the expository times 1988 moberly 104 9

104

personal integrity even though they may not call it sin,and they understand how to recuperate from it eventhough they may not use the words repentance andabsolution to describe it. They appreciate theimportance of their commitment to their work, to theirfamilies, to bringing up their children and to caring forelderly relatives even though they may not describe itas worship. They are aware that there are aspects oftheir experience that are of deeper significance thantheir mundane routines even though they may notchoose to describe them as being close to God, andthey understand and practise prayer even if theyhappen to call it taking the dog for a walk.The point is that Christians do not have a monopoly

on Gods love and they are not unique in theirawareness of Gods workings, and it is this sharedawareness that provides the contact point betweenChristians and non-Christians at work and elsewhere.The church needs to speak to people like these bothbecause of what it has to offer them and because ofwhat it can learn from the dialogue about how it mightput its own house in order, and NSMs can be usefulboth as intermediaries and as interpreters. God soloved the world, not the church but the world, that hegave his only son Jesus Christ to save us from our sins.It is in the appreciation of this truth that NSMsperhaps have most to contribute.

The Churchs Use of the BibleThe Work of Brevard Childs

BY DR R. W. L. MOBERLYUNIVERSITY OF DURHAM

THERE is at present an extensive debate in progress onthe methods and goals appropriate to the study of theBible and its use by the believer today. The object ofthis paper is not to attempt any overview or analysis ofthe debate as such, but simply to concentrate on thework of one scholar, that is Brevard Childs. Whateverones assessment of the debate, the importance ofChildss contribution can hardly be denied. First,Childs is a professional biblical scholar, who is awareof the issues peculiar to the field of biblical study.Secondly, his theoretical proposals concerning thenature of biblical interpretation have always beenaccompanied by close exegetical study of the text, thusconstantly relating theory and practice. Thirdly,Childss work covers both Old and New Testamentsalike. Such a thoroughgoing approach to biblicalinterpretation is otherwise unparalleled incontemporary scholarship, and means that hisproposals deserve the closest attention.l 1

Since Childss work cannot be properly appreciatedunless it is seen in context, it will be appropriate tobegin with a rapid sketch of some of the assumptionsand issues that are generally characteristic of modembiblical scholarship.

First, there is the rise of historically-orientedbiblical criticism, which may, for convenience, becalled the historical-critical approach. This ischaracterized by a great diversity of procedures andmethods, which may not always be mutuallycompatible, but which share certain basicassumptions. At the heart lies the understanding that,given the nature of the Bible as a collection ofdocuments from the ancient world, the essence ofbiblical interpretation lies in the attainment of anaccurate historical understanding of these documents.The meaning of these documents is that meaningwhich they had in their ancient historical context, andso the aim of the scholar is to use whatever means hehas to reconstruct that context and the setting of thebiblical document within it.

Secondly, a corollary of the rise of historicalcriticism was the detachment of the Bible from thecontext of ecclesiastical doctrine and dogma withinwhich, in one way or another, the Bible was previouslyinterpreted. Such a context of interpretation was feltto be increasingly untenable for at least two reasons.First, the integrity of the Bible was abused, in thatoften the Bible was only allowed to say what laterdoctrine permitted it to say, and it was not heard on itsown terms. For all that Protestantism in particularclaimed to be under the authority of the Bible, it isclear that in practice the Bible tended to be under theauthority of Protestantism. Secondly, there was theall-important rise of a truly historical consciousness.Whereas, prior to the Enlightenment, people tended tohave a flat and undifferentiated view of the past, theEnlightenment introduced a new sense of thedistinctiveness of the past. People had not alwaysthought, believed, and acted in ways that modernEuropeans found congenial or took for granted, andthis included the great figures of biblical times. Thebeliefs and practices of ancient Israel had to berespected and understood in their own historicalintegrity, and as a matter of historical principle theycould not be assimilated to subsequent Christian beliefand practice. For these two reasons, therefore, theinterpretation of the Bible, at least in the scholarlyworld, was increasingly detached from anecclesiastical context and transferred to a secular and

historically-oriented university context.A third factor, which is essentially a corollary of the

above two points, has been the problem ofhermeneutics. The Bible is different from any otherancient documents in that many people today stillseek, in one way or another, to live by it and to hear the

at Durham University on March 2, 2015ext.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ext.sagepub.com/

