Fifty Years Of Anglican Theology
An Era in Anglican Theology, by Arthur Michael Ramsey (Scribner’s, 1960, 192 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Philip E. Hughes, Editor, The Churchman, London.
In 1959 the Archbishop of York, Dr. A. M. Ramsey, delivered the Hale Memorial Lectures of the Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston. These lectures are now made available to a wider public between the covers of this book. The era surveyed by the Archbishop is that stretching from Bishop Gore to Archbishop Temple—or, more precisely, from the publication of Lux Mundi in 1889 to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. This period was a half-century of transition during which Anglo-Catholic modes of thought gained an ascendancy in the theological circles of the Church of England (though not in the life of the Church as a whole). At the same time, it was a lean period for theology of a distinctively Reformed and evangelical character, not because the Reformed and evangelical well had run dry, but because of the prevalence of a pietistic temper which viewed theology (in the more academic sense) with distrust and even fear as something dangerous, and therefore to be avoided by young men going up to the universities. This frame of mind is now, happily, a thing of the past and there are clear indications of the renascence of a virile evangelical theology in the Church of England.
The era under review is one in which Anglo-Catholicism underwent a process of “liberalization” and thereby was probably saved from suffering theological eclipse. At important points the transformation experienced was of a somewhat radical nature, especially with regard to the incorporation of the evolutionary concept into the Anglo-Catholic theology of the Incarnation (which had the effect of shifting the nuclear point of redemption from Calvary to Bethlehem) and the adaptation of the theology of Scripture to the canons of modern criticism. Anglo-Catholicism also evinced an awareness of the need for the development of a strong social conscience within the Church.
The contributors to Lux Mundi were, as Dr. Ramsey observes, “men of synthesis” in whom were “united the piety and churchmanship of the Tractarians and the critical spirit which had found clumsy expression a few decades earlier in Essays and Reviews.” And, as he also says, “if at the first sight the essayists had seemed to be rebels, it was not long before they became the dominant influence in Anglican divinity.” The Tractarians, 50 years earlier, had been rebels in their doctrine of church and sacraments (and in the churchmanship that was appropriate to that doctrine). Lux Mundi marked a further rebellion, involving the adjustment of Anglo-Catholicism to current fashions in science and criticism. This had the effect of making Anglo-Catholic theology “respectable,” which in turn helps to explain its advance during the period under review.
But in saying this we do not wish to leave out of account the advantage it enjoyed in its possession of men of strong intellect and personality—Charles Gore, the leading mind not only behind and in Lux Mundi but throughout nearly the whole of the succeeding half-century; Henry Scott Holland, a zealot of genius; William Temple, a great Archbishop of Canterbury, held in universal admiration and affection; and other men of ability and determination.
The scene chosen by Dr. Ramsey—Gore’s intellectual successor in our generation—is graphically and graciously portrayed. As usual, the Archbishop’s own learning is not obtruded, but it is the foundation on which this most readable work is constructed. He affirms that during the era he has surveyed “there was for all typical Anglicans, not least those of the Anglo-Catholic school, no hesitancy on the cardinal convictions of the Reformation: that works cannot earn salvation, that salvation is by grace alone received through faith, that nothing can add to the sole mediatorship of the Cross of Christ, that Holy Scripture is the supreme authority in doctrine.” But, impressive though this affirmation appears to be, those who read it must not be misled into thinking that a state of harmony concerning the great Reformation principles of faith and churchmanship existed in the Church of England during this period, or exists now. Differences of interpretation are so marked that there appears to be a yawning, and in some respects unbridgeable, gulf between the sacramental doctrine and churchmanship of evangelicals on the one hand and Anglo-Catholics on the other. Nevertheless, it is gratifying to find the Archbishop of York drawing attention to these “cardinal convictions of the Reformation,” and it is earnestly to be hoped that they will become typical in depth of Anglicanism during the years that lie ahead—years that promise to be of crucial significance for the future of the Church.
PHILIP EDGCUMBE HUGHES
Barth’S Dogmatics
Church Dogmatics, Vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation (Part I), by Karl Barth (T. & T. Clark, 1959, 428 pp., 45s.), is reviewed by James I. Packer, Senior Tutor of Tyndale Hall, Bristol.
Whether or not Karl Barth’s systematic theology is the best of modern times, it is certainly the biggest and the most stimulating. To debate with him point by point as one reads him is a theological education in itself. The volume has the same massive proportions, richness of matter and power to fertilize thought as its predecessors. It is the first of three on the doctrine of creation, and contains only a single chapter divided into three parts.
