Periodical Reviews -- By: Anonymous
BSac 127:506 (Apr 70) p. 163
“Not Radical Enough?” John A. T. Robinson, The Christian Century, November 12, 1969.
At the turn of each decade-at least since 1939–40 to my knowledge—The Christian Century has published a series of articles by leading churchmen on “How My Mind Has Changed” in the past ten years. This article is the first in that series covering the close of the 1960’s and the start of the 1970’s. If this title is any portent the 1970’s will reveal some wild theological fads and fashions.
Robinson begins by trying to explain what he means by the term radical. To him a radical is a person who “goes to the root of his tradition and asks fundamentally what it is for” (p. 1446). A fundamentalist is similar to a radical in that “both are concerned to go to the essentials.” Robinson, however, thinks “the fundamentalist sees these in inorganic terms, as foundations; the radical in organic terms, as roots” (p. 1446). He seems to forget that too much digging around the roots kills the plant.
The increased radicalism Robinson proposes would do just that. In the doctrine of God it represents for all practical purposes the deification of man. In Christology he does not even suggest the forms it will take. In ecclesiology he says: “I would now speak of the death and resurrection of the church, rather than simply of its reformation and renewal” (p. 1448). He insists that “I have certainly become more radical politically” and declares sympathy for the view that in this area “only a revolutionary and not a radical solution is going to be adequate” (p. 1449).
“The Relationship Of Science, Factual Statements And The Doctrine Of Biblical Inerrancy,” Bernard Ramm, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December, 1969.
This article by Ramm is the leading discussion of a symposium by twenty-two leaders and members of the American Scientific Affiliation on “The Relationship between the Bible and Science.” The individual contributions to the symposium are followed by a summary.
Ramm begins by limiting his field. He is not concerned with alleged “contradictions in Holy Scripture,” which he considers “not a scientific problem per se but a literary or critical one” (p. 98). He also dismisses as belonging “to theology or apologetics or philosophical theology but not to science” allegations that “in certain matters the moral character of a supposed Word of God is in contradiction to man’s moral sensitivity” (p. 98). His attention is focused on assertions “that either the general view of the universe in Scripture or particular factual references are contrary to what we
You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe