Tipos de Talleres

"Our people are constantly in touch with those who think that we are still holding the whole line of verbal inspir­ ation from Genesis to Revelation; who are quite ignorant of what the Bible really is or sets out to be; who are quite sure that there is in the Bible a view of the universe^ which is completely untenable by intelligent people today." Whether this need is derived from misconceptions about the nature of

2

Scripture or a widespread ignorance of its content or is created by the discoveries of modem science^ or the secularization of culture,^ the contemporary interpreter can no longer assume that everything in the Bible is inerrantly true as written.

Since this need exists, most of the lecturers take time to outline their perspectives on the nature of the Bible. One sees it as "a library representing the best of a people’s writing for a thousand year s.

Another calls it a "book of divinity" in which is contained "the only authentic Word of God the human race possesses."^ A third states that it is "the Book of our faith," and "the living, lasting Word of God we are called to speak and interpret.’’^ The underlying assumption in

these descriptions is that the Bible contains the Word of God but is not equivalent to God’s words.

^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 48.

^Read, Warrack, 1951, p. 43. See also Wright, Warrack, 1956, p. 34. ^Read, Warrack, 1951, pp. 43-44.

^Ibid., pp. 42-43.

^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 51. ^Menzies, Warrack, 1953, p. 130. ^Small, Warrack, 1959, p. 40.

Even Menzies, who holds the most conservative view of Scripture in this decade, maintains that the Bible presents problems for the inter­ preter. He tells his audience that the Bible is "divinely-originated, divinely-inspired, and divinely-attested,"^ yet he also says;

"The Bible raises many problems for the pulpit and pew alike - problems of literary, textual and historical criti­ cism - moral problems bound up with a developing and

progressive revelation

He insists that all "the tools and techniques of modem scholarship 3

should be freely used." Preachers are to be "honest exegetes, extracting from the text or passage what is obviously there, and not Importing into it meanings that are not t h e r e . E v e n for him, the Bible is not

literally the very words of God.

The lecturers of this decade all seem to assume that the Bible is a human document and not a set of divine oracles. It was perhaps origi­ nated or inspired by the power of God, yet it still bears the marks of

its human writers. One can say that the Bible was "written in an ancient Eastem idiom" and that "myth, legend, poetry have their place as well as history in the Word of God."^ Another could argue that "it is always a difficult task to distinguish between the essential content of the Gospel and the words and ideas in which it is clothed."^ Further, a

^Menzies, Warrack, 1953, p. 130. ^Ibid., p. 129. ^Ibid., p. 153. "^Ibid., p. 136. ^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, pp. 49-50. ^Read,Warrack, 1951, p. 50.

third can talk of the inability of modem people to comprehend the meaning of Biblical words.^ Since the Bible was composed by human writers, its content is shaped and effected by the writer’s historical period, his world-view, and other related factors. It is then the task of interpre­

tation to help resolve some of these issues.

In helping to resolve some of these interpretative problems, the lecturers make various suggestions about how to do exegesis. For most of them, the goal of exegesis is to ascertain the original meaning which the

2

writer meant to convey to his readers. Wright states that one should ’’consider the reaction of those who first heard it and for whom it was

o

spoken.’’ To accomplish this particular goal the lecturers do not

specify a detailed exegetical procedure, but they do recommend certain aids, One lecturer recommends working with the original texts in Greek

and Hebrew in order to discover ’’shades of meaning not brought out in any translation.’’^ Others encourage the use of reputable commentaries and modem translations and paraphrases of the Bible.^

^Small, Warrack, 1959, pp. 60-61. 2

Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 15. See also David A. MacLennan, A Preacher’s Primer (Toronto, Clarke, Irwin and Co., 1950), p. 85.

^Wright, Warrack, 1956, p. 28. ^Small, Warrack, 1959, p. 55.

