During the period 1950-1970 the question of the nature of biblical authority was debated. Documents relating to this issue include exploration of the term "The Word of God" and debate over the virgin birth and the resurrection, issues that were agitating most denominations during this period. Two pamphlets relevant to these issues are: M. H. A. Pieper, The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, Provocative Pamphlet, Oct. 1966, No. 138; R.W. Lawton, The Resurrection . . . History or Myth?, The Pamphlet Club, Feb. 1968, No. 154. Several articles dealing with theology are also included in this section. Of general relevance is A. Cant's The God is Dead Debate, Provocative Pamphlet, Jan. 1967, No. 141.

1. The Word of God
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Resurrection
4. Theology

1. THE WORD OF GOD

The Pamphlet Club, October, 1969. No. 174.

      While it is right to speak of the Bible as the word of God we must recognise that this description may have different shades of meaning for different people.

      For some to say that the Bible is the word of God would virtually mean that the Bible was dictated by God or directly given by God in such a way as to be, in the original at least, infallible in every word and line. A quotation from a writer of last century will serve to represent this meaning. "The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it (where are we to stop?) every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High . . . The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him Who sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme."

      For others to say that the Bible is the word of God would mean not that the words were directly given by God but that the divine inbreathing was such that all the facts and ideas in the Bible are divinely given. The composition of the words is in the various styles of the different writers but all express nothing but God-given truth.

      Others would think that while the Bible is the result of a divine-human encounter, that God was progressively breaking through to man in history and through particular men as channels of His communication, the Bible reflects ideas of men in different ages. God was continually communicating Himself through the limitations of human ideas. The word of God is thus contained in the Bible, not contained in the way that gold is contained in dross but in the way that life is contained in a plant. Life is not the plant and the plant is not life; but life is only known when expressed in a plant or some living thing, and a plant is only a plant when life is expressed in it. So the Bible is the word of God because God's Word is expressed through it--contained in it in the sense of being expressed in it.

      Another way of thinking of the Bible as the word of God is to describe it as the witness to the word of God. The word of God came to this prophet or this apostle; the Word of God became flesh. The Bible is the written record of the word that came, or the written record concerning the historical event in which the word came, or a record of the life, teaching and acts of the Word Who came, or an interpretation of the event and the Word. The Bible witnesses to the word of God in such wise that it is for us the word of God.

      It is quite apparent that when the Bible is described as the word of God this means different things to different people. Any phrase is open to interpretation but in order to be precise, I prefer to speak of the Bible as the witness to the word of God. We may vary this by saying the Bible is the bearer of the word of God. As the witness to or the bearer of the word of God it becomes to us the word of God.

      When we interpret the meaning of the phrase, "the word of God," as applied to the Bible we are in the realm of opinion which means that we are in the area of liberty according to a time-honoured principle of Churches of Christ. We do not impose our opinions on one another, or make them tests of faith or measures of one another.

      Whatever the different interpretations and opinions, for all of us who accept the Bible as the word of God there is this in common that here we find our final authority for faith and life. John reminds us that the witness was written that we "might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing (we) might have life through his name" (John 20:31). This, we who have accepted the word of God, also have in common.

REVELATION AS THE WORD OF GOD

      Revelation is the self-manifestation of God. It is a drawing aside of the veil from the divine side. We may speak of it as the divine descent which results in "the manifestation of something hidden which cannot be approached through ordinary ways of gaining knowledge."

      As God's communication of Himself to man, revelation is appropriately described as the word of God. We commonly think of a word as a spoken or written symbol of an idea or thing, but when we speak of revelation as the word of God to man we should not confine it to words and propositions as we commonly conceive of them.

      The revelation of God has been often an acted word. God has communicated Himself in acts, deeds, events. Modern theology has emphasised revelation through events rather than through propositions. As Vincent Taylor puts it: "The tendency is to find God's revelation of Himself mediated in act and deed, in the great crises of Old Testament history, the Exodus from Egypt and the return from Babylonian exile, and especially in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." L. Hodgson has gone so far as to say; "The revelation of God is not given in words but in deeds."

      We should recognise that an event in history is not in itself a revelation. It is the interpretation of the event which brings home the revelation. Where there is no prophet to interpret there is no revelation. The idea must be added to the event. We cannot limit revelation to act and deed to the exclusion of word and statement. While making one emphasis a writer early in this century made room for revelation in both deed and word, "It was not made in written history, or in writing at all, or primarily in speech, but in act and fact--by doing. Not in writing, but in living history, in actual life, God showed himself to men. Revelation was made less by what He said than by what He did 'Thus saith the Lord' was one form of revelation; but 'thus hath the Lord done' was the form in which the richest expression of God was made."

