10 England – Tyndale, Touring and Tension: 1961–4
England – Tyndale, Touring and Tension: 1961–4
On 7 February 1961, Leon and Mildred boarded the P&O liner, Oriana, headed for Sydney, on the first leg of their trip to England. Leon used this part of the trip to work on the last stages of The Cross in the New Testament. Usual shipboard life was disturbed by the sudden death of a passenger and, after Leon visited the distressed widow, he was asked to lead the burial service. At 6 a.m. the following day he and the captain processed in front of the body from one side of the ship to the other, and at the words of committal the canvas bag covered with a flag slid into the sea. The subsequent splash was, to Leon’s mind, pretty awful. After the ship berthed in Sydney on 24 February, he preached at St Andrew’s Sans Souci and spent time with his brother, John. In Melbourne, he attended numerous meetings and preached at two parishes, Ridley chapel, and twice at St Paul’s Cathedral, including on Good Friday. After returning to Sydney, Leon preached at Holy Trinity Kingsford on Easter Day and then he and Mildred said their final goodbyes on Easter Monday and boarded the P&O liner, Oronje, for England, reaching Southampton on 5 May.
Upon reaching Cambridge they settled into Tyndale House seamlessly, the first residents in its new lodge. Soon the serious business of the warden’s job began. Leon’s task as warden was to promote and supervise quality biblical research, but he found it necessary to also offer his skills in running the house. There were committees for overseeing research, administration and finance, and over time his name appeared in the various committee records with increasing frequency. He found a multiplicity of committees a notable feature of English life. Although there were many capable people involved with the house, the difference was that Leon was there in a full-time capacity. Over time, he developed his own chairman’s style. He would issue the agenda, commence with a superb mini Bible study straight from his Greek text, and work through the agenda quickly. With the slightest lull signalling agreement, he’d say one word – ‘next’ – and move to the following item. It made for short meetings, and Leon’s distinctive high-pitched cadence in crisply pronouncing ‘next’ became indelibly imprinted on the mind of committee members. At the same time he oversaw some eighteen research students in residence annually and met with visitors who were in Cambridge for research work and conferences.
Mildred’s life was taken up in the house, and both she and Leon spent much of their time on matters related to its ministry. They were, however, excellent networkers, and made time to meet with visitors including Paul White, an Australian missionary working in Africa, Charlie Moule, Oswald Sanders, Marcus Loane, F.F. Bruce, David Watson, John Mbiti, Donald Wiseman and John B. Taylor. By correspondence they also sought to encourage Ned Stonehouse and his wife in America after hearing of Mr Stonehouse’s ill health.
Throughout 1961, with his popularity as a speaker continuing to spread, Leon took time out from his busy job to speak at various events outside Cambridge, including a conference in the West Country for IVF staff; one at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, for the Evangelical Fellowship of Theological Literature;1 one at Newnham College on the reformed faith; and one in Manchester for the Theological Students Fellowship. Closer to home, Leon preached at various churches near Cambridge and accepted an IVF invitation to give six supper talks to graduates. At the Tyndale annual meeting in October, chaired by Donald Wiseman, Chair of the Biblical Research Committee,2 Leon spoke on issues emerging for evangelicals. As the winter approached, he worked steadily at Cambridge but was almost always travelling at the weekends for speaking engagements.
There was clearly plenty of scope for Leon to teach and preach on the cross. He was the evangelical conservative voice who continued to speak on the cross with depth and meaning. In every era the cross can get marginalized, and Leon’s era was no different. M. Lloyd Jones, at the time, put forward the idea that the question, ‘Why did Christ die?’ was a more important question than the more popular one, ‘Why did God become man?’ Through Leon’s efforts to answer this question on Christ’s death truthfully, he ensured that the importance of the atonement was kept at the centre of Christian thought for several generations.
As 1962 opened, Leon’s appointment diary for the year was largely full. The year was a difficult one for the family. In May, Leon received a telegram from his sister to say that ‘Dad passed away today’.3 He was unable to attend his father’s funeral, and together with Mildred he grieved from afar.
To help them keep up with all of their commitments, Leon and Mildred finally purchased their own car, which they used locally. For longer journeys, Leon tended to rely on trains. In addition to maintaining his open-door policy, where anyone could breeze into his office at any time to talk with him, Leon accepted virtually every request.