^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 15; Read,Warrack, 1951, pp. 71 and 77; Small, Warrack, 1959, pp. 55-56. In another work. Read is more specific about what he recommends. He argues that before one can comprehend the content of Scripture, one must be informed regarding its ’’literary ■ history’’ and subject one’s evaluation to ’’the normal processes of criticism,’’ He cites and describes the work of the philologist, the grammarian, the historian, the literary critic, and the source critic as all being needful in properly evaluating the content of Scripture. See D. H. C. Read, Prisoners’ ()uest; A Presentation of the Christian Faith in a Prisoners of War Camp (London, S. C. M. Press, 1944), pp. 50-57.

Through these means, the preacher can come closer to understanding the original meaning of the text within its context.

In the Biblical expositions offered by the lecturers, one can per­ ceive other exegetical procedures being employed to aid in their under­ standing. Word studies are used to clarify religious concepts.^

Various literary genres are examined and suggestions are given as to

2

how one should comprehend their meaning. For instance, in dealing with the healing narratives. Small advises that one should evaluate them

o

"in light of modem medicine and psychiatric practice." Again,

Jarvis labels some of the early stories of the Old Testament as myth."^ As one looks closely at these suggestions, one can see. some technical exegetical methods in operation.

Looking at the sermons of these lecturers, one can again see further ways by which they seek to understand the meaning of Biblical subject matter. One frequently repeated means is to search out relevant histor­

ical background information. Take for instance one of Small’s sermons.^ It is about the call of Isaiah. Throughout the sermon, he draws on historical information to fill out his retelling of this Biblical narra-

^Niles, Warrack, 1957-58, p. 68; and Small, Warrack, 1959, p. 55. bright, Warrack, 1956, pp. 27-30; Niles, Warrack, 1957-58, pp. 67 and 73-77.

^Small, Warrack, 1959, p. 49. ^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 52. c

R. Leonard Small, "Challenged, Chosen, Caimissioned," in his collection of sermons titled. No Other Name (Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1966), pp. 102-110.

tive. Again, looking at one of Menzies' sermons, one can detect a similar method being employed to explain why the disciples hid them­ selves after Christ’s death.^ The use of historical information to help clarify the meaning of a passage appears to be a commonly prac­ ticed interpretative technique.

As regards their individual theological slants, it is not neces­ sary for the purposes of this study to delineate their viewpoints in full. Taking just a quick overview, one soon realizes that they vary somewhat from one another. From Jarvis and Wright, who deal quite creatively and imaginatively with Scripture, to Menzies, who is quite conservative in his approach, these other lecturers of the 1950s represent a divergency of theological viewpoints. What would be help­ ful at this juncture would be to consider a few of their opinions

regarding specific theological issues that help to shape their approaches to Scripture.

For Menzies, the resurgence of interest in evangelism caused by the work of Karl Barth is greeted positively. He writes :

’’For this revival of interest in Evangelism many reasons could be adduced. One unquestionably is the return to Biblical theology. Such persons as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner have through their theology given Evangelism an enormous impetus.’’^

In support of this concern for evangelism, Menzies is very critical of

Robert Menzies, ’’The Unavoidable Christ,’’ in E. T., Vol. 66, August 1955, pp. 342-343.

o

the tenets of theological liberalism, or "the Gospel of Humanism" as he calls it.^ His focus in interpreting Biblical subject matter for preaching is on "the saving facts of God," and he further articulates

o

these in his second lecture. These "characteristic notes" of evan­ gelism become for him a set of theological principles by which he approaches and interprets specific Biblical texts.^

One of the primary reasons for this viewpoint is Menzies’ under­ standing of the nature of Scripture. For him, the Bible becomes a vehicle through which the word of God is revealed. Here again, he alludes to the work of Barth:

’"inthe event of revelation time falls away, and what happened in the there and then happens in the here and now. ’ And again, 'if our hearing of a sermon, or our reading of the Bible does not bring about a correspon­ ding event in us, it is certain that in our hearing or reading we have not heard God's word. We have only heard human words.

Through God's revealed word and the agency of the Holy Spirit, the words of Scripture become God's Word, and this is what a preacher is called ' upon to proclaim. With this view of Scripture supporting his under­

standing of the central tenets of God's saving act in Jesus Christ, Menzies' overall approach to Biblical interpretation is shaped.