      When God acted in history and inspired prophets and Apostles to interpret acts and events a revelation or word of God came to them. It was an immediate experience to which they bore witness and so shared with us. They have mediated to all succeeding generations what they experienced. This they have done through the writings known as the Bible which bears witness to the revelation.

      We would not speak of the Bible as the revelation of God, rather is it a witness to the revelation of God. It mediates to us the revelation. Having said this, however, we would recognise that the Bible

may be described as a revelation in a secondary sense in that it brings knowledge that otherwise would not have been gained to all who, in time, stand outside of the revelatory experience.

CHRIST AS THE WORD OF GOD

      The heart of revelation is a communication concerning the nature, mind, will and purpose of God but in the last resort revelation is of God Himself rather than information about Him. This took place when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He was the image of the invisible God and in Him the whole fulness of deity dwelt bodily.

      The late Karl Barth said that the word of God assumes three forms: The word of God as preached; the written word (Scripture); the revealed Word of God in Jesus Christ. Real revelation is through Christ. In Christ the Word of God and revelation are identical.

      Following this line of thought it may be said that as the Word was the instrument of creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2) He was in all ages also the instrument of revelation. In the fullness of time the Word became flesh and the revelation which had come through event and word now came in Person.

      In Christ the word of God is a living, personal word. Here we have the final revelation. A quotation from the late Paul Tillich is appropriate here. "Christianity claims to be based on the revelation in Jesus as the Christ as the final revelation. This claim establishes a Christian church, and, where this claim is absent, Christianity has ceased to exist at least manifestly though not always latently . . . There can be no revelation in the history of the church whose point of reference is not Jesus as the Christ. If another point of reference is sought or accepted, the Christian church has lost its foundation. But final revelation means more than the last genuine revelation. It means the decisive, fulfilling, unsurpassable revelation, that which is the criterion of all others."

      To this living Word of God, the final revelation, the New Testament bears witness and mediates the revelation for all successive generations.

THE GOSPEL AS THE WORD OF GOD

      It seems obvious that in the New Testament the gospel is described as the word of God.

      When Peter and John were released from prison those who were gathered together "spoke the word of God with boldness" (Acts 4:31). The Apostles suggested that seven should be selected to "serve tables" so they would not need to "give up preaching the word of God" (Acts 6:2). The Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God (Acts 8:14). Paul said that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God or the preaching of Christ (Rom 10:17). He described his message in preaching to the Gentiles as the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 2:8-9). John says he was exiled on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 1:9).

      The gospel as the word of God was operative before there was a New Testament. "Christ was saving sinners before the New Testament existed, and could do the same today if it had not been written." However, in the providence of God, we believe, the gospel was preserved in the writings which became authorised as an authentic witness (the New Testament) to this word and power of God unto salvation.

TRADITION AS THE WORD OF GOD

      Churches of Christ are traditionally shy of tradition. This statement paradoxically suggests that we do have a tradition. It is important to make clear what is meant by tradition and also the place given to it.

      For some the tradition means preserved beliefs and practices going back to Christ and the Apostles but to which the Scriptures do not bear witness. It is a supplementary stream of authority. Tradition in this sense we readily reject.

      The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community is the commonly accepted basis of tradition which has bean defined as the living stream of the Church's life. This may be analysed into various parts. It includes the Church's interpretation of what is given in the Scriptures and the application of such understanding. For example, we have our traditional understanding of what is given in .the Scriptures in relation to the Church, the ministry, baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.

      Tradition may also be taken to include guided development in relation to things given in the Scriptures. Principles or guidelines may be found in the New Testament regarding church organisation and ministry. How are we to apply such guidelines in the on-going life of the Church, taking necessary account of development in both the Church and the world in which we seek to fulfil the mission of Christ?

      Yet another element in tradition is the judgment and practice of the Church on matters not given in the Scriptures. How shall we conduct a worship or gospel service (to make a traditional distinction) or how conduct an all-age Christian school? How shall we train and appoint ministers to ministry in the Church? Etc., etc.

      As we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all such matters both in relation to the life of the Church and in relation to life situations tradition is a medium of the word of God to us.