105

voice of God through it. Yahweh is considered to bereal and true in a way that Marduk and Zeus are not.What is the reason for this remarkable fact? Howevermuch one may point to the inherent quality andauthority of the biblical documents, the primaryreason is clearly the continuous existence ofcommunities of faith for whom belief in the God ofIsrael and the God and Father of Jesus Christ has beena living and creative reality down the centuries. Thiscentrality of a living community of faith for anapproach to the Bible was perhaps most famouslyexpressed by St Augustine, Indeed I should not havebelieved the Gospel, if the authority of the CatholicChurch had not moved me. But given the detachmentof biblical interpretation from the community of faithand the insistence that its meaning is what it meant inits ancient context, the question naturally arises as tohow the Bible can still be responsibly interpreted andused by the community of faith.The problem has often been particularly acute when

the historian has appeared to deny what the Bibleseems to affirm, that, for example, Moses and Jesusactually said and did what the Pentateuch and Gospelsrecord. For how then can a faith that is rooted in

history base itself upon texts that appear to behistorically inaccurate? But apart from the issue ofhistorical inaccuracy, the basic problem has been thatthe Bible as a whole is historically distant, andtherefore no part of it escapes the hermeneutical

problem of how to transcend the great gulf in outlookbetween ancient and modern times.

Attempts to resolve the hermeneutical problemhave been many and varied. On the one hand there hasbeen the liberal Protestant hermeneutic classicallyexpressed by Harnack, that some parts of the Biblecontain timeless moral and religious truths whichmove the modern conscience, or the existentialLutheran hermeneutic of Bultmann, that some partsof the Bible, when demythologized, contain achallenge to authentic existence in faith. On the otherhand there have been conservative voices which have

accepted the principle of an historical approach andyet restricted its scope so that there should be no sharpdistinction between historical fact, the plain sense ofthe text, the meaning the text has been given intraditional Christian theology, and the meaning of thetext today. In all this, two things at least are clear.First, all scholars, liberal and conservative alike, haveshared the assumption that it is the meaning of thebiblical text in its ancient historical context that is the

primary goal of the interpreter and the basis for histheology. Secondly, the status and authority of thereceived biblical text, which needs to be related on theone hand to the findings of the critical historian and onthe other hand to the needs of believers in the modernworld, has been left entirely unresolved. No proposed

hermeneutic has yet commanded a broad consensus.It is the resolution of this hermeneutical conundrum

that is Childss chief concern, and he sets about it bycriticizing some of the assumptions that haveaccompanied the first two factors outlined above. Hisapproach may be succinctly described by saying thathe comes to the Bible as a Christian theologian.

Childs comes to the Bible as a Christian in that hestresses that the Bible is a religious book, writtenexplicitly for the practical purpose of the guidance ofbelievers. Childs sees this not as a mere truism but as avital guide to understanding the nature of the Bible. Itis not just the relatedness of the Bible to a communityof faith that explains many of the factors that havemost influenced the development of the text, but also itis in the context of the community of faith that itswitness is to be heard and understood. That is to say,Childs questions that removal of the Bible from aspecifically Christian context of interpretation that haslain at the heart of the modern critical approach. Thisis no attempt to reestablish a traditional, pre-enlightenment view of the Bible. It is rather an attemptto establish a post-liberal, post-enlightenment view.What Childs is concerned for is a context of

interpretation within which biblical study should becarried out. In particular he is critical of theassumption that it is possible to determine themeaning and assess the truth claims of the Bible inhistorical terms independently of the Bibles receptionand interpretation within the community of faith.Childs in no way denies the historical objectivity ofbiblical content, nor does he deny the enormousillumination that has come from purely historicalstudy, nor does he deny the great contribution that hasbeen made by scholars of little or no faith. Childsaccepts the legitimacy of pluralism in biblicalinterpretation. Nonetheless, among the many possibleand legitimate approaches to the Bible, Childs arguesthat it is an approach from within the community offaith that should have normative status. Childsobserves that the modern interpreter is no lesshistorically-conditioned and culturally-relative inoutlook than any ancient biblical writer, and musttherefore stand within one or other particular contextof meaning and understanding. In conjunction withthis he stresses that since all interpretation involves adegree of interaction between text and reader, there isno absolute distinction between what a text meant andwhat a text means. The historical and evaluative tasksare inseparable. The interpreter who stands within thecommunity of faith that lives in obedience to thebiblical witness stands thereby in the context ofmeaning that should in principle be most congenial tothe positive appreciation of the biblical witness. Theecclesiastical context should in no way prejudgequestions of interpretation on dogmatic grounds nor



106

should it neglect a proper historical awareness, butrather it should be the setting in which the dialecticalinteraction between ancient text and modern worldcan most fruitfully be carried out. Such a religiouscontext does not, of course, exist in isolation but, likeany other context, naturally interacts with and isinterpenetrated by a wide number of other contexts.But it still retains an integrity and identity of its own.

