their
home church for moral guidance ? And just how success-
ful are the churches in the U, K. in influencing a
society so largely indifferent to the c lamant needs
of the stranger next door in our global vi llage?
The Rev John Stott closed the NECOSE discussions by
urging those present first of all to "go beyond
questions to answers". There is, however, just one
prior obligation; we must be sure that the questions
we are asking are the right questions . Only then will
we have any confidence to "go on from words to actions".
This is modestly offered as a draft agenda of topics,
inviting readers' reactions . It is being proposed to
the executive of the British Evangelical Council in the
38.
hope that they can arrange some means by which these
matters can be considered more fully. Like a few
other difficulties facing the servants of Christ in
these days, we can be sure of this, that if we shut
our eyes to them they will not go away.
MYSTICISM - AND A TOUCH OF EASTERN PROMISE
Dr R. M. Jones (Aberystwyth)
Drugs, the occult and gurus on the pop-scene have
combined to bring mysticism into popular focus
during recent years. Amongst theologians, the
influx of experience-centred religion together with
ecumenical lack of discrimination (proverbial
'tolerance') have consorted to import numerous
eastern.cults into the centre of much contemporary
religious discussion in the west. A new book 'The
Inner Eye of Love, Mysticism and Religion' written
by a Jesuit, William Johnston, and published by
Collins at 4.95, provides a useful and stimula-
ting survey of some of the considerations facing
the Christian at such a juncture.
For evangelicals there are many obvious warning
signals in the volume. For example, the author
says "I came to the conclusion that mystical
nothingness .. is dynamite. It is the power that
moves the universe and creates revolutions in
human minds and hearts". He also gives some hints
on how to get into contact with the All:
"Concretely, one can concentrate on a part of the
body - the space between the eyebrows, the tip of
the nose, the lower abdomen . The second point
was control of the breathing". All this is frivo-
lous and hopelessly irrelevant, hardly the type of
thing Paul or Augustine or Athanasius, Calvin or
John Owen, Whitefield or William Williams, Spurgeon
or Ann Griffiths would indulge in.
39.
The main theme of this volume is suggested in the
title, and a quotation from Jean Gerson may underline
it: "Mystical theology is experimental knowledge of
God through the embrace of unitive love". We cannot
perhaps be reminded too often that our first thought
or duty or action as Christians is not to serve God,
not even to testify to His grace, but to love Him
and that to concentrate or even work towards the
single end of "raising the mind to God through the
desire of love", as Bonaventure puts it, is our
greatest joy and purpose.
Living; however, at a time when all sorts of rubbish
masquerade as Christian discussion, what are the
safeguards, or discriminating criteria, that an evan-
gelical should adopt when considering the significance
of mysticism? To put it another way, in the so-called
dialogue or confrontation with the great religions
of the East, what are the key questions that need to
be answered?
One of the dangers in placing Christianity near the
same melting-pot as other world religions is that
terms are too readily confused and the most important
term that immediately becomes meaningless is 'God'
Himself, In Christiantiy God has 'defined' Himself
very clearly: He has not only told us what s.or.t oLa God
He is, but He has appeared to us concretely, and there
is no compromise between such a reality and the idea
of God that may vaguely float about in other less
blessed spheres, however mystical they may be,
What we are discussing now is infallible and complete
truth that needs no addition, What gain is there for
such a truth by putting it in the same pot as
erroneous religions, however many good points they may
have 'in common'? Eclecticism is hardly good will, nor
is it common sense, Professor Johnston suggests that
one happy method for a useful encounter between
religions would be in silence. The silence, of course,
should be contentless, non-historical, subjective and
impersonal. In other words, such an encounter must
necessarily be non-Christian.
40 .
The author assumes that we do not try to convert
the Buddhist. We accept him as he is, and try to
find common ground in some mystical process that he
shares with the Christian. In such an attempt he
tends to emphasise the dilution and weakness within
certain individual Christians , He also takes certain
end-products, such as 'unrestricted love', as his
aim in life rather than the worship and service of
a real known and living God, who according to His
own will and restrictions (with clear limitations
against sinful imaginings) gives of His grace to
needy men. He makes a subtle distinction between
belief and faith, and is prepared to scuttle
beliefs as long as faith - that nebulous link that
he tells us binds Jew and Gentile, Hindu and
Buddhist, Christian and Moslem in one happy bundle -
remains .
Now, God's dealings with us are certainly diverse .
He wounds: He is a God who brings low and subdues ,
He can be a terror to our hearts, and a convictor
of our consciences . He is, of course, too, Creator:
He is Saviour. He can also be a shepherd and guide .
But William Johnston's emphasis in this volume is
that of a loving knowledge of God, a knowledge that
God Himself gives us . We were conceived to embrace
our Lord Jesus and He is therefore to be the object
of our deepest affections . He refers to Origen's
claim that no-one can fully understand John's gos-
pel "who has not, like its author, lain upon the
breast of Jesus" . Such, of course, was the experi-
ence of a Calvinistic Methodist mystic of the
beginning of the 19th century, such as Ann
Griffiths . And within the unbending framework of
His truth, her hymns express ecstatically her
chaste and glorified love of God .
Let us enumerate, however, certain tests that should
be applied in examining religious experience.
1. Christian truth is centred not on man's experi-
ence but on God's nature and will. Certainly,
4L
unless knowledge of God is a reality in experie nce
too, then it is nothing , Abstract statements or theo-
logical generalities are as so much wind unless they
are felt and known personally by the believer who is
being dealt with by a personal living God .