      This leads us to think of,

THE CONTEMPORARY WORD OF GOD

      Any preacher is concerned to bring a word of God to his congregation. This he tries to do by bringing to light and life the written word of God and the Living Word of God in relation to where people are at the moment.

      When we read the Scriptures, particularly in certain contemporary situations, the words of scripture will come alive with pertinent meaning so that we can say a living word of God comes through to us in the reading of the Bible. In this way the Bible becomes for us a living word of God.

      Sometimes we hear the question, What is God saying to us in this situation--poverty, racialism, ferment and unrest, war? It is possible that God is pressurising us through situations that force us to read again His word that we may discern truth and its true application to life in a way never discerned before. When it was said that new light is ever breaking from the word it could not have been meant that the Scriptures say new things but rather that our eyes and hearts are opened to see what is new to us. Sometimes the word of God is like certain seeds that lie dormant in the soil for a long period of time until exactly the right conditions obtain and then they germinate. So the word that has lain dormant for a long period of time, may be, under pressure of certain conditions springs to life. This new truth that we see is a contemporary word of God to us.

      If God is the Author of all truth, and all truth is one, then when experts in "secular" fields such as psychology, sociology and the like present new understandings, may not God use these to help us see new approaches and applications of truth given through His Word?

      With one hand in the hand of Christ, known to us in the New Testament and in living experience, and the other hand in that of the best human thought, under the pressure of living situations we seek a contemporary word of God. Any real doctrine of the Holy Spirit as God continually in action must give us assurance of our need for such a contemporary word.

      Within the life of the believing community "the word of God" has a rich variety of meanings. No one meaning stands in isolation; they are all interdependent. But the keystone to them all is a Person. Christianity begins and ends in Him.

      Whatever word of God we seek or claim we test all by reference to the Word made flesh, the Living Word, the Final Word. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

2. THE VIRGIN BIRTH

A.C., 1968, p. 574.

To the Editor,

      Statements in a letter by Maston Bell (Open Forum, p. 552) raise many questions and involve far reaching ramifications but certainly invoke further questions and comment. Why should it be questioned that our Lord inherited human nature when scripture states quite plainly that he was "made like unto his brethren" (Heb. 2:17)? Must one be born of a virgin to be sinless when even we are told to be perfect even as God himself is perfect (Matt. 5:48)--called to be saints! (1 Cor. 1:2)/ Have we been

automatically "saved" by the Calvary death and if so, why the injunction by Paul in Phil. 2:12? Why the human genealogy of Joseph (Matt. 1:17) at all?

      Are we not justified in doubting the story of the Virgin Birth when we realise that God has no need to indulge in the spectacular and the unusual?

      The whole enigma seems based on an inadequate understanding of the nature of Christ and will not be solved until we realise that he was not supernatural and was not born the son of God, but made himself such by the way that he lived--his life of perfect obedience.

      It is only because he, as a human being, rose to perfection, that he can ask of us, similar obedience to God. Such statements as John 1:12, and the many other occasions in which his followers are described as sons or children of God, e. g., Matt. 5:9, Rom. 8:16, Gal. 3:26, Rev. 21:7, 1 John 3:1, become meaningless in any other interpretation.

      Accept these facts, and it is of little consequence whether the record of the virgin birth is authentic or not.

--L. R. Reeves (Vic.).      

A.C., 1968, p. 649.

      Paul didn't say anything about the Virgin Birth, but he said a great deal about the Incarnation. The Incarnation--the fact that God became man--is much more important than the Virgin Birth--the means by which God entered into our life. There is no silence on Paul's part concerning the Incarnation.

      All of the facts about Jesus are important, but they are not all of equal importance. The mode of Christ's birth is not of the same significance as the fact that the one who was in the form of God, emptied himself and took the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Phil. 2).

      It is unfortunate that some of those who defend the Virgin Birth do so for wrong reasons. There are those who argue that the Virgin Birth was necessary to protect Jesus from the taint of original sin. This has many weaknesses, not least being the position of Mary herself. If there is a taint in human nature stemming from the sin of man, Mary would be stained also. The Roman Catholics recognised this and they produced the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to overcome the problem. This doctrine declares that Mary herself was free from the blemish of original sin.

      It is strange that people who argue this way finish up by making Jesus different from us in a way that casts some question upon his claim to be our saviour. Jesus cannot be our saviour if he is protected from the capacity of sin. Jesus could have failed, but he didn't. He could have sinned but he didn't: Jesus was tempted and tried as we are, yet he was without sin, but this had nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. It was because he submitted to God's will, and used to the full the gift of God's Spirit.

