3 text or passage of Scripture.

If one were to venture an opinion regarding his specific theological slant based upon this hermeneutic, one would conclude that Cleland followed in a tradition that was sympathetic to a modernized version of Evangelical Liberalism. He not only employs some of its tenets, but he also cites the work of Evangelical Liberals, like H. P. Van Dusen, to support his arguments. Although his discussion of the norms for establishing God's Word clearly

show an acquaintance with the agenda Barthian theology was setting for theological reflection, he was unwilling to advocate its extremes. With the support of other like minded theologians, Cleland appears to pursue a more moderate course between the excesses of the original advocates of Liberal Theology and the extremes of Barthian theology. He, more or less, charts a middle course between the two, yet it is evident from of his remarks

^Ibid., p. 17. ^Ibid., p. 32. o

See George A. Buttrick, et. al. The Interpreter's Bible (New York, Abingdon Press, 1956), Vol. VI, p. 958. Herein, Cleland asserts the significance of God as creator, sustainer, and redeemer.

that the tenets of Evangelical Liberalism were coming under heavy criti­ cism and required somewhat of an apologetic to employ them.

Turning now to consider the more subjective and personal aspects of Biblical interpretation, one finds in Cleland’s lectures a curious lack of information. The devotional use of Scripture, the importance of the preacher’s personality, and the role of personal religious experi­ ence as ways of ascertaining the meaning of Biblical subject matter are nowhere discussed in his Lectureship. Moreover, he seems to assume that exegesis is unaffected by subjective influences. The exegetical model he recŒYinends is scientific and technical, and its frame of reference is exclusively objective. Personal bias, created by ecclesiastical heritage and hermeneutical preference, is not considered as problematic until the second or interpretative stage of homiletical reflection, and he warns that a certain amount of modesty should be connected with this part of the inquiry. Furthermore, although he includes the role of the Holy Spirit in discerning what is and what is not the Word of God, he places its role within a group of norms which function as a set of checks and balances to test its input. All in all, when compared with the lecturers of the 1940s, Cleland gives very little content and consideration to the more personal and subject aspects of interpretation.

Summing up, Cleland argues that in order to authentically discover the Word of God, the preacher must go through a linear series of three reflective stages. These are exegesis or investigation, interpretation or exposition, and application. He also asserts that there exists a

central core of normative factors which assist the preacher in determining what is and what is not the Word of God. This theological hermeneutic

Christ as experienced within the soul, the tradition of the Church, and a canon within the canon which speaks of God as creator, sustainer, and redeemer. Each of these informs and tests the others.

As regards his theological slant, Cleland appears to arise out of a tradition which is sympathetic to some of the tenets of Evangelical

Liberalism. Although he is cognizant of the criticisms being aimed against this theological position, he appears nonetheless to be willing to support some of its viewpoints. He seems to be defending a middle ground between the excesses of Liberal Theology and the extremes of Barthian Theology.

Finally, as regards the more subjective aspects of interpretation, one finds in his lectures a curious lack of information. Some of these subjective aspects, so prominent in the Lectureships of the 1940s, are nowhere to be found in his lectures. In comparison to the Lectureships of the preceding two decades, Cleland gives little consideration or con­ tent to the more personal and subjective side of interpretation. As a whole, his recommendations regarding how to do Biblical interpretation

lean heavily toward the more scholarly and objective aspects. The Other Lecturers of This Period

With the exception of Pitt-Watson, the other lecturers of this period have considerably less to say about Biblical interpretation for preaching than did Keir or Cleland. For this reason, the Lectureships of Mackenzie and McWilliam will be dealt with together in this third

1

section. Since Pitt-Watson gives much attention to Biblical interpre-

The Lectureship of A. J. Boyd has not been included because his lectures focused upon foreign Christian mission and because he adds nothing of rele­ vance to this present examination.

tation and since his Lectureship is the final one chronologically within this study, his lectures will be dealt with separately in the subsequent section.

Hamish C. Mackenzie

The first lecturer to be considered is Hamish C. Mackenzie, and he puts forward a conservative view of Scripture. He writes:

"And therefore some of us would hold that the traditional understanding of the Bible as the Word of God written,

fully inspired and absolutely trustworthy, is the only view which does justice to the claims of scripture, the

teaching of our Lord, and the inherent necessities of the Evangel."1

For him, the Bible is literally the Word of God produced by a burst of o

"God-breathed illumination" in the soul of its authors.

As he proceeds, he amends this view of Scripture slightly. He argues :

"No one in his right senses would want to take every word of the Bible literally. There are some disputed passages where scholarship must be allowed to guide us in the exact reading of the text. But the Bible as a whole is what God meant it to be."-^

According to his viewpoint, the various books of the Bible were fore­

ordained by God. He knew the men who were to be His scribes. "He arranged

^Mackenzie, Warrack, 1962, pp. 40-41. ^Ibid., p. 41.

that they should address the world of their time in the language and concepts of their day. Yet it was all His from first to last."^

Later on, in his fourth lecture, Mackenzie stresses that the Scriptures are literally the living Word of God. He concludes :

"in Hebrews IV, 12, we read, ’The Word of God is alive.’ Hence the content of scripture must never be treated as mere material. It is not debris on an excavation site to be discussed and ticketed by archeologists. It has the same present existence as we have ourselves. Therefore when it stirs within the mind we recognize it just as we would another individual who was

addressing us."2

Since the Bible has this present existence, preachers must allow it to address them instead of treating it strictly as an ancient piece of human writing.

Since this is so, a preacher needs to approach the Scriptures as he/she would approach no other book. He writes :

"it (the Bible) is not ours to cut and carve according to our learned ingenuity. One’s mind shrinks with a sense of horror from the complacent and quite unprovable assumptions that mar so many commentaries. Who are we to impose upon the Sacred Volume our own ideas of what it ought to teach? Surely our business is to receive the Bible message like Paul’s friends at Salonika ’not as the_word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God. ” ’3

Mackenzie applauds as profoundly wise the quote from John Newton where he says we should follow (Sod with child-like simplicity of faith and without reasoning.^ Apparently, in his view, preachers should listen to the

^Ibid., p. 42. ^Ibid., p. 85. ^Ibid., pp. 42-43. ^Ibid., p. 43.

Scriptures with child-like simplicity and without attempting to make them intellectually acceptable.

In order to understand the message of Scripture, Mackenzie believes that one must live in the Bible world. That is, the Bible must become "one’s daily and all-sufficient guide to life."^ To hear God speak, "we must read the Bible, ransack the Bible, go to bed with the Bible, wake up in the morning with the Bible still at hand. We must know it

2

and obey it." When a person enters the Biblical world, his/her perspec­ tive on life is completely transformed and the Bible "comes alive" with

3