foundations journal volume 06

8/12/2019 Foundations Journal volume 06

1/63

ou Theological Journalpublished by theBritish Evangelical

Council, ;. ,, .. ;.

~ . ~ : ; : - : . ' . ". ... . .. i~ : . , . > L

1 , ; ~ ; l ~ ~ - ~ .

If the foundationsbe destroyed whatcan the righteous do?


2/63

FOUNDATIONS

EDITOR

ASSOCIATEEDITORS:

BUSINESS M N GER

is a Theological Journalpublished in November andMay by the British EvangelicalCouncil.

Rev Dr Eryl Davies M BD23 Bryn EithinogBANGOR Gwynedd, N.WalesU.K. LL57 2LAA MSS EditoriaL Correspondence and PubLicationsfor Review shoul d besent to the EditorRev Brian Edwards BDRev Hywel R.Jones MRev Peter Naylor MThMr Aubrey J Rober ts58 Woodstock Road NorthST ALBANS Herts,England, UK ALl 4QFTel; St Albans 0727)53148Evenings only)

All orders for this Journal must be pre-paid and should be sent to the BusinessManager. Please make out cheques and postal/money orders to the BRITISH EVANGELICALCOUNCIL in sterling. The price per issueis 1.25 post free with effect from IssueNo.7


3/63

ISSUE No. 6 Price 75pMay 1981

C 0 N T E N T S

EDITORI L P 1A REVIEW OF THEOLOGIC L JOURN LS 1980 p. 3

Eryl DaviesTR NSL TING SCRIPTURE - N HISTORIC L

PERSPECTIVE p.22Rev Philip H.Eveson M MTh

CHRISTI N SOCI L WORK - REFLECTIONSFROM CHURCH HISTORY p.32

Dr Ian ShawBOOK REVIEWS

Printed by W.A.Back Brighton


4/63

Within the context o f theB E C doctrinaL basiswriters are free to expoundand appLy Scripture but thepersonal views expressedare not necessariLyendorsed by the B E C

Those wishing for fur ther information about theaims, ac t iv i t i e s and Doctrinal Basis of theB.E.C. are invi ted to contact i t s GeneralSecretary Rev Roland Lamb a t 21 WoodstockRoad North, S t Albans, Herts ALl QB

Telephone: 0727) 55655

ISSN 0144-378X


5/63

EDITORI LMay I take this opportunity of saying how much I have

appreciated this journal I should like to say howdelighted I am with this publication. t certainly fulfilsa need in the U.K. "Foundations is very helpfulindeed "I am very grateful for Foundations "Just a note of appreciation for the copy of Foundationswe recently received. t has long been my opinion thatthere is a need for such a journal My only regret wouldbe that I finished reading i t in two hours and now havea six-month wait for the next issue "These comments by Pastors i l lustrate the encouraging wayin which this journal has been received and appreciatedsince i ts f irst appearance in November 1978. While imperfections have marred each issue we are nevertheless grate-ful to God for the blessing which has been upon FOUNDATIONSsince i ts inception.t is significant that nearly all the letters and comments

of appreciation received by the Editor have come fromPastors and this we regard as encouraging. While the jour-nal can be of great value to ordinary church members andchurch officers i ts main ministry is to Pastors and thisclearly distinguishes FOUNDATIONS both from other theologi-cal journals and devotional or historical periodicals.Our primary aim is to help Pastors by discussing contemporary theological issues in a scholarly but thoroughlybiblical and relevant manner. For this reason the articlesare both academic and practical, written not for the University library but for the working Pastor. By means ofmajor articles and book reviews, we inform and stimulatePastors and others by keeping them abreast of contemporarytheological news and questions and also by encouragingthem to apply themselves to such issues.One important feature of FOUNDATIONS is the space given

1.


6/63

to the general content and assessment of theological journals and new theological books. In this current issue,for example at least 9 journals are reviewed as well ass ix new and important books. This kind of help is invaluable to Pastors in terms of what to buy or subscribe toand informing them of what is being written both by l iberals and evangelicals. Recently a Pastor told me rather excitedly that as a result of a book review in Issue 5 ofFOUNDATIONS he recommended to his members that they shouldalso buy the book and 35 members responded. There are noprizes for guessing the t i t l of the book or the identityof the PastorThe most frequent complaint concerns the format of thisjournal. For example some have requested a more attractiveappearance including real printing. Some changes in formatwill be introduced in the next issue, noteably a thickercover and 'perfect ' binding but nothing more ambitious canbe considered at this stage due to high printing costs,A circulation well in excess of 2000 will be requiredbefore we can consider realistically a radical change informaL In the meantime we are grateful to our printer forhis valuable work and co-operation and we ask our readersto advertise and commend the journal to others,Have you considered subscribing to FOUNDATIONS yourself?Does your Pastor receive i t? Would other Church officersbenefit from reading i t? One Pastor wrote recently,"Clearly this journal is beginning to make a useful contribution in our churches", hy not introduce FOUNDATIONS intoyour church and sell a few copies there? f your Pastoror colleague does not receive i t regularly, encourage himto do so and take advantage of our special offer, Churchescould help, for example by giving their Pastors a gif tof a three-year subscription costing only 6 instead of7.50 on Issues VII-XII. This is a practical way of helpingthe Pastor and the church.e need your support and prayers i f FOUNDATIONS is to make

an even more vital contribution to pastors and churchesin the future.

2.


7/63


8/63

concern for needy people. Her statement to the servants,Do whatever he te l ls you , he sees - wrongly, of course,

as i l lustrating Mary s intermediary role between her Sonand believers; even today, he claims, Mary te l ls the Sonthat people have no wine nor peace nor freedom, rights,food, jobs and affirms and focuses more sharply on thefunction and mission of her Son. When Mary is then reported as standing by the cross (19:25), Alforo concludes,Cana and Calvary constitute two poles and key moments in

the ministry and revealing mission of Jesus. Both momentswork a radical change in the l i fe of Jesus; after that,He is not the same for He star ts a new way of 1 i fe; Maryis present on both occasions (p5).In the April issue of the same journal, there was an interesting article carrying the t i t l e 'Selecting a BibleTranslation in which the RSV was recommended as the besttranslation for study purposes. We were reminded of twogeneral approaches to translating the Bible: the l inguisticequivalence or formal correspondence which is exemplifiedin the AV (1611), ASV (1901), RSV (1952) and the New American Bible of 1970. There is also the dynamic equivalencewhich takes greater l ibert ies with the original Greek,Hebrew and Aramaic, especially where the text is uncertainand examples of this approach are the Jerusalem Bible(1966), NEB (1970), Good News Bible (1976), etc. The RSVi t is claimed, is very faithful to the original biblicallanguages and adheres to traditional Bible English(p71) although eliminating ' ' thee's and thou's and changingsome 300 English words whose meaning has changed. The RSVwe are told, has gained immense and wide-ranging respect(p72). The article is far from satisfactory, but i ts est imate of the Living Bible (which sold more than twenty-twomillion copies in the f i rs t seven years) most, i f not allof our readers would concur with. I t is totally useless ,an irresponsible paraphrase in which interpretation toooften takes over from responsible translating (p71). fyou want help in checking and assessing translations thenthe author suggests two theologically innocuous sampletexts - Genesis 31:35 and the description of agape in 1Corinthians 13:7. The NIV is only given a brief mention:4.


9/63

"a clear translation, ts style terse, direct, plain andunembellished. Critics say t does not compare with theRSV t is not recommended for study purposes" (p74).

o comment from your reviewer at this stage, but we'llreturn to the N V shortly so keep on readingAnother journal, THE CATHOLIC BIBLIC L QUARTERLY publishedin Washington, I found to be unnecessarily technical, dryand extremely crit ical with articles like 1Deutero-Isaiah 1and 1 Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2 andthe Authority of the Neutral Text 1 (Jan 180). Here is moreevidence of the continuing acceptance by the Roman Churchof a crit ical attitude towards the Bible. One article inthe April issue, 1 Qumran and the weakness of Paul 1(astheneia and dynamis in 2 Corinthians 10-13) concludesthat the weakness of which Paul boasts was not a physicalor psychological disorder but rather the persecution heencountered in preaching.I enjoyed reading, albeit quickly, the HAVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW and was especially interested in issue 72:3-4 wherethere was a helpful section on 'Summaries of DoctoralDissertations' (p315). One such dissertation by TimothyGeorge - 'The Role of John Robinson ( 1575-1625) in theEnglish Separatist Tradition will interest some of ourreaders. t is an attempt to assess the significance of1 JR 1 (not to be confused with the T.V. one ) as a secondgeneration separatist and pastor of the Pilgrims, withinthe context of early Stuart Nonconformity.If I was asked to select the journal I enjoyed reading themost in terms of interest and importance then t is justpossible that THE BIBLE TRANSLATOR might be singled out.t is published by the United Bible Societies in America

and edited by Paul Ellingworth with the long-range goalof providing information, help and guidance to translatorsworking in Bible translation around the world. I am underno illusion as to ts pre-suppositions and methods butbecause of the importance of the subject for the world-widechurch and the information conveyed alternately in technical and practical issues, I throw out the challenge that5.


