3 direction from the Almighty.

If a preacher has a particular problem or question to be answered, one should not make up one’s mind by "ordinary intelligence" and then

search the Bible for substantiation.^ Instead, the preacher should go straight to the Bible. Here, with the aid of a concordance, one then balances "scripture against scripture" until one discovers "what God has been pleased to reveal to us on that question." One should do

this before one turns to a "reference volume ’’ or the "latest pronounce­ ment of an Assembly committee."^ Essentially, if a preacher wants to

^Ibid., P- 48. ^Ibid., p. 50. ^Ibid., pp. 50-51. ^Ibid., P* 49. ^Ibid., P- 50. ^Ibid., PP 49-50.

instances where the Bible does not deal with the matter at hand, he believes that these are fewer than most people think. In these cases, there is

know what he believes about anything, this is the procedure he should follow.^

Turning now from theory to practice, Mackenzie recommends that the meaning of the text upon which the sermon is based should be made clear by using other passages of Scripture. He notes:

"it is not enough to have a text. We should girdle it round with other^illuminating passages. The Word inter­ prets the Word."

Since this is so, he further recommends that a preacher's library be filled with standard Biblical reference works. "The more dictionaries, encyclo­ pedias and concordances he has, the better. They form the heart of any workshop and are worth yards of ephemeral theology." In this way, one can do his/her own research directly from the Bible itself.

In his suggestions regarding the preparation of a sermon, he does not outline a particular interpretative method. Apparently, commentaries are to be consulted as part of the process of understanding the meaning of a text. They serve to verify what the preacher has already discovered,^ but he does not note what is to be done if the commentaries disagree with the insights of the preacher. Basically, he reveals more about his inter­ pretative method by what he does not say than by what he does.

^Ibid., pp. 49-50. ^Ibid., p. 87. ^Ibid.

^Ibid., pp. 95-100, ^Ibid., p. 96.

For instance, he never uses the word "exegesis” in any of his lec­ tures, Furthermore, he does not talk about employing any of the more contemporary methods of Biblical criticism. It is evident that these technical procedures for ascertaining the meaning of a text are not particularly important. The Bible says what it says. All one has to do is read it enough. If a problem does arise, then the preacher should consult other parts of Scripture, Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias and, perhaps, a commentary. Basically, the meaning of a Biblical text should be readily understandable by simply reading a particular English- translation of a text and considering its meaning in light of other relevant passages of Scripture.

In addition, the historical distance between the Scriptures and the modem readers is again not discussed. Furthermore, the transmission of

the text, the variant Greek readings, and problems of translation from one language to another are not mentioned in his lectures. His particular viewpoint concerning the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures seems all that is necessary to bridge these particular problems. For him, the Bible as written is literally the Word of God.

If one were to label Mackenzie's particular slant, one could say that he was a conservative evangelical or, perhaps, a fundamentalist. His views on the inspiration, authority, and absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, all point in the direction of fundamental ism. On the other hand,

1 2

his emphasis upon winning souls, conversion and sanctification, and

^Ibid., p. 19. ^Ibid., p. 78.

2

individualistic social piety, all tend toward conservative evangelicalism.

2

Common to both are tendencies toward anti-intellectualism, a mistrust of 3

human reason, a literalistic method of Biblical interpretation, and an emphasis upon the sacrificial doctrine of the atonement,^ Although it

is difficult from his lectures alone to determine precisely his theological slant, one could say without too much distortion that he was a conservative evangelical with a fundamentalist understanding of the nature of Scripture.

As regards the more personal aspects of interpretation, the method previously described is in some ways highly subjective. Mackenzie claims that the Bible, as the living Word of God, "has a present existence as we have ourselves."^ Therefore, the preacher can directly apprehend the meaning of the text as if it were "another individual who was addressing us,"^ Moreover, his insistence that the preacher live completely within the Bible world requires that the preacher engage the Bible in a highly sub­ jective and personal way.^ Furthermore, when appraising the meaning of Bib­ lical material, Mackenzie does not encourage the use of the objective frame

o

of reference or Biblical critical methodologies. In a kind of living

^Ibid., pp. 107-122. ^See Ibid., pp. 45-47. ^Ibid., pp. 43-48. ^Ibid., p. 37. ^Ibid., p. 85. ^Ibid. ^Ibid., pp. 48-51. ^Ibid., pp. 49-50.

dialogue, it is up to the preacher himself/herself to hear the Word of God and then preach accordingly. In each of these ways, his interpre­ tative method appears to include many subjective aspects.

Since Mackenzie maintains this particular view of Scripture, his interpretative method appears simplistic in comparison with the other lec­ turers of this fifteen year period. Maybe this is the way he intentionally meant it to be. Perhaps, he is reacting against the growing acceptance and complexity of Biblical critical methodologies.^ His method certainly appears to encourage the use of the more personal and subjective aspects

2

of interpretation. All in all, Mackenzie's method is significantly different from all the other lecturers of this period.

Stuart W. McWilliam

The second lecturer to be dealt with in this section is Stuart W, McWilliam. Although his viewpoints are not nearly as conservative as

^Ibid., p. 41. Here he seems to be criticizing one of the basic criteria for the use of Biblical critical methods.

2

If I may venture an opinion, all is not as it appears. Mackenzie's