      Then there are those who argue that Jesus could not have been divine if he had had an earthly father. Those who argue this way do not get their support from the Bible, and there is no need for them to make this kind of claim. It only confuses the discussion. Jesus was born of an earthly mother, and there is no obvious reason why the Holy Spirit could not have made use of an earthly father as well. Many conservative scholars have made this statement. The Holy Spirit did not use Joseph. Scripture makes it plain that Jesus was born of a virgin, but this is quite different from saying that the Virgin Birth was necessary for the divinity of Jesus.

      On the other hand, critics of the Virgin Birth, are equally at fault in denying the Virgin Birth in order to protect the humanity of Jesus.

      Let us be frank about this. We accept the divinity and the humanity of Jesus because of scripture but we cannot understand how one person can be truly divine and fully human. We do not solve the problem, however, by using our ingenuity in retelling the story of the birth of Jesus. The introduction of an earthly father, as well as an earthly mother, does not remove the difficulties. We are still faced with "our God contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made man." This is still a Divine-Human mystery whether we confront Jesus the babe, the child, the man, or the Resurrected Lord.

      We shall just have to go on living without having all of the answers!

      We may wish that Paul had said something about this to straighten out our difficulties, but at least for him, the Divinity and Humanity of Christ were not confused by the manner in which Jesus was born.

      Far too much has been made of Paul's silence on the Advent. There is, for example, only one passage in Paul's writings that refers to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11), but that one passage makes it clear that the table, the bread, and the cup, were established as the central act of worship in the early church. This one reference by Paul is made, not as part of a systematic presentation of the beliefs and

practices of the church, but because one church was abusing the ordinance. If it were not for the misbehaviour of the Corinthians it is probable that folk today would be saying that Paul knew nothing of the Lord's Supper because he does not mention it. Especially, as the letters of James, Peter, and John do not mention it either.

      Paul does not mention the birth of Jesus because he had no occasion to mention it. As indeed, many of us have listened to an evangelist preach a whole series of mission sermons and not mention it.

      There is a point about Paul's silence that is often neglected, and that is the role of Luke. Luke was an historian whose accuracy is well established and whose standing is enhanced with every new relevant literary or archaeological discovery. In all of Luke's historical references in his gospel and in Acts there has not been proved one error. We have learned to trust Luke, and this is one of the most important reasons for accepting as fact the narrative of the Virgin Birth.

      Paul and Luke were companions for a long time. They were together fairly soon after Paul's conversion, travelled together, and Luke was still with Paul during the tatter's imprisonment. It is hard to believe that these two men could be together for so long and not discuss the earthly origins of Jesus. When, eventually, Luke wrote the gospel and strongly presented the Virgin Birth as history, it is inconceivable that he would have done so without defence if Paul had doubted the story.

      Of course, this does not prove that Paul accepted and taught the Virgin Birth, but there must at least be great weight given to the point that it was Luke, and not Mark or John, who does this. Those who use Paul's silence as an argument against the Virgin Birth are actually setting Paul and Luke against each other. Almost half of Luke's writings was influenced by Paul, almost all of Luke's gospel is in complete harmony with Paul's letters, and there is no evidence to suggest that Luke's account of the Virgin Birth was unknown to Paul or at variance with his views.

      Our main reason for accepting the Virgin Birth, must always be the Scriptures. The Old Testament prophets proclaimed the coming of the Lord, they gave us his name, the place and mode of his birth. There are two reasonably full accounts in the New Testament where prophecy became history.

      There is still much that we cannot understand and there is no reason why we should use our minds in seeking to understand those things that are still shrouded in mystery. But the facts are there--in the Book.

3. THE RESURRECTION

A.C., 1968, p. 141.

To the Editor,

      I am moved to comment on the Pamphlet Club publication No. 154, "The Resurrection . . . History or Myth," by Richard W. Lawton.

      Mr. Lawton writes competently and clearly, on a subject to which he has obviously given deep thought and much study. It is a pamphlet which is timely and topical and should be read by all.

      However, I must take issue with the author on the conclusions he draws from his material, i. e., that there can be no Christian faith without a belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus.

      I pay tribute to Mr. Lawton, that he obviously has studied Rudolf Bultmann and, it seems to me, represents his position quite faithfully. In the pamphlet he asks pertinent and relevant questions, coming, it seems, almost to the brink of an exciting and challenging discovery. Unfortunately, he then reverts to a traditional repetition of the orthodox argument for a conception of faith in a doctrine, which, on his own admission, has no relevance to the needs of many who feel they have a vibrant and dynamic relationship with the living Christ.