10/63

more of our readers whoread this publicationdevelopments.are competent in this field shouldregularly and keep abreast of

Some of the articles I found both absorbing and provoca-tive. The interesting study on The Use and limitationsof linear editions (April 80) by John Ellington encour-aged me if only for the reason that even some translatorsneed help in checking translations against the original

l a n g u a g e ~ . To those who wish to use interlinear editions,the writer offers advice and suggestions covering fourbasic areas, namely, introductory material, textual basis,interpretation and expression of meaning.The January number carried major articles on 1The majoritytext and the original text of the New Testament and Discourse analysis and Bible translation , while in July therewas a most fascinating and disturbing article by SiegfriedMeurer on Theological Considerations about the Distribution of Selections Did you know, for example, that twas only a few years ago that Bible Societies began to distribute selections of Scripture and the only areas wherethis is not done are Iceland and Eastern Europe? By 1978,for example, over forty-three times as many selections asBibles and over thirty-two times as many selections as NewTestaments were distributed. This is an astonishing deve-lopment and the publishing of selections has been describedas one of the most significant steps taken by BibleSocieties in the last hundred years. Meurer gives tworeasons to substantiate his claim. Firstly, less than 50of the population of Western Europe buy and read books sothere is, he says, no point in giving everyone a Bible,which is a difficult book 11 (p306). Secondly, althoughthe Bible is distributed t is not being read, so in introducing selections Bible societies have entered the realmof mission. But choosing and publishing texts and portionsis of great significance requiring considerable deliberation and both theologians and biblical experts need to havea role in the producing of selections. In the selectionsthey do suggest that the entire Bible be read, but is thisenough?6.


11/63


12/63

in 14:6 and in 18:23 ' therefore 1 does not indicate a logical relationship with what precedes as the reader expects).There are also, claims Newman, problems with prepositionsRomans 4:16, 1 Corinthians 10:2, Hebrews 10:19-20, etc),

an inconsistency of language development and footnotes donot meet the needs of the average reader (p332) with theexception of very useful footnotes on Luke 19:13, Acts1:12 and 7:36. While the 1973 edition was revised for the1978 edition of the NIV Bible he cites verses like Matthew27:63, Acts 2:27, 7:51, 13:36 where words changed for the1978 edition are actually a retrogressive revision {p335)His conclusion is that while the NIV translation is generally faithful and dependable , i t reveals glaring weaknesses in the area of translation theory {p336).ow for a complete change of topic. Some of our Congre

gational brethren are no doubt familiar with THE JOURN Lof the United Reformed Church History Society which incorporates the Congregational Historical Society {founded1899) and the Presbyterian Historical Society of England(founded 1913). Subjects dealt with in October were1 Robert Browne and the Dilemma of Religious Dissent',1Separatists in Prison 1 and then a valuable article byRobert Norris on Some Dutch Influences upon the Independents at the Westminster Assembly followed by a reviewarticle on 'The World of Philip Doddridge' by Tudor Jones.Even more fascinating and rewarding was the reading of

HUR H HISTORY, a quarterly journal published by the American Society of Church History. Articles likeSchleiermacher and the Reformation: a question of Doc

t r inal Development' (June), 'Moses Mather (Old Calvinist)and the Evolution of Edwardseanism and 'Cultural Crisisin the Mormon Kingdom: A Record of the Causes of KirtlandDissent' (September) I found absorbing, but i t was theMarch issue that appealed to me the most. Those of youinterested in Zinzendorf or Gilbert Tennent should read'Radical Pietism of Count Zinzendorf as a ConservativeInfluence on the Awakener Gilbert Tennent After readinglain Murray's excellent biography of A.W.Pink in theBanner o Truth (August-December 180) I found i t most

8.


13/63


14/63

antithesis ' (June).I was also more favourably impressed by THE S OTTISHJOURN L OF THEOLOGY last year. Two articles at least madefascinating reading, the f i rs t being Or Bryan Gray's'Towards Better Ways of Reading the Bible 1 in which herightly maintains that the growing r i f t between biblicalscholarship and the dogmatic and moral theologians of thechurches is a challenge to us al l He underlines the needto examine the presuppositions of the biblical scholarsand at the same time to investigate the questions raisedby their crit ics (vol 33, No.4, p301). The other articlethat interested me was by Thorwald Lorenzen of the BaptistTheological Seminary in RUschlikon, Switzerland, entitled'Responsible Preaching' (vol 33,No.5). Referring to boredcongregations, discouraged ministers and the many attemptsto discover new forms of communicating the gospel, he saysthat these features signal a crisis of preaching, a crisiswhich is theological in nature because preachers themselveshave become uncertain as to who God is and unsure whetheror not their preaching corresponds to His will. Thisdecline in authentic and responsible preaching is indicatedby the fact, says Lorenzen, that many ministers lack aninterest in serious theological study. believe that whathe says here is relevant to many Evangelical pastors.There is an obvious lack of responsible theological studyamongst us so that the writer 's stricture is applicableto us: they often take more time for the social side ofthe work and also read more popular books and otherpeople 1s sermons All the emphasis on counselling, visi-tation, evangelism, social action and administration willultimately not build proper churches i f the minister 1swork is not undergirded by a serious and continuous studyof theology (p453). Most dissatisfyingly and expressinghis own cri t ical position, the writer then offers somereflections on how to rediscover responsible preaching.Quoting Bultmann approvingly, he cri t icises the traditionalunderstanding of God as 1 up there 1 or 1out there' andspeaks of the need to go to the biblical text without theo-logical pre-commi tments and in radical openness to theBible so that the sermon is not just a proclamation 1of 110.


15/63

or 1about 1 God but a participation in God's coming to man.For such preaching and exegesis, the historical crit icalmethod, he argues, is an indispensable tool We have heardall this before and seen the sad results of such anapproach; i t is the Word alone God deigns to bless and use.During 1980 several journals occupied themselves withquestions about the Bible. The SPCK publication, THEOLOGY,included an article on 1Revelation Revisited 1 in i ts September issue. Supporting Basil Mitchell 1s contention thatthe notion of revelation demands more than mere human conjecture, discovery or theological interpretation, but thatthere must be some communication between creator and thecreature" (p339), Jeff Astley expresses his dissatisfactionwith the popular 'non-prepositional' view of revelation,describing i t as a rather vacuous one (p341). He feelsthat religious epistemology has suffered from the predominance of a 'visual ' understanding of sensing, that is, a1 vision 1 or 1 glimpse 1 of the unseen, yet i t is throughwords people intentionally disclose their characters orwishes and i t is through the ears we receive such disclosures. We learn very l i t t l about people just by looking at them. Astley acknowledges that one attraction ofthe visual model for theology is that i t avoids theembarrassment of an infallible revelation yet - in a conclusion we strongly disagree with - he suggests that prepositional revelation does not entail infal l ibi l i ty . Concerning the mechanism of revelation he finds i t surprisingthat theologians have so rarely suggested telepathy as themode of revelation between God and manTH OLOGY TOD Y is an American quarterly launched in 1944with the purpose of sponsoring a "rebirth of vi talChristian theology" and especially a rediscovery of theBible as the church 1 s Supreme standard of reference".In his April editorial, 'The Bible in the Church Today 1 the editor sees signs of a future for biblical theology,even in academic circles. 1978, for example, was a vintageyear with an unusual harvest of Old Testament theologies,including works by Zimmerli, Kaiser, Westerman, Terrienand there is also new theological ferment among New

11.


16/63


17/63

Sydney: An Historical Study, 1SS4-1S93 The review ofHendriksen s commentary on Luke in the May-August issueis on the whole favourable, but i t is crit icised for thebewildering number of sub-divisions, his lack ofinterestin the Luke-Acts debate and Luke s distinctive theologicalperspective, his verbose, conversational style, excessivelength and free use of imagination, yet his genuinespiri tuali ty, orthodoxy and erudition are duly acknowledged (p52). With l i t t l enthusiasm, I must confess, Iread through the CHRISTIAN an Anglo-Catholic journaloffering serious reflection on Christian faith and contemporary living. The editorial for Ascension SO warnedagainst swift and neat labelling (p3) and sees a currentswing to over-definition, over-formalism and over-tidinesswhich certain events of the late 7 s would seem topresage Turning to the more evangelical journals, the quarterlyJOURN L OF THE EV NGELIC L THEOLOGIC L SOCIETY continuesto be good value for the 12.00 annual subscription,especially in view of i ts aim to remain rigorously theological11 as i t develops an increased sensitivity to thetask of making sure that our teaching says the same thingsas the Bible (p1, March 1 SO). In this same issue therewere helpful articles on 1 A Critique of Liberation Theologyby a Cross-Cul turalized Calvinist 1, 1 Hermeneutical Issuesin the Book of Daniel , 'The Sign of Jonah , 1Revelation2 and Pauline Eschatology , 1George Whitefield: TheNecessary Interdependence of Preaching Style and SermonContent to Effect Revival and a review article dealingwith Professor F.F.Bruce 1s contribution to Pauline studies.The June issue was even more absorbing with contributionslike 'Fundamentalism and the Jew , 'Tongues Speech: aPatristic Analysis 1 and 1Limits of Cultural Interpretation 1 After defining the terms I culture 1 and 1 contextualization1 in the la t ter art icle, J.R.McQuilkin thenapplies himself to the difficult question of how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate culturalinterpretation and application. He presupposes inerrancyand insists that while cultural understanding may illuminethe text, i t must not be allowed to contradict or set aside

13.