In such a concern for the standpoint of theinterpreter one can of course detect overtones ofsimilar contemporary debates in a wide range of otherdisciplines in both the humanities and the sciences. Itis, moreover, no novel concern. For one is reminded ofthe arguments over a proper approach to biblicalinterpretation that marked the patristic period. Mensuch as Irenaeus and Athanasius insisted that theissues raised by Gnostics, Marcionites and Arianscould never be resolved by the text of scripture alone,but that scripture had to be interpreted from theperspective of the rule of faith, that is from thecontext of the church. It is in general continuity withsuch a classic Christian stance that Childs is to beunderstood.

Childs comes to the Bible as a theologian in that hewishes to reinstate theology as a discipline with anagenda and an integrity of its own in biblical study.Childs believes that over the last 200 years or so

theology has been largely subordinated to history.Theology has often been reduced to an interpretativecomment to round off an historical enquiry. The cakehas been history, the icing theology. Childs argues thatwithout a proper theological agenda the whole task ofinterpretation is misconstrued. This means that Childswishes to downgrade the importance of historicalcriticism in biblical study. This downgrading shouldnot, however, be exaggerated. If the subordination oftheology to history is the Scylla of modern biblicalcriticism, the neglect of a proper critical historicalawareness is Charybdis. Childss full acceptance of themethods and results of historical criticism sharplydistinguishes his position from those conservativescholars who have explicitly or implicitly restricted thehistorical scrutiny of biblical documents. What Childsseeks is to establish a proper relationship betweenhistory and theology in biblical interpretation in whichthe integrity and legitimate concerns of each disciplinewill be respected. What this involves in practice willemerge as we turn next to consider the three majorelements that Childs argues for as constituting anormative approach to the text.

l. Theological concerns are central to the processesthat have formed the biblical textMuch attention has been paid in modern study to

the process of development of biblical traditions fromtheir earliest oral stages, through their various literary

developments, to their final editing and fixation in theform that we now have them. This oral and literaryprocess has usually been studied in close relationshipto the historical communities that preserved andshaped the traditions. The resultant picture has beenone of complex and subtle interaction between on theone hand literary and on the other hand historical andsociological factors. Familiar examples are the re-useand expansion of prophetic oracles by disciples oreditors who applied the material to new historicalcontexts, or the development and moulding of thesynoptic traditions within the context of the liturgicaland evangelistic life of the early church. Althoughmany of the details of such study are inevitablyhypothetical, the overall picture has commanded awide consensus.

Childs shares in the consensus view but difl&dquo;ers in hisassessment of the factors at work. In contrast to the

general view that the traditions were shaped by thedemands of changing historical circumstances, Childsargues for the formative influence of theologicalfactors. To put it simply, the concern of the biblicaltradents was less the reapplication of material fromone specific situation to another specific situation, butrather the reapplication of material from one specificsituation to any situation. That is, the concern forhermeneutics is integral to the traditio-historicalprocess. The biblical tradents recognized the problemsinherent in making a message related to one particularcontext to be authoritative for an ongoing communityof faith. Their approach, therefore, was deliberately toloosen or relativize the links between a tradition andits original historical setting so as to make the materialmore accessible to subsequent believers. This wasachieved in a wide variety of ways, and certainly notthrough the application of any single dogmaticprinciple.The historical Amos, for example, had preached a

message of unmitigated judgment - the end of Israel(Amos 7:7ff, 8:2; 9:1). Although such a message wasappropriate to the specific context of eighth centuryIsrael, it could not as it stands be taken as normative,for in a larger theological context the ultimatepurposes of God include mercy and the divine gift of anew, restored existence. Therefore Amoss message of

judgment, while recognized as true within its originalcontext and preserved fully as a warning to futuregenerations, is set in a context of eschatologicalrenewal (9:11-15), so as to have a normativesignificance that transcends its historical origins.