Yet the centre is not the individual, but the living
God who, as He has chosen to reveal Himself in His
spoken Word and in the Word made flesh, was certainly
no void nor solely subjective , Discussions of mysti-
cism tend to over concentrate on man's reactions and
vague sentiments and i gnore God's own character as it
has already been i nfallibly revealed and stated, and
such discussions e asily run off the rails .
2, God and Christian truth are pe r sonal, not
impersonal . Denial of the wholeness of Christian
experience and any attempt to forego the use of the
senses or the operat i ons of the intellect are not in
har mony with the li f e portrayed in holy s criptur e .
The author mentions the familiar Church fathe rs'
comparison of our i mmersion in Christ t o "the drop of
water which falls i n t o t he wi ne or t he glow.i ng i ron
or coal w h ~ h becomes part o f the f i r e " . The extin-
guishing or dissolvi ng of persona l ity i n some sor t of
engulfing whole i s quite different from i ndividual
salvat i on and i ndi vi dual r esurrect i on i n Chr i st .
Oblivion or del et i on of identity has nothi ng to do
w1th being a Christ i an , however we l l i t may describe
the Hindu or Buddhist experience .
3 , Ch r istian trut h i s revealed and stated concep-
tually in the Bi ble . The negation of knowledge,
whi ch includes the i gnor i ng of clear infonnation
about God Himself and His actions in history, is
obviously not in conformity wi th God's self-reve-
lation . There is a great deal of play by mystics
with paradoxes that are on the borders of the truth:
Professor Johnston describes the mystic: "He knows
God by unknowing . One is in darkness, in empti-
ness . " The Christian has certainly known con-
viction of sin (although this is not what is meant
here), and felt to his depths the reality of his own
42.
inherent poverty before God: he has abandoned him-
self absolutely to God's grace: there is complete
and utter surrender . But, because of God's immedi-
ate response and promise to all spiritual paupers,
and because God is a God who speaks and has spoken,
over-emphasis on the emptiness rather than on full-
ness and on the silence of death at the expense of
the clarity of life is a departure from the obvious
intentions of the gospel .
The vocabulary of negation must be watched assid-
uously . "Non-self no-mind". It can be subtly
attractive to speak of experiences that a believ=
ing Christian might suspect 'approximate' to genu-
ine enjoyment of grace . There is real and glorious
peace in Him: there is an ascent that transcends
thought in communion with God . But Christian truth
is also prepositional and communicative; and the
further one launches into free-for =all experience-
hunting and turns one's back on the guidelines set
down with such loving care by the Holy Spirit in
His Word, the more one is likely to err. The nega-
tive theory of Dionysius with its vocabulary of
darkness, nothingness, emptiness and unknowing has
received a certain currency in our own days under
the auspices of Simone Weil, particularly in Wales .
It must be viewed with great caution. Yet, the
inexpressible joy of God's light, the unutterable
loveliness of His presence, though they are beyond
human comprehension, should not be denied merely
because the Holy Spirit can fill our hearts with
feelings beyond our words,
The usual well-known semantical tactic.nowadays of
persuading ourselves that light is darkness, and
emptiness fullness, and presence absence and so on -
oxymoron - is indulged in here and there in this
volume as in most neo-modernistic discussions
since the fifties, but these are thankfully just
occasional bouts, and on the whole the author
succeeds in following an uncompromisingly lucid
course through a very complex subject .
4 , The method of contemplating God should not be
43 ,
humanly devised or depend on artificial physical or
mental exercises , How is the Christian to gaze at
Him and enjoy His presence? God has provided us with
stated knowledge about Himself, about His nature and
His works in Scripture . It is glori ous knowledge . He
has revealed Himself in the Lor d Jesus Christ, who
once again is presented to us in His breathed Word ,
We are led to Him in prayer and in silent ador ation
through the Holy Spirit, but not independently
following our own imaginations about whom He may be,
but within the revealed portrayal He has made of Him-
self . We do not, of course, worship the Bible, but
neither do we depart from the Bible in order to cook
up our own machinations . God is exact l y as He has
told us He is and He has provided us, in His Word,
with an unfai ling means of dist i nguishing between
true and false experiences of His presence . One
criticism of Johnston' s book is that he does not
consistently set down suf f icient discr iminating
criteria to recognise the phony phenomena which are
rampant in this dangerous field of mysticism. Hi s own
fundamental belief, however ) is inter esting: "The
source of all Christian mysticism i s - and must be -
the Bible and in particul a.r the Gospel ... If, t hen,
there is to be an updat ing of Chri stian mys tical.
theology the f i rst step i s a retur n to the Gospel".
Roman Cathol i c study of mysticism has undoubtedly on
the whole been more diligent than or thodox Protestant
dis cuss i on, per haps because personal and 'felt' know-
ledge of God was accepted as more nor mal and par t of
the usual Christian experience among Protestants,
whereas it was rather odd and esoteric in the Roman
Church . One of the pitfalls that ensued from the
particular approach adopted by the sacramentalist
tradition is the r ather mechanical (and planned)
training often outlined for potential mystics, the
do-it-yourself kit .
5 , Christian life is not divorced from Christian
action . He who 'loves' Christ keeps His commandments .