^Ibid., pp. 1-2. ^Ibid., p. 132. ^Ibid., pp. 14-31.

^Ample evidence for this contention can be found by comparing these "characteristic notes" of evangelism and his exposition of Scripture found in his published sermons. See Robert Menzies, The Magnet of the Heart (London, James Clarke and Co., 1936); and Robert Menzies, The Riches of His Grace (London, James Clarke and Co., 1956).

^Menzies, Warrack, 1953, pp. 148-149. Here Menzies is directly quoting Karl Barth.

Like Menzies, Read too expresses his appreciation for the work of Karl Barth. ^ He considers "the revival of Reformed theology" to be "one of the signs of hope in our era," yet he is unwilling to concur with the more extreme positions of Continental theology. He notes that "an unfortunate by-product of the theological revival of recent years is

the growth of a totalitarian habit of mind which presents the Gospel in the form of a Diktat, and virtually ignores the condition of the

o

hearers." He labels this the "Continental heresy" and argues for a more moderate approach."^ He believes that it is essential for a preacher

to interpret Biblical subject matter, not in a terminology developed by specialists, but in a language that is understood by the people in the pews and that is relevant to the contemporary situation.

In another work written by Read, one can sense the background of 5

the controversies created by the advent of Barthian theology. For

In a private taped interview on 16 September 1983, Snail also noted being highly affected by the theology of Karl Barth, but less directly through the teachings of Emil Brunner. In 1931, Small was the recipient of the Senior Cunningham Fellowship from New College and used it to study under Emil Brunner at the University of Zurich. He remarked that Brunner "impressed me certainly more than any of the other teachers I have been with ...." Small considered him to be the number one influence upon the development of his theology. He also got to know Brunner personally as he helped him to translate into English his upcoming lectures in Britain.

^Read, Warrack, 1951, p. 20. ^Ibid., p. 18.

'^Ibid., pp. 18-21.

^Read, Prisoners’ Quest, 1944. These talks on religious subjects, given while Read was a prisoner-of-war, read very much like simplified versions of lectures he must have heard while attending University. Read graduated from the University of Edinburgh (M.A., 1932) and New College

(B.D., 1936). He also would have been the youngest lecturer of the decade.

instance, he discusses both humanism and the Christian doctrine of man.^ In his chapter on humanism, Read is quite critical of its effects on Christianity. He notes:

"The idea of evolution became an obsession. The Bible ceased to be in any sense a Word of God, and was regarded simply as a record of the ascent of Man. Progress

was the slogan."^

Read views these effects of humanist doctrine as a perversion of the truth. Although he would retain a couple of its gains, its disregard

o

for our sin and man’s bias toward evil render it a "heresy." For Read, the basic tenets of humanism, so important for liberal theology, and the idea that the Kingdom of God would be achieved by the progressive efforts of humankind would not become a hermeneutic by which he inter­ preted Biblical subject matter.

Wright also appears to share a similar opinion as regards the detri­ mental influence of humanism.'^ He writes :

"We have to be on guard lest it (the temptation of this inborn optimism, this confidence in human capacity) dilutes and perverts our preaching of the gospel, and leads us to make sermons - to use Niebuhr’s figure - whose ingredients are non-Christian but have a thin coating of Christian icmg."5

In order to illustrate this contention, Wright offers the right and

Ibid., pp. 104-131. See also Menzies, Warrack, 1953, p. 146. He, too, notes the importance of considering the doctrine of Man "because almost all modem heresies gather round this point."

hbid., p. 109. ^Ibid., pp. 111-112.

^Wright, Warrack, 1956, pp. 25-31. ^Ibid., p. 27.

wrong way to understand the meaning of three different parables. For each, he demonstrates how they are erroneously interpreted in a human­ istic fashion as mere moral isms, and then proceeds to show how they are properly understood evangelistically. The guiding theological principle in his interpretation is the incanpetence of man and the omnicompetence of God. Man is powerless to save himself or to earn his salvation. The strength and resources to meet the demands of the gospel come from God alone.