During 1962 he was involved in the Tyndale history group, the Biblical Research Committee, the Liturgical Executive and General Committee, and the Biblical Archaeology Group. Outside Cambridge, he was invited to speak on the second coming, the completion of Christ’s work, the incentive to holiness, and doctrine in the twentieth century (IVF conference in Edinburgh); the letter to the Hebrews (IVF staff conference); biblical theology, Old and New Testament theology and Hebrew (Annual Tyndale Conference); and the 1662 Prayer Book (Ely Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship). Leon also travelled to many IVF-related groups at colleges and universities around the country; for a series of talks he would sometimes travel to a venue three to six times over a period of weeks. In April to June he travelled to one group for six talks on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and how to apply this teaching.4 His theology of the Spirit was conservative yet alive. In early November he went north to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness and Aberdeen for a series of meetings with graduate students over five days.
Beginning in late January 1962, Leon also lectured on Thursdays at Oak Hill Theological College. He also spoke at Clifton Theological College; the Islington Conference (at the invitation of John Stott); a breakfast and later an ordinand’s conference for the Church Pastoral Aid Society (CPAS);5 the London College of Divinity; an Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchmen; a Bible League annual meeting; a meeting of the Cranmer Society; and a gathering of the John Bradford Group. On Sundays he would worship locally with Mildred, although on many occasions he spoke elsewhere as a guest preacher.
This was a remarkable time for Leon. He spoke or offered ministry on more than one hundred days out of three hundred working days at various conferences, services and events that lay outside his direct responsibility at Tyndale House. He attended more than two weeks of Tyndale House conferences as well as the many day-to-day meetings with residents and visitors. The next year, 1963, would repeat the schedule. The CPAS worker, Revd John Blythe, arrived in Cambridge that year and recalled the dynamic warden at Tyndale House, his punishing schedule, his preaching and his writings.6 While Leon never reported the broad ministry of these years, his itinerant and teaching ministry echoed that of Wesley and Whitefield in travelling the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.7
Letters from Ridley
Eighteen months into his time at Cambridge, Leon received an unofficial letter from L.L. Nash, the secretary of Ridley College, Melbourne, with the plea: ‘there is reason to believe Stuart Babbage is unhappy in Melbourne now … would you be prepared to undertake the Principalship of Ridley if it were offered to you? … All I ask is … have you come to the point of no return?’8
Babbage had been savagely removed from the position of dean of St Paul’s Cathedral and there were signs that he might also resign from Ridley and leave Melbourne.9 Leon replied to Nash, unusually not keeping a copy. But on the top of Nash’s letter he scribbled: ‘answered 2/12/62 saying I’d need a lot of persuading.’10
This unexpected request was not welcomed by Leon, and from his perspective it was somewhat ludicrous. He had been on the Ridley staff from 1945 to 1949, complementing Bishop Donald Baker beautifully. He returned in 1952, thirty-eight years old, with an outstanding PhD and a reputation as the best conservative theological scholar in Australia. Nevertheless, he had been overlooked for the position of principal in 1953. In late 1959 he moved to a wider ministry beyond Ridley. He and Mildred had accepted the position in Cambridge where they had clearly felt God’s call. So, he got on with his work.
John Moroney, a Ridley Council member, also wrote and flagged that Babbage would resign and that he thought Leon would be offered the job. He stated what was probably on Leon’s mind concerning the Ridley Council: ‘I am aware they had their chance ten years ago and some know we may be asking too much.’11 He told Leon that Ridley conditions were ‘chaotic’ in reference to the staff decline – that is, Babbage was to go and Andersen had already gone.
Leon’s uneasiness with the Ridley situation was seen no more clearly than in his reply to Moroney: ‘It was good of you to write and let me know of the pending invitation. I could wish that the Council in its wisdom would go jump in the Yarra … or send the invitation to someone else.’12
Nash wrote again, and Leon expressed his dismay that things were moving so fast. He also told Nash that he did not think he could work at Ridley and still pursue his writing.13 In a subsequent letter, Nash told Leon that Babbage might withdraw his resignation. Leon replied that Mildred had thought this might happen: ‘Mildred and I are not at all surprised to hear that Stuart Babbage has had second thoughts on putting in his resignation … in fact my spouse has been telling me all along that that is what is likely to happen and now she is going around like a prophetess vindicated.’14 However, the Ridley situation continued to bother him: ‘I do not want to have to face the decision.’15 During this time he crossed paths with the Australian, Stacey Woods, General Secretary of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students.16 After Leon confided to him that some were trying to get him nominated to Ridley, Woods said he hoped they would succeed and that Leon would go.
