Volume 36 - Issue 2

Not Ashamed! The Sufficiency of Scripture for Public Theology

By Dan Strange


For Christians in the United kingdom, the Bible appears to have suffered a reversal of fortune with regards to its standing in public life.

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
When looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

“How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he; then with a twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so, I thought, the anvil of God’s Word,
For ages, skeptics blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed—the hammers gone.

—John Clifford

For Christians in the United Kingdom,2 the Bible appears to have suffered a reversal of fortune with regards to its standing in public life. Picture two scenes which may seem somewhat ‘random’ but which, to my mind, are illustratively indicative. The first scene concerns itself with the theme of royalty. Whether one is a royalist or not, or even whether one takes any of the ‘pomp and circumstance’ of monarchy as being at all relevant to British life and culture, surely there was still something encouraging and positive for the Christian believer who listened and now incredibly for the first time watched the coronation ceremony of Elizabeth II in June 1953. For it was with the following words from the Archbishop of Canterbury that Her majesty received a copy of the Bible:

Our gracious Queen: to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the Law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God.

While there are those in all sectors of our society who wish it were not so, one cannot deny the relevance, role, and yes, even rule, that the Bible has explicitly played in the shaping of British life and culture. This may be obvious to some, but for many, including many Christians, there are severe cases of historical myopia and amnesia which need remedying. The Bible’s influence is enormous in all fields but let us take just two examples: the Bible as the basis for common law and the motivation for the origins of modern science.

It is likely that within two hundred years of Jesus’ birth Britannia had heard the Christian message, but it was not until the 511 and the preaching of Patrick, Columba, Aiden, and Augustine that Christian numbers and influence increased. The earliest document written in English is the law code of Ethelbert, which was strongly influenced by biblical ideals and law. The common law system developed during the twelfth and thirteen centuries was largely shaped by Christian values. Many aspects of the British justice system that we cherish—retributive justice, legal representation, the taking of oaths, judicial investigation, and rules for evidence—all owe a debt to a Christian influence based on the biblical revelation.

In a similar vein, inscribed in Latin over the door of the physics laboratory in Cambridge is neither ‘physics is fun’ nor ‘leave your faith before entering’ but Ps 111:2: ‘Great are the works of the Lord. Studied by all those who delight in them’,3 a verse chosen by the scientist and formulator of electromagnetic theory, James Clark Maxwell. As the author P.D James summarizes concerning the ‘Authorized Version’, ‘No book had had a more profound and lasting influence on religious life, the history and the culture, the institutions and the language of the English-speaking peoples throughout the world than has the King James Bible’. 4

Compare our coronation scene with another televisual event held at the Corn Exchange in Brighton in September 2005. Both the audience and panel hostilely received Stephen Green, the National Director of Christian Voice, in his one and only ignominious appearance on the BBC’s Question Time (a long-running political panel programme in the UK). Again, while one might not support the cause and tone of his organization nor think Green’s overall presence and communication skills were the most winsome, it was the muffled but still audible groans, sighs, and titters that were induced whenever Green answered a contemporary political issue by quoting from the Bible. For the Christian watching on, this was perhaps the most painful part to bear. For we know that not a year goes by without some new survey or poll highlighting new levels of biblical illiteracy, incredulity, and disdain in our country. As Boyd Tonkin wrote last year in The Independent, again on the subject of the KJV,

For anyone religious or not, who cares about the continuity of culture and understanding, Gordon Campbell lets slip a remark to freeze the blood. A professor at Leicester University, he recalls that ‘When the name of Moses came up at the seminar I was leading, no one had any idea whom he might have been, though a Muslim student eventually asked if he was the same person as Musa in the Qur’an (which he is)’.5

Chilling indeed.

Now, in matters of public life and public policy, and remembering Alistair Campbell’s infamous rebuff that ‘we don’t do God’,6 there is some evidence that we just might be witnessing the start, albeit a glacially slow start, of a thaw regarding a discussion on the place and legitimacy of ‘religious commitments’ in public life. However, it still appears that for all concerned, both Christians and non-Christians, there is a moratorium on even discussing the possible role, relevance, and rule of the Bible in public life: we definitely ‘don’t do the Bible’. Let me pose a number of awkward questions: Was the pain and frankly toe-curling embarrassment that many Christians felt in the Stephen Green appearance as much about the massive apologetic faux-pas we thought he was making in his insistence in referring to and quoting from Scripture? Were we not witnessing the awful grating of two incommensurable worlds colliding, worlds that we really believe should now never come into contact with each other? The first, the sophisticated, slick, confessionally ‘thin’, allegedly ‘neutral’ lingua franca of modern politics of rights, equality, tolerance, and freedoms. The second, a naïve, unsophisticated, anachronistic, and so irrelevant ‘thick’ description of Christian particularity, certainly mentioning rights, equality, tolerance, and freedoms, but adding ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, and ‘Bible’ to the mix. Were we not witnessing here the breaking of an unspeakable taboo? Was not our number one fear being realised? In this public arena were we ashamed of the Bible being used in this way? Did we think that the Bible was unfit for public service? At this low point (or should it be high point?) of inappropriateness and inconceivability, were we as Christians guilty of buying into the revisionist history which determinedly airbrushes out the impact of Scripture and forgets a time when various public figures had gathered together for six years in Parliament itself under the authority of Scripture?

There are, of course, many historical, cultural, sociological, philosophical, and, most important (for it undergirds them all), ‘theological’ factors which can be cited as reasons for the decline of the Bible’s relevance, role, and rule in British lives, British homes, British culture, and British public life (and we may want to add, within many British churches). In being a part of Western culture, these factors have been well-documented and analysed and so will not be dealt with here.7 Of course, how our British ‘world’ deals with the Word is not totally within our control, but thankfully within God’s sovereign providence. In the time and circumstances God has placed us, we are called to be faithful. However ‘being faithful’ means that as Christians in this country in 2011, we do have a role and a responsibility when it comes to reflecting and then acting upon the role we give to the Bible, not just in our own lives or in our church’s (what might be called a ‘bottom-up’ work), but in our ‘public theology’ (what might be called a top-down work).8 It is this arena that I wish to focus on in this paper. Narrowing this focus even further, and coming closer to home, I want to concentrate on how conservative evangelicals and especially those in the Reformed community view the relevance, role, and rule of the Bible in public life, for while there may be a healthy consensus when it comes to the relevance, role, and rule of the Bible in our lives and churc

