Interview with the Librarian (2)

Paul Levy

For Part 1 of the Interview with Sandy Finlayson see here


You are not uncritical of the men in this 'Unity and Diversity', particularly 'Rabbi Duncan', I found your chapter on him the most incisive, why is his story so vital for seminaries and churches today?

 

There is little doubt in my mind that John Duncan had one of the most brilliant minds of his time. His flair for languages meant that he was a natural for missions work and that is where he should have been left to use his talents.  Instead, he was brought back to teach languages at the Free Church College. From all accounts, he was not a good teacher and as a result he didn't prepare his students to deal with German Higher Critical views of Scripture. So, the Church and the academy needs to carefully judge where people's talents lie and then use them there.

 

The issue of social involvement for Christians and churches was as live in the 19th century as it is today, I was surprised at the activism of many of these men in that area? At times they were leftys weren't they? From your perspective what can we learn as churches from them?

 

The men I wrote about in this book all had a social conscience. As for being "leftys" I don't think the term works. In fact, all of Thomas Chalmers's political impulses were Tory (aka Conservative) in nature. That said, Chalmers did much to alleviate the suffering of the poor in his parishes in Glasgow. Through the diaconal ministry of his churches, the poor were reached with the gospel, then they were provided with education and practical support. Thomas Guthrie in his support of the Ragged Schools movement had a significant impact on education of homeless children.

 

Many in the reformed and evangelical worlds today tend to equate caring for the less fortunate as pursuing a social justice agenda. The 19th century Free Church didn't see it that way. The men I wrote about passionately believed that the preaching of the gospel was their foremost task, but they also believed that they had a duty before God to care for the poor and the outcasts in society. It wasn't either or, it was both and.