Leon received a further letter from Nash, confirming that Babbage had decided to resign: ‘Stuart has asked that the official announcement of his resignation be not delayed unduly.’17 Nash told Leon that he was going to nominate him. Leon expressed his uncertainty over the situation:
The trouble is I do not know how to view the call … I have given deep consideration to an earlier invitation and have come to this country as a result. One does not want to be pulling up one’s roots every year or two and flitting from one side of the earth to the other … I think that my writing is the most important thing I do … it is hard to see where the time to write will come.18
Upon hearing that Babbage’s resignation was certain, he confessed that he was ‘nowhere nearer a solution than when I started’.19
After correspondence from Nash and Moroney ceased in May and June, Leon and Mildred pushed the Ridley matter to one side and continued to serve in and around Cambridge. During this time Leon prepared Ministers of God,20 on Christian ministry, and The Gospel According to John reached chapter 15.
Unbeknown to Leon, the principal’s role had been offered to Sydney clergyman Clive Kerle. Incredible! Although Kerle was very competent, he was nowhere near Leon’s class. However, after seeking God and taking counsel, Kerle declined. Some Ridley Council members continued to favour others ahead of Leon – for example, Alan Kerr, a layman with a growing reputation, indicated that he would rather find someone who was good at public relations. In a letter recounting the story of Kerle, Nash added that Australian scholar Philip Hughes was still ahead of Leon. Nash was despondent.21 Leon’s reply dwelt on a rumour that the Ridley Council would not take him unless he gave up writing, as they were looking for someone to do more pastoral work. Leon lamented:
If it is right I find it highly ironical. One reason that weighed with me when I made the decision to come here was that there was not in my judgment enough pastoral work among the students, and that I was being identified with a state of events of which I did not approve. I did what I could. As you know, I went to the College each morning before 9 am and stayed through until evening Chapel with my door open all day and a standing invitation to any man to drop in (which quite a few accepted). My wife used to come down once a week and we had men into tea. And so it went … It’s funny now that it is being held against me that more pastoral work is wanted. But that, I guess, is life.22
He assured Nash that writing could take a back seat to the academic and spiritual wellbeing of his students, but he was reluctant to traverse the world to do administration others could do.23 Not long after, Leon received a letter from Nash: ‘My Dear Leon, the totally unexpected happened. The Council met last Monday July 1st and came round to your name to be offered the Principalship of Ridley.’24 Nash said that the chairman, Dr George Bearham, would write a letter: ‘The one you receive from Bearham will be the official invitation.’ He told Leon that there would be an issue to resolve about the use of stoles and the eastward position at Communion and he hoped Leon would be able to compromise on that while retaining north end, scarf and hood.
The letter from Bearham arrived at the same time as Nash’s letter. Bearham wrote that Babbage was accepting a US appointment and had resigned from the end of Term 2. He told Leon that Ridley Council was unanimously offering him the position of principal and that the archbishop had given his approval. The total stipend would be £1,750 per annum.25 He continued: ‘Your presence in Australia and your mental equipment could, and I have no doubt would, prove of great value to the whole Church in Australia.’ He suggested for Communion services the alternative use of the north side with the black scarf and the eastward position with the stole. He stated that ‘Eucharistic vestments are banned of course’.26
Leon now faced an actual choice. He could easily stay at Tyndale. There was also an offer few people knew about: the possibility of a professorship in the USA. After some deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that he would decide the Ridley matter before considering the offer from the USA or to remain in the UK. Was Ridley what God wanted despite his and Mildred’s current inclination to stay in Cambridge?
Leon wrote several letters in quick and deliberate succession. The first was to the Archbishop of Melbourne, Frank Woods. Leon told Woods he had received the invitation from Ridley and wished to ask his opinion. He knew there had been discussion about where the diocesan hierarchy would allow candidates to train, and he also had his own issues of liturgical practice to resolve. His questions to Woods were:
1. Will there be students to train in view of Perry Hall being used?27
2. Will it be sufficient for me to allow visitors to observe their practice of stole and eastward position while I observe scarf and north end?
He told Woods that he did not know what to do about the position at Ridley and that if he and Mrs Woods could visit Cambridge, they were invited to stay with Leon and Mildred.28 Woods replied saying he was coming to Cambridge on 16 July: ‘Unless I hear I shall call about 3 pm that day.’29
On the same day Leon wrote to Bearham. ‘May I say at the outset that I very much appreciate the honour the Council has done me in extending this invitation.’ He then raised two points:
1. The nature of the job. He was concerned that his writing would be crowded out by administration and fundraising – tasks that others could do. Furthermore, would he have a secretary?