  1. ^ This article is an updated version of a paper originally presented and discussed at the Affinity Theological Conference in England in February 2011.
  2. ^The focus of this article concerns British life and culture. Those from a different cultural background will have to contextualize appropriately.
  3. ^‘Magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus’.
  4. ^Cited in Susan Elkin, ‘Restoring Holy Order’, The Independent (October 17, 2010). Cited 14 July 2011. Online:
  5. ^Boyd Tonkin, ‘Battles of a Book’, The Independent (December 31, 2010). Cited 14 July 2011. Online:
  6. ^Campbell was Tony Blair’s combative ‘spin doctor’ who interjected when a journalist deigned to ask the then Prime Minster about his faith.
  7. ^E.g., the works of Francis Schaeffer, David Wells, Os Guinness, Herbert Schlossberg, and most recently, James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); and Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010).
  8. ^Let us use John Bolt’s definition of public theology (‘North American Evangelical Public Theology Today’ [public lecture, 2008; transcript given to the author]): ‘by “public theology” I have in mind the careful, theological thinking about why and how Christians should bear witness in the public square. Included here are questions about how a believer personally relates to public institutions, how Christians thinks about the best way public order should be constituted, how and to what extent a Christian should strive to influence public policy. . . . It is useful to use the term “public theology” to indicate those aspects of theological reflection that are intentionally directed to the interface between the Christian faith and public life, understood now as the equally intentional efforts of life in the public civic community, a community shared by many who do not share our faith’.
  9. ^Indeed sometimes it seems between Westminster campuses and alumni.
  10. ^While I will demonstrate that there are significant differences between these two positions, I do not want to lose perspective and minimize the broader theological commonality which unites them both. This is an internal ‘family’ dispute within Reformed theology.
  11. ^John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed), 188.
  12. ^‘The natural man, “sins against” his own essentially Satanic principle. As the Christian has the incubus of his “old man” weighing him down and therefore keeping him from realizing the “life of Christ” within him, so the natural man has the incubus of the sense of Deity weighing him down and keeping him from realizing the life of Satan within him’ (Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974], 27).
  13. ^For a general introduction, see Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1979).
  14. ^More broadly, I would want to argue that these ‘Reformed’ givens are faithful to the non-negotiable biblical theological plot-line and turning points as articulated by D. A. Carson in Christ and Culture Revisited (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008).
  15. ^In a larger theological context and compared to, say, dispensationalism, Reformed theology is itself a model of continuity.
  16. ^I have decided to use the title common-kingdom over the more usual ‘two kingdoms’ title (remembering that the ‘common’ kingdom is one of these ‘two’ kingdoms). The phrase ‘two kingdoms’ is classically associated with Lutheranism, what Niebuhr well describes as ‘Christ and culture in paradox’ (H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture [enlarged ed.; San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2001]). As the Augsburg Confession of Faith states, ‘Christ’s kingdom is spiritual; it is knowledge of God in the heart, the fear of God and faith, the beginning of eternal righteousness and eternal life. At the same time it lets us make outward use of the legitimate political ordinances of the nation in which we live, just as it lets us make use of medicine or architecture, food or drink or air. The gospel does not introduce any new laws about the civil estate, but commands us to obey existing laws, whether they were formulated by heathens or by others, and in obedience to practice love’. Recent Reformed writers have baptized ‘two-kingdoms’ as the title for their own position on the relationship between Christ and culture.
  17. ^E.g., Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000).
  18. ^E.g., Michael Horton, Christless Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008)
  19. ^E.g., Daryl Hart, A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State (Chicago: Ivan Dee, 2006), 250–51.
  20. ^Stephen Grabhill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006).
  21. ^Ken Myers, ‘Christianity, Culture and Common Grace’, n.p. [cited 14 July 2011]. Online:
  22. ^See David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law (Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 2006); idem, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010); idem, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).
  23. ^VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, 24.
  24. ^Ibid., 24.
  25. ^As Meredith Kline notes, ‘Apropos of the fifth word [commandment], it is in this New Testament age not a legitimate function of a civil government to endorse and support religious establishments. This principle applies equally to the Christian church; for though its invisible government is theocratic with Christ sitting on David’s throne in the heavens and ruling over it, yet its visible organization, in particular as it is related to civil powers, is so designed that it takes a place of only common privilege along with other religious institutions within the framework of common grace’ (The Structure of Biblical Authority [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 167).
  26. ^VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 26. It should be noted though that human beings continue to live and be obligated under the cultural mandate as refracted through the Noahic covenant (78–81).
  27. ^Ibid., 67.
  28. ^Ibid., 126.
  29. ^VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, 38.
