Bishop Barnes, Science and Religion

In the first half of the twentieth century few clergy were in the public notice as much as the Right Reverend Dr Ernest William Barnes (1874- 1953), Bishop of Birmingham, the first bishop to be appointed by a labour government. [1] Several controversies brought his name to public attention. The first two are closely interrelated: his "gorilla sermons" and his vehement rejection of sacramentalism during the Prayer Book revision, and the third, The Rise of Christianity. All three issues led from his desire to make Christianity acceptable in an age of science; thus he was very much a product of his own age. [2]

Although born in Altringham on, some would say appropriately, All Fool's Day, he was a "son" of Birmingham. His parents (John) Starkie Barnes (1893-1922) and Jane Elizabeth (nee Kerry) (d. 1938) moved there in 1876 when Starkie became the head of Elkington Street School. Barnes was educated first at Clifton Road, King's Norton, then in 1889 he moved to Tindal Street School, before starting his secondary years at Camp Hill Grammar in 1883, but from 1892 he entered King Edward VI Grammar School as a foundation scholar, [3] before winning a scholarship for mathematics in 1892 to Trinity College, Cambridge. Though his parent's were non-Conformist, while at King Edward's he was confirmed into the Anglican church and attended St. John's, Sparkhill.

While at Trinity he was second wrangler in 1896, President of the Union and he excelled at mathematics. He published no less than 28 academic journal articles between 1897 and 1910. [4] His main research areas was with the theory of functions. While at Cambridge Barnes also influenced Gilbert Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, the two greatest pure mathematicians of the early twentieth century. Barnes also gave his name to a lemma: Barnes' lemma. [5] At 35 he was made a FRS.

He was ordained a deacon by the Bishop of London, Winnington-Ingram, on 25 May 1902. [6] As Barnes was a Cambridge don, he was able to present himself for ordination without any theological study. In 1915 he became the Master of the Temple, the incumbent of the Temple Church, until Lloyd George, in 1919, appointed him Canon of Westminster. He remained there for four years until on 2 October 1924 he became Bishop of Birmingham: the only episcopal appointment of Ramsay MacDonald's Labour government. Barnes had always been a controversial figure, but it was as a bishop that the controversies raged most savage.

The first two of the three major incidents that made Barnes (im)famous were interrelated in both time and subject matter. Both arose from his desire to see "science shape religion". It was this "remodelling of Christian theology" [7] that brought him conflict with the Anglo-Catholics over the reservation of the sacrament and evolution. To disentangle the two would distort the picture. As Hensley Henson, rightly observes: "if he had left the Anglo-Catholics alone, they would not have bothered about his biological excursions". [8] It was these "biological excursions" that we shall subsequently examine; before doing so some background to the 1927 Prayer Book revision is necessary.

Prayer Book "crisis"

The need for Prayer Book revision arose out of a perceived need for ecclesiastical reform to bring ecclesiastical order. [9]

The ecclesiastical anarchy was the result of the post Great War rise of the Anglo-Catholic movement. [10] This "second generation" Oxford Movement, went beyond the Oxford Movement and beyond the Book of Common Prayer. [11] The law was too restricting for many Anglo-Catholic practices; liturgical confusion ensued. This led to the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline [12] reported in 1906, it noted that "the machinery for discipline had broken down" [13] and that "the law of public worship [was] too narrow for the religious life of the present generation". [14] Its most important recommendation was the need for greater elasticity in the forms of liturgy and thus the urgent reform of the Prayer Book. A revised Prayer Book would then provided a legal standard that could be enforced by the bishops. [15]

The Prayer Book could not be changed without recourse to parliament. However, the 1919 Enabling Act meant that the newly created Church Assembly could frame bills and then send them to parliament for acceptance or rejection, parliament could not amend them.

In the ensuing discussions and formulation of the revised Prayer Book , it rapidly became evident that the issue of the reserved sacrament was the most contentious. It was on this issue that Barnes became a trenchant opponent. He regarded the revised prayer Book as "an unsuccessful compromise, doctrinally invertebrate." [16]

The so-called rebels

Barnes was no stranger to conflict with Anglo-Catholics. On his enthronement to Birmingham he had spoken against what he perceived as pagan sacramentalism. This was picked up by the Church Times and the Catholic Times as a declaration of war against Anglo-Catholics. The liturgical disorder in the Church of England was apparent in Birmingham. Barnes predecessors Gore and Wakefield [17] were both Anglo-Catholics, and Wakefield in particular had permitted the permanent reservation of the sacrament. Barnes wanted peace but not at the expense of truth.

Anglo-Catholics were ready for battle. The first skirmish was initiated by an invitation from G. D. Rosenthal, vicar of St Agatha's Sparkbrook, for Barnes to attend a thanksgiving for fifty years of Catholic revival. Barnes saw this as impertinence and responded by writing an open letter to the press. This was not to be the last time he used this tactic. In it he quoted Headlam and Storr to show that Anglo-Catholic belief in apostolic succession was "bad theology" and that the practice of reservation "was a direct outcome of the Roman theory" and "tends to foster superstition". [18]

Rosenthal responded likewise with a statement to the press and a subsequent press interview accusing Barnes of discourtesy and comparing him unfavourably with his predecessors. Barnes' biographer describes it as "a declaration of war". [19]

Barnes in accordance with Church Law refused to allow the perpetual reservation of the sacrament, he only permitted reservation if it were kept in a place where there was no public access, so that adoration of the sacrament could not take place. The incumbents of fifteen churches refused to accept what they saw as the whim of an individual bishop. They committed themselves to one another and refused to move or resign their parish as long as Barnes' ruling remained. Barnes began to refer to them as "the so-called rebels". [20] He refused to license any new clergy to these rebel parishes who would not accept his directives.

The second skirmish between Barnes and the Anglo-Catholics centred on the vacant living of St Mark's, Walshwood Heath. The signs were that this was becoming an attack organised at national level. St Aidan's, Small Heath became the focus of another skirmish [21] The incumbent had through ill health been forced to retire. Bishop Frere of Truro, one of the patrons, proposed G. Doyle Simmonds, someone who the rebels knew Barnes would refuse to institute. Following legal proceedings, which Barnes refused to obey, Archbishop Lang instituted him in Lambeth Palace over Barnes' head.