18/63

the plain statement of Scripture. But on what basis doesone distinguish between the authoritative and enduringmessage of the original author and the temporary historicalor cultural context? The 'holy kiss ' , washing each other'sfeet, women covering their heads are only a few of thequestions raised in this context. McQuilkin outlines someof the approaches which have been suggested and then givesbrief i l lustrations of possible ways of handling Scripturepassages that seem to present cultural problems for somecontemporary societies.He f i rs t of all distinguishes between interpreting andapplying Scripture. What does the passage mean? is thebasic hermeneutical question which must be the basis forapplication and not vice versa. To leap dynamically froma perceived cultural pattern underlying the text to somecontemporary equivalent undercuts the authority of theinspired words of Scripture (p121). The command to wivesto be subject to your husbands cannot be dismissed asculturally conditioned for this would by implication rela-tivize the next command to children to obey parents andthe prior one to obey God. In application uif the prin-ciple, however, a more democratic atmosphere may prevailin the West than in the East, while in both areas theScripture principle may be honoured.Another question which should be asked is , To whom is thisteaching addressed? , for not all teaching in the Bibleis addressed to all people of all time; t is crucial how-ever, that the Bible i ts l f designates the recipient ofi ts teaching rather than externally imposed criteria. Some-times the commands of Scripture are presented simply asGod's will, so the only proper response is obedience andtrust . When another reason is given in support of acommand i t is important to determine whether or not theScripture i ts l f treats the reason and even the commandas normative (e.g. women and head covering in 1 Corinth-ians 11). Furthermore, apparent conflicts should be re-solved by using the analogy of faith and greater weightshould be given to that which appears (1) more often (2)with greater clarity and (3) with the authority of Christ14.


19/63

and the apostles. A key question to be answered then isthis: does Scripture command obedience to the form i tselfor is the command merely given in the context of anhistorical or cultural form? I t is Scripture alone whichmust determine whether the context as well as the commandis normative.All this means that in an age when sociological conceptsare being increasingly used to interpret and explain awaythe plain intent of the biblical text, s t r ic t limits mustbe placed on cultural interpretation.Professor F.F.Bruce has now retired as editor of theEV NGELIC L QU RTERLY and has been succeeded by ProfessorHoward Marshal of Aberdeen University. We extend our goodwishes to both men and look forward to reading futureissues under the new editor. t was refreshing to see anarticle by Dr J.I.Packer in the January-March issue called'Puritanism as a Movement of Revival', He defines revivalas a work of God by his Spirit through his Word bringing

the spiritually dead to living faith in Christ and renewing the inner l ife of Christians who have grown slack andsleepy. In revival God makes all things new giving newpower to law and gospel and new spiritual awareness tothose whose hearts and consciences had been blind, hardand cold. Revival thus animates or re-animates churches. to make a spiritual and moral impact on communities.I t comprises an ini t ial reviving, followed by a maintained

state of revivedness for as long as the visitation lasts(p3). Relating the subject to the Puritans, Dr Packerargues and i l lustrates well three main facts. First ofall , that spiritual revival was central to what the Puritans professed to be seeking. Secondly, personal revivalwas the central theme of Puritan devotional l i terature and,finally the ministry of Puritan pastors under God broughtrevival.n average of seventy pages are devoted by the C LVIN THEO-

LOGIC L JOURN L to book reviews and notices; the reviewsare generally helpful. The November issue also includedan invaluable and up-dated Calvin bibliography. Penetrating15.


20/63

and competent articles such as 'The Lord's Motivated Con-cern for the Under-Privileged and 'The World Council ofChurches and Interreligious Dialogue' deserve careful reading. In the lat ter , Klaas Runia shows how inter-religiousdialogue has increasingly obtained a prominent place inthe thinking and activities of the World Council ofChurches WCC). Up until Evanston, 1954, the main approachstressed the 11full and only-sufficient revelation of Him-self in Christ, but in the mid-fifties a growing interestin other religions suddenly became evident. At f irs t theterminology used was cautious (e.g. Non-Christian fai ths ' )but such cautious terms were soon replaced by expressionsuch as 1 resurgent non-Christians 1 or 1the Word of God andthe Living Faiths of Men 1 The term 1 dialogue 1 alsoappears in this period so that in 1961 at New Delhi adifferent emphasis is discernible. In The New DelhiReport 1 we are told in the section on 'Witness 1 thatChrist loves the world which he died to save. He is

already the l ight of the world, of which he is Lord andhis l ight has preceded the bearers of the good news intothe darkest places 11 We are then told that the HolySpirit will lead believers to WHERE CHRIST ALREADY ISand such believers must be sensitive to the ceaseless workof the Holy Spirit AMONG MEN (p77). The concept of 'dialogue' continued to be used and received more attention,for example, at the World Mission Conference at Mexico Cityin 1963. Here the term is not merely a method or techniquein evangelising but rather a description of a BASICATTITUDE towards people of other faiths. At Uppsala in1968 the term was widened again to include the idea thatthe partners in dialogue have something in common. At theinvitation of the Central Committee, Hindu, Buddhist,Muslim, Sikh and Jewish representatives attended the 1975Assembly in Nairobi and participated in the discussionson the section entitled Seeking Community: the commonsearch of people of various faiths, cultures and ideologies 1 While bland syncretism was denied, yet some delegates feared that a more refined syncretism i .e . thatChrist is savingly present in other religions as well) wasbeing advocated. The WCC Theological Consultation on1 Dialogue in Community 1 held at Chiang Mai, Thailand in16.


21/63

April 1977 deemed t wise to avoid the term syncretismbecause of i ts negative implications. However, some dis-turbing statements were made in the official report ofthese discussions, including the suggestion that Christianworship should include the meditative use of the holy booksof other religions.Syncretistic tendencies are apparent in recent Roman Catho-lic theology, too, warns Klaas Runia. Karl Rahner s advo-cacy of anonymous Christians and Raymond Panikkar s(India) view that the good Hindu is saved by Christ notby Hinduism, but t is through the sacraments of Hinduismthat Christ normally saves the Hindu. Rather morecautiously, syncretism was officially stated by the SecondVatican Council in its CONSTITUTION O THE CHURCH .Protestant theologians also express this view, especiallytheologians from India and Sri Lanka like Russell Chandran,S.J.Samortha and Wesley Ariarajah. Many Protestant theo-logians both in the East and in the West regard oppositionbased on Christ 1 s words in John 14 verse 6 as expressingan outmoded understanding of the Bible. Continuing Bult-mann 1 s approach, they argue there is not just one Jesusin the New Testament; rather, we have all kinds of faithstatements about him composed at a given time which, whileimportant, have no binding authority, so that no one Scrip-ture is more valid or more true than another and even Hinduscriptures can provide a meaningful context of faith inChrist for an Indian Christian,To this kind of approach and conclusion, the evangelicalsmust say a heartfelt NO Faithfulness to Scripture demandsthat we firmly adhere, for example, to what the Covenantof Lausanne says on the subject: 11We also reject as deroga-tory to Christ and the Gospel EVERY KIND OF SYNCRETISM ANDDIALOGUE which implies that Christ speaks equally throughall religions and ideologies 11 (Para 3).In T RNITY (January 1 80), Bernard Ramm attempted to fore-cast developments in theology and Christendom during theeighties. He predicted that the current evangelicalrenaissance will continue and that strong, fundamentalist17.


22/63

churches will become increasingly more attractive to peopleweary of drug abuse, sexual permissiveness and mountingschool and family problems. While he thinks the Churchof Rome is in for a decade of turmoil he also suggests thatthe World Council of Churches will face a crisis with manyof i ts supporting denominations. Theology, too, will con-tinue to pursue issues rather than a great systematic theo-logy resulting in a fragmented or mood theology . Rammanticipates that theological education will become moreecumenical and continue to accept as virtuous a tolerant,theological pluralism. Somewhere, he adds, there isgoing to be a big ethical confrontation with the enormousexpansion of computerized knowledge and vast memory banksand the citizens who have come to realize they are totallynaked before the computerized world (p32). Ramm endedhis forecast with the hope that a new Jonathan Edwards willemerge in American evangelical theology for nowhere , helaments, is there an evangelical giant.After a lecture tour in England in the early weeks of 1980,Carl Henry attempted an assessment of the contemporaryevangelical scene in England ( 'Eternity' , March 1 80). TheChristian prospect is increasingly blurred and in somerespects worsening The institutional church continuesto decay the overall ecumenical trend continues to pro-voke the evangelical scene are some of his observations.

Henry does see some promising signs, notably the evan-gelical impact in the student world and the desire ofbelievers and some churches to evangelise. He also drawsattention to the decline in the number of British evangelical scholars pursuing advanced biblical research. Forexample, for the i rs t time in years Tyndale House,. Cam-bridge is occupied mainly by Americans.Only a month later, CHRISTIANITY TODAY in a news feature,entitled 'Britons Wed Baptist Ecclesiology with ReformedTheology', focussed attention on the Baptist resurgencein Britain. The enormous influence of Dr Martyn LloydJones (whom we miss greatly), the origin in 1970 and subse-quent influence of the Carey Conference and the monthlyWestminster Pastors' meeting - 90% of whom, suggests Errol18.