      Mr. Lawton argues for a bodily resurrection to life, which obviously has again come to an end, either in death, or presumably Mr. Lawton would posit a further miracle of the Ascension in order to get rid of the physical presence of Christ. What value then has the physical resurrection, in terms of continuing human relationship? The same adjustment must be made at that stage as after the Crucifixion.

      Admittedly, I am no Augustine, Francis or a Kempis, and I seriously doubt that a belief in the physical resurrection would serve to make me such; nor do I believe that I am deluded, but I am not competent to judge this; nor am I consciously a liar; yet I believe my experience of the living Christ does ring as true as these honoured saints of Christendom.

      If God is Eternal, and I believe this; if God is Spirit, and I believe this; if God is Love, and I believe this; if God is in Christ, and I believe this; then what is Eternal in Christ is surely Spirit and Love, which transcends the physical relationship and my relationship with him is at this level.

      Therefore the brief physical return and consequent departure of Jesus of Nazareth does nothing to enhance my relationship, 2000 years later, with him who is and was and ever shall be.

      Perhaps the most telling weakness in the argument of Mr. Lawton, is his statement that "it seems easier to accept them meeting with the risen Christ . . ." But I would remind us all that Christ himself repeatedly chose to reject that which "seems easier." Perhaps I am often guilty of the sin of envy of those who are seemingly able to achieve faith by a way which "seems easier," rather than through the continual trials and tribulations through which I constantly must progress.

      My relationship with Christ, and through him my relationship with other persons, demonstrates quite clearly to me that there are many Christians, with a living, vibrant faith, who do not need a belief in the physical resurrection, either of Christ or their own body, as well as many whose faith is just as vibrant, who cling dearly to this doctrine.

      Perhaps in the end of it all it is consolation indeed to each of us, that our own "eternal life" depends, not on this, that or the other doctrine, including that of the resurrection, but on the forgiving grace and loving purpose of God.

      The ultimate solution to this debate, of course, is beyond either Mr. Lawton or myself and if he be right I will be glad to continue this discussion "in another place" and if I be right it will not matter anyway.

--E. S. Sanders (Vic.).      

A.C., 1969, p. 538.

      Our faith is in a Christ we have not seen and our acceptance of events in his life, including the resurrection, also rests upon faith, although there is a great deal of historical and documentary evidence to support the traditional viewpoints of Christianity.

      I do not know why some Christian ministers and scholars deny the resurrection of Jesus. One is torn between regarding them as enemies of Christ or (out of respect for their integrity, concern for others, and devotional lives) accepting them as Christian in spite of their attitude.

      None of our own ministers or scholars, so far as I know, deny the fact of the resurrection, although there are those who are troubled by some aspects of it. This is fair enough. No Christian doctrine should be accepted without being subjected to every mental test for which God has endowed us.

      The critics usually do not present evidence against the resurrection. They usually state simply that there is not enough evidence for it. Many of them start off with a dogmatic rejection of all miracles and go on from there: There are no miracles; but the resurrection is claimed to be a miracle; therefore the resurrection is not a fact.

      If the resurrection is not a fact then the records which declare it to be a fact are the result of imagination, errors, or lies.

      The critics have little trouble with the historicity of Jesus. As one of them said, "Hardly anyone seriously doubts that there was a Galilean Jew named Jesus . . . who took an unusual interest in people . . . fell foul of the religious authorities . . . (with the result that) the Roman governor had him crucified." (Principal L. Geering).

      It seems to many of us that the evidence for these things (which Principal Geering accepts) is found in exactly the same sources as the evidence for the resurrection (which he rejects). There is one great difference--the resurrection is a miracle and, any evidence for it is automatically regarded as unreliable.

      If one excludes all of the evidence that is against a point of view, and only admit the evidence which is agreeable, one may find some kind of self justification, but one is not likely to find objective truth. Archbishop Whately showed this in his day when some critics proved to their own satisfaction that Jesus did not exist. Whately used their methods and proved as conclusively that Napoleon did not exist!

      With the exclusion of the resurrection from Christianity, far too much is lost concerning the authenticity of the rest. It is true that we live our daily lives without "proof" of the resurrection. Our acceptance of this doctrine is by faith, but it is by faith in God, built upon our trust in the scriptures and those who wrote them. That trust is reasonable and supported by a great deal of evidence.