Besides these influences of Continental theology, MacLennan notes the importance of the apostolic kerygma in providing "a solid core" for preaching.^ He writes that;

"in recent years. Biblical theologians beginning with C. H. Dodd have reminded us of this core, this kerygma, in apostolic preaching. It consists of the themes preached by the first Christian messengers, and repre­ sents the outline of the Early Church’s message."^

For MacLennan, this kerygma provides "dogmas" which "are Indeed the gospel o

truth" and "an epitome of the gospel." Since preachers are entrusted with the gospel, this kerygma offers up the major themes for preaching

and a nexus by which to understand the meaning of particular texts.^ Since MacLennan felt so strongly about the Import of the apostolic kerygma, he could not concur with the more radical results of demythol- ogizing. He writes :

^MacLennan, Warrack, 1955, p. 46. ^Ibid.

Lbid., p. 47.

^Ibid., pp. 44-51. In the interview with Small, he also noted the importance of the kerygma for preaching, but he felt it need not be specifically mentioned in every sermon.

"What does this core of the early Church’s message say to us? ... To others the Scriptural statement expresses hope­

lessly out-dated thought-forms of a naive first and second century Christians, concepts entangled with an obsolete cosmology urgently needing to be demythologized. Yet to the Christian whose saving encounter with the living God is mediated by Biblical revelation, the affirmations of the

early preaching provide an epitome of the gospel."^

For MacLennan, the apostolic kerygma is the very core of the Bible’s message and should be the foundation for all preaching.

Turning now to consider the more personal and subjective aspects of interpretation, one discovers a rather limited amount of information in comparison with that found in the lectures of the 1940s. The truth through personality concept is nowhere directly stated. The devotional use of Scripture as a way to discern its meaning is only mentioned by one

2

lecturer. The importance of religious experience for understanding Biblical subject matter is played down. Even so, there are some subjec­ tive aspects which are discussed, but the lecturers’ treatment of these remains brief.

The most frequently repeated subjective aspect is that pertaining to the power of the Holy Spirit to reveal the true meaning of Biblical subject

3

matter. Read states the case in the following manner:

"How is it that we can hear the Word of God Himself through the words of an apostle or prophet written in a context and idiom foreign to our own? ... The only answer to these ques­ tions is - the action of the Holy Spirit."4

^Ibid., p. 47.

^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 29.

^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 29; and Menzies, Warrack, 1953, p. 148. ^Read Warrack, 1951, pp. 75-76.

Even so, he remains cautious. He warns that one must do the proper preparatory work, which includes understanding the text within its context, before one can rightly rely upon the Spirit’s power.^ The promise of the Spirit’s guidance is not an excuse for improper prep­ aration. This caution is shared by the other lecturers who had this conviction.

Other subjective aspects are mentioned by only one lecturer and appear to be fading during this decade. One such aspect is that of a more than literal exegesis of the text. Jarvis speaks of taking ’’texts which have no spiritual significance in themselves, and find

»i2

that they illustrate the Gospel in a most effective way. He uses as his example the four anchors of Acts 27:29. He then proceeds to say that he does not "hold with spiritualizing Scripture which, on the face of it, has no spiritual reference: the analogy must be very

o

obvious". What Jarvis is trying to say in this qualification of the allegorical method of interpretation is unclear, but he is the only

lecturer of the 1950s to support outright a more than literal exegesis of a text.

A second such aspect is the importance of personal experience in comprehending the meaning of Biblical subject matter. Menzies contends that preachers "must then have the supporting evidence not only of the text of Scripture but within ourselves.’’^ Even so, he qualifies this by saying:

^Ibid., p. 77.

^Jarvis, Warrack, 1950, p. 21. ^Ibid., p. 22.

"Preaching is more than just personal witness. It is a proclamation of revealed truth that may outpass our own experience. Biblical truth in its far-reaching rpige is a much richer thing than our experience convey s.

For him, personal experience has a limited but significant role to play in understanding a given text or doctrine. Even this limited role is

2