23/63

Hulse, hold a baptistic theology - are key factors whichhave contributed to the rise of reformed baptists. Thekey to Reformed Baptist survival and success, adds WayneDetzler, seems to be believing like the Puritans andpreaching like the Wesleyans (p52, 4 April).Several other articles in this journal deserve mention including an interview with F F .Bruce. This distinguishedew Testament scholar denies that his theology hasessentially changed and, he adds, I am not sure about

my 'changing view' on scriptural authority. For 4 yearsI have signed the Inter-Varsity doctrinal basis. Thatincludes a rather strong assertion of biblical infal l i bili ty. And I s t i l l hold that the irst chapter of theWestminster Confession is the finest statement on the doctrine of Scripture ever published (p17, 1 October).Despite these statements, in a later issue Harold Lindsellwrote to say that Dr Bruce does not hold to biblical inerrancy, so that his contribution to evangelical l ife hasbeen seriously undermined While some may agree thatbiblical inerrancy should not be the primary thing thatshould be said about Or Bruce, yet i t is something thata full-scale review of his l i fe should have mentioned .(p8, 21 November). But Bruce 1s contribution to ew Testament studies has been both significant and phenomenal,rivalling the German Adolph Harnack who averaged one significant work per week during his active l ife . In the lastten years, for example, Professor Bruce has published about5 separate articles or volumes.In an article, 'Charting ew Directions for ew TestamentStudies 1 , Or Bruce reports the conclusion of some scholarsthat Gospel criticism has reached an impasse. Sourcecriticism, form criticism, tradition criticism and redaction criticism have all been pursued as far as they arelikely to take us and the situation in which we now findourselves is not encouraging (p19, 1 October). The mainpurpose of Gospel study has been to establish the l ife andteaching of the historical Jesus but one of the exponentsof the criteria of authenticity by which the sayings ofJesus are to be assessed remarked to Bruce that he thought

19.


24/63


25/63

the sociological approach to the New Testament.he argues, of the social culture of the N. T.our understanding of the N.T. text and message.

The study,will enrich

In an earlier issue, Dr J.I.Packer scrutinized the charismatic renewal and felt encouraged after the exercise.Charismatics strive to realize the ideals of totality inworship, ministry, communication and community (p17, 7March); surely, continues Packer, we see divine strategyhere in a movement which by i ts very existence remindsboth the world and the church that Christianity in essenceis not words but a Person and a power we shall all dowell to try and learn the lessons spelled out here (p20).

Dr R.T.Kendall s research thesis, published by Oxford University Press, entitled Calvin and English Calvinism',was reviewed by Carl Henry in C. T (21 March). TracingCalvin s doctrine of faith, Kendall argues that the Westminster Confession and catechisms really represent a revision of Calvin's thought; in addition, Kendall claims thatBeza's theology, not Calvin's, was the decisive influence,e.g,, on William Perkins. While careful not to take sidesin this debate, Henry writes that Kendall s claims shouldserve to stimulate an illuminating new era of Calvinstudies (p38). We hope to return to this subject in afuture issue of 'Foundations' but in the meantime I expressthe hope that the debate will proceed in a responsible andcharitable manner.In view of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1 s death on the 1st March1981, I must draw attention to the absorbing C. T' interview with him a year earlier (8 February). Concerning his1call ' to the ministry, the 1Doctor 1 speaks of his verygreat struggle during his last eighteen months in medicinein which he lost over twenty pounds in weight facing upto an irresist ible call from God to preach. Explaininghis refusal to co-operate in the Billy Graham crusades,the 'Doctor' said, 1 have always believed that nothingbut a revival, a visitation of the Holy Spirit , in distinction from an evangelistic campaign, can deal with the si tuation of the church and the world I have never been21.


26/63

happy about organized campaigns. In the 1820's a verysubtle and unfortunate change took place, especially inthe United States, from Azahel Nettleton 's emphasis onrevival to Charles Finney's on evangelism. There are twopositions. When things are not going well, the oldapproach was for ministers and deacons to call a day offasting and prayer and to plead with God to visi t them withpower. Today's al ternat ive is an evangelist ic campaign:ministers ask, whom shall we get as evangelist? ' Thenthey organize and ask God's blessing on th is . I belongto the old school .How did the 1Doctor 1 see the immediate future? I seenothing but collapse beyond democracy there now loomsei ther dictatorship or complete chaos. The end is morel ikely I 1 m not sure at al l that we have 20 years . .Civil ization is collapsing.This prediction may or may not be correct but we need torecapture for ourselves the 'Doctor 's ' sense of urgencyand his unshakeable conviction concerning the importanceof bibl ical doctrine as well as the necessity of the HolySpir i t s working. Meanwhile we thank God for his powerfuland fa i thful ministry.

TRANSLATING SCRIPTUREN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Rev Philip H. Eveson M MTh LondonIn the f i r s t issue of th is journal, we included a Studyon Modern Bible Translations with special reference to theNIV New Testament. A most helpful feature of that ar t ic lewas the discussion of basic issues raised by modern t rans-lat ions.What l ight can be thrown on th is controversial subject by22.


27/63

a study of the very early trans11i t t ing and t ranslat ing,for example, of the Old Testa.ent? Here the Rev PhilipEveson addresses h i u e l f to th is i11portant question. Inthe next issue, the writer will deal with the XX in re la-tion to the ew Testament, the early church fathers andt ranslat ion work, as well as textual t radit ion including,for example, the XX versus the Massoretic Text, etc.

r Eveson is Principal of the Kensit Meorial Bible Collegeand Resident Tutor at the London Theological Seminary.The subject of Bible t ranslat ing has aroused a great dealof heated discussion and the evangelical press is con-stant ly producing l i te r ture arguing the pros and cons.My only plea for entering the debate is to redress thebalance somewhat and from a study of the very early historyin transmitting and t ranslat ing Scripture, part icularlythe Old Testament, to emphasise the amazing providence ofod in preserving the text and to appeal for an approach

to t ranslat ing which is less governed by l inguist ic scienceand the craving to be popular.There are a number of reasons why i t is helpful to tacklethe subject from an historical angle and to concentrateattention on the Old Testament:a History is meant to teach us lessons. t helps toplace our present concerns against a larger background.The problems and tensions we face over these issues arenot new ones. Jewish rabbis and the leaders of the EarlyChristian Church wrestled with the same matters, and i tis useful to consider how they grappled with the areas ofdiff icul ty .b We hear a good deal about New Testament textual prob-lems and there is a tendency, in some quarters at least ,to dismiss the Old Testament as presenting no problems ofa textual nature. Well, that is not quite the case andthe Rev John Waite in Issue No.2 of Foundations argues thatthe Hebrew text has not been preserved entirely errorless.c The New Testament often quotes from the Old Testament,not in the original Hebrew or in Greek transli teration of

23.


28/63

the Hebrew, but in Greek translation form. What translation or translations did they use and what can we learnfrom them?Before proceeding further, we should perhaps draw attentionto some of the considerations to be taken into account inBible translation work.1 I t is the Word of God which is being translated andnot just any piece of l i terature. The uniqueness of theBook as the 1God-breathed 1 Scriptures demands a humble,reverent approach.2 True scholarship is important in such work. I t requiresexpert knowledge in the biblical languages, particularlyin the way these languages are used by the various writersof the biblical books. Again, a very good grasp of thelanguage into which the Bible is being translated isessential.3 The need for honesty and integrity is vital in translating Scripture. Theological bias must be scrupulouslyavoided. Sectarian interests and emphases have no placein Bible translation work whether they be 1 Fundamentalist 1 ,1Romanist 1 , Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc.4 Then there is the necessity for the translators topossess not only an intellectual appreciation of the contents but also a biblical understanding of the text, i emen who are taught by the Spirit and have 1 the mind ofChrist 1 Cor.2:9-16).5 The considerations in Bible translating are differentin a country which already possesses vernacular Scripturesand a long history of biblical study and knowledge thanin an area of the world where the Bible is being translatedinto a new language for the f i rs t time. Translating intoa new language can involve very acute problems, especiallywhen that language does not seem to possess the corresponding words and ideas of the original. Often new words haveto be formed Cf. Tyndale 1 s inventions: 1 scapegoat 1 , Passover, 1mercy-seat 1 . n the other hand, in translatingthe Scriptures into a new language for the f i rs t time,there are no complications as to whether the aim is to24.