In all this Barnes could hardly be guilty of consistency. When licensing clergy he warned them that assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles was to be taken with all seriousness. Presumably he had in mind Article 28. And yet he himself could hardly assent to them all.

In the midst of all this arose the controversy over the Prayer Book revision and the "gorilla sermons".

Biological excursions

On Sunday 25 September 1927 in Westminster Abbey Barnes, preached a sermon "Religion and science: the present phase"22 It was not the first time he had spoken on this topic, and not the first time that this subject had brought him hostility.

In 1920 he had addressed the BAAS in Cardiff on "The Christian revelation and scientific progress". [23] This had prompted a spate of letters and articles in the press; consequently Barnes decided to respond to criticisms in his next sermon in Westminster Abbey.[24] He stated:

I need not labour my contention that the evolutionary view of the origin of man has established itself firmly in modern thought. It suffices to say that in all the controversy aroused by my sermon during the past week, no Bishop, no distinguished Nonconformist divine, no scholar or man of science of eminence, has - so far as I know - come forward to deny explicitly that man is descended from the lower animals, or to assert that the Fall was an historical event. [25]

By 1927 it was different there was episcopal hostility. The hostility was brought about not over the nature of scientific hypotheses but by the proximity of the Prayer Book revision and Barnes' passionate opposition to the reservation of the sacrament.

Barnes followed up his 1927 science and religion sermon with a lunchtime service at Birmingham where he spoke on "Sacramental truth and falsehood". [26] There, whatever the merits of his theological position, his highly polemical and provocative approach caused much offence. [27] He suggested that sacramentalism belonged "to the realm of primitive magic", [28] and that people who hold sacramental beliefs "are not far from those of a cultured Hindu idolater".

This prompted a public protest when Barnes preached at St Paul's Cathedral on 15 October. As Barnes was about to preach, Canon Bullock-Webster delivered a "Solemn Denunciation and Protest"; he called for Barnes to be tried "in respect of these alleged heretical and profane utterances". He then left with a large body of lay people and held a reparation mass in St. Michael Royal Church. [29]

This prompted Barnes to publish on 20 October a public letter to the Archbishop Davidson, who had been warned of it by a telegram. The use of an open letter may seem an unusual and discourteous tactic, however, Davidson had given Barnes the go ahead for addressing him in an open letter during the St Mark's incident. [30]

Barnes explained his desire to expound the consequences of human evolution and "to show why they did not seem to upset the main Christian position". He went on

No protest must hinder me as a Bishop, and, indeed, as a Christian from upholding religious truth. No man shall drive me to Tennessee or to Rome. [31]

Davidson prepared an immediate response to Barnes. [32] In it Davidson distanced himself from Bullock-Webster's protests. [33] He sidestepped the evolution issue, accusing Barnes of being out of touch with the what people think, "this teaching,... is to most of us not novel". [34]

This was certainly true. The nineteenth century had seen a spectrum of responses to Darwinism, ranging from wholehearted acceptance to open hostility. [35] The two controversial books Essays and Reviews (1860) [36] and Lux Mundi (1889) [37] both attempted to assimilate evolutionary frameworks within Christianity. A previous Archbishop, Fredrick Temple, when he was Bishop of Exeter, had in his 1884 Bampton Lectures had spoken of the "apparent conflict" between Christianity and evolution. He wrote: In conclusion we cannot find that Science in teaching Evolution, has yet asserted anything that is inconsistent with Revelation..." [38]

F. R. Tennant a contemporary of Barnes had also made attempts to integrate evolution and theology [39] as had Barnes' fellow modernist and pacifist, former Cambridge Regius Professor of Theology, Cambridge Charles Raven. [40] Barnes, though not breaking new ground was making accessible the implications of evolution for theology accessible to the person in the pew.

Davidson was thus not questioning Barnes over the issue of evolution, [42] rather the appropriateness of his message:

Your words [in the Birmingham sermon] seem capable of being so interpreted as to include reprobation or almost contempt the position of great mass of Churchmen who would associate themselves with the teaching of such great leaders as, say, my own great masters, Bishop Lightfoot or Bishop Westcott. [43]

On October 27 another open letter from Barnes to the Archbishop appeared in the papers, though Barnes had personally given the Archbishop a copy the same day. In it he appreciated the "tacit acknowledgment of the truth of the biological doctrine of evolution", though he notes that he "sought to emphasise not so much the doctrine itself as the readjustments of traditional Christian dogma consequent upon its acceptance". By this he meant the Augustinian interpretation of the fall. He then turned to the issue of transubstantiation. He once again repeated his views that:

spiritual grace is given not to the elements which are its vehicles in the Sacraments of Holy Communion, but to the worshipper who takes, eats and drinks as he comes with faith and prayer and love. [44]

He maintained that his teaching did not conflict with those of Hort. [45]

Davidson's approach was an attempt to maintain tolerant comprehensiveness, though George Bernard Shaw described it as "a heart felt plea for ambiguity". [46] The result was "no heresy hunt but an explosion of resentment". [47] Barnes had become a thorn in the side of those who wanted to maintain the status quo.

Science and religion

The relationship of Science and religion is a thorny issue. [48] A number of approaches can be identified: see figure 1.


Figure 1. Ways of relating science and religion: 1. Science replaces religion; 2. Religion replaces science; 3. Science and religion as independent (3a weak independence, e.g. complementarity; 3b strong independence); 4. Science shapes religion; 5. religion shapes science; 6. Science and religion in dialogue. [49]

Barnes takes a "science shapes religion" perspective. In a BBC broadcast he had this to say:

I wish to make it quite clear that many beliefs, associated with religious faith in the past, must be abandoned. They have had to meet the direct challenge of science: and I believe it is true to say that, in every such direct battle since the Renaissance, science has been the victor. [50]

This science shapes religion perspective was in conflict with the dominant paradigm among clergy, laymen and scientists at the time that science and religion are largely independent. [51] It is perhaps here where the roots of many of the controversies lie.