The first part seeks to mark off the Christian doctrine of creation as something different from a hypothesis of science or a postulate of philosophy. To start with, says Barth, this doctrine stands as an answer to the question not of the reality of God but of the real existence of the world. Furthermore, it is only known and understood as an element in faith’s knowledge of the grace of God in Christ. It was, of course, to be expected that Barth would insist on this, since the ruling principle of his entire theology is that the reference-point of all statements that are truly theological and theologically true is the historic revelation given in Christ. Here he maintains that creation and redemption are two successive stages of a single work of grace, the former looking on to and deriving its meaning from the latter.
The second part of the chapter works out this thought by an elaborate exegesis of the double creation narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, where the link between creation and redemption is, to Barth’s mind, unambiguously forged. These two chapters, he maintains, are not myth, for myth, being in its nature not a window disclosing specific events of the past but a mirror reflecting general truths about the present, cannot be properly historical. Barth prefers to call these narratives saga (Sage, ‘tale’), since their substance is historical, though the manner of telling them is poetic and imaginative. Barth’s exegesis of them in the light of his view of the covenant of grace is not always free from the suspicion of being imposition as well as exposition, but it is thorough (nearly 250 pages) and enriching.
Finally, the third part stresses that the created order which God has made and approved must have the full approval of God’s children too. On this point Barth appends brilliant discussions showing how near he is to Leibnitz and how far from Marcion and Schopenhauer.
The whole book is marvelously integrated. Reading it, one sees why von Balthasar speaks of Barth’s beautiful theology.
The chief problems with which the book confronts us spring directly from Barth’s conception of the Christocentricity of Scripture. It is methodologically unbiblical, Barth holds, to interpret the fact of Christ in terms of the doctrine of creation and the fall; rather, the relation must be reversed and creation itself interpreted in terms of God’s purpose in Christ. This inverting of the method followed by all Protestant dogmatics hitherto leads to some controversial pieces of exposition. Thus, the New Testament teaching that all things were made in and through the Son is held to mean not that the Word was active as Creator when the world began but that when God created he had in view, and was prompted by, his already formed purpose to glorify Jesus Christ as the incarnate Mediator. Similarly, the statement that God approved what he had made as ‘very good’ has, according to Barth, nothing to do with an original excellence now marred by sin, but due to be restored through Christ; all it means is that the created order, such as it was, was perfectly adapted for the fulfilment of the plan of grace. The ‘goodness’ of creation is thus as much a fact now as ever it was; indeed, it is precisely because God has thus approved it as a means to this end that this present world must be judged the best possible. In all this Barth seems to be saying that God created simply in order to redeem; which supralapsarianism, thus expressed, would seem to rob the fall of its biblical significance.
Barth sets before us other novelties too, for example, that the image of God in Genesis 1:26 ff. is entirely a matter of the ‘togetherness’ of male and female, and that the chaos of Genesis 1:2 was never an actuality but merely a banished and rejected possibility. These suggestions do not immediately convince, but Barth’s arguments for them deserve at least respectful attention.
The volume will repay those who invest time in studying it. You do not have to agree with Barth to profit from him.
JAMES I. PACKER
Word Studies
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, by Leon Morris (Eerdmans, 1958, 249 pp., $3), is reviewed by Burton L. Goddard, Dean at Gordon Divinity School.
It is not surprising that an Australian Anglican should have the gift of presenting an exegetical work in a style succinct and incisive. Dr. Morris gets to the point and deals clearly in few words with major problems. In short, he weaves into the fabric of his exegesis an amazing number of capsule-like word studies, and in so doing writes at his best. Not only does he draw upon his own knowledge of Greek words and their usage, but he refers repeatedly to such mines of information as the Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon, Deissmann’s Light from the Ancient East, and The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, by Moulton and Milligan.
Another Tyndale commentary, this is designed particularly for one who has a working knowledge of Greek, although readers who are strangers to the original language will understand most of the text. Much of the material dealt with in Paul’s letter is admittedly difficult, and it is not easy to come up with unquestioned interpretations. Dr. Morris is well aware of this and refuses to dogmatize where the evidence is not convincing. However, he frequently acquaints his readers with various suggestions as to interpretation and offers his tentative judgment as to the preferred exegesis.