The Christian mystic does not remain apart from the
needs of his fellows in divine adoration, or he would
44 .
not be 'Christian'. As Professor Johnston puts it:
"it is better for the candle to give light than
just to burn". Neither is Christian experience in
the present divorced from the historical events in
the past . Professor Johnston, on the other hand,
warns us : "the theology of Paul is based not only
on a historical event in the but also on a
living mystical experience in the present". This is
undeniable; but at the same time, with the experi-
ence-centred, highly subjective and unguided imagi-
nings that are dressed up as 'Christian' teaching
our own day, the contrary emphasis, that the
basis of our faith is in historical, concrete and
objective happenings and personages, needs to be
the safe starting-point even for the exper1ence of
the present.
The evangelical Christian has a faith rooted in the
'external', which has become internal through the
grace of God , But it is a meaningful faith: it has
content and, is related, at all points and in every
facet, to the expressed Word of God, It is an
ordered and complete faith that satisfies the
redeemed mind, heart and will . Professor Johnston's
other warning: "theology which is divorced from the
inner experience of the theologian is arid and
c ar ries no conv iction", has of course always been
acceptable to most but he should be at
the same time mindful that a 'felt' religion un-
governed by meaningful trut h about the actions of
our Lord and His objective teachings for our life
before His throne is even more ' arid and devoid of
proper conviction .
6, The proof of Christian myst1c1sm is not in any
account of elevated experiences nor in claims of
felt visions in the midst of good deeds . It is in
complete obedience and acceptance . If we find sD;e-
one describing highfalutin knowledge of the presence
of Christ, who then departs from complete trust in
His holy Word, we should naturally be suspicious.
Passionate visions paralleled with mode-rate scepti-
cism regarding the historical revelation of
45.
scripture are just not on . In chapter 6 he attempts to
describe a 'general' all-encompassing mysticism, un-
deterred by the more definite and precise demands of
historical Christianity and the details of biblical
revelation" Mystics are to be treated with immense
caution, Regrettably Professor Johnston is gullible:
if a man makes the right mystical noises, his defences
are down His ability to present an argument clearly
and attractively is not matched by a constant detec-
tion of error . He confuses too readily the impersonal
or self-obliterating meditation of the East with
specific Christian wholeness . He fails to perceive
(e . g . p . 46) the basic necessity of setting limits to
mysticism; the 'magnanimity' towards other religions
is a popular ecumenical stance; but an evangelical
regards it as the direct opposite of real love . On
the whole, Professor Johnston's presentation of the
Christian position is infinitely better than the
run-of-the-mill ecumenical; but when confronted with
Buddhism he tends to fall to pieces , Here he conforms
to type, "I would like to sketch the beginnings of a
mystical theology that will be universal in scope -
that is to say, a mystical theology that will include
the mystical experience of believers in all the great
religions and, indeed, of those people who belong to
no specific religion but have been endowed with pro-
found mystical gifts . " He clearly denies the unique-
ness of Christ as Lord and Saviour alone and Christ
is just considered as one way amongst many of climb-
ing this tedious mountain , Mention is made of "the
inherent goodness of' the human race", and recogni-
tion of the virtues of believers in other religions
seems to lead the writer away from a true analysis
of their actual situation as revealed in scripture .
He suggests common prayer instead of discussion as a
way over the difficulty, as precise discrimination in
presenting the case for Christianity leads to contro-
versy and anger . But avoiding the controversial was
not Christ's way- nor Peter's way: the flight from
discrimination leads not only to fuddled thinking but
also to a fuddled gospel - which is no gospel; and
46
common prayer with those outside Christianity is
absolutely impossible for those whose only way to
the throne of grace is through Jesus Christ . The
author's plan of compromise between Christians and
Buddhists is the most painful section of his other-
wise interesting study . He has really ducked the
problem.
I find Part 3 of his study (pp 87-153) a most
profitable part of the work. Most Roman Catholic
meditation on mysticism traces the various steps in
the deepening of this and in this
volume the chapter headings reflect more or less
the sort of pattern frequently followed: - The Call;
Journey into the void; Oriental nothingness;
Christian nothingness; Journey towards union;
Journey of love; Enlightenment and Conversion ,
Once again, we must ask the question, is this just
subjective fancy, or is there some objective basis
to such a plan?
Scripture reveals that is a definite order of
application of God's redemption in our lives, e , g,
Romans 8:30 . The more detailed steps recorded by
John Murray in his Redemption, Accomplished and
Applied are a reminder of the many Biblical refer-
ences to this 'mystical journey', viz Effectual
Calling, Regeneration, Faith and Repentance, Justi-
fication, Adoption, Sanctification, Perserverance,
Union with Christ, Glorification. There can hardly
be a more cogent scriptural treatment of the
experience of the Christian than is found in this
profound volume . One immediately detects some corres-
pondence between the Calvinistic and Biblical path
traced by Professor Murray and the more eclectic
back and forth journey followed by Professor John-
ston.
What distinguishes the genuine Christian mystic
(unadulterated with eastern paraphernalia) from the
born-again Christian? I venture to say - absolutely
nothing.
A description of genuine Christian mysticism is
47.
merely a concentration on one aspect of every re-born
Christian's life fully led - and underlines the loving
union with God which is meant for every believer. Some
gifted writers such as John of the Cross or Isaiah,
(the latter under the inerrant direction of the Holy
Spirit), have written marvellous descriptions of this
experience far beyond the reach of the ordinary
Christian, But something of the transformation they
describe in approaching the throne of grace is a
delight that many believers have known and should know,
When writing about mysticism, what happens to the
Christian writer is this: instead of dealing with the
whole counsel of God, and reviewing His saving powers
or His common grace, or say His cultural mandate, or
His will for the organisation of the Church, he merely
devotes attention to the simple contemplation of God:
gazing at Him, and nothing else, This. I agree with
Professor Johnston, is not reserved for an elite
amongst Christians, but is intended - although in
very diversified ways - for all believers, namely,
true adoration of our Lord.