Barnes' science shapes religion view can be clearly be seen in his Scientific Theory and Religion. Published in 1933 it was his 1927-29 Gifford lectures. [52] They were six years in the making and absorbed all his vacations and leisure time. Despite its 685 pages, weight of almost 2 1/2 pounds and being full of complex mathematical equations, 1100 copies were sold in three years. Barnes claimed to write for "educated men and women who have no technical knowledge of science or philosophy" (p. 6), and yet he includes pages and pages of graduate level mathematics! One sympathetic reviewer claimed that at least one-third of the book was "unintelligible to the ordinary reader". [53]

In a review, the philosopher F. R. Tennant was reservedly enthusiastic about it. [54] Though, he noted, "the few lectures that are devoted to philosophy and theology contain relatively little that has not been said before". [55]

Barnes' main thesis is that theology "must take into account the God of Nature revealed by science". [56] He maintains a moderate realist approach to science. [57] His rather limited conclusion was that the ethical theism of Christianity and Judaism "is a form of belief no less reasonable now than in the past era". [58] Though this is rather a disingenuous conclusion as Barnes' Christianity was more a product of science than scripture.

During Second World War he started work on a new book. Following on from his Scientific Theory and Religion, Barnes wanted to show how science could shape Christianity so that it was more palatable to the skeptical. The result was his final work: The Rise of Christianity. [59]

The Rise of Christianity

In his foreword to The Rise of Christianity he remarks:

In the present book I examine the origin of Christianity from the point of view of one who accepts alike the methods of analytical scholarship and the postulate of the large-scale, or finite-scale, uniformity of nature which is so fundamental in modern science. [60]

This belief in the "finite-scale uniformity of nature" shapes his Christianity. [61] But what Barnes failed to realise was that it is this almost religious belief that shaped his science, which in turn shaped his religion!

The publication of the book in 1947, when Barnes was over seventy, inevitably brought controversy. His scientific presuppositions meant that the miraculous elements of the New Testament were dismissed. This included the virgin birth and Jesus' resurrection. What was left was an early church characterised by socialism, pacifism and inter-nationalism: the very concerns of Barnes!

Responses

Raven in the Spectator declared that the chief value of the book was that its author "can find it consistent to remain not only as a confessing Christian but as an Anglican bishop". Richardson in the Birmingham Diocese Bulletin greeted it as "a bulwark against modern scepticism". [62] Nonetheless the book was an embarrassment to Barnes' fellow modernists.

A critical review by Percy Gardner-Smith appeared in the Modern Churchman. [63] Gardner-Smyth wrote to H. D. A. Major (the editor):

...honesty compels me to say that I think that The Rise of Christianity is a very bad book indeed, amateurish, arrogant and dogmatic. ...I have written a review, which I think you may very likely prefer not to print. [64]

Major consulted Barnes about the review, who encouraged him to publish it. [65] The same issue of The Modern Churchman contained an appeasing editorial by Major. He concluded that The Rise of Christianity was significant:

...because it has been written by an English diocesan bishop ...[and] it demonstrates how very few are the fundamental dogmas of the Christian religion. [66]

The theologians C. H. Dodd and Sir Fredrick Kenyon also published responses. [67] The book was criticised for being: too subjective, it was a prejudicial work and Barnes had read into the documents his own concerns; out of date, he had ignored contemporary work; arrogant; and unscholarly. The criticisms were very fair!

The Episcopal responses were mixed. Archbishop Fisher "had to resist the pressure to take decisive action against Barnes".68 Fisher appreciated Barnes' "great sincerity and complete devotion to the truth", but he wrote to Barnes:

Quite honestly, I think that the holding of your opinions and the holding of your office are incompatible, and for myself I believe you ought in conscience to feel the same. [69]

Barnes disagreed. [70] In a subsequent exchange of letters Barnes hoped that if the Archbishop made a public statement he would be allowed a reply, the Archbishop replied that he was not intending to refer publicly to the book. Fisher preferred public silence about the book in the hope that it would fade into obscurity. He feared that if public action were taken then Barnes would become a martyr. Likewise Chichester (Bell) thought there were "strong reasons for taking no formal action" as did Oxford (Kirk); Durham (Alwyn Williams ) and Southwell (F. R. Barry) thought it best left to the theologians; London (J. W. C. Wand) thought it best to lapse into obscurity.. Whereas Winchester (Mervyn Haigh) regarded the results of doing nothing were severe. York (Cyril Garbett) thought it "impossible to exaggerate the gravity". In a letter to Fisher he wrote:

I do not think that in the whole course of my ministry anything has happened in the Church of England more likely to injure the work and influence of the Church than this miserable book ... something ought to be done about it. [71]

Garbett's pressure persuaded Fisher that he should act. There were four possible options: to ignore the book; to try Barnes for heresy; to debate the whole matter in Convocation; to issue a unilateral condemnation. [72] Fisher, preferred the first; Garbett the last. To ignore the book, however, may seem to imply assent. The trial for heresy was not an option that Fisher wanted to take. [73] If Barnes was found guilty of heresy he could appeal to a lay court which could pass judgement on the orthodoxy of the Church of England, something that Fisher wanted to avoid at all costs. [74] Unilateral condemnation may prove too divisive. The only path open, then, was Convocation. Fisher wanted to proceed with caution. He asked E.G. Selwyn and Leonard Hodson to prepare a theological critique of the book. [75] Selwyn wanted full repudiation of the book, whereas Hodson felt that a more positive reaffirmation of the faith would be a more judicial approach.

On 15 October Fisher made a Presidential Address [76] to both houses, this constrained debate and denied Barnes the right of reply, Fisher concluded: If his views were mine I should not feel that I could still hold episcopal office in the Church. [77]

Barnes was allowed to make a personal statement in the House of bishop later that day: I believe the conclusions reached in my book to be true and I hold them to be true I hold them to be entirely compatible with my position as a Bishop in the Church of England. [78]

No other official action was taken. Barnes eventually resigned his bishopric on 1 May, as a result of ill health. He died on 29 November 1953.

Issues arising from Barnes

The life of Barnes raises a number of issues. Not least being how does the Church of England deal with non-orthodox views? Heresy trials can be messy and inconclusive. Each case tends to be, and indeed should be, dealt with on its own merits. This enables the church to be flexible and maintain its comprehensiveness.

Barnes is one of a number of Anglicans who have challenged the status quo. Bishops Robinson and Jenkins, Don Cupit and the Sea of Faith movement of which Anthony Freeman is a member are more recent examples. Each in turn raise issues of how the Church of England deals with the heretical and hetrodoxy. There is no one clear course. There are many parallels between the four. Of the four only Cupitt was immune to ecclesiastical sanction; Freeman almost immediately lost his post as a diocesan adviser and a year later was removed from untenured priest-in-charge post. As bishops, Robinson, Jenkins and Barnes, although having a greater responsibility escaped more lightly. This thus raises the question of the role of bishops. As they have more responsibility, should they be more, not less, accountable?