A main thesis of the work is the idea that much of the letter was written to answer questions posed by the Corinthians in a letter they had directed to Paul, and that other material is due to Paul’s reception of private information concerning problems in the Church at Corinth. Although Morris does not employ the analogy, the same difficulty is present as in a situation in which the interpreter tries to make an adequate analysis even though he hears but one end of a telephone conversation—the receiving end.
Despite the fact that the book has little to say of the relevance of the Pauline material to modern problems, Morris, by implication at least, holds before us the importance of observing the many checks and balances which Paul dwells upon in his treatment of the doctrine of Christian liberty. He bypasses the problem of whether the charismata continued after apostolic times. No attempt is made to relate the “castaway” passage to the doctrine of eternal security; in fact, more searching exegesis could well have been made of this difficult section. In one of the few places in which judgment is made by way of application to the Church today, the reviewer feels that Dr. Morris concedes too much in his reference to the Corinthian Church’s responsibility to expel the man guilty of incest that “The application of all this to the modern scene is not easy. Our different circumstances must be taken into account” (p. 93).
The author has no hobbies to ride. It is evident that he understands Paul’s teaching to coincide with historic orthodox Christian theology. Reflected repeatedly are such concepts as the integrity of Scripture, the Trinity, the sovereignty of God, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of our Lord.
So clearly is the book outlined, both in the introduction and in the body of the text, that the reader constantly has in mind the overall perspective and sees each part in relation to the whole.
The book communicates in clear fashion the general teachings of First Corinthians, together with lively verse-by-verse comments. The limits of the Tyndale Commentary style, rule out involved technical discussion of the Greek text and the discussion of major problems raised by the Epistle.
BURTON L. GODDARD
Relevance Of Reformers
Protestant Catholicity, by Gordon Rupp (Epworth, 1960, 56 pp., 6s.), is reviewed by Gervase E. Duffield, Secretary to the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, Cambridge.
Here are two essays whose importance easily exceeds their size. The 1959 Cadoux lecture is an admirable survey of the current position in Reformation studies. Professor Rupp of Manchester criticizes those historians who refuse to take the religious issues in the sixteenth century seriously, and rejects their view that religion is always controlled by politics, sociology, economics, or the like. Nor will he accept the trite Romanist generalizations from E. L. Mascall or Louis Bouyer. Forthright writing such as this is long overdue, but it comes with added power from the pen of so noted a scholar.
He advances two modest propositions: that Reformation studies have an importance in themselves and are acquiring a new perspective, and that they are relevant today, especially to questions of Church unity. An invaluable summary follows of recent work on Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and the Anabaptists. As we might expect from a Methodist historian, the Calvin section is the least satisfactory; there are scholars other than Barthians working in this field. Perhaps also Professor Rupp is not critical enough of recent Anabaptist studies, but despite these criticisms the reviewer knows no better brief introductory outline to Reformation studies.
GERVASE E. DUFFIELD
Individual Reformation
The Idea of Reform, by Gerhart B. Ladner (Harvard University Press, 1959, 553 pp., $10), is reviewed by Earle E. Cairns, Chairman, History and Political Science Department, Wheaton College (Illinois).
This is not a book about social reform. Neither is reform linked with the Greek deterministic cosmological eternal recurrence or world-year or world-week with its Golden Age, nor the vitalistic spontaneous renewal of growth of the Renaissance with its roots in the classical past, nor the ideal of millenarian renewal to absolute perfection. Instead reform is linked with freedom and intention (p. 35) and is the re-forming of the individual into the image-likeness of Christ subsequent to conversion (pp. 3, 34, 62). Such reform is both personal and communal.
The author in Part II traces the idea of reform from Jewish roots to Augustine. Paul is pictured as one who links conversion with renovation that brings reform. The Greek Fathers saw reform as the soul’s return to Paradise, the deification of man because of the Incarnation and Crucifixion, and the Kingdom of God which Eusebius tended to link with Constantine’s earthly empire. The Western Fathers, especially Augustine, were closer to Paul. Reform was linked with Christ’s work in both the individual and the godly society of the City of God which was not equated with the Kingdom. Reform which is individual and personal, comes from God (p. 279). The persistence of reform in early Christian liturgy and canon law is demonstrated.
In Part III the idea of reform is related to its communal expression in the celibacy and poverty of the monasteries, Augustine’s brotherhood of secular priests living by these ideals, and the conversi who held monastic ideals while living in the world. Personal and communal holiness was the aim (p. 423).