Let me conclude with another brief quotation from
amongst many excellent points made by the author that
are sweet to any believer's ears, "Not one step is
made except by the power of the same Spirit. This is
the path of one who has seen the footprints of the
ox or the treasure hidden in the field and sells
everything joyfully to follow the ox or to buy the
field. It is the renunciation of one who has heard
the voice of the beloved: H a r k ~ my beloved is
knocking' [Song of Songs 5:2]". Here we are on
familiar ground; it is such a pity that so many
other issues are confused by the now so frequent
eclecticism and rampant compromise that loses the
distinctiveness of a faith for which God sent His
only begotten Son to testify to and fulfil once and
for all in perfection.
48.
BOOK REVIEWS
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
- historical evidence for the Christian Scriptures
compiled by J.Macdowell; 362pp; 4; kivar.
Campus Crusade.
This book was prepared by a research team from
American colleges in order to furnish Bible stu-
dents with practical answers to counter those who
challenge the historical accuracy and integrity of
the Bible . There appear to be very few available
textbooks written by conservative evangelicals to
answer those who seek to undermine, e . g., either
the Pentateuch by the Documentary theory or the
gospel records by Form criticism. Sadly there is
evidence of concessions being made in this realm
to the critics by those who claim to speak for the
evangelical position , This is a very useful hand-
book which marshals a mass of evidence to refute
the liberals and it rests unequivocally on the
basis of the full inspiration of the scriptures as
the word of God.
The book consists of three main sections . The first
out lines the presuppositions of
the relationship of science to the miraculous as
well as dealing with the link between archaeology
and criticism, The second part examines the docu-
mentary hypothesis and shows its false assumptions,
and at the same time gives the nature and history of
biblical criticism tracing the three main schools
of thought. The book also provides us with the
internal and external evidence for the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch and it thoroughly
examines the various documentary theories and pre-
suppositions including the evolutionary and legend-
ary view of the patriarchal narratives. The various
Divine Names are considered while the alleged contra-
dictions, repetitions, anachronisms, incongruities
and internal diversities are also discussed,
The last section considers the basic tenets of Form
Criticism looking at its chief proponents, defining
its terminology, examining the nature of oral tradi-
tion, pericopes, form classification and the alleged
role of the church as a 'creative community', Separ-
ate chapters are devoted to answering the critics'
denials of the biographical, chronological and geo-
graphical value of the gospel records, The views of
Dibelius, Kasemann and Bultmann are summarised and
assessed,
Each section is prefaced by an outline which makes it
a handy reference book rather than a weighty theolo-
gical tome that is complex, forbidding and probably
never completely read, Each section concludes with a
summary of the main points and each chapter is clearly
set out under numbered headings, The body of the
material consists of carefully chosen quotations from
a wealth of sources both from the critics and their
opponents, Each section is followed by a lengthy and
helpful bibliography of works referred to in the
text, The book concludes with a few brief essays on
kindred themes as well as an appendix giving auto-
biographical sketches of the evangelical contributors
from Allis to Young,
I warmly recommend this as an inexpensive handbook
which will prove useful for students and pastors and
may save them a great deal of time wading through
other volumes, Here is a reliable handbook for those
who like their material distilled and lucid, Let no
one be biassed against this book because of the
'stable' from which it proceeds,
F,Mike Harris
(Soh m ~ Ely)
CHRISTIANITY AND THE MENTALLY HANDI CAPPED
(A Short Introduction and Bibliography)
by Michael Miles, Published by The Christian Brethren
Research Fellowship, obtainable from the Paternoster
Press, pp,40, 65p,
This is an interesting booklet being No, 7 in a series
of Occasional Papers published under the auspices of
the above Research Fellowship, The word 'Christianity'
50.
in the title is used in its widest possible sense.
Attention is drawn to the works of Roman Catholics
on the one hand, also to those who "are learning
all the time through sharing and prayer with people
of other faiths who bring their own beliefs and
traditions to the community" [p.22], and on the
other hand to the work of Corrie ten Boom" One
might assume that coming from among the Christian
Brethren the writer would start from a clearly
Evangelical position, unfortunately this is not the
case " Dealing with the issue of integrating the
mentally handicapped into worship, he writes,
"Agai n a willingness to experiment under God's own
hand i s called for, and no hard and fast rules
should be laid down. It is quite possible that an
hour long Quaker style meeting entirely in silence
could bring as powerful sense of God's presence to
one particularly handicapped person as a Charis-
matic Catholic mass would to another" [p. 34] , This
comment presumably gives some insight into the
author's theological position. At the same time it
r aises questions in our mind about tendencies
currently present in modern Brethrenism, under
whose auspices the booklet is published,
The booklet is divided into seven sections, the last
two of which are a useful Bibliography and list of
relevant Addresses , These will prove most helpful
to anyone desiring to enquire further into the
issues raised in the earlier part of the book, The
fi r st secion is introductory and in it certain basic
issues are raised, First of all is the vital one of
whether the mentally handicapped may enter into a
firm personal relationship with God . The point is
also made that the Church has tended to evade its
Christian responsibility for those deprived of nor-
mal mental powers , In this connection it is relevant
to recollect the character of Mr Feeble-mind in
Pilgrim's Progress Part 2, Bunyan writes most
lovingly and understandingly of this character and
presumably he was drawn from a person or persons
whom Bunyan had met with in his life. His
SL
appearance in Pilgrim's Progress indicates that at
least one Christian writer of earlier centuries was
acutely aware of the problems raised by those of limi-
ted mental capacity . Furthermore those who are famil-
iar with Kennedy's 'The Days of the Fathers in Ross-
shire' (see p . 203f) will no doubt recollect Mary
Macrae who came to Killearnan and was there converted.