The appointment and role of bishops is another issue it raises. Barnes was the first bishop to be appointed by a labour government. His was obviously a political appointment. Barnes was a socialist. Should the appointment of bishops rest on the apparent whim of the PM? Is this the price of establishment? Garbett, in the wake of 1947, commented: "The defects and possible abuses of the present method of appointment outweigh its advantages". [79]

Many had criticised Barnes for his philosophical and theological naivety. He also had had no parish experience. Some of the controversies may have been alleviated if Barnes had not been able to be ordained without theological (and/or philosophical?) training.

Clements claims that Barnes though never joining the Modern Churchmen's Union, nevertheless "gladly took the description 'modernist' to himself". [80] Though Mozley notes:

It is likely that to-day the Bishop of Birmingham (Dr. Barnes) would be regarded as the most obvious representative of Modernism. But really there are few to whom the title is less appropriate ... [81]

So what does the term "modernist" mean and can we call Barnes a modernist? Ramsey sees modernism as less a distinctive theology than a "platform of ideals and reforms" [82] Stephenson identifies six ways in which it has been used. [83]

  1. Roman Catholic modernism. [84]
  2. A "large movement of religious thought embracing Anglicans, British Nonconformists and American and Continental Protestants" [85]
  3. Within this wider modernist movement there is English modernism. [86]
  4. The eccentric use of the word modernism by van Till [87]
  5. An indiscriminate description of a number of more recent manifestations of theological liberalism. [88]
  6. The use of the word used anachronistically: people from the past described as "modernists". [89]

Since Stephenson wrote the phrase "postmodernism" has come into common parlance, [90] to differentiate it from (cultural) "modernism". [91] We thus need to distinguish between theological and cultural modernism. [92] Cultural modernism was ushered in by the Enlightenment, reason, rationality and verification determined what was to be regarded as true knowledge. Theological modernism, on the other hand, though a product of cultural modernism, was a desire to make Christian theology modern, up to date.

In this sense then Barnes is very much a modernist. Mozely feels that it is inappropriate to call Barnes a modernist because he sees modernism as a movement within Roman Catholicism (a reduction to Stephenson's definition 1). It was the modernists desire to make Christianity up to date and in accord with the findings of modern science that provided the framework for Barnes. Bell provides an apposite summary of Barnes:

He was a mathematician and a scientist and an outspoken champion of the evolution of the origin of man; and he claimed a freedom to remodel Christian theology on that basis. [93]

Similar descriptions of Barnes have been given. [94] It was the remodelling of theology that made Barnes a (theological) modernist. [95]

Is a "science shapes religion" position viable? The Rise of Christianity is an important book, in that it a reductio absurdum argument against modernism. It was the logical conclusion of Barnes' modernism and his science shapes religion perspective. As one reviewer rightly remarked:

Perhaps the great value of the book is that it reveals in all its depth the gulf which separates humanistic and scientific modernism from Christian orthodoxy. [96]

Indeed the same could be said of Barnes himself. A "science shapes religion" position does not work. It tends to absolutises science and makes it the arbiter of truth, it leads to scientism.

Was Barnes' position, then, scientism? There are (at least) two forms of scientism: strong and weak. [97] Strong scientism is the position, held by the Positivists, that science is the only way to truth, and that there are no truths apart from scientific truths. [98] Weak scientism allows for the existence of truths apart from science. By these definitions Barnes' position is one of weak scientism. He did place limits upon science:

...science is not directly concerned with origins; it is therefore silent, or should be silent, as regards Divine causation or, in simpler language, as to how God causes events. [99]

Science was not the way to all truth:

Yet ultimate truth is beyond the reach of science; no one can prove that our scientific concepts correspond to the actual nature of things. [100]

When Barnes reflects upon the role of science he appears to distance himself from a scientistic position, and yet at other times science becomes the legitimator and arbiter of religion. In his review of Barnes' Giffords, Tennant noted that science for Barnes was a test of truth in theology rather than a starting point. It is thus erroneous to label Barnes' position as scientism, his approach was in theory more nuanced, but in practice it reflected a weak scientism position.

Should we take Barnes seriously?

History repeats itself.
Has to.
Nobody listens! [101]

Failure to learn from history means that we may repeat its errors. Barnes does deserve to be taken seriously, even if he was his own worst enemy. We should affirm his desire to take science seriously, but deny that science is the sole legitimation of truth. We should affirm his aim to make the gospel accessible to contemporaries, but reject his approach. Good intentions do not always go hand in hand with appropriate strategies.

There is much in Barnes to be admired, he was never one for fence sitting - perhaps this was the consequent of his non-conformist background - and this never sat comfortably with the Anglican hierarchy. He relished being the underdog and was always prepared to speak his mind; even if he often failed to temper truth with grace. He had no narrow view of the role of a Christian minister, there was no private/ public divide for Barnes. He remained a Cambridge Don for many years while he was ordained. As well as his evangelistic desire to make Christianity credible in a scientific age there was his pacifism. He had been a pacifist since August 1914, [102] and during the First World War he declared: "Let us not call this war holy: war is in its nature an evil thing". [103] Between the wars he spoke out for universal disarmament.

There were other issues he attempted to address: population, he called for a eugenic programme, [104] he saw this as speeding up evolution, he also advocated the use of contraceptives; unemployment and poverty, he advocated an allowance of 2/- for each child, and the raising of the school leaving age to fifteen; the homeless, he advocated the provision of night shelters for them; education, he pushed for free school meals and wanted to ensure religious education in state schools; and women's causes, he was far-sighted enough to see that there should be no reasonable objection to women bishops! Barnes was concerned that Christianity should be firmly in the public square. There was no public/ private divide for Barnes., any more than there should be a science/ religion divide.

Barnes is too often caricatured and described as being out of date, [105] this accusation most probably led Barnes' son to title his biography Ahead of His Age. Rather, than being out of date, or ahead of his age, Barnes was very much a product of his age. He was writing during the heyday of logical positivism. Empiricism, verification, objectivity were the shibboleths of the time. Barnes' science shapes religion approach illustrates the illogicality of this position. It is in fact Barnes' religious belief in science that shapes his view of Christianity. His religious presuppositions shape science which in turn shape his religion.