2. Theology should be based upon the receivedbiblical textThe modern recognition that biblical texts usually

stand at varying degrees of remove from theirhistorical referent - as most famously illustrated in



107

various quests for the historical Jesus - has tended tomake the status of the biblical text problematic,especially for the theologian. Numerous differentapproaches to the problem have of course beensuggested. In general, however, theologians havetended to base their theology upon the sources oreditors of the received text, that is some abstractionfrom it, rather than the received text itself. Von Radexpounds the J and P sources in the Pentateuch, andJeremias expounds the supposed words of thehistorical Jesus.

Childs objects to such an approach to biblicaltheology for several reasons. First, the reconstructionof sources is always hypothetical to a greater or lesserdegree, and this means that the basis for ones theologyis likewise hypothetical and subject to frequentreformulation. As such it tends to resemble the housebuilt on sand. While the acceptance of the necessarilytentative nature of ones results is proper to thehistorian, it by no means follows that the theologianshould always be subject to such uncertainties, at leastnot in the same way as the historian.

Secondly, prepossession with sources leavesimportant aspects of the received biblical textunexplained. For neither J nor P (in the Pentateuch)nor Q (in the Gospels) exist as independent entities anylonger, but have been combined into a whole whichtranscends its individual parts, in that the parts maynow take on a somewhat different meaning when readin the context of the whole. The meaning of Gen 2varies according to whether it is read as anindependent creation account, or as an accountsubordinate to Gen l.

Thirdly, there is the point made in the previoussection that the biblical tradents deliberatelytransformed their traditions into a new whole preciselyin order to provide a foundation for the theologicalappropriation of that material. The modern concernto recover the historical Isaiah, Jesus or Paul as thenorm for theological reflection is a movement exactlyopposite to that of the biblical tradents; hence it ishardly surprising that the subsequent hermeneuticaldifficulties should be acute. The Jesus of Christianfaith is, and always has been, Jesus as he is presented inthe gospels. The attempt to penetrate behind this onthe assumption that one can thereby produce asomehow superior presentation of Jesus involveshighly questionable assumptions about therelationship of history and faith, which are certainlyvery different from those of the biblical tradents.

Childs argues, therefore, that biblical theologyshould be based upon the received biblical text. Theparameters of the text are not subject to speculativereconstruction, and its meaning as a whole canconstantly be freshly appreciated in the way that thoseresponsible for its creation intended. The modern

interpreter thereby also stands in continuity withmainstream Christian theology down the centurieswhich has also worked on this basis.

In order that this position should not bemisunderstood, three points of clarification shouldperhaps be emphasized. First, Childs is not severingthe links between theology and history, for he in noway wishes to deny the historical nature of biblicalrevelation. He is modifying the connection, notdenying it. Interpretation should still be historical,both negatively to prevent the ascription of a false oranachronistic meaning to the text, and positively toilluminate references and concepts that mightotherwise remain obscure. Secondly, Childs does notdeny a possibly complex prehistory to many biblicaltexts. He constantly refers to the text as multi-layered. He does not deny a prehistory, but he ismodifying its significance. Thirdly, Childs does notdeny all theological relevance to the sources andprehistory of a text. On the contrary, he emphasizesthe value of such study for sharpening onesperception of the contours of the received text and foradding a depth dimension to ones reading. What hedoes insist on, however, is that the various levels ofmeaning perceived in a texts prehistory should servethe task of sharpening appreciation of the receivedtext, rather than competing with the received text oreven replacing it.

3. Theology should take seriously a writingsscriptural cvntextModern study of biblical books usually begins with

discussion of such issues as authorship, date, place ofcomposition, intended recipients, literary integrity, etc- what is known as introduction. The underlyingassumption is that an accurate understanding of thetext depends upon the prior establishment of thehistorical context of its composition. The booksposition within the canon of scripture is usually notedbut is considered irrelevant to its interpretation, exceptin an occasional postscript.

Childs, by contrast, wishes to give considerableinterpretative significance to the position of a writingwithin the biblical canon. Again, it is not the proprietyof traditional scholarly enquiry that he queries, butrather its relative significance. Childs often refers tothe intertextuality of biblical writings to describe thecontext of meaning within which they are to beunderstood by virtue of their position within thecanonical collection. This context can give a newmeaning to material which may be independent to agreater or lesser extent from that meaning which it hadin its original historical context. Two examples willhelp illustrate the point.