2. The question of stoles and eastward position: ‘This frankly is a difficulty, for I have never used either … I take it your suggestion is a suggestion and not a condition … If it were a condition I fear it would end the matter.’ He then suggested that he follow his custom and allow visitors to adopt an eastward position and stole, as this might be the best way to show toleration and Christian charity. He indicated that he would wait for answers before taking the matter further.30
Leon’s third letter that day was to Nash, saying that he did not know what to think but assuring Nash that he would not lightly reject the offer.31
Stoles and the Eastward Position
The issue dominating Leon’s energy in considering the position at Ridley was the thorny matter of stoles and the eastward position in celebrating Holy Communion. It is necessary to explain the background to appreciate the intensity of Leon’s concern.
The Anglican Church attached significance to robes as a mark of leadership and symbolic of theological belief. For Leon, the expression of his theological belief was absolutely crucial and, when it came to Holy Communion, this expression depended on a right understanding of Jesus’ words, ‘This is my body and this is my blood.’ Anglicans believed that these words had meaning in the context of the Passover and covenantal concepts found in the New Testament. Anglicans have generally excluded the following two views of what the bread and wine are in a Communion service:
1. A direct identification of the bread and wine with Jesus’ body and blood – this is because Jesus was present in the upper room with his disciples and specifically said that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood;
2. Nothing more than a sign – this is because more is said about them later in the New Testament and this additional information demands a different interpretation.
Related to these views are two questions that Anglicans have debated:
1. What is the nature of the presence of Christ in the bread and wine? ‘This is my body’ was first taken figuratively and then later, in the Roman Catholic Church, it was taken literally as expressed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Anglican Church rejected the doctrine that the bread and wine could become the actual body and blood of Christ;
2. What is the nature of the sacrifice, if any, offered in the sacrament? The sacrifice was first seen as spiritual, in terms of our devotion, but over time sacrifice became associated with the elements in the Mass. Originally, Anglicans rejected the view that any sacrifice occurred in the Communion service. They asserted the once-only sacrifice of Christ on the cross and maintained that when he died, Jesus made ‘one oblation of himself once offered’. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 indicates that we ‘show’ the Lord’s death. This cannot be a sacrificial term as it is referring to the fact that we show his death to the world, literally we proclaim his death on the cross rather than making any further act of sacrifice.
To reflect the traditional Anglican position, the Anglican Prayer Book mentions a holy table rather than an altar. From the Reformation onwards, the priest’s vestments were simplified, as was the holy table, to show that the service was a Communion or participation. The 1662 Prayer Book witnessed to the spiritual presence of Christ in the whole congregation gathered together – an echo of Matthew 18:20, ‘where two or three gather in my name’.
In the nineteenth century, some Roman Catholic ideas re-emerged within the Anglican Church, including the view that there was a real presence of Christ somehow attached to the elements after the consecration of the bread and wine. That is, because it is said that we participate in his body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16), there must be a localized presence of Christ in these elements. This presence occurred prior to reception and independently of the faith of the individual, and the body and blood of Christ are made present ‘under the forms’ of the bread and wine. If this is the case, it was argued, then this presence should be recognized by particular acts of the priest in celebrating Communion, consecration of the elements from the eastward position between the table and the people,32 and decorations such as candles and robes that include a stole or chasuble. It is believed that the priest’s actions and words make a more localized change to the bread and wine concerning Christ’s presence, and the eastward position reflects this sacerdotal33 status of the priest.
However, the view that squared more closely with Scripture and the Anglican Church from the Reformation onwards was the ‘reception’ view of Communion. That is, the bread and wine are effectual signs of grace and are not identified with the body and blood of Christ in a localized presence. In a service, the presence of Christ is experienced in the congregation and members as they feed on Christ in their hearts by faith. The bread and wine are part of the sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.
To express this view, a simple holy table free of ornamental decoration is appropriate. The minister celebrates in robes and in a position that supports the Communion being a service where the participants receive the benefits of Christ’s death by faith in their hearts. The priest is not introducing any sort of sacrifice. Christ is present in the congregation as a whole and in participants’ hearts when they receive the Communion by faith. Robes of a surplice and scarf and a simple holy table are used when this is the understanding of Communion. Standing at the north end of the table indicates there is no priestly importance other than the priest is authorized to take the ceremony.