It was through a (weak) scientistic net that Barnes put the results of theology and the Bible: The Rise of Christianity was the logical conclusion. Barnes, thus provides us with a good example of Dean Inge's comment that if you marry Christianity with the spirit of the age, you will find it widowed in the next. Barnes' Christianity was very soon widowed. Bishop Barnes also provides us with a counter example to Paul Avis's contention that scientists as apologists leave theology untouched. [106] It is Barnes' religious view of science that totally misshapes Christianity. Scientism (weak or strong) provides us with a powerless ascriptural gospel.

References

[1] G. K. Bell Randall Davidson vol. ii, p. 1252

[2] Contra his son's assessment in John Barnes, Ahead of His Age: Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (London: Collins, 1979). This is the only full-length biography of E. W. Barnes. Other shorter assessments of him appear in: Sir Henry Self "Ernest William Barnes, Sc.D., F.R.S." Modern Churchman XLIV (1) (March 1954) 14- C.E. Raven "E.W.B. - the man for the moment" Modern Churchman XLV (1) (March 1995) 11-24 A. R. Vidler "Bishop Barnes: a centenary retrospect" Modern Churchman xviii (3) (ns) (1975) 87-104. Keith W. Clements "Two individualists: T .R. Glover and E. W. Barnes". In Lovers of Discord: Twentieth Century Controversies in England (London: SPCK, 1988) ch. 5.

[3] The school also boasts Westcott, Lightfoot and E.W. Benson as old boys.

[4] J. Barnes Ahead of His Age,1979, pp. 456-9)

[5] A lemma is a subsidiary theory. Lemmas are used to prove more complicated theories. J. Barnes claims that Barnes' lemma was "for many years a household word among mathematicians". (Ahead of His Time, 1979,p. 33).

[6] Winnington-Ingram's biographer makes no mention of this; the only mention that Barnes gets is as the author of The Rise of Christianity, a book that Winnington-Ingram never lived to see! S. C. Carpenter Winnington-Ingram (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1949).

[7] George K. Bell Randall Davidson vol. ii. p. 1319.

[8] Hensley Henson Retrospect of an Unimportant Life Vol. 2, 1920-1939 Oxford: Oxford University press, 1943) diary entry dated 17 Oct 1927, p. 158.

[9] This was perhaps the fundamental mistake that lead to the crisis. As Bell rightly notes: "The revision of church services and the enforcement of ecclesiastical discipline are different things"

[10] The Great War revealed, what Hastings describes as, "ecclesiastical irrelevance". Everyone was confronted by death on a grand scale; few families did no experience the death of someone close. Prayers for the dead were rare in 1914, but by 1919 they were widespread, despite the objection of the evangelical Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop Chavase. There was a rise in pressure for the reserved sacrament, despite being technically illegal. A decline in the belief in eternal punishment, salvation by self-sacrifice became a popular belief, to die in war was widely regarded as a "meal ticket to heaven".

[11] The nineteenth century Oxford Movement were content with the Book of Common Prayer, they viewed themselves more as restorers than innovators.

[12] It was appointed in April 1904. The fourteen members included a balance of high, broad and low church, and the laity outnumbered the clergy. It was chaired by Sir Michael Hicks Beach.

[13] Report p. 77

[14] Report p. 75.

[15] The 1662 Prayer Book also contained a number of anomalies that needed to be ironed out. Not least the misspelt name of a saint!

[16] In an interview with F. A. Iremonger Men and Movements in the Church (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1928) p. 133.

[17] Alec Vidler, one of Barnes' 'rebel clergy' described Russell Wakefield as "an easy going, indulgent, and popular bishop, who had left his clergy do more or less what they liked in their churches, provided that they had the support of their people and were getting on with their job of ministering to the flock of Christ" Scenes for a Clerical Life: An Autobiography (London: Collins, 1977) p. 62.

[18] Letter published on 26 November; cited in full in Barnes Ahead of his Age pp. 166-8.

[19] Barnes Ahead of His Age,p. 169.

[20] Barnes Ahead of His Age,p. 183.

[21] This was where Alec Vidler who was the "last curate to be licensed by the bishop to what was shortly to become a so-called rebel church"; Vidler Scenes p. 64. Lockhart in his biography of Lang with massive understatement describes it as "a minor but tedious controversy". (J. G. Lockhart Cosmo Gordon Lang (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1949) p. 379.)

[22] Reprinted in Modern Churchman xvii (9 & 10) Dec 1927 & Jan 1928, pp. 533-9; and in Should Such a Faith Offend? ch. xxix.

[23] Preached in Cardiff Parish Church, 29 August 1920, to members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Reprinted in Should Such a Faith Offend? ch.I.

[24] "Evolution and the fall" preached in Westminster Abbey, 5 September 1920. Reprinted in Should Such a Faith Offend? ch. II.

[25] Should Such a Faith Offend? p. 11. The one notable exception was General Bramwell Booth of the Salvation Army.

[26] An address at the Parish Church of Birmingham on Thursday 6 October 1927. Reprinted in Modern Churchman xvii (9 & 10) Dec 1927 & Jan 1928, pp. 540-4.; and in Should Such a Faith Offend? ch. xxx.

[27] He prefaced this talk with the following: Those who speak here naturally feel a greater freedom than if they were preaching at a regular Sunday service. Those who come to listen to expect that the problems of religion and social life will be discussed with candour no less that with sincerity. I welcome the fact that on such occasions as this we meet in atmosphere of quiet seriousness. I am glad also that the inhibitions of conventional ecclesiasticism are absent. Smooth, unctuous platitudes may have a soothing effect but they do nothing either to free men from the tyranny of mistaken beliefs or to create Christian enthusiasm for righteousness and peace. (Should Such a Faith Offend? p. 318) Barnes' words certainly did not have a "soothing effect" on Anglo-Catholics!

[28] Should Such a Faith Offend? p. 320

[29] The protest was obviously premeditated and well organised, Henson had received a Copy of Solemn Denunciation and Protest made at the High Service in S. Paul's Cathedral.( Henson Retrospect vol. 2, p. 158.)