The discussion in each discursus adds to the value and understanding of the book. Footnotes averaging about a third of each page testify to the scholarship of the author in the classical, patristic, and modern writings relating to his subject.
Though the author does stress conversion as the beginning of reform, he seems to tie it too much to baptismal regeneration (pp. 32, 50) and give too much place to human effort in his definition of reform (p. 35).
He has done good service in pointing out the need of Christ being developed in and revealed in Christian persons and communities to have any impact upon the world (p. 283). Out of Christian growth would come social action in the Church and then the world (Gal. 6:10). Reading the book is a rewarding but tough and challenging exercise.
EARLE E. CAIRNS
Dialectical Encounter
Communism and the Theologians, by Charles C. West (Westminster, 1959, 387 pp., $6), is reviewed by Francis E. Mahaffy, Missionary of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Eritrea.
What advice can the Christian give to fellow believers who are under the pressures of a Communist regime? What should their attitude and ours be toward communism and Communists? West seeks the answer to these questions by an evaluation of the views on communism of such theologians as Tillich, Niebuhr, Barth, Brunner, Hromadka, and Gollwitzer.
Dr. West criticizes Hromadka’s naïveté in giving an unqualified “yes” to communism. He enters into a discussion of the philosophy of Tillich and his religious socialism, but feels, however, that he is guilty of molding Marx to fit his own philosophical system. He criticizes Niebuhr for his satisfaction with the New Deal type of social changes, for failing to grasp the radical nature of the revolution taking place in the world, and for failing to provide the basis for a personal Christian approach to the Communist.
Karl Barth, in his judgment, has provided Christendom with the clearest and best theological approach to communism. His Christology is set forth as providing the frame work for an encounter with communism and Communists. By his Christology, however, he means something very different from the historical Christian view of Christ as God incarnate, whose acts in history are of redemptive significance for the believer. Christ is presented as a pointer to super-history, to the act of God for man which is irrational and can never be subjected to a system of doctrine.
West wonders if Barth’s emphasis on grace and election does not lead to an unrealistic view of sin, and to indifference to the relative distinctions of good and evil in politics. He criticizes Barth for failing adequately to apply his own theology to practical situations. Yet he contends that Barth has done more than any other theologian to make a Christian approach to communism possible.
The book gives an accurate outline of the views of prominent theologians in regard to communism. However, it claims to be the study of an encounter and one may well ask the question if and how these theologians encounter communism. The dialectical theologians, like Marx, reject the notion of absolute truth, an absolute standard of morals, in fact, any rational system. One thing they all insist upon is that there is no ideological Christian answer to communism. In his introduction West says, “… we have already assumed one conviction which Communism and the Christian faith hold in common: that the true, the good, and the real are to be sought in no realm of ideas, in no system of doctrine or philosophy, in no order of society or culture, but in the living relation of concrete human beings” (p. 17). West sums up the Christian encounter with the Communist when he says, “But we must act as men who have no true philosophy to set against the false one, no right morality to judge the wrong one, no solving system of social order for the world. Behind the forces which have built up Communism we perceive the judgment of God on all systems of thought and life which are ours” (pp. 385–6).
The Christian answer, according to these theologians, consists not in a rejection of the basic principles of communism but in acceptance of it in a slightly modified form and in being even more revolutionary than the Communists in opposing the bourgeous social order in the interests of the proletariat. It consists in resisting the total allegiance required by communism, in opposing the Communists’ distortion of the Marxian ideology seen in their abuses of the proletariat and brutality, and in giving personal help to individual Communists.
Pervading the thinking of these men are a number of invalid assumptions. First, there is the assumption of a basic class conflict. Secondly, dialectical irrationalism is assumed as a truth which cannot be systematized but which consists purely in a type of activistic dialectical encounter. Thirdly, these men hold that there is no final authoritative revelation of the will of God to man in the Bible. There is no binding moral law, truth and justice are relative and changing concepts; therefore, there can be no absolute “no” to communism, but only a qualified “no” to certain aspects of Communistic practice and demands. Finally they assume that the welfare of all can best be served by state planning. This approach leads West to conclude that only interventionism with foreign aid, the welfare state, and a planned economy can provide a bulwark against complete communism.
We may well question the possibility of a significent encounter between such dialectical theologians and dialectical materialism.
FRANCIS E. MAHAFFY