      Those who claimed to see the risen Lord (Paul said there were 500 of them in addition to the Twelve) either told the truth or they imagined the resurrection, or they lied. If the resurrection was imagined, then something happened to the body of Jesus. Since the enemies of Christianity would be the last people to conceal his body, then his friends must have done so. But this would make it no longer a figment of the imagination, but a deliberate falsehood.

      The available evidence is strong for the resurrection as the truth, and I do not know why it is not accepted as such by all who claim to be Christian.

4. THEOLOGY

A.C., 1961, p. 196.

      Many people try to divorce theology and Christian living as if theology were an accretion both unnecessary and undesirable. One is reminded of the point of view which held that the gospel of Jesus was a simple, uncomplicated thing which had been extended and distorted by the writings of Paul. Not many of us would agree that Pauline theology was out of harmony with the gospel of Christ and that the two should be divorced from one another. Yet we think of theology generally in this fashion, and often lay the responsibility for many of the ills of Christendom at its door. This is most unjust! It is equally unjust to dismiss theology as the plaything of theologians and something that the ordinary Christian can very well do without. On the contrary, theology is so built into the whole structure of Christian living that you cannot have one without the other. Theology which does not issue in Christian living is no theology at all. Christian living always implies a theological basis. The only question is whether or not it is sound or unsound.

      That is not to say, as some might suggest, that before a person can become a Christian he must be well versed in all the subtleties of theological debate. Much that theologians talk about reaches a level of abstraction beyond our grasp. It is also true that much theological writing is extremely dull. Quite obviously there will also be a great deal of theology written that is unsound. It isn't always easy to distinguish it, but undoubtedly the distinction is there. Nor does the point of view being presented here require that new converts should study theological text books. What is being said is simply this--that when a person becomes a Christian he brings his theology with him. It may be simple or complicated. It may be sound or unsound. But he brings it with him. And what he makes of the Christian life will be summed up in his theology.

      Of course he will not stop there. At least, not if he has the desire to grow and the Church is able to provide the appropriate helps to growth. But as he grows so his theology will grow, too, and each will be an index of the other. This applies to the simplest of men, amongst whom we find many of our greatest saints, as well as to the most profound.

      A pertinent illustration of this is provided by preaching. Here is a vital part of our church life. No preacher--whether he preaches devotionally, or instructively, or "evangelistically," can face a congregation for 20 minutes without preaching theology. If it is not explicit, then it will be implicit. You cannot speak for Christ without revealing your theology. You cannot live for Christ without a theological foundation.

A.C., 1966, pp. 3, 5.

      Christian thinkers around the world today are testing out a whole range of new ideas concerning the dimensions of the Christian faith. As our probing of the physical universe proceeds we realise how inadequate so much of our terminology has been. Someone once said, "Christianity always mistakes what it says for what it means; and rationalism runs after it, pointing out that what it says is not true." That too is an exaggeration, but there is much truth in it.

      For example:

      The Bishop of Woolwich, John Robinson, may be wrong in many places, but he is certainly right when he says that it is misleading, to say the very least, to speak of God being "up" in heaven, when 12 hours later what we described as "up" would now be "down."

      Far more important than the question as to whether God is "up" or "down" is the current interest in the question, "What is God up to?" in his dealings with the human race. Anyone who believes that God is still alive, and vitally interested and active in the sphere of human life., must be asking, "Where is

the hand of God to be discerned in the upheaval of peoples and cultures taking place today?" Something of the scope of the canvas can be suggested by the titles of two study programmes recently sponsored by the World Council of Churches.

      The first is called "Creation, New Creation, and the Unity of the Church." The second is "The Finality of Christ in an Age of Universal History." Dietrich Bonhoeffer claimed in 1944 that mankind no longer wanted the tutelage of the Church, and perhaps no longer needed it. As churchmen we resist the implication that we are redundant. But let's face it. We are entering an entirely new era as far as the relationship of the Church to the world is concerned. Will our ecclesiastical prophets of doom prove right? Will a civilisation that has repudiated the authority of the Church go down to destruction? Or is the world-society now so salted by God's truth that we should be looking for God's action in all sorts of unlikely people and places?

      If man's wrath can praise God, how much more the sacrifice of those who serve, although they know not the God whom they serve? It is important that we do not so misread the evidence of God's activity as to dismiss such people merely because they "follow not with us."