Kennedy wrote of her "I used to know her then as
'foolish Mary' and wondered what could move my father
to admit her to his study but the time came when I
accounted it one of the highest pri vileges of my lot
that I could admit her to my own" . Anyone concerned
with working among the mentally depr i ved would be
greatly encouraged to read about God's glor ious work
in her and her spi r itual discernment and usefulness .
Two such random illustrations should prevent us from
making too harsh judgments about the Church's
failure here, great though it may be . The second
issue raised is that of the difficulties of parents
who find a child born to them who lacks normal
intellectual capacity, and the feelings of guilt
and despair which can come to them. The wr iter has
a sensitivity to the needs of all concerned and has
obviously thought deeply about the issues raised.
The second section is entitled 'Some Theological
Considerations' and is divided into three main parts.
This is probably the least satisfactory part of the
booklet . We are confronted here with some pretty
massive problems and due allowance must be made for
the difficulty of dealing with such weighty matters
in such a short space . At the beginning a very un-
pleasant remark is quoted that Luther is alleged to
have made, but no source is given so we do not know
from whom the allegation originates . If such a remark
can be authenticated then we will have to face its
implications, if not it should not be repeated. In
the first section which is 'The Sins of the Parents'
the issue is raised "Does God take out his righteous
anger at the sins of the parents hy punishing the
child?" and the author goes on ' to coll'l!lent "The wit-
ness of both Old and New Testaments is against such
52 ,
i nterpretation" . A number of relevant texts are then
examined such as Deuteronomy 24 v. 16 and Exodus 20
v, S, It is then asserted "It is the consequences of
pa:r.ental sins that may fall upon their children,
not the guil t o.r- direct puni shment. And even those
consequences are not necessaril y a bad thing when
one .remembers i t is a just and loving FatheL who
oversees them". Apart from the apparent belief in
the universal Fatherhood of God which is not scrip-
tural , there is a failure her e to get to grips with
the issues < It is clear from the observation of the
world around us that children do suffer for their
parents' sins , It is also clear from Scripture that
children are involved in the punishment of their
parents' sins , Such passages as 2 Kings 5 v , 27,
Leviticus 24 v , l 4f, Deuteronomy 28 v , l5, 2 Kings 6
v 24 need to be considered as do also Matthew 27
v. 25 and Luke 19 v , 44, 23 vv , 28-30, these three
latter passages in conjunction with an account of
the seige of Jerusalem, It is also imperative that
attention be paid to a verse such as Romans 5 v , l4 ,
Why do little children die ? If a child is not guilty
of sin then why does it die when death is punishment
for sin? The issue is an intensely painful one, not
least t o those who have seen little children suffer-
ing, but it must be faced, and relates to the whole
charact er of the human :race .. The writer is of course
absolutely right to refer to John 9 v . 3 and Luke 13
vv , l-5; such passages together with the message of
the book of Job will restrain any tendency to har sh
and unjus t c omments and judgments about the sins and
sufferings of others ,
The second section is headed 'Accountability' , This
deals with the very relevant issue of how far the
mentally r etarded are to be held accountable for
their sins " Again very large i ssues are raised re-
lating to Infant Salvation, but again the issues are
not dealt with in a very helpful way , Calvin and
George Macdonald are both quoted and in fairness it
is obviously impossible to deal with such matter-s in
two pages , Finally 'Moral Judgrnent'is under
53.
consideration, The author himself here seems to feel
his difficulties, He writes "There is some danger in
ploughing across so wide a field encompassing 'child-
ren and the mentally handicapped"'. Quite rightly here
and elsewhere he remarks that the mentally handicapped
can on occasion show far clearer moral insight than
supposedly normal adults and children, Corrie ten Boom
makes the same point (see p.30), Intellectual compe-
tence should never be taken as a ground for assuming
moral or spiritual superiority, "The first shall be
last and the last first". Perhaps in heaven we shall
find some, who on earth had little natural talent but
used what they had fully for the glory of God, raised
to far higher glory and responsibility than those who,
proud of their natural gifts, failed to use them for
Christ's kingdom, As the author demonstrates, to
approach the mentally retarded with a sense of our own
superiority is utterly alien to a truly Christian
spiriL
The next section is 'Achievement' and brief accounts
are given of the works of Corrie ten Boom, Jean Vanier
at L'Arche, Algrade School, Humbie nr, Edinburgh, and
of David Watson at St Joseph's Centre (R.C) at Hendon,
This is most useful and it is helpful to read of what
is being done by a variety of people and organisations,
Then follows 'Barriers to be Broken'; this focuses
attention on difficulties to be overcome in helping
the handicapped and is again valuable, The fifth and
final main section is 'Opportunities for Action' con-
taining practical recommendations, Certainly one could
not agree with all that is said, nevertheless there is
much here of real worth,
Readers of The Evangelical Times will have read of the
work of Christian Concern for the Mentally Handicapped
and their project at Aberystwyth, and will already
have been confronted with a number of issues raised
here, In reviewing such a book great care and balance
is needed, While it is necessary to make the comments,
which have been made, about the grave theological in-
adequacies of the booklet, yet one respects the desire
behind it to promote the physical and spiritual
54.