[30] "Of course I have no sort of objection to your writing me an 'open' letter such as you propose", wrote Davidson in his own hand. (J. Barnes Ahead of His Age p. 196)

[31] Tennessee was the place of the notorious 1925 Scopes monkey trial. Cited in The Modern Churchman XVII (9 & 10) (Dec 1927 & Jan 1928) p510.

[32] Henson commented: "It is an effective document, not too long, nor too discursive". Retrospect.

[33] "You will not doubt my condemnation of the unseemly incident in St. Paul's cathedral ... Not by action of that sort can the cause of truth be reasonably set forward." Cited in The Modern Churchman XVII (9 & 10) (Dec 1927 & Jan 1928) p. 51o.

[34] "For myself at least, I can say that your position on the biological question in outline, and so far as I understand it, is one with which I personally have been familiar for more than fifty years." Cited in The Modern Churchman XVII (9 & 10) (Dec 1927 & Jan 1928) p. 511.

[35] Nigel Scotland "Darwin and doubt and the respone of the Victorian churches" Churchman 100 (4) (1986) 293-308. See also David N. Livingstone Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/ Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1987); James Moore Post-Darwinian Controversies. The Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley debate, is often used as a paradigm of the relation of science and religion; i.e . conflict. The conflict metaphor is ahistorical; and based on misinformation and half-truths; see my "Science and faith: boa constrictors and warthogs?" Themelios 19 (1) (October 1993) pp. 4-9; Colin Russell "The conflict metaphor and its social origins" S&CB 1(1) 1990 pp. 3-23; Sheridan Gilley and Ann Loades "Thomas Henry Huxley: the war between science and religion" Journal of Religion vol 61 (1981) 285-308

[36] Baden Powell "On the study of the evidences of Christianity", was able to refer to "Mr. Darwin's masterly volume on The Origin of the Species ...a work which must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand principle of self-evolving powers of nature". Essays and Reviews (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861, 5th edn) p. 139."

[37] J.R. Illingworth in his contribution "The incarnation in relation to development" , wrote of the theory of evolution that it was "an advance in our theological thinking"; and Aubrey Moore: "Darwinism ... under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend". Illingworth foreshadowed the (erroneous) evolutionary Christology, of Christ as the "new emergent" as espoused by contemporary "scientists as theologians", Arthur Peacocke (Theology in an age of Science London: SCM, 1993) and Ian Barbour.(Religion in an Age of Science London: SCM , 1990)

[38] The Relations between Religion and Science, Lecture VI: "Apparent collision between religion and the doctrine of evolution" (London: Macmillan, 1885) p.188

[39] F. R. Tennant The Origin and Propagation of Sin (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1902); Philosophical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928, 1930).

[40] F. W. Dillistone Charles Raven : Naturalist, Historian, and Theologian (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975) mentions that Darwin's evolutionary doctrines had been "embraced so wholeheartedly" by Raven. See also Raven's 1951 Gifford lectures( first series): Science and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1953) esp. ch. IX; and his Christianity and Science(World Christian Books No. 4) (London: United Society for Christian Literature/ Lutterworth press, 1955).

[41] Author's note: This footnote has been removed post-publication for sake of accuracy.

[42] Contra Roger Lloyd The Church of England in the Twentieth Century vol. 2 (1919-1939) (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1959) p. 18

[43] Quoted in full in The Modern Churchman XVII (9 & 10) (Dec 1927 & Jan 1928) pp. 510-12.

[44] Cited in The Modern Churchman XVII (9 & 10) (Dec 1927 & Jan 1928) pp. 513

[45] F. J. A. Hort (1828-92) was the third person of the Cambridge triumvirate not mentioned by Davidson in his previous letter. Barnes echoed Davidson's words to describe Hort as "my master". Westcott and Hort had produced a still influential edition of the Greek New Testament in 1881. Hort had also welcomed the publication of the Origin of Species and had encouraged others to read it.

[46] Cited in The Modern Churchman XVII (9 & 10) (Dec 1927 & Jan 1928) pp. 519.

[47] Henson Retrospect Diary entry for 28 Oct.

[48] I have attempted to deal with some of the "thorns" in my "Science and faith: boa constrictors and warthogs?" Themeliosvol. 19 (1) 4-9.

[49] See my "A typology of science and religion" Evangelical Quarterly vol (2000)
Advocates of the various positions include:
1. Science replaces religion
Richard Dawkins; Peter Atkins
2. Religion replaces science
Extreme creationism: e.g. Henry Morris, John Whitcomb
3. Science and religion as independent
3a weak independence
R.J. Berry, Michael Poole, Ernest Lucas, Donald MacKay
3b strong independence
Paul Duhem, W.H. Hindmarsh
4. Science shapes religion
Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking
5. Religion shapes science
Abraham Kuyper, Michael Polanyi, Nicholas Wolterstorff
6. Science and religion in dialogue.
Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne.

[50] Julian Huxley, J. Arthur Thomson, Bishop Barnes et al. Science and Religion: A Symposium (London: Gerald Howe Ltd, 1931) p. 57; broadcast sometime between September and December 1930. He goes on:

Let me give definite instances. First, the earth is not the fixed centre of the Universe; it is merely the moving satellite of a sun which resembles innumerable other suns. Secondly, man was not specially created, but has evolved from an ape-like stock. Thirdly, no priest, by ritual or formula, can attach spiritual properties to inanimate matter. Living men have spiritual value; dead matter in itself is spiritually valueless. Fourthly, if by miracles we mean large-scale breaches in the uniformity of nature, such miracles do not occur in human experience. Here are four typical results of scientific investigation which at length all must accept.

[51] Most would have agreed with The French Catholic physicist Piere Duhem (1861-1916): "I have constantly aimed to prove that physics proceeds by an autonomous method absolutely independent of any metaphysical position" ("Physics of a believer" in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (New York: Atheneum, 1962 [original 1914]). There was as Habgood pointed out "The uneasy truce between science and theology" in Soundings: Essays Concerning Christian Understanding (edited by Alec Vidler) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966).