      Colin Williams has upset a great many people by placing a large question mark over the institutional life of the Church--its ecclesiastical paraphernalia; its boards and committees; its constitutions and conferences; its auxiliaries and training courses; and even that most fundamental unit, the "local" church itself. Because, he says, localities (in the sense of places where people happen to sleep) are no longer important. Perhaps he, too, exaggerates for effect. Many people still do live out many aspects of their lives in one geographical location, and so far no real alternative to the parish which has been suggested as the focus of the life of the Christian community can be said to have established itself as a satisfactory alternative. But if the New Testament church did indeed contain in essence all the elements which constitute the Church, it is a healthy corrective to be reminded that we can still have the Church when it is stripped to the bone organisationally, and even when it doesn't possess a building it can call its own, as was the case in those days.

      "Demythologising" is a word to terrify the timid, but it, too, "speaks to our condition" today. Rudolf Bultmann, its chief exponent, stresses that it is merely a method which attempts to discern the true message of the Bible behind the thought forms of the times in which the writings of the Bible originated

      This school of thought asks the question, "To what extent does the Word of God in the Bible come to us clothed in language that reflects outworn and discarded views of God and the world?" No reader of this article, for example, will call for an exorcist to cast out a demon from a sick child. We don't live in that-world any more.

      The Bible itself engages in a mild form of "demythologizing." Peter, on the day of Pentecost, quotes from the prophecy of Joel. The things foretold in that prophecy, he said, have come true today. What things? Amongst those he mentioned were darkening of the sun and turning of the moon into blood. Now the moon did not turn into blood on the day of Pentecost. What Peter meant was that the spiritual revolution that was taking place with the availability of God's Spirit to all men everywhere was as great an upset in the realm of human affairs as it would be in the realms of nature if the rocks of the moon were to be dissolved and changed into blood. Peter was demythologizing Joel by penetrating to the spiritual truth and ignoring the literal meaning of the prophet's words.

      Bultmann's demythologizing is much more far-reaching than the translation of poetry into prose, which may be all that Peter was doing. He claims that we must expect the action of God in and through the events of our common life, rather than through miraculous intervention.

      Most of us can accept that without entirely eliminating the possibility of the miraculous, as he is inclined to do. He goes further, so that any historical element in the Gospels at all seems to be in question and Christianity becomes almost gnostic again in his hands. But Bultmann does us a service in warning us against mere credulity.

      If we are to avoid the excesses both of fundamentalism and of contemporary existentialism and liberalism, we are most likely to find sanity with those who have a sound appreciation of the wholeness of the Church. The Anglo-Catholic scholar, Eric Mascall, is a healthy corrective to Robinson, Bultmann, John Knox and van Buren. His recent book, "The Secularization of Christianity," opens with a fine chapter entitled "The Changeless and the Changing:"

      Mascall says, "How then is the theologian to maintain his loyalty to the revealed gospel, while at the same time making every effort to express it in terms intelligible to its hearers, and to help them to see its implications for their particular circumstances and situations?

      It is, I suggest, by forming a deliberate habit of loyal submission to Christian tradition, while at the same time bringing to bear upon it all the critical and interpretative gifts which God has given him . . . (Theology) does not depend primarily upon his personal mental agility, but upon his union with God, who is the Truth itself. Theology is thus in its essence a function of the Church as the Body of Christ, and the theologian is a man to whom the exercise of that function has been specially committed.

      M. Gilson has remarked that the ideal theologian needs two intellectual qualities whose combination in the same mind is rather rare: a perfect intellectual modesty and an almost reckless intellectual audacity; and Fr. Charles Davis has well commented that, while the combination which is urged seems impossible, it becomes feasible if the audacity is referred to the work of understanding, and the modesty to the claim of certitude . . .

      "He may indeed hope that he will make his own contribution to the great body of Christian thought within which his own thinking is set. He may at times have a painful suspicion that the tradition, as it has been presented to him, is, in this or the other respect, distorted, unbalanced, stunted, fossilised, forgetful of its own past achievements or insensitive to the needs and demands of the contemporary world . . .

      "What, I would maintain, he must and can be convinced of is the truth of the great Christian tradition, even when he is in the humiliating position of not being sure that he or anyone else has yet adequately understood its content or seen it in its true proportions."

      With Mascall, I am far too cautious and conservative to be a whole-hearted disciple of Robinson, Bonhoeffer, Williams or Bultmann. But I am grateful to them for drawing our attention to the need to be constantly thinking about our faith.