  30. ^T. David Gordon, ‘The Insufficiency of Scripture’, Modern Reformation 11 (January–February 2002): 19. See also his response brought about by critical reaction to the original paper: ‘Response from T. David Gordon,’ Modern Reformation 11 (May–June): 46.
  31. ^T. David Gordon, ‘Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy’, WTJ 56 (1994): 23–43.
  32. ^‘The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or the traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge . . . that there are some circumstanced concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed’ (WCF 1:6).
  33. ^Gordon, ‘The Insufficiency of Scripture’, 19.
  34. ^Chapter 7 of Living in God’s Two Kingdoms looks at the topics of education, vocation, and politics.
  35. ^VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, 40. VanDrunen cites several biblical instances of ‘pagans’ demonstrating natural law: Abimelech’s recognition in Gen 20 that Abraham had done ‘things that should not be done’; Abimelech’s ‘fear of God’ in Gen 20:11; and ‘a common humanity’ illustrated by Job (taken here to have been bereft of special revelation) in his reflection of his past conduct in Job 31:13–15.
  36. ^Ibid., 40–41.
  37. ^Hart, A Secular Faith, 256.
  38. ^I am intentionally using the term confessional rather than a term like transformational because in my experience the latter can be unhelpfully misleading and distracting.
  39. ^E.g., Al Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformation Worldview (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). I should note that there are versions of Dooyerwerdian sphere sovereignty that can resemble a common kingdom position and thus susceptible to the same critique. See Frame, Doctrine of the Word of God, 392–421
  40. ^Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1991).
  41. ^E.g., Peter J. Leithart, Against Christianity (Moscow: Canon, 2003); idem, Defending Constantine (Downers Grove: IVP, 2010).
  42. ^E.g., John M. Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008).
  43. ^Michael Williams, ‘A Restorational Alternative to Augustinian Verticalist Eschatology’, Pro Rege (June 1992): 15.
  44. ^David Bruce Hegeman, Plowing in Hope: Toward a Biblical Theology of Culture (Moscow: Canon), 88.
  45. ^Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 310.
  46. ^I.e., the ‘secular’ state is in reality itself a ‘confessional’ state.
  47. ^John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed), 218. Key verses he cites are 1 Cor 10:31; Col. 3:17; Rom 14:23.
  48. ^Ibid., 221.
  49. ^Ibid., 224.
  50. ^To use Cornelius Van Til’s categories in ‘Nature and Scripture’, in The Infallible Word: A Symposium (ed. N. B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1967).
  51. ^Daniel Strange, ‘Is General Revelation Sufficient?’ in Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism (ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson; Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), 40–77.
  52. ^This important insight was made by Vos in his category of ‘pre-redemptive special revelation’, and Van Til elaborated on it.
  53. ^As Leithart (Natural Law, 26) notes, ‘If by “natural law” one means simply “moral truth” then the Decalogue is a summary of natural law. If by natural law one means law that everyone is obligated to obey, then the Decalogue is natural law. If by natural law one means law that is rooted in the very nature of things, in the character of God and the nature of the world He has made, then again the Decalogue is natural law. But if by natural law one refers to moral principles that man is capable of discovering apart from special revelation, then the Decalogue is not natural law’.
  54. ^This ‘suppression’ and ‘exchange’ is variegated according to God’s sovereign restraint through common grace.
  55. ^Paul J. Visser, Heart for the Gospel, Heart for the World: The Life and Thought of a Reformed Pioneer Missiologist Johan Herman Bavinck (1895–1964) (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 144. Visser is quoting J. H. Bavinck, Religieus besef en christelijk geloof (Religious Consciousness and Christian Faith; Kampen: Kok, 1949), still not translated into English.
  56. ^Leithart, Natural Law, 19–20.
  57. ^Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 141.
  58. ^Ibid., 248.
  59. ^Williams’ lecture ‘Civil and Religious Law in England: A Religious Perspective’ (paper presented at the Temple Festival series at the Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Feb. 2008). Cited 14 July 2011. Online: This example and analysis was originally brought to my attention by David Field.
  60. ^Frame writes, ‘Are any of these grounds or motivations available to unbelievers? Yes and no. Unbelievers as well as believers ought to appeal to the character of God and to the creation ordinances, because they are human beings. Unbelievers have no right, as unbelievers, to appeal to God’s redemptive acts and presence; but they ought to become believers, so that they can make this appeal. Given that condition, unbelievers as well as believers should make their ethical decisions based on God’s redemptive acts, his commands, and his presence. The whole Bible, in other words, is God’s standard for all people, believers and unbelievers alike. God has not ordained separate ethics for believers and unbelievers. All human beings are subject to the same standard and ought to be motivated in the same way’ (review of David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, n.p. [cited 14 July 2011]. Online:
  61. ^Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (ed. J. T. Dennison; trans. G. M. Giger; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992), Topic 9. Q. 6. IX.
  62. ^Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 136.
  63. ^Gavin D’Costa, Paul Knitter, and Daniel Strange, Only One Way? Three Christian Responses to the Uniqueness of Christ in a Pluralistic World (London: SCM, 2011), 120.
  64. ^Kevin Vanhoozer, ‘What is Everyday Theology?’ in Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 27.
  65. ^This is by no means a novel idea but rather an ancient one seen in traditions like the prisca theologia, revived and reformed by scholars such as Jonathan Edwards. See Gerald McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