29/63

prepare a t r n s l t ~ o n primarily for Christians or forreaching non-Christians. There are no sacred traditionsto maintain. But when a revision of existing versions takesplace or the bold step is taken to re-translate, i t isnecessary to bear in mind the long history of ecclesiastical and personal use as well as the missionary interest.6) In areas where there are translations of the Scripturesthere is the fundamental question of whether i t isnecessary to attempt a revision or re-translation whenexisting versions have served the needs of Christians sowell for many generations. Various reasons are given forattempting such work including,

( i) where there has been a multiplicity of versions,Christians have felt the need of one authoritative,generally-accepted translation. Cf. the background toJerome's Latin version and our own King James version.In the preface to the A V the translators te l l thereader that their aim has been out of many good onesto make one principal good one .( i i) advance in knowledge. The meaning of the originallanguages has become better known over the years. Thisis particularly true of Hebrew and Aramaic. The A Vtranslators admit There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once (havingneither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak),so that w cannot be holpen by conferenr:e of places.Ugari t ic , Akkadian and Aramaic texts recently foundcan be of some help here. Then, again, more ancientHebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures have come tol ight which are sometimes of aid in deciding what theoriginal texts should be.i i i ) language is always changing. Words and phrases

become obsolete or change their meaning over the years.7) Finally there is the matter of the method of translating. Long ago Alfred the Great wrestled with the twoopposing principles in translation work, i .e . the word forword method and the meaning for meaning. The early Wycliftranslations of the Vulgate were word for word which often

25.


30/63

did not make much sense in English besides being quite unhelpful in conveying the meaning of the original. If themethod of meaning for meaning is adopted, the problemthen is of how far to go in this direction. Are we totranslate the words of the original as l i teral ly as possible provided that no violence is done, let us say, to English or Welsh or Gaelic usage and that the sense of theoriginal is not impaired, or are we to convey the meaningof the original in free, idiomatic language without muchregard for the exact wording of the original but at thesame time avoiding the danger of producing a paraphrase?The jargon now used by linguistic experts for these twola t ter approaches is 1 formal correspondence 1 or 1 formalequivalence 1 (as witnessed in the A V and R.S. V.) overagainst equivalent effect or dynamic equivalence (as,for example, in the Good News Bible).In this study we shall concentrate on the Hebrew, Greekand Latin versions of the Old Testament Text.

THE HE REW BIBLEMost of the Old Testament is written in 1 the language ofCanaan {Is.19:18), the language spoken by the Israelitesin Canaan and through which they worshipped God t isalso designated Jewish in Kings 18:26, Is.36:11, etc.Despite i ts presence in modern English versions, the term1 Hebrew 1 is not used of the Israelite language within theOld Testament l i terature. The f i rs t known occurrence ofthe word with this meaning appears in the Apocrypha (Prologue to Ecclus). Aramaic passages in the Old Testamentare to be found in four places: {i) Dan.2:4 - 7:28; i i )Ezra 4:8 - 6:18; 7:12-26; i i i ) Jer.10:11; {iv) in Gen.31:42 two Aramaic words for a place-name.Both Hebrew and Aramaic belong to the same broad branchof Semitic languages, known as North-West Semitic and coverthe area of Syria and Palestine. Canaani te, Aramaic,Ugaritic and possibly Eblaite belong to this branch. Withinthe Canaanite group can be placed Hebrew, Moabite andPhoenician. They could almost be described as different26.


31/63

dialects of the language of Canaan. But Aramaic was a sep-arate division within the main branch so that the ordinarycitizens and soldiers in the days of Hezekiah would nothave been able to understand Imperial Aramaic, which hadbecome the common language of diplomacy II Kgs .18:26).

Syriac is a later development within the Aramaic grouping,arising in the i rs t century B.C. The A V in line withChristian writers stretching back to the Early Church usesthis word 1Syriac 1 to refer to the Aramaic of Bible days(cf. Dan.2:4, etc). To confuse matters even more, untilthe end of the nineteenth century A D Aramaic was alsocalled Chaldean {cf. Baxter s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldean Lexicon ).The script used to write down the words of the T deservessome comment. When Moses and the early prophets wrote theWord of God they would have used an early Hebrew script,different from the Hebrew characters we are used to in ourBibles. All the books of the T written before the Babylonian exile would have been written in this Old-Hebrewor Phoenician script. This was an alphabetical script incontrast to the cuneiform wedge-shaped) writing and theEgyptian hieroglyphics. From this script most of thealphabets of the world, including Greek and Latin, arederived. The origins of this alphabetical script are unknown but i t may have been developed in the south of Pales-tine or the Sinai peninsula around 16th century B.C. Inthe amazing providence of God a script emerged just priorto the giving of the law at Sinai and the writing of theBooks of Moses which was easy to learn and required hardlyany improvement 1 Some biblical fragments of Leviticusand Deuteronomy, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, are writtenin this early script and Jewish coins issued during thetimes of independence and revolt from 1st century B.C. to2nd century A D bear this Old Hebrew script. A directdescendent of the early alphabet is the Samaritan scripts t i l l in use today among the surviving Samaritan familieswho live in Israel.The Square Hebrew alphabet familiar to us (cf. Ps.119)began to supersede the old script soon after the Jews

27


32/63

returned from the Babylonian exile. According to Jewishtradition Ezra brought i t back with him from Babylon. ThisSquare script , also called 1Aramaic 1 or 1Assyrian 1 is adevelopment from an Aramean form of the Old Hebrew scriptand began to be fashionable in Assyrian and Babyloniancommercial circles from the 8th century B.C. s the Ara-maic language became more popular, familiarity with theAramaic script naturally spread.Here then, we have an interesting development. From aboutthe time of Ezra, the Jews gradually took over this Aramaic 1 script to write the Hebrew langauge and to copy outthe OT scriptures, and the majority of the Hebrew textsfound at Qumran are in varieties of this 1Aramaic 1 orSquare script. This situation is not surprising when

we remember that the Jews began conversing in the Aramaictongue from the Persian period onwards and all the officials and men of ability were corresponding in i t and thususing the 1Aramaic 1 script . t is important to appreciatethat the use of the 1Aramaic 1 characters to produce freshcopies of the Hebrew text of Scripture did not involvetranslating into the Aramaic language. They simply transl i terated the Hebrew using the new script . t is alsoclear from the Qumran scrolls that, for a long time, thetwo scripts were in use side by side and some traditional is ts even though they accepted the Square script , couldnot bring themselves to use i t for the divine name Y W(cf. Habakkuk commentary and the Psalm scroll from Cave11). I t is possible that the Samaritans kept their scriptures in the old script for the same traditional reasonsand also to give the appearance of orthodoxy and sanctity.Hebrew in common with Aramaic and other Semitic languages,has twenty-two let ters all of which are consonants. Butfour of them were introduced at a fairly early date toserve a dual role. Not only were they consonants but theywere sometimes used to represent vowels. In early Hebrewdocuments these consonants used as vowels are rarely foundbut they become very common in the Qumran texts. Our HebrewBibles today also possess a fair number of these vocalicconsonants to aid pronunciation, and for many centuries28.


33/63

the T text existed in this way as a consonantal text.When Hebrew and Aramaic were spoken every day i t presentedno problems to read and write using only consonants. Butwhen the languages passed out of daily usage the need forhelps in the pronunciation of the T grew.Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as we have noted above, bearwitness to a stage when vocalic consonants were added tothe text in great abundance to facil i tate accuracy in pronunciation. This practice was soon abandoned in the 2ndcentury A D because of the danger of adding to the text.When Greek was widely spoken among the Jews during theearly Christian centuries, transli terations of the T Textusing Greek characters became popular but later rabbinicalauthorities considered i t quite improper and unacceptable.The well-established oral tradition of the Jewish rabbisfor reading the Scriptures also had i ts limitations. Therethus emerged from about the 5th century A D various vowelsystems invented by the rabbis, but the one which gainedgeneral acceptance was the Tiberian system of vocalizationconsisting of dots and dashes to denote various vowelsounds. This system was not completed until the 10th century A D The advantage of the dots and dashes, called1 pointing 1 , lay in the fact that i t enabled the Jewishscribes to write the vowels over, under and within the consonantal text without in any way altering or disturbingi t

In all this activity the rabbis were seeking to preservethe right pronunciation and meaning of the consonantal textas i t had been handed down to them orally. The form ofthe Hebrew text which we now possess, consonants and vowelpoints, is known as the Massoretic Text Mass ora tradit ion , the textual tradition of the Jewish scholars calledMassoretes. These are the men who gave themselves to thetask of carefully transmitting a text which has remained,with very minor exceptions, constant from at least theearly 2nd century A.D., and who eventually worked out thevowel system for preserving the traditional pronunciationand removing ambiguity in the reading and interpretationof the text.

29.


34/63

The Massoretic scheme of pronunciation, in the nature ofthe case, presents a stylized system and from early Greekand Latin transli terations of the Hebrew text as well asfrom other sources, i t is clear that we cannot regard i tas authoritative. In other words, we cannot say that inevery case the Massoretic system gives us evidence of theexact pronunciation of the Hebrew and Aramaic as they werespoken by the rabbis of Old and New Testament times. Almosta thousand years, in fact, separates the time when Hebrewwas a generally spoken language and the completed Massoret ic work of pointing the text. Nevertheless, i t is aremarkable system and along with the Massorites 1 othercareful work i t has greatly assisted in our understandingof the text.Turning, finally, to the type of Hebrew language used inthe Bible, scholars are not sure what Biblical Hebrewreally was as a language. oes i t represent the languagespoken by the Israelite tribes in Canaan and by the Jewsin post-exilic times or was i t more of an ecclesiasticallanguage? Now this is a very complex subject and we canonly briefly refer to tentative conclusions but i t doesraise some interesting points. Granted that the Massoreticsystem of pronunciation is late and art if ic ial , the actuallanguage which we find in the consonantal text seems notto have reflected the full range of contemporary Hebrewusage during the biblical period. The later MishnaicHebrew i .e . the Hebrew of the rabbinic oral teaching -1 the teaching of the elders 1 , on the other hand, bearswitness to a more developed coloquial type of Hebrew.Ullendorff 2 suggests that Mishnaic Hebrew is perhaps thevernacular so rarely encountered in the predominantly(though not exclusively) formal language of the OT Hecompares the language of the Quran which is a more l i terarytype and 1a supra-tribal koine 1 with the various popularand tr ibal Arabic dialects and he concludes that in likemanner Biblical Hebrew may well be a kind of compromiselanguage of the t r ibal confederation, Israel and Judah,while the Mishnaic was the coloquial .The suggestions of Ullendorff are certainly interesting30.