welfare of the mentally handicapped, It is easier
to write a review of such a booklet than to bear
the burden and strain of caring for a member of
one's family who is thus afflicted, Read with care
and discernment it would be of use for ministers
who are looking for some introduction to the sub-
ject, No doubt Christian Concern for the Mentally
Handicapped, 135 Wantage Road, READING, Berks RG3
2SL would be happy to supply further information
to anyone interested in the subject,
John E,Marshall
(Hemel Hempstead)
ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT
by J,W,Rogerson. Published by Blackwells in
'Growing Points in Theology' series; pp 128;
7.95
This is an important work from within the criti-
cal school (the author is a lecturer in Durham
University Theological Department) which en-
courages O.T, scholarship to reassess many of its
conclusions in the light of modern anthropological
developments, especially those 'assured results'
which have been based upon a faulty anthropologi-
cal methodology. It is a must for every theologi-
cal college library and for students studying the
O.T, in liberal contexts for there is good mileage
here in repudiation of many critical assumptions
in O,T. theological study,
Rogerson confines his study to social anthropology
(thestudy of human societies) and then proceeds to
make the most important point of his thesis in
chapter 1 viz O,T, students have rarely been con-
versant with social anthropology but have based
their conclusions upon (usually outdated) anthro-
pological assumptions, Dividing the history of
anthropological study into three he notes that the
second period was characterised by the evolution-
ary assumption that all societies had passed
through similar stages of social, mental and
55.
religious development, by a tendency to study
'culture' apart from its social contexts, and by a
reliance upon second hand (and often unreliable)
evidence. This approach, completely rejected in the
current third period, is yet the basis of many of the
histories of Israelite religion which thus become
subject to the same criticisms, viz (i) conclusions
are usually unjustified and unverifiable since there
is no evidence of the postulated evolution of
societies; (ii) according to the modern anthropo-
logical approach material is usually insufficient to
reconstruct past societies with any certainty.
In the second chapter the author takes into consid-
eration two early theories which have greatly in-
fluenced O. T. study. The first, evolutionism (men-
tioned above) traced the development of Israelite
religion by 'survivals' - features of culture which
allegedly reflected an earlier and more primitive
stage (as for e . g. K in knock in the English lan-
guage) , Widespread comparison was made with Arabic
studies.
The latter and conflicting approach was diffusion-
ism which leant heavily on Babylonian material and
~ t h basis of a belief in degeneration of socie-
ties traced certain features of Israelite culture
back to earlier and 'purer' forms.
Both these approaches have been subject to con-
siderable criticism by anthropologists because
Biblical material is taken out of context, inter-
preted by alleged parallels elsewhere and, in the
former case in societies which must have changed
considerably in the intervening millenia , In
addition they founder on lack of evidence and an
unwillingness to assess the evidence we do have
(i.e. the O.T. ) properly .
However, present study continues to flourish by
appealing to such material, a situation made the
more bizare since two conflicting methodologies are
employed together . So Robertson- Smith's theory of
sacrifice as "communion with the deity" still
56.
persists without any evidence and the Passover is still
regarded as a relic of semi-nomadism (a concept itself
subject to contemporary criticism), We might add that
theories such as New Year Festivals, death/resurrec-
tion of God-King in cosmic battles are widely found
though they cannot be substantiated,
The third chapter of the book is extremely important,
Rogerson begins by outlining the theories on primitive
mentality advanced by Frazer, Levy-Bruhl, and Cassirer
Which have been very influential in O,T. studies (e,g,
in the work of Wheeler Robinson and Aubrey Johnson),
These views he subjects to criticism in the light of
modern anthropological research, noting again that
these theories were advanced in the pre-field work
period of the second stageo He observes (i) these
theories were based upon a comparison of material
culture without reference to the social context, so
that like was not compared with like and material
relevant for comparison was ignored; (ii) we need to
be sure that we understand how we think and not assume
we know,
However, such theories especially with reference to
magic or a magical world-view are still advanced or
assumed even though recent studies of magic have empha-
sised its symbolic character and studies in oral tradi-
tion have suggested that apparent contradictions in
thought (e,g, Proverbs 26:4-5) are not evidence of
primitive mentality (as Von Rad) but "invite us rather
to see a mutually enriching combination of insights
based upon the juxtaposition of sayings" [p.llB].
The study of folklore as it relates to O,T, study is
the subject of the fourth chapter and is somewhat un-
satisfactory since it presupposes that O,T, narrative
is not inerrant history, but tradition that can be
assessed by such comparison, Moreover, the attempt to
find a basic structure discernible in all folklore and,
therefore, a reflection of basic categories of the mind
is questionable, However, Rogerson's conclusions may be
useful. in certain areas of conservative O,T, apologetic,
The author notes (i) since the so=called basic structures
57.
of folklore are discernible in the Jacob narratives,
for example, a major question-mark must be placed
against literary methods which fragment it; (ii) the
existence of folklore parallels to O,T, events is not
an adequate ground for the rejection of an historical
core to the material; (iii) since a coherent symbolic
structure has been revealed in folklore studies
certain apparently archaic or strange elements cannot
be used as the basis for developing a history of
religious belief.