[52] Its contents were as follows:

Lecture I. Introduction
Lecture II. Matter
Lecture III. Space
Lecture IV. Reimann's general theory of space
Lecture V. Space-time: the special theory of relativity
Lecture VI. General relativity
Lecture VII. The electrical theory of matter
Lecture VIII. Heat and light
Lecture IX. The quantum theory and Rontgen rays
Lecture X. The solar system
Lecture XI. The galactic universe and the great nebulae
Lecture XII. The origin of life and the geological record
Lecture XIII. The evolution of plants and sex
Lecture XIV. The evolution of animals and Mendelism
Lecture XV. The machinery of evolution
Lecture XVI. Man's origin and past
Lecture XVII. Scientific theory and the "real" world
Lecture XVII. God and our belief in his existence
Lecture XIX. Religious experience
Lecture XX. Immortality
Conclusion

[53] C. F. Russell "Bishop Barnes' Gifford Lectures" Modern Churchman XXII (3) (June 1933) p. 157. He goes on to say: And as the non-specialist reader gazes blankly at page after page of this kind [mathematical formulae], it is poor comfort to notice, scattered here and there, such words as "evidently," "obviously," "it is readily seen," "we can easily see," and the like.

[54] He wrote: "His achievement is one of which the Church of England may be proud. I know of no epitome of modern science, by a single writer, comparable in encyclopaedic range to this work." Review of Scientific Theory and Religion in Journal of Theological Studies 34(1933) p. 398

[55] JTS 34 p. 400.

[56] STR section 5 p.5. Cf also: The right starting-point for theology, as Inge [Outspoken Essays, Longmans, 1927 p. 27] has well said, "is to examine the conception of the world as known to science". I propose in these lectures to make such an examination as my ignorance will permit (p.5)

[57] This is more commonly now known as critical realism. It is the view espoused by Polkinghorne, Barbour and Peacocke. By this Barnes means that he "physical world exists independently of any human mind", they exist in God, the universal mind.

[58] STR p. 655.

[59] The Rise of Christianity (London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1947). He notes that: Reading for this book lightened the burden of nearly a decade of diocesan routine: in the writing of it I have found some relief from the anxieties and miseries of war (p. vii).

[60] Rise p. vi.

[61] In the foreword to the third impression, he re-emphasises his belief: The postulate of the finite-scale uniformity of nature has been assailed by a number of theologians but, so far as I have observed, by no competent man of science.

[62] Canon R. D. Richardson, vicar of Harborne, was a close ally and friend of Barnes, he was for many years Barnes' examining chaplain He later became principal of the modernist college Ripon Hall (1948-52). Barnes had written a foreword to Richardson's The Gospel of Modernism in 1933. Richardson's book had also cast doubt on the virgin birth and the resurrection.

[63] Vol. XXXVII (2) July 1947)

[64] Cited in Stephenson The Rise and Decline of English Modernism pp. 170-1.

[65] Barnes Ahead of his Age, p.p. 401-2.

[66] The Modern Churchman vol. XXXVII (2) (July 1947) , pp. 97-100. The editorial had the subtitle: "A second Colenso"; he compared Barnes' book with that of another English bishop, Bishop J. W. Colenso's Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined (1862). Colenso became Bishop of Natal in 1853, like Barnes he was a mathematician by training and a Second Wrangler and Smith Prizeman at Cambridge.

[67] C. H. Dodd Christian Beginnings. A Reply to Dr. Barnes' "The Rise of Christianity" and F. Kenyon The Bible and Modern Scholarship (1948).

[68] Stanley Eley cited in William Purcell Fisher of Lambeth (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1969) p. 165. According to Carpenter, Fisher's biographer, it "led to the most controversial and explosive theological controversy during Fisher's time." (Edward Carpenter Archbishop Fisher: His Life and Times (Norwich: The Canterbury Press, 1991) p. 295.)

[69] Edward Carpenter Archbishop Fisher: His Life and Times (Norwich: The Canterbury Press, 1991) p. 296; letter dated 13 May 1947.

[70] He had replied that "I do not think that I ... reach conclusions which make it impossible for me to hold the office of bishop. ...Though the range of my knowledge has increased, my Christian belief has not changed in fundamentals since I was ordained forty-five years ago." (Cited in John Barnes Ahead of His Age p. 405.)

[71] Charles Smyth Cyril Forster Garbett: Archbishop of York (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1959) p. 473; letter dated 9 June 1947.

[72] John Barnes Ahead of His Age p. 406.

[73] There were historical precedents for doing so. Bishop King of Lincoln had been tried in Benson's court in 1888.

[74] John Barnes Ahead of His Time p. 407. H. D. A. Major "Criticism and conscience" Hibbert Journal (April 1948) set out the legal position of the Church of England. He showed that it was possible for Barnes to hold his views and still remain a bishop. Op. cit.

[75] Selwyn was Dean of Winchester, he had already written a searing review in the Guardian 6 June 1996. He had written: "In my judgement, it is a very serious matter that a bishop should produce a book which systematically disparages the trustworthiness of the Bible ..." The choice of Selwyn was not a neutral one! Hodson, was the Oxford Regius professor of Theology. The idea of asking Raven to be a third member, was soon dismissed as he would likely take Barnes' side.

[76] The draft of this speech was seen by several bishops. Barking saw it as being "balanced and fair-minded", London was uneasy and Bell thought that an open letter was the best approach. Carpenter Archbishop Fisher.

[77] Carpenter Fisherp. 300

[78] Canterbury Chronicle of Convocation, October 1947, pp. 187 ff. Cited in Paul A. Welsby A History of the Church of England 1945-1980p. 55.

[79] Cyril Garbett Church and State in England (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950) p. 200.

[80] Keith W. Clements Lovers of Discord: twentieth Century Theological Controversies in England (London: SPCK, 1988) p. 132.

[81] J. K. Mozley Some Tendencies in British Theology(London: SPCK, 1951) p. 30.

[82] A. M. Ramsey From Gore to Temple London: Longmans, 1960, p. 68.