35/63

and thought-provoking but does not the T i t se l f provideus with clues to establish our thinking in the rightdirection? The Bible informs us that Moses was the firstto give Israel an authoritative body of l i terature (cf.Ex.24:4; Deut.31:9,24-26), presumably in the Old Hebrewalphabetical script and in the language of Canaan (Ex.34:27f; 40:20; I Kgs.8:9; Deut.31:10-13,22). The language ofthe Mosaic Law has influenced the language used in the wor-ship of God in Tabernacle and Temple (cf. many of thepsalms and prayers of the OT and both in turn have helpedshape the T l i terature produced in the Davidic court andby the prophetic movement. From the beginning, then, i twould appear that the language of the T has transcendedthe coloquial and tr ibal dialects. The evidence seems tobe pointing us in the direction of saying that BiblicalHebrew was in many respects a special 1 koine 1 Hebrew setapart from the very f i rs t when the law was given to Moses.The Lachish Letters are of some interest in this connec-tion. They present us with one of four examples to dateof ancient extra-biblical Hebrew. These let ters werewritten at the time when Judah was defeated by the Babylon-ians in 587 B.C. and reveal the distressed state of theland. They are written in a very neat Old Hebrew scriptand although there are certain styl is t ic differences, overall they bear testimony to the language of Biblical Hebrewand scholars have commented on certain similarities withthe books of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. E.Wurthwein ' isof the opinion that the Lachish Letters confirm the factthat the language of the biblical books preserved in theMassoretic Text is ''predominantly that of pre-exilic Judahand that the writing is the product of a literary tradition centuries old .By way of summary, we have noticed that while i t wasnecessary to transliterate the T Scriptures from the OldHebrew script into the Square script, the language andstyle in which the Scriptures were originally written werenot altered. There is movement with the times to preservepronunciation and to clarify the text but again thelanguage remains constant. Here is a clear indication of31.


36/63

the providence of God preserving the language and l i terarystyle as original ly given. The Biblical l i terature isneither allowed to become coloquial nor permitted to bepassed on in contemporary speech.

TO BE CONTINUED

REFERENCES1. E W ~ r t h w e i n The Text of the Old Testament,

translated by E.F.Rhodes, 1979, p52. E. Ullendorff, Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?

Studies in Semitic Languages and Civilizations,1977 pp 3-163. op. c i t p128

CHRISTIAN SOCIAL WORK?REFLECTIONS FROM CHURCH HISTORY

Dr. Ian Shaw, CardiffThis is the fourth ar t icle we have published on the subjectof social action. In Issue 2, Alan Gibson provided us withan agenda for evangelical discussion and in the followingissue Ian Stringer argued convincingly that i t is throughthe responsible exegesis of the Bible that our att i tudeto social action should be fored and developed.

Exegesis he warned, is hard work. There are no validshort cuts p30, Issue 3). 1Issues in Social Ethics 1 wasthe t i t l e of an ar t icle by Peter Milsom in Issue 5 in whichhe su rized papers given at the 1980 B.E.C. Study Con-ference.32.


37/63

In th is ar t ic le Dr. Shaw, Lecturer in Sociology in Univeristy College, Cardiff , provides us with an historicalperspective on the subject.In what ways ought Christians to consider and act uponthei r responsibility to demonstrate concern for the socialwelfare of thei r fellow human beings? ne approach to th isquestion is to ask how Christians in previous generationst r ied to find an answer.Church History should not be looked to as a store of blueprints which simply require copying in our own day. Ourpredecessors may have made mistakes. Moreover, there arespecial characterist ics in our own si tuat ion. The wholestate welfare apparatus will inevitably influence the waywe work out applications of biblical principles which weshare with ear l ier generations.Having acknowledged these l imitat ions, there remain goodreasons for t rying to outl ine the quali t ies of evangelicalsocial concern in ear l ier years. I t is too easy to assumethat Christians today are wrestling with the relationshipbetween social concern and the gospel for the f i r s t time.A realisat ion that thi is not the case will safeguardagainst the opposite pi t fa l l s of heady optimism and conservative negativism. These extremes probably representthe twin dangers facing evangelical believers in negotiat ing this question. n the one hand there is a tendencyto loosen the biblical moorings, evidenceP in some of thenee-evangelical writings on social issues. n the otherhand, there is s t i l l in evidence a fundamental mistrustof expressions of social concern, by those who would havei t believed that zeal and public sp i r i t cannot be indulgedwithout vi ta l and practical religion suffering and dyingaway Archibald Bruce, 1746-1816). Both att i tudes springfrom a lack of bibl ical realism, and are uninformed by theinvigorating, yet cautionary stimulus of church history.The aim of th is ar t ic le is to different iate andto the attempts of Christians, with greatersuccess, and with more or less conscious intent ,

doorto

just icelesser

wrestle33.


38/63

with their responsibilities to evidence concern for thesocial welfare of others. In particular we are concernedto identify the various ways in which they struggled toelucidate the sense and extent to which a distinct Chris-tian approach to the problem was needed.Optional Extra?Evangelical Christians of previous centuries typicallyworked on the assumption that being a Christian entaileda more or less distinct Christian approach to the care ofthe needy. More precisely t was not to be regarded asan optional extra or fringe activity for those who had thetime inclination and means. Such activity as they engagedin was characterised by a belief that specifically Chris-tian and biblical justifications could be offered forChristian social concern. Arising out of this they gener-ally believed that their social work practice was or oughtto be distinctively Christian in some way with regard bothto the objectives and in some cases the specific methodsadopted. Though they did not always regard social inter-vention as a necessarily controversial activity in thesame sense as preaching the gospel they typically wereaware of important differences between themselves and someother broadly Christian patterns of social intervention.Auguste Francke was the founder in the late seventeenthcentury of an institution for the residential care ofchildren which was to be admired and imitated for the nexttwo hundred years. The following quotation from a sermonillustrates the centrality of social concern for Christiansof his generation.

34.

If I find my mind never so well disposed to relievethe wants of the poor and necessitous; yet in all thisI do no more than barely answer my duty. I own Godalmighty to be my Lord and my Sovereign and thesupreme disposer of all that I have. And since e hathcommanded me to exercise charity to the poor; whyshould I be so bold as to rebel against His holy willby withdrawing that from the poor which e will have


39/63

bestowed upon them? God forbid "(Francke)

The example of Francke particularly influenced JonathanEdwards in the following century. Edwards, not a man touse words lightly, wrote as follows:

"It is our bounden duty, as much a duty as t isto pray, or to attend public worship, or anything elsewhatever I know of scarce any duty which is so muchinsisted on, so pressed and urged upon us, both in theOld Testament and New as this duty of charity to thepoor (Edwards)

'Grounds Peculiarly Christian'Not only was such responsibility regarded as a focal onefor the Christian, t was believed that t could and shouldbe justif ied on specifically Christian grounds.Recent attempts to find grounds for a Christian involvementin society have centred on the doctrines of creation andcommon grace, in the hope that they will provide a basisfor expression of concern which is not restricted tonarrowly ' spir i tual ' issues, but which finds ts imp,ehsfrom characteristics which are common to Christians andnon-Christians. This is a comparatively new avenue ofthought, and for those who are accustomed to think in suchterms, w find ourselves in strange territory when w lookat the way Christians of previous generations accountedfor their social involvement. While one occasionally comesacross references to the 1manishness 1 of humanity as ajustif ication, few attempted to work out a biblicaldoctrine. Far more common were justifications of social concerngrounded in the work of Christ, and the effect they thoughtthis ought to have on their l ives. Needless to say, thereare sharp limitations on the extent to which such groundscould be shared with unbelievers.

35.


40/63

Christ 's ExampleII Corinthians 8:9 was a favourite text in the argument.If Christ loved us and died for us when we were poor, anddid so ungrudgingly, then we are to pattern ourselves onhis example. We are to love one another as Christ hasloved us. This is a new commandment, a distinctivelyChristian one. Christ 's love involved self demand, topeople far below him, who could offer no recompense, whenthey were opposed to him. Our social concern shouldexhibit the same qualities. I t was, to use Charles Hodge swords on grounds peculiarly Christian that such concernwas to be enforced.Proof of New LifeWhile the example of Christ was the major justification,i t was not the only one. Although i t figured much lesslargely than we might anticipate, social concern was regar-ded as one evidence of regeneration. Thus, speaking fromJames 1:27, Charles Spurgeon insisted that th is charity must be manifested i f we would have 'pure and undefiledreligion before od and the Father Christian TiesMost earlier writers insisted also on the special responsi-bil i ty which exists between fellow Christians. While rela-ted to al l there was a special relation to other Christ-ians. So, in response to a social gospel i t could beargued, the true brotherhood, according to Christianteaching, is the brotherhood of the redeemed (Machen).Christian Social WorkThose holding such views believed also that their socialwork practice was, or ought to be, distinctively Christianin some way. Thus, George Muller, who made residentialprovision for children lef t with neither parent in 19thcentury Bristol was always ready to insist that

36.