      Such men are good for us. Many of their conclusions will undoubtedly be discarded. But they themselves will be satisfied if they have stimulated us to wrestle afresh with the task of translating the eternal gospel into an idiom that will speak to men and women today.

A.C., 1967, p. 3.

      During the recent visit to Australia, the Archbishop of York urged the large audience at one of his meetings to read more books about the Christian faith.

      As the guest of the Bible Society, the main purpose of the Archbishop's address was naturally to commend the unique book--the Bible. But this fact only adds significance to his invitation to the predominantly "lay" audience to take a serious interest in contemporary theological literature as well.

THEOLOGY FOR THE LAYMAN

      What prompted our distinguished visitor's advice? Why should the ordinary church member interest himself in theological matters or read theological books? Wouldn't it be better if theology were left to the experts?

      The truth is that none of us can avoid theology. The moment we start thinking seriously about what we believe, or communicating our faith to another, we find ourselves in the midst of theology. For theology, to take George Docherty's definition, "Is simply the attempt to systematise our thinking about the 'things most surely believed' concerning God's revelation in the Bible."

      Theology is not a lofty academic pursuit far removed from everyday affairs. Inevitably it confronts every Christian in the choices and actions of his daily life.

AN INTELLIGENT FAITH

      The scriptural injunction to love God with all his mind, necessarily involves the Christian in deep and earnest thought.

      Theological books can be used as merely a substitute for thought; a source of "potted ideas" and theological fashions. But if wisely selected and intelligently read they can become a fruitful means by which our understanding of God's will for us is quickened and our appreciation of what it means to be a disciple (or learner) of Christ deepened.

      Some Christians, particularly those who do not consider themselves clever or well educated, are content to "leave theology to the minister." In so doing they deny themselves an enrichment of mind and spirit. Of more concern is the danger that, when inevitably they encounter people of no faith, they will be unable to make a defence for the hope that is in them. (1 Peter 3:15).

GOD SPEAKS TODAY

      "The practice of the Christian life," says William Stringfellow, "consists of the discernment of the presence of the Word of God in the common life of the world:"

      To discern the presence of the Word of God in the world of today is not always an easy task. How, for example, do we discern the Word in a world of automation, poverty, television, Vietnam, hire purchase, famine, supersonic flight and apartheid? These and a host of other elements profoundly affect our lives for good or ill, though most of them were quite unknown to N.T. writers.

      Here the minds of consecrated and able Christian scholars come to our aid through the medium of theological literature. The issues of our day are interpreted in the light of the eternal values made known in the scriptures. The Word, so revolutionary when addressed to first hearers, again becomes disturbingly alive as we find God speaking to us.

READING FOR REALITY

      To the mind unused to serious reading, the first attempt at theology may be a rather daunting undertaking. The reason is that our normal light reading diet of newspapers, digests, tabloids and weeklies has ill-prepared us for this more nutritive fare. As the noted theologian, Nels Ferre, has commented: "Superficial reading has become so common and harmful that we need a total revolution in reading for reality."

      Serious reading is not just scanning for facts. It entails a willingness to wrestle with a book until we understand what the writer is trying to share with us. Only then are we able to analyse, relate, challenge and assess the writer's message. Finally we may distil from our study some new insight or previously unappreciated truth which we can take to ourselves and make our own.

      Like all skills, the skill of reflective reading is acquired only by patient practice. As we read, we may be confronted by technical terms unknown to us, by unhelpful jargon or by ideas uncongenial to our habit of thought. But let us not be deterred too easily, for reading is like mountain climbing--the tougher the assault, the more rewarding the view from the top.

BOOKS AND THE BOOK

      "There is only one Book. That Book is the noun; other books are but poor adjectives." So testifies George A. Buttrick, himself a prolific writer and the author of several classics in theology. The Bible gives the frame of reference for theology, just as it gives the frame of reference for life.

      Books on theology can be a source of deep insight as they open our minds to the bracing wind of God's truth. But this will be so only as the Bible is taken as our primary source, and as we bring our theological reading constantly under the judgment of the God of the Scriptures. Without this corrective, even the best books can lead us away from, rather than toward, reality.

      The need today is for literate laymen; Christians who are willing to read and think deeply. The Archbishop was surely right in urging us to stretch our minds in grappling with contemporary theological literature. But let us not miss the context in which the advice was given, for his preeminent concern was to honour the Book which stands above the books. This, too, must be our concern.

[NOF 569-579]