[83] Alan M. G. Stephenson The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (The Hulsean Lectures 1979-80) (London: SPCK, 1984) Stephenson also makes allusion to a number of items and persons that constitute "English Modernism": a. Modern Churchmen's Union. b. The Modern Churchman journal founded 1911. Editors: H.D. A. Major; William Frend, A.O. Dyson [In January 1994 it became Modern Believing its editor: George Pattison (King's, Cambridge), noted in his editorial that: Modern Believing is not a new journal. It is the new title of an established and distinguished theological journal. Despite a change of cover and a change of title the continuity with MC is fundamental ( MB XXV (1) (1994) 2).] c. The conference of Modern Churchmen. d. The most famous of these conferences: the 1921 Girton Conference. e. Henry D. A. Major (called by R. D. Richardson"The Apostle of English Modernism"). f. Three other leading names: Hastings Rashdall, W.R. Inge and Percy Gardner. g. Ripon Hall, the theological college founded by Bishop Boyd Carpenter. h. The Church of Englan Doctrine Report of 1938, "which English Modernists have always been keen to regard as giving them the right to exist in the Church of England and which was, to a certain extent, and outcome of Girton 1921." p. 10-11; and i. E. W. Barnes and his The Rise of Christianity.

[84] Associated with this are Alfred Loisey, George Tyrrell and Freidrich von Hugel. Oliver Chase Quick (1885-1944)Liberalism, Modernism and Tradition (Bishop Paddock Lectures 1922) (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1922) notes three clashes between Protestantism and Catholic modernism. For Catholic Modernists as opposed to Liberal Protestants: (p. 29) Idea is opposed to fact as the basis of Christianity Development is opposed to origin as the essence of Christianity The community is opposed to the individual as the organ of Christianity

[85] Names associated with this are L.P. Jacks, the English Untarian; Samuel Angus; C.J. Cadoux; Leslie Weatherhead; H.E. Fosdick; and R.J. Campbell.

[86] Stephenson dates "the commencement of English Modernism in 1898, the year when the Modern Churchman's Union began" (p. 5).

[87] In The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner(1946).

[88] For example: Paul Tillich; Bonhoeffer; Kung; John Knox; John Robinson; Paul van Buren; Dennis Nineham; Maurice Wiles; and Don Cupitt. Stephenson notes: "perhaps it would be better to call this group -if group they are - "Neo-Modernists" or "Radicals"." p. 6.

[89] For example, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In this sense the writers of Essays and Reviews and Lux Mundi could be designated "modernists".

[90] Postmodernism, is exactly that post modern; it is a reaction against modernism, against rationality as the legitimation of knowledge, and as Lyotard defines it "as incredulity toward metanarratives" (The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge [Manchester: Manchester University press, 1984] p. xxiv). In what follows, to simplify, I shall take modern, modernism and modernity as being synonymous. On the subtle differences see e.g. David Lyon Postmodernity (Open University Press, 1995).

[91] I will leave aside the relationship between modern and postmodern, and whether postmodern is merely the logical conclusion of modernism. It could be argued that the desire to be post (modern) accepts the progress metanarrative! See for example David F. Wells No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1993) ch. II.

[92] Following David Bebbington Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989) p. 233.

[93] George K. Bell Randall Davidson vol. ii. p. 1319.

[94] Carpenter, writes that Barnes saw himself as an evangelist, concerned to preach a gospel that did not affront human reason. (Edward Carpenter Archbishop Fisher: His Life and Times (Norwich: The Canterbury Press, 1991) p. 295. Charles Smyth saw him as: a man of blind courage and fanatical simplicity ... attempting (badly) to make faith acceptable to people in a scientific age. (Cyril Forster Garbett: Archbishop of York (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1959) p. 470ff) And Alec Vidler: He was better suited to be a don than a bishop ...He conceived himself to be called, on the one hand, to take a leading part in adjusting the Christian faith to the discoveries of natural science and, on the other hand, to expunge from the churches in his diocese what he regarded as superstitious beliefs. (Scenes from a Clerical life: An Autobiography (London: Collins, 1977) p. 62-3.)

[95] In fact Clements was wrong to maintain that Barnes was not a member of the Modern Churchmen's Union. Though for many years he was not a member, he regarded modernism as "the leaven of the whole loaf, not a slice of the cake".(J. Barnes Ahead of His Time p. 287). In 1945, his biographer writes, Barnes was to tell a friend that "during the war certain articles in the Modern Churchman seemed to me so horrible that I resigned my membership of the Modern Churchmen's Union".(J. Barnes Ahead of His Time p. 363) He rejoined in 1948.

[96] G. W. Bromiley in Churchman

[97] J. P. Moreland (ed.) The Creation Hypothesis (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994)

[98] This position is of course self-refuting.

[99] Science and Religion p. 58

[100] Science and Religion p. 59. Cf also: In short, physics, which is our most developed science, at present merely allows us to investigate certain measurable properties of things; but we must never forget, in contemplating the very extensive conquests made by this science, that there are possibly vast regions of the phenomenal world to which its methods, so far as they have ben developed, do not apply. (STR, p. 11)

[101] "The history lesson" by Steve Turner fom Nice and Nasty (Basingstoke : Marshall Morgan & Scott/ Razor Books, 1980), no doubt echoing the sentiments of George Santayana (1863-1952). 102 Barnes Ahead of his Age, p. 59. It was his pacfism (or perhaps more specifically his support for Bertrand Russell), along with his offer of the position at the Temple, and his desire to marry that were the causes for his departure from Cambridge.

[103] Cited in Barnes Ahead of his Age, p. 95.

[104] "Some reflections on eugenics and religion" (The Galton lecture deleiverd before the Eugenics Education Society 16 February 1926) reprinted in Should Such a Faith Offend? He concluded: When religious people realise that, in thus preventing the survival of the socially unfit, they are working in accordance with the plan by which God has brought humanity so far on its road, their objections to repressive action will vanish.

[105] For example; Hastings , p. 491; S. C. Carpenter Winnington-Ingram (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1949): "Dr. E. W. Barnes' The Rise of Christianity is a credulous and old-fashioned book" p. 154.

[106] Paul Avis "John Polkinghorne: apologist from the world of science" SJT

Emerging Church Economics

There are too many errors in this book for unsophisticated readers. McLaren’s book has value only to readers who recognize the mistakes but are willing to learn about a position that springs from ideology and a theological framework. For me, the emerging church movement is enough to consider by itself without flawed economics intertwined

Mordecai Kaplan: Rethinking Judaism for the New World

Sed porta eros cursus nisi. Suspendisse a odio in mi interdum faucibus. Nulla eleifend turpis at massa. Praesent dictum, leo sagittis rutrum fermentum, massa metus scelerisque justo, sed dignissim velit tellus ut odio. Quisque mollis aliquam lectus. Vestibulum tempus tellus a augue. Suspendisse ipsum.