“MODERN THEOLOGY

AND BIBLICAL

CRITICISM” REVISITED 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

• The outsider

• A sheep speaking to

shepherds: “And now I

start my bleating.”

Another Reason, a Deeper Reason

• David Thompson’s email

• Alister McGrath

• 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

• 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

The Arguments of Don Cupitt

• Translation

• 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

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

• 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.”

• Pike: Robinson set aside “the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation”

• 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

• 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. Visit www.joelheck.com for a copy of this PowerPoint and a

comprehensive chronology on the life of C. S. Lewis.

http://www.joelheck.com/