Chapter 5 brings us back to more useful ground being
especially concerned to discuss social and political
structure. Rogerson points out that O.T, students have
too often used a concept lacking rigour of definition
(e.g. tribe) and then, on the basis of a comparative
approach, mistaken a formal resemblance for a real
one, without consideration of the relative functions
of each, and imposed an unsatisfactory model on the
O.T material (e,g amphictiony). This has made a non-
sense of the Biblical data, A similar approach, he
notes, has been made with genealogies in an endeavour
(without any warrant) to reconstruct early history,
Further, there has been a tendency in the use of
vocabulary to impose a definition upon a context
rather than let the context determine the meaning.
This serious methodological error has been compounded
by an unwillingness to assess the Biblical data it-
self, For example) without studying social or kin-
ship material which often lie behind a rough and ready
use of language (as in English ) , it has been assumed
that the terminology scientifically reflects social
structure.
The reviewer suggests that the points made in this
chapter have a widespread application in the field of
O.T. studies, All too often ill-defined models, con-
cepts and definitions based less on a study of Bibli-
cal material but more on the assumption of the exis-
tence of a parallel have been imposed upon the O.T.
and led to quite unsupported theories gaining wide-
spread credence,
The final chapter traces the recent development of
58.
Structural Anthropology by making a brief survey of
the complex field, following this by a discussion
of the applicability of its findings to the O.T.
Two important points are made: (i) structural anth-
ropology re-enforces the criticisms made against
views of primitive mentality by discovering common
structures in the thought processes of all men.
(ii) the universal concern men manifest for classi-
fication and definition might prove useful, says
Rogerson, in understanding some of the prohibitions
of the Q.T. laws of diet etc. as helping people to
discover and maintain a proper relationship with
God.
Concluding Remarks This book fulfils, as least
partially, a major need which has existed for a
considerable time. As such it ought to open the
closed minds of O.T. scholars to reassess some of
their pet theories . For conservative believers
proper use and reference to the work ought to prove
extremely useful in O.T. studies notwithstanding
the limitations imposed by the size of the book
and the actual stance of the author, which must
always be borne in mind.
Stephen Dray
(Brockley)
SEARCHING FOR TRUTH - A Personal View of Roman
Catholicism. By Peter Kelly; published by Collins;
pp.l92; 3.50
This is a significant book because it deals with
some of the major problems and developments within
contemporary Roman Catholicism. The author, an
Australian, entered the Jesuit Order in 1938 and
30 years later became Jesuit Provincial Leader for
South-East Asia. He was troubled, in these later
years, by the church's official self-definition and
after meticulous research he concluded that the
claims the Roman church makes for itself could
neither be defended historically nor reconciled
with critical Biblical scholarship. This important
conclusion led to his resignation from the priest-
59.
hood as recently as 1975.
The drama of this autobiography needs to be read against
the background of the turmoil produced by the encounter
of Christendom with science and philosophy in the 19th
and 20th centuries , While many Protestant churches were
deeply affected at an early stage, the Roman church was
able to postpone the encounter - officially at least -
until the Papal Encyclical during World War II , Al-
though Romanists were technically free afterwards to
approach the Bible more critically, Biblical scholar-
ship found itself under ecclesiastical censure during
the fifties and it was only fully approved and recog-
nised at Vatican Council II, although the Vatican
continued to impose a form of medieval scholasticism
on Catholic schools and seminaries, using its canoni-
cal power to prevent its theologians from dialogue
with contemporary philosophy, However, it was too
late for the flood-gates had already been opened . For
example, Maurice Blondel and others developed philo-
sophical ideas which interpreted the human, cosmic
reality in evolutionary terms perceiving God as the
Divine mystery operative at its centre . On this view
history was the locus of the Divine self-communica-
tion . Blondel also corresponded with Pierre Teilhard
de Chardin and also influenced Marechal, the initia-
tor in the Roman church of the Transcendental Method
(the adaptation of Kantian philosophy and modern
phenomenology) which is now the central philosophy
used by catholic theologians .
These new trends within catholic theological and
Biblical scholarship are to some extent still con-
fined to the professionals and the trends are ex-
pressed more boldly in some areas and continents than
in others . As Gregory Baum recognises in his intro-
duction, this poses a problem; "If a catholic brought
up in pre-Vatican II catholicism suddenly encounters
this new presentation of the catholic faith, the shock
may well be considerable" [p.lO].
It was this kind of shock that Peter Kelly received.
His early catholic training was 'orthodox' and
60.
sheltered; he accepted without questioning that the
Roman church was 'right'. Before the completion of
his legal studies in Adelaide, it occurred quite
suddenly to him that he should become a priest .
After a little time, despite his worldly life, his
mind was made up . His commitment was total and he
entered the Jesuit Ordero The following 12 years
were involved in the usual Jesuit training and
teaching. Ordained in 1949, he was sent in that same
year to Rome to commence a three-year study of
canon law. He was intensely disappointed with what
he saw in Rome: "The parade of Papal stateliness,
the pomp of ceremony that seemed the exact opposite
of the Gospels, the wire-pulling and cheating to
get places, the official deviousness and high-
handedness . the whole system was far from edify-
ing" [p.26].