The chief and primary object of the work was not thetemporal welfare of the children, nor even theirspiri tual welfare, but to show before the whole world


41/63

and the whole church of Christ that God is readyto prove Himself as the living God so that we neednot go away from Him to our fellow men.

(Muller, a)To state the position more formally, t was believed thatChristian ethics were not entirely congrous with systemsof social welfare current at any given time. Neither wast regarded as satisfactory to view Christian values as

supplying a topping up operation for basic human values.Because Christian ethics have their own distinct source,they would, t was believed, produce their own independentresults . 1

Consistent with these views, people like Muller and Spur-geon were prepared to stand aside from others whennecessary. t was not that they saw themselves as havingnothing in common with other groups. They were ready tobe influenced by patterns of care then current in society,and, at the laying of the foundation stone for Stockwellin 1867, Spurgeon declared that 0n these occasions we donot meet either as Church-people or as Dissenters. Whenwe have to help orphans, or to take care of the poor, welay aside all that. (Spurgeon}. They were well aware thatthe offence of the cross was not a matter which primarilyapplied to this sphere.Yet apart from the need to show our love of truth bytruthful love ( Spurgeon) in si tu at ions when the gospelis under fire, there does occur an occasional example wherepractice is positively influenced by a specificallyChristian frame of reference. A significant example of thisoccurs in George Muller s handling of discipline problemsat Ashley Down - significant because almost certainly unconscious. Various accounts in the Dismissals Book keptby Muller i l lustrate his patience in an age of severe dis-cipline, and suggest by the phraseology that Muller isdrawing on the biblical model of excommunication. One boywas dismissed five years after entering the home Despitedelinquency, boasted activit ies with a gang of thieves andabsconding on two previous occasions, he had until thenbeen received back, hoping that by bearing with him,

37.


42/63

admonishing him, speaking to him privately, praying withhim, and using a variety of other means, he might be re-claimed . Then, solemnly, with prayer, before the wholeestablishment (he was expelled, i f by any means th is las tpainful remedy might be blessed to him. Yet we follow eventh is poor young sinner with our prayers . (Muller, b)The reason for relat ing the foregoing is not to suggestthat Christ ians should opt out of social work in favourof private , independent Christ ian social work pract ice.Though there is clearly a case for healthy Christian act i-vity within the voluntary sector , such a conclusion wouldbe a far too simplist ic transfer to the 1980's of formsof act ivi ty born in very different circumstances, Yet th isglance a t evangelical involvement demonstrates the closeintertwining that ought to exist between practice andpurposes.Social Work and the GospelWhat is the relat ion between social concern and preachingthe gospel? ow does social work re la te to 1 good works 1 ,and what are legitimate motives for engaging in i t? Again,should help be given entirely indiscriminately, withoutregard for the character , at t i tude or religion of the reci -pient, or are some more 'deserving' than others?These are l ive issues throughout the f ie ld of social wel-fare . To many, the answers given by Christians, at leastunti l recently, seem at once obvious, worthy of l i t t l eattention and, on the whole, thoroughly disagreeable. I tis widely assumed that social concern was demonstrated,i f at a l l only as a bait for preaching the gospel. Worses t i l l i t is believed that 1 good works 1 were the resul tof morbid introspect ion, and a desire to prove e l ig ib i l i tyfor eternal bliss .Demarcation DisputesWithout doubt, a close relat ionship was envisaged betweensocial involvement and Christ ian witness, and the formerwas often made subordinate to the la t te r . This is plain38.


43/63

enough from the earlier part of this article, yet i t doesnot te l l the whole story. In the work of Thomas Chalmers,for example, there was a somewhat different emphasis.Chalmers, an important formative influence on the earlydevelopment of social work, established a series of schemesfor the relief and education of the poor of Glasgow andEdinburgh from 1819 onwards. e was acutely conscious ofthe abdication of Christian responsibility to the statepoor law machinery, and the failure of the church to reachthe working classes. In the 1840's he selected an area ofabout two thousand population in the worst part of Edin-burgh. e divided the 411 families into twenty distr ic ts ,and appointed a home visitor for each distr ict . The signi-ficant point for our purposes is the insistence of Chalmersthat the visitors were not to regard their activit ies asa kind of undercover evangelism. You ladies , he remarkson one occasion,

go about among the poor with a tract in one hand, anda shilling in the other. ow can the eye be single?- i t will keep veering from the tract to the shilling ,

(Harvey)There was, he felt a want of compatability between thetwo objects and he kept them separate - not, of course,to shelve evangelism, but rather to strengthen the effec-tiveness of both his evangelism and his social concern.e may have fel t the same misgivings concerning the broad

generalisations about 'mission' that are popular in ourown day.Pay OffsI t is a commonplace to play down any personal benefitsreceived by the social worker from his own practice. Whilea stress on the reciprocal nature of social work help islargely absent from present day thinking, people in earlierperiods were less squeamish in recognising such benefitsas part of social work. Indeed, Christians often openlyused such arguments to encourage others to help the socialoutcasts of their day.On the question of benefits in the world to come, they had39.


44/63


45/63

Something more is necessary than to compassionate the poor- he must also consider them; and let him learn at lengththat there is indeed a more excellent way of charity thanthat to which his own headlong sensibilit ies have impelledhimThis need, in Chalmers 1 words, to 1 consider 1 the poor wasargued urgently in the lat ter part of the last century. In-discriminate charity was denounced and 1 disinterestedsocial service' replaced i t . However, criticism of indis-criminate almsgiving is older than the Reformation.Lollards, the Reformers, Puritans and the founders of theSP K all made appeal to similar motives.Throughout this century, however, this position has beenroundly criticised as l i t t le more than a rationalisationfor t ightfisted self interest . A brief review, however,of the evidence demonstrates readily that Christians haverarely, i f ever, conformed to the stereotype of limitingsocial concern to those who on moralistic criteria arejudged to be deserving - despite widely held opinions tothe contrary.Edwards, because of his characteristically thorough treat-ment of the question, must serve as our example. 3 Havingargued the case for Christian charity, and encouraged hishearers to implement i t he deals with a number of hypothetical objections, one of which is that he is an i l lsort of person; he deserves not that people should be kindto him He disagrees. We are to love our neighbour asour self , and our enemy counts as our neighbour. He refersto his favourite justif ication, in reminding them to loveas Christ has loved.He then anticipates the further objection that they arenot obliged to give until they know that the poverty isnot due to idleness or prodigality. This replies Edwards,was the excuse that Nabal used for not showing hospitalityto David. There be many servants nowadays that break awayevery man from his master (I Samuel 25: 10). This shoulddiscountenance too great a scrupulosity as to the object

on whom we bestow our charity, and the making of thismerely an objection against charity to others, that we do

41.


46/63

not certainly know their circumstances . While we are notto be naive, yet i t is better to give to several that arenot objects of charity, than to send away empty one thatis . Edwards would probably favour some sort of means testin our present system, but he is no advocate of repressiveness. Neither would he have countenanced a laissez-faireapproach. I t is not to devise l iberal things if we neglectall l iberality t i l l the poor come a begging to us .But suppose, his imaginary questioner asks, that we havegood evidence for idleness or prodigality. Even here,Edwards argues, the Christian is left with room tomanoeuvre. There may be physical or mental handicap ('wantof a natural faculty to manage affairs to advantage 1 ) and1that is to be considered as his calamity 1 and not hisfault. Furthermore, i f there is a fault, i t is not our responsibility to punish by withholding help. We are to applythe principle, as Christ hath loved us once more. Thisapplies even in extreme cases of vicious idleness andprodigali ty over a long period prior to our intervention.f there is hope that the attitude of the recipient may

change, then the customary analogy s t i l l holds good - Wefoolishly and perversely threw away those riches with whichwe were provided . nd in the most pessimistic situations,where help is thought certain to be of no avail, we s t i l lhave responsibility to the family members. To those whoargue that this is only a backdoor way to benefiting theoffending family member, Edwards says that the command tohelp is 'positive and absolute' , and we st i l l are torelieve family members.Edwards clearly rejects the use of the 'deserving' principle in determining help given. While he retains the beliefthat individuals may be responsible for their hardship,pronouncement or even the ratification of deserts is notthe job of fellow members of society.Evangelical RetrenchmentThe more pervasive concern of earlier Christians with thesocial dimensions of their faith serves to i l lustrate andconfirm a recurrent theme of criticism, to the effect thattwentieth century evangelicalism has been marked by a42.