  66. ^Peter J. Leithart, Did Plato Read Moses? Middle Grace and Moral Consensus (Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper 23; Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1995), 4–5.
  67. ^Quoted in John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 25.
  68. ^Ken Myers, ‘Natural Law without Shame’, Tabletalk 18:5 (April 1994): 61.
  69. ^Frame (Doctrine of the Christian Life, 247, 954) argues that Budziszewski does this regarding his argument against contraception.
  70. ^This is the criticism of Kloosterman in his review of VanDrunen’s A Biblical Case for Natural Law. See Kloosterman’s review with a robust response by VanDrunen in the December 2007 edition of Ordained Servant Online [cited 14 July 2011]. Online:
  71. ^A. N. Triton, Whose World? (London: IVP, 1970), 84.
  72. ^As Julian Rivers pointed out in 2004, ‘It may be that a culture deviates in some respect from the law of God to such an extent that some moral positions seem defensible to Scripture alone. We may rapidly be reaching that point in the Western world as regards sexual ethics’ (‘Public Reason’, Whitefield Briefing 9:1 [May 2004]: 4). One thinks here of a country like Switzerland currently discussing the decriminalization of consensual incest and the U.S. case of David Epstein, charged with having a three-year affair with his adult daughter. Epstein’s lawyer said to ABCNews, ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so. At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms. It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. . . . How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not’ (
  73. ^Leithart, Natural Law, 27.
  74. ^Found in Peter Leithart’s short review of J. Budziszewski, The Line through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009),
  75. ^Budziszewski was an evangelical who became a Roman Catholic in 2003. Although his defence of natural law is now within a Catholic context, his arguments are very similar to those who defend natural law from a Reformed common-kingdom perspective.
  76. ^Leithart, review of Budziszewski, n.p. [cited 14 July 2011]. Online:
  77. ^Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 245.
  78. ^Ibid., 249–50.
  79. ^Ibid., 956.
  80. ^E.g., Frame, Poythress, and Bahnsen. I would also include Chris Wright’s ‘paradigmatic’ approach, which is a biblical foundation for the work of the Jubilee Centre ( See his Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Nottingham: IVP, 2004).
  81. ^It is important that we distinguish the different roles and responsibilities that we have in our individual vocations and between the ‘church as church’ contrasted with ‘Christians in the world’.
  82. ^Deployed most popularly by Tim Keller. See his Counterfeit Gods (London: Hodder, 2009).
  83. ^Richard Rorty, ‘Religions as a Conversation-Stopper’, in Philosophy and Social Hope (New York: Penguin, 1999), 166–67.
  84. ^Gavin D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 119.
  85. ^D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 117.
  86. ^On Kuyper’s teaching here, see Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation, 427–28.
  87. ^Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, 197. I have dealt with this in a little more detail in my ‘Evangelical Public Theology: What on Earth? Why on Earth? How on Earth?’ in A Higher Throne: Evangelicals and Public Theology (ed. Chris Green; Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 58–61. As I mention there, Tuit’s statement is very helpful: ‘The Kuyperian statement that every square inch of life belongs to Christ cannot be applied only to the institutional Church. Consequently, the leadership of the pastor is a special kind of leadership in close connection with the idea of office and the Word. The believer is accountable to God for the Christian leadership he gives in society as a citizen of the Kingdom guided by the Word preached and taught by the “church” leader, the pastor. One could say therefore that the life of the believer is mission, within the context of the cultural and the mission mandate, rather than that the church is mission’ (Pieter C. Tuit, ‘The Relationship between the Great Commission and World Transformation: Outline for a Reformed Missiology’, in For God So Loved the World: Missiological Reflections in Honor of Roger S. Greenway [ed. Arie C. Leder; Belleville, Ontario: Essence, 2006], 137n56).
  88. ^Here, and on the subject of cultural change, Hunter’s To Change the World is particularly stimulating.
  89. ^Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 13, quoted in Coffee, ‘The State and Social Transformation’, 100. In my opinion the work and ministry of Tim Keller is a leading example of such a harmonization. See his recent book Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes us Just (London: Hodder, 2010).
  90. ^
  91. ^
  92. ^Christopher Howse, ‘The Global Phenomenon that will never be lost in translation,’ The Daily Telegraph (November 23, 2010). Cited 14 July 2011. Online:
  93. ^Noting the ‘co-operative endeavour’ shown in the translation of the KJV, the Queen speaks of building communities and creating harmony through sport and games. Less tangentially, Rowan Williams speaks of the KJV capturing people’s imagination by making sense of life and putting their individual stories into one big story, the story of the whole universe.

Dan Strange

Daniel Strange is college director and tutor in culture, religion and public theology at Oak Hill College, London and contributing editor of Themelios.

Other Articles in this Issue

Listening to or reading the reflections of others on preaching is, for most preachers, inherently interesting and stimulating (whether positively or negatively)...

The relatively recent interest among evangelicals in engaging ancient Christian tradition is without question a welcome development...

Scholars continue to discuss and debate the scope of the biblical canon...

Is the Reformation over? At first blush, this question would appear to be a rather peculiar one to ask...

Some years ago I was asked what I thought of those whose teaching undermined the Reformation position on justification by grace through faith...