The disappointment and questionings of this period
remained .with him and deepened until his final
decision to resign the priesthood 25 years later. He
suspected that there was something seriously wrong
with the church and slowly he began to see a gap
between the essential preaching of Christ by the
Apostles and the development of the Roman system,
Added to this in the sixties was the new spirit of
questioning which was widespread within the church
and the uncertainties created by the Vatican Council
itself. His sabbatical in Germany in 1973 gave him
the opportunity of reading and assessing the impli-
cations of critical, Biblical scholarship and two
years later his decision to resign from the priest-
hood was made but not without immense emotional
pain.
It is interesting to notice the influences upon
Kelly which contributed to this important decision ,
He was clearly impressed by the success of the
sciences and, in particular, the new knowledge
gained of the universe by astro and micro physics .
For example, what does "God" mean in such an un-
fathomable vastness? Did He really choose a small
planet of an insignificant star in which to reveal
61.
Himself? In this context he grapples with the existence
and 'otherriess' of God. Concerning God's existence, he
believes that the traditional arguments only provide
"suggestive thoughts" [p. 41] but the vast discoveries
of modern science raise new questions which cannot be
ignored. For example> physical scientists of the
calibre of Fred Hoyle> Julian Huxley and Heisenberg
are groping for the ultimate reality. Hoyle refers to
a hierarchy of intelligences formed out of gas which
are bundles of energy. Kelly regards this attempt to
find and describe the ultimate reality as significant
and thinks the German term 'Gesamtzusammenhang' (the
way everything hangs together) is a good definition
of God. His main argument in favour of God's exis-
tence is that without something permanent which he
calls 'God' he cannot see how human beings can be
human.
His agnosticism comes through clearly when he asks,
"What positively is this God?" He replies, "I am
completely at a loss" [p. 52]. He also wrestles with
the question of life after death and the problem of
evil. For him there is no appeal to infallible
teaching whether in the Bible or church. To the res-
cue again comes physical science. The soul is connec-
ted in some way with matter which in the final analy-
sis is energy and if the soul is something akin to
it then possibly the soul is to be regarded as the
person. After death the body "is nothing but a mass
of manifold molecules but the person is the
energy disposition that made him what he was and
will keep him the individual he is what lives
on after death is not a split person, body here,
soul there, both one day to come together again; but
it is the whole person who lives on" [p. 64]. Con-
cerning evil, the author rejects the classical formu-
lation of> and answers to, the problem and advocates
that God should be regarded as the Creator who left
the universe to evolve itself. He rejects the idea of
fixed laws of nature, preferring to think of a more
chaotic struggle at first leading to an improving
order with humans as part of this clumsy development
(p. 70).
62 .
In addition to science, another major influence
contributing to the author's resignation from the
priesthood was modern Biblical scholarship . After
sketching the origins and development of the
critical study of the Bible (pp . 76-119), he con-
cludes that "the Gospels are not histori es of the
earthly life of Jesus .. there are very few of
the words put in His mouth that we can be sure He
actually spoke; ver y few of the scenes and the
acti ons that we can be sure took place as des-
cri bed" [p.lOO] . His faith is largely determined
by what he calls "sound modern critical Biblical
scholarship" [p.l27] . This same scholarship regards
the resurrection narratives as being "born from
that after-Easter faith. They are not historical
and factual in our sense"! Similarly he regards
the statement that "Jesus is God" as false if
taken as "real identification" [p.l42].
Tile auth.or found chapter five - entitled "Church
and Authority" - the most difficult of all to
write largely because it is the matters discussed
here that caused such radical changes in his life ,
He acknowledges that much of the evidence for the
Papal claim can no longer stand critical scrutiny .
For example, Matthew 16 verse 18 does not apply to
the successors of Peter nor did our Lord here give
to Peter supreme authority over the Church . Histor-
ically, he concedes that much is disputed and un-
known of what happened in the first two or three
centuries (p . l60) . "It is certain", he adds, "that
a great advance in Papal authority followed the
public recognition of Christianity by Constantine
the church was building its public system on the
lines of Roman Imperi al institutions". Another
advance took place in the medieval period, especi-
ally after the late 11th Century. Peter Kelly then
speaks of the church running "wild" [p. l61].
But what of the future? "We are entering upon a
great period now, and we cannot see very well so
far where the lights and shadows blend, and what
63.
the new illumination mea.ns" {p.l73]. One aspect of
this enlightenment is that doctrine has a new and
broader meaning while statements from Rome can no
longer be considered as absolute truths.
The Roman church is now "a groping church" and no
longer "a slot-machine giver of answers".
The book is desperately honest; it is also informa-
tive and intriguing. Changes are taking place within
the Roman church. A great deal of its traditional
life and teaching is in a process of flux and
turmoil. This book will help us to be more aware of
what is happening in Rome.
Eryl Davies
(Bangor)
THE BIBLE UNDER ATTACK
published by Evangelical Press at 95p
Three main articles -
Rev Hywel Jones on THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE
Pro Edgar Andrews on CREATION & EVOLUTION
Rev lain Murray on OUR TIMES AND THEIR
LESSONS
Contributors to this Journal enjoy
reasonable liberty in reverent
exposition of the Word of God and
in the expression of their personal
convictions within the context of
the Doctrinal Basis of the B.E.C.
The views expressed, therefore, do
not necessarily form definitive
statements of B.E.C. policy nor
are to be taken as officially
endorsed by its Executive Council.
We regret the above disclaimer was
not inserted in Volume I.