47/63

negative and defensive attitude to social involvement. ehave become so far cut off from earlier Christian activityand thinking in this sphere - partial and incomplete asi t was - that some have reached the altogether false conclusion that evangelicalism never has had anything dis-t inctive to offer. t is not a big step from that positionto conclude that there is something in the heart of evan-gelicalism which makes i t impossible to develop a basisfor social action. Hence the implication in much writingthat evangelical social involvement has an in spite ofquality, carried out in the face of fundamental doctrineswhich tend to lead elsewhere.That the fundamental thrust of such a conclusion is untenable should by this point have become clear. Christianshave worked out biblically based rationales for socialaction, and have derived such rationales directly from theheart of their understanding of scripture.hy did such thinking come to a halt? The question is com-

plex, and l ies beyond our scope. However, as a correctiveto some common criticisms, we should observe that the evan-gelical response to the preaching of a social gospel was,i not excusable, more understandable than frequently implied. The criticism is commonplace. In rejecting the tota-l i ty of l iberal theology, evangelicals lost the l iberalemphasis on social issues, thus throwing out the baby withthe bathwater. Typical of the targets of such complaintswere the immediate forerunners of the IVF who, against thespread of higher criticism reasserted the central featuresof the gospel and added,

we can see nothing in scripture or in history to leadus to believe that social work on any other foundationlasts to eternity, or is to the glory of God Johnson)

In an interesting ar t icle , Waiter argues that, because ofthese deficiencies, evangelicalism drifted towards conser-vatism, secularism and theological liberalism. The sugges-ted sequence of events is significant. However, much ofthe available evidence suggests the reverse order of events

the decline of evangelicalism preceded rather thanfollowed the rising stress on social issues from the mid

43.


48/63

nineteenth century onwards. Rather than seeing a lack oftheological framework for social involvement as an occasionof dr i f t we should s tar t by observing the consequencesof a fai l ing grip by Christians on doctrines at the heartof the gospel. To adopt the unintended euphemisms of onewriter, i t was the 'mellowing' of evangelicalism, and theemergence of theologically more 'progressive' evangelicalsthat heralded an extension of certain kinds of social work.

Heasman)Present day analyses of social work motivations need totake greater account of social service as an alternativeto, and perhaps a form of rejection of Christian fai th .In the l ight of such developments i t was more than understandable that evangelicals should look askance at substantial elements of emerging social work - i t was virtually inevitable. Having admitted as much, the precisecharacter of th is negative reaction so far has been inadequate 1 y documented, and may we have been overstated.There were Christians around in the inter-war period whowere careful to assert that the bibl ical stress on the worship of God as the chief end of man, does not mean thatin the Christian view the worship of God is ever to becarried on to the neglect of service rendered to one 1 sfellow-men Machen)ConclusionMost of the i l lus t ra t ive material on Christian social involvement in th is art icle has been drawn from periods whenevangelicalism was a powerful force in society. TheChristian response to issues of social concern, contraryto much opinion, appears to have been at i t s strongest inperiods when a thoroughgoing, conservative evangelicalismwas in evidence. To state the principle more generally,the Christian response to social welfare reflects thegeneral condition of evangelicalism at a given time. Likewise, divisions in evangelical att i tudes to social issuesneed to be seen in the context of more general divisionsbetween evangelicals. The coherent evangelicalism of theearl ier part of th is century bred a certain stance on welfare issues. Evangelicalism in the las t decade has fragmented into charismatic, neo-evangelical and reformed44.


49/63

groups, thus producing a corresponding division over theChristian response to social involvement.This historical survey of Christian writing and actionshould not lead us to the conclusion that no common groundexists between Christians and unbelievers. Indeed, weshould be prepared to look for common cause in unexpectedplaces. Yet some of the people mentioned in this chapterhave a lot to teach us, at points where the present renaissance of evangelical interest is weakest. Their argumentfrom scripture is strong. While God s creatorship is usedin the Bible as a motive to helping the poor (Proverbs 14:31; 17:5. Job 31:13-23), i t is not put forward as the soleor even predominant motive for the Christian. Chris t shumanity, God s sovereign elect ion, the evidence of sanctif ication and, perhaps most of al l the example of God sgrace in sending Christ, are al l present Matthew 25:40,James 2:5, I John 3:17,18, II Corinthians 8:9, John 13:24;15:17). Neither are we to m ke a strong disjunction betweenthe two, as i f God s creation and redemption are two paral l e l purposes that co-exist but never coincide.While earl ier Christians have attempted biblical jus t i f i -cations for their ac t iv i t ies their emphasis w s f i r s tand foremost, on the importance of l iving as a Christian.Christians engaged in social work are too prone to regardthemselves as fall ing into a special category, and havingspecial problems which the local church is i l l-equippedto deal with. Alternatively, i t is implied that they havesomething special to offer the church. In either case thereis a danger of inflated notions of what the Christiansocial worker can offer , and the risk of injured self pityat not being appreciated.In conclusion, we should re i tera te the danger of l i f t ingthe specific form of ear l ier Christian solutions wholesaleinto the late twentieth century. Changing patterns of welfare provision in our society me n that while voluntarysocial work plays a large and even increasing part , m nyChristians wishing to practice social work are l ikely tot ra in on government sponsored courses for employment inlocal authority agencies. I would guess that a high proport ion of churches known to readers of this magazine have

45.


50/63

at least one of thei r members with social work experiencein the public sector .Second, there is always the danger of investing the pre-dominant at t i tudes of the day with Christ ian sanction. ehave indicated as much in ear l ier discussion. In our ownday there is a too ready use by Christ ians of terms l ike1 deserving I and 1 undeserving 1 How many of us would bewill ing to work out the principles stated by Edwards?Further, there is a related tendency to regard off ic ia ldecisions as always r ight , and to suspect that interestin social reform springs from a basic questioning of odordained s ta te authori ty.Final ly, there is a need for Christ ians to work at theposi t ive aspects of present day secular social work, andto imitate where appropriate. Cause for Concern ChristianConcern for the Mentally Handicapped) is a case in point ,where Christ ians have r ightly benefitted from the movementtowards care of the mentally handicapped in the community.Indeed, in the writer 1 s estimation they might carry the

principle s t i l l further).To refuse to take th is l ine cannot be defended on thegrounds of preserving Christ ian principle . e have arguedmore than once that the form in which Christ ian principlesare to be expressed in u area of social concern needsfreshly working out in every generation. There is a regu-lat ive principle governing church order, but not one forour social responsibi l i t iesFailure to recognise the manifestations of common gracein the welfare act iv i t ies of unbelievers can have detrimen-ta l effects on Christ ian work and witness. There have beenperiods in the present century when to a greater or lesserextent, the successors of George Muller and CharlesSpurgeon have allowed loyalty to what they believed to bea founding ideal to blind them to a hardening of thear ter ies of Christ ian social outreach.Yet, while we cannot copy in our own day the answers givenby ear l ier Christ ians, they do provide suff ic ient stimulusboth to warn us off wholesale disregard, and to st r ive toemulate their sensi t iv i ty to bibl ical demands.46.


51/63


52/63

BOOK REVIEWSJ MES B RR ND THE BIBLE CRITIQUE OF A

N W LIBER LISMby o: Paul Wells.Presbyterian &Reformed Publishing Co 1980. 406pp 12.00This is the book to which Or Wells referred in his articleentitled 'Perspectives on Barr's Theology' in issue No.4of this journal, and that article should have created aneager anticipation for this book. If that was your responseto what Or Wells wrote last year, then, to say the least,this book will not disappoint you. t will however, makedemands of every reader. This is only to be expected fromwhat is part of a doctoral research programme but carefulattentiveness will be more than repaid.The importance of this book arises from two facts. First,and most obviously, i t is a book about the Bible i .e . i tsnature, status and meaning. The cruciality of Scripturein preserving and promoting genuine Christianity in everyage needs no emphasising in this journal, and Or Wells isfully aware of this . Secondly, and this is the distinctive-ness of this book about Scripture, the subject is dealtwith in a truly contemporary setting i .e . in terms of thewritings of a living and influential theologian. ProfessorBarr has for thirty years given attention to the interpre-tation of the Bible and i ts status. As a result Or Wellshas supplied us with a theological study on the currentdoctrine(s) about Holy Scripture, complete with biblio-graphies.Professor Barr has become known again among evangelicalsfor his attempted demolition job on 'Fundamentalism' (cf.the review of his book by the Editor in issue No 2 of thisjournal). What is not as widely known about him, however,is that in his various writings over the years Barr hascrit icised other approaches to the Bible. In fact, he hassubjected the two major Biblical theological movementsof the century viz. Neo-Orthodoxy and the Biblical TheologyMovement BTM hereafter) to lengthy and scholarly cr i t i48.


53/63

cism. Or Wells presents this material.The basis of Barr's critique of both Neo-Orthodoxy and theBTM is one and the same as his charge against 'Fundamentalism t is his objection to any a priori dogmaticassumption about the nature and status of the Bible beingmade, and what these three approaches to the Bible do havein common, in spite of the important differences betweenthem, i s that they regard the Bible as related to divinerevelation. This is anathema to Barr as he regards thisassociation as not only not borne out by exegetical study,but as being the means by which true exegesis is preventedand Scripture not allowed to speak freely .BARR and NEO ORTHOOOXYBarr s evaluation of Barth and J.K.S.Reid is pr

foundations journal volume 06

Documents