“MODERN THEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL
CRITICISM” IN CONTEXT
Joel D. Heck
Concordia University Texas
Entrance to Westcott House, Cambridge
The Invitation
• Alec Vidler, Windsor
Sermons (1958)
• “The Sign at Cana”
• Theology dominant in
theological colleges
• Lewis as the outsider
• A sheep speaking to
shepherds: “And now I
start my bleating.”
Another Reason, a Deeper Reason
• David Thompson’s email
• Alister McGrath’s email
• Lewis’s position: an evangelical perspective
The Address
1) Some biblical critics lack literary judgment (they read
between the lines of ancient texts, not understanding
extra-biblical literary genres, e.g., reading John’s
Gospel as a romance);
2) Some wrongly claim that the real teaching of Christ
came rapidly to be misunderstood and has only been
recovered by modern scholars (Vidler is an example);
3) Some wrongly claim that miracles don’t occur;
4) Attempts to recover the origin of a text often err (as has
happened with some of Plato’s and Shakespeare’s
works).
Four Points/Four Perspectives
1) A scholar of English literature
2) A student of history and a lay reader of the New
Testament
3) The author of Miracles
4) The writer speaking from personal experience,
but once again as a scholar of literature
The Audience & the Setting
• The Rt Revd Kenneth Carey, Principal
• Don Cupitt, later Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge,
•
•
•
•
•
BBC’s “The Sea of Faith”
Dr. Lionel R. Wickham
Dr. Kenneth J. Woollcombe, later Bishop of Oxford,
delegate to the World Council of Churches
The Revd Canon John Davies, Chaplain
Dr. John Habgood, Vice-Principal, later Archbishop of
York, contributed a chapter to Soundings: Essays
Concerning Christian Understanding (1962)
Other seminary students
Location of the Lecture
The Room were the Lecture was given
Just to prove I was there …
The Reaction of Friends
• Principal Kenneth Carey
• Trevor Shannon
• Peter Nott: “The vast majority of us heard
him gladly.”
• Walter Hooper, after reading the essay
• Austin Farrer, after reading the essay
(and most of us who have read the essay)
The Negative Reaction at Westcott House
• Led by Kenneth Woollcombe
• Seconded by Don Cupitt and Lionel Wickham
• Hugh Magee
The Arguments of Don Cupitt
• Translation
• Regius Professor of
Divinity, Leonard
Hodgson
• Rudolf Bultmann
• The Jesus Seminar
and Dominic Crossan
• Thomas L. Thompson
A Matter of Competence?
• Dr. Lionell Wickham—no training in Biblical studies
• So also Kenneth Woollcombe
• And Don Cupitt
• No other names mentioned
Or a Matter of Theology?
• Lewis’s his opening paragraph refers to “the type of
thought which, so far as I could gather, is now dominant in
many theological colleges.”
• Who were the New Testament theologians in Cambridge
at the time?
• What was being taught in New Testament in 1959?
The Cambridge New Testament Divinity Faculty
• The Revd. Prof. C. F. D. Moule, a Fellow of Clare College
• Geoffrey M. Styler, Corpus Christi College
• H. W. Montefiore (1920-2005), Fellow and Dean at Gonville
•
•
•
•
and Caius College, Cambridge (1953-1963), later Vicar of
Great St. Mary, still later Bishop of Birmingham, contributed a
chapter to Soundings: Essays Concerning Christian
Understanding (1962), edited by Alec Vidler
J. S. Bezzant (Dean of St. John’s), contributed a chapter to
Objections to Christian Belief (1963), edited by Alec Vidler,
Bezzant, MacKinnon, and Williams
R. P. Casey, Sidney Sussex College (1897-1959)
J. N. Sanders (Dean, Peterhouse), contributed a chapter to
Soundings: Essays Concerning Christian Understanding (1962)
J. A. T. Robinson (Dean of Clare College), author of Honest to
God (1963)
John A. T. Robinson (1919–1983)
• Honest to God (1963)
• On March 17, 1963, just prior
to the release of that book,
Bishop Robinson, then
Anglican Bishop of Woolwich,
had an article published in
The Observer entitled “Our
Image of God Must Go.”
• Lewis: “Must Our Image of
God Go?” (The Observer,
one week later)
• “reportage”
• Richard Bauckham, Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses (2006)
Positives
• Well received by many
• Laughter in the room
• Principal Carey
• Wickham on the fourth bleat (but he does not say the
same about the first three)
Conclusion
• A negative reaction to Lewis’s combative style?
• A question of Lewis’s theological credentials?
• But Lewis admitted to a lack of theological training, a note
•
•
•
•
he sounded in other writings
A challenge to Lewis’s literary competence?
Or a matter of theological differences?
Lewis was not challenged on theological or literary points.
Why not?
I submit that it was theological differences, represented
especially by Alec Vidler and John Robinson, which could
not be refuted by opponents in his audience, so they
questioned his credentials.