First, the laws of the Sinai covenant in Exodus-Numbers. Historians have long recognized the



108

diversity of these laws. In all likelihood, they range indate from the earliest period of Israels history to thelatest and originate from a wide diversity of contexts.Childs accepts this but nonetheless stresses that thedecisive factor for interpretation should be theirbiblical presentation as laws of God belonging to theSinai covenant. What is at stake is the theologicalassessment of the Sinai tradition as normative for theestablishment of the identity of Israel, such that lawsand practices which subsequently becameauthoritative for Israel are all to be understood withinthe context of Sinai. This presentation is a theologicalconstruct based on a theological principle which canonly be appreciated when the biblical, not thehistorical, context is taken seriously.A second example, with a different kind of material,

can be seen in the letters of the New Testament. HereChilds argues that the customary concern withquestions of introduction introduces a perspectivedifferent from that of the New Testament itself. TheNew Testament did not preserve the historical contextof the letters, except in occasional details, but from theoutset the letters were seen as having a meaning thattranscends their original context. Childs givesparticular attention to the question of pseudepigraphyand the interpretation of Ephesians, Colossians, 2Thessalonians and the Pastorals within the Pauline

corpus. Childs does not argue for the Pauline

authorship of these disputed letters, but insists thatargument about the historical relationship of theseletters to Paul does not significantly further the task ofinterpretation. What matters is that these letters havebeen included within the Pauline corpus, and

interpretation therefore should centre uponunderstanding Pauline theology in the light of them.Colossians, for example, provides a warrant fortranslating Pauline theology into a new idiom, and thePastorals show Pauline teaching being given the statusof normative teaching whereby the church is tocombat heresy. It is important to appreciate that thehistorical Paul, just as the historical Jesus, has beeninterpreted and developed by the early church as partof a process of making him normative for thecommunity of faith. The interpretative task, therefore,consists in understanding the meaning of the letterswithin this canonical context, not in reconstructing analternative context.To sum up. It is clear that canonical criticism as

advocated by Childs does not involve any particularmethod or tool of interpretation, as though canonicalcriticism were the next step on from redactioncriticism. Rather, Childs is concerned to establish acontext and perspective for interpretation, withinwhich all existing methods and tools can beappropriately exercised. This context is one of faith, bywhich is meant not the piety of the individual but the

corporate life, witness and search for understanding ofthe Christian church, at the heart of which lies the useof the Bible as canonical scripture. A canonicalcontext is distinguished by the central importancewhich the scholar gives to the Bibles owninterpretation and presentation of its witness to God(which is not to be equated with that of the purehistorian). The basis for this lies in the conviction thatthe hermeneutical task of the use of scripture within acommunity of faith is inseparable from, and integralto, the historical description and assessment of thebiblical documents. It is the attempt to put asunderthat which God has joined together that has createdthe major difficulties for the churchs use of the Bibletoday.

In conclusion, a few brief comments on Childssproposals may be offered. First, I have deliberatelymade minimal use of the terms canon and canonicalin my outline, because the terms as such are less

important than is sometimes supposed. It isundoubtedly true that Childs uses them in a diversityof ways which can sometimes be irritating, but that isbecause he uses them as a convenient shorthand for hisoverall approach to the Bible as authoritative scripturefor a community of faith. It is important that debateshould centre upon the substantive issues to do withthe relationship of the Bible to a community of faith,and not be sidetracked into secondary issues ofterminology.

Secondly, Childs is probably on weakest ground inhis assertion of the importance of hermeneuticalconcerns to the biblical tradents. This is primarily anhistorical judgment, and is therefore subject tohistorical assessment in the light of the evidence. Yetexplicit evidence in favour is extremely limited. Apassage such as Ecclesiastes 12:9-14 does indeed

display hermeneutical concern for the interpretationof Qoheleth by the community of faith, but thispassage is exceptional (as is Qoheleth). For the mostpart the Bible is silent as to the precise nature of theprocesses that formed it. There is indeed an equalpaucity of evidence that tells against Childsssupposition, and so it cannot be discounted as apossible interpretation of the developmental process;and indeed the undoubted fact of the transmission ofbiblical material by people seeking to live by it gives hisinterpretation an inherent plausibility. Nonetheless, asan assessment of what was universally, or evengenerally, the case, it must remain open to debate.

Thirdly, it is unclear what limits to interpretationare provided by a canonical perspective. While it isvaluable to stress the freedom and potential forinterpretation that should characterize the churchsengagement with the Bible as scripture, Childs gives



109

little attention to the wide diversity of outlooks withinthe church and the resultant problem of conflictingand unacceptable interpretations. While Childss ownstrong historical sense and theological sensitivityprovide a control in his own writing, there are manyother Christians who do not possess these attributes,especially the historical awareness, in the same way.While the relationship between Bible and church maybe relatively straightforward in theory, in practice theintractable plurality of communities of faith raisesproblems that need more specific treatment if therelationship between Bible and church is to beexploited as fruitfully as Childs proposes.

Such diverse and conflicting use of scripture withinthe church is, however, one of the major recurringproblems of church history, and therefore it isunreasonable to expect any one solution to it. Childsswork is directed to one specific modern form of theperennial problem of the use of the Bible, that is theproblem of maintaining the Bibles theologicalintegrity for the church in the light of historicalcriticism. It is by his success or failure here that hiswork must be judged.

1 Those of Childss books which specifically address thequestions of method and hermeneutics in biblical study are:

Bihlical Theology in Crisis (Westminster Press,Philadelphia [1970]).Exodus (SCM, London [1974]).Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (SCM,

London [1979]).The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (SCM,

London [1984]).Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (SCM,

London [1985]).Important articles on the subject are:

The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and ModernProblem in H. Donner et al. (ed.), Beitrge zurAlttestamentlichen Theologie (Zimmerli Festschrift,Gttingen [1977], 80-93).

The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of theOld Testament (VT Suppl 29 [1978], 66-80).

On Reading the Elijah Narratives (Interpretation 34 [1980],128-137).Probably the best statement of Childss approach in his

own words is that in the opening chapters of The NewTestament as Canon.

Response and criticism from other scholars is partly to befound in the reviews of Childss books in the various biblical

journals. One important collection of articles is in JSOT 16[1980]. There is also an extended exposition and critique ofChilds in J. Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism(Clarendon Press, Oxford [1983]), ch. 4, and appx. 2, and J.Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study(DLT; London [1984]), chs. 6 & 7. Both Barr and Bartonmake some telling criticisms, but neither of them, in myjudgment, has sufficiently accurately discerned the centralconcerns of Childss approach.

From Desk to Pulpit

The Junior ChurchShort Prayers by Great People

IX. Samuel Johnson

BY THE REVD DR KENNETH LYSONS, MA, MED,ST HELENS

Who keeps a diary?One of my best friends keeps a diary. She can tell me

what I preached about several years ago and, in heropinion, if the sermon was good or poor.Do you know any famous diarists? (Pepys, Evelyn,

etc)John Wesley kept a diary called a Journal. This is

what he wrote at the end of a happy day:I could truly say when I lay down at night, now I havelived a day.

What do you think he meant by living a day?That sentence reminds me of a short prayer by a

great man named Samuel Johnson who lived from1709-1794. Samuel was poor, but clever. He went to

Oxford, but when his father died, he left withouttaking his degree. Eventually, with only twopencehalfpenny in his pocket, he went to London andstruggled to live by writing. Then in 1769, after sevenyears work, he compiled a dictionary. In some ways itwasnt a good dictionary, because Samuel often usedlong words to define short ones.

Here, for example, is his definition of a net used forcatching fish or flies:

Anything reticulated or decussated at equal intervalswith interstices between the intersections.

What a mouthful!The dictionary and other books, however, made

Samuel famous. He was granted a pension. He hadmany friends, one of whom, James Boswell, wrote hisbiography. When he died, he was buried inWestminster Abbey.Samuel Johnson was a devout Christian and wrote

many prayers. Here is one:

Make me remember, 0 God, that every day is Thy giftand ought to be used at Thy command.

There is a hymn that echoes Samuels prayer. It begins:At Thy feet, 0 Christ, we layThine own gift of this new day.

Who wrote it? (William Bright)To regard each day as Gods gift, is one of the

secrets of living a day.



the expository times 1988 moberly 104 9

Documents