What does the New Testament really teach about the Lord’s Supper? How are the benefits of the atonement that were achieved on the cross now experienced by a Christian in a Communion service? Leon had long worked out his view. He told Nash: ‘I am quite clear in my mind that I cannot accept a position which requires me to wear stoles and take eastward position. These things may not be wrong, but they are wrong for me.’ He suggested the Ridley Council was concerned not to be seen as bigoted in the diocese, and perhaps he would allow others to wear a stole on occasion as a visitor. He suggested that if a compromise was not possible, then ‘I fear there is an end of the matter. I could not do a good work in any place where I felt I was going against my conscience.’34
Back to Ridley
Leon’s meeting with Woods on 16 July was cordial and helpful. Leon later wrote to him: ‘What you had to say was a very real help in making the decision.’35 Although Woods was surprised that the Ridley Council had suggested a mixed practice for Leon,36 he had made it clear that he would work with Leon and that Leon could be at home as an evangelical churchman.
Leon had three options in his hand: Melbourne, to train others; Chicago, to have research freedom; or Cambridge, to spread his knowledge. On 20 July he wrote to Johnson in response to a letter in which Johnson had discussed the possibility of Leon leaving Tyndale: ‘Just at present we are stalled with regard to Ridley.’ He revealed his view of Ridley Council’s evangelical rigour:
one thing … was that the Council of Ridley would like to alternate in the service of Holy Communion between the present practice of using the black scarf and taking the north end, and the practice common in Melbourne of wearing the stole and taking the eastward position. Now if such a position is coming officially from Ridley then obviously evangelicalism is at a pretty low ebb. I begin to understand the urgent note in letters from some Australian friends … if we go back it will not be because the prospect pleases us, but because the position is almost desperate … until this is decided I find I cannot take the American offer seriously. It would be a position without the headaches that Ridley involves. It would leave time for writing and it would give opportunity for teaching. If I could get a University lectureship here I would ask nothing more … whatever the future holds I do not think I will ever find a place more congenial [than Cambridge].37
In a letter to Leon on 18 July, Bearham had answered Leon’s questions about the nature of the job and the liturgical issues: ‘There should be no insuperable difficulty in ensuring that you are to be freed from performing “routine chores and money raising” … I see no reason to doubt the Council will provide the secretary you need.’ Bearham accepted that Leon would not celebrate Communion other than from the north end and with a scarf while tolerating reasonable variations by others.38 Leon and Mildred prayed and decided on 21 July to return to Ridley.
The next day Leon made enquiries of P&O Orient Lines and found they could sail on 26 January 1964. They would send dining, lounge and bedroom furniture and books by a separate earlier ship. Leon only queried the way the books would travel: ‘I am rather particular about them and how they are treated.’39
Leon wrote to Bearham with his official acceptance. He let Nash and Woods know. His acceptance was announced in Melbourne at a function where Babbage was being farewelled to America. The applause was so universally sustained that Bishop Donald Baker, writing to Leon, wondered if it was tactful for Bearham to have announced the news at Babbage’s farewell.40
Leon also wrote to Johnson:
I have now heard that they [Ridley Council] are ready to take me with all my Protestant practices … Under the circumstances my wife and I have decided that we should accept this invitation … We have had the opportunity of giving it a very great deal of thought and prayer so it is not a decision lightly entered into. I think there is no need for me to tell you that it does not indicate any dissatisfaction with my current post. I love the work here at Tyndale House and in many ways I think it is the kind of work for which I am best suited. Certainly I do not fancy the hurly-burly into which I shall be thrust in Melbourne … But this invitation represents a call and a challenge which I feel I cannot evade. So, though the prospect is rather forbidding the only thing to do is to go forward in faith.41
The process of guidance is instructive. After a period of wrestling with the matter a conviction from God was laid on them to return. Where did it come from? There was the encouragement of Stacey Woods. Then Archbishop Woods encouraged them at Cambridge. There was Leon’s concerns about the state of the Melbourne diocese: the weakness of some of the Ridley Council in allowing Bearham to suggest watering down Ridley’s evangelical and Protestant practices was taken by Leon as a clear indication that the evangelicals were in desperate straits. Leon and Mildred had a heart for the personal transformation of people that they knew would not be promoted under a more general Anglicanism despite their very great respect for Woods. There were the prayers of Leon and Mildred’s inner circle of friends. Finally, there was an increased sense of God’s call against their personal preferences for Leon to simply write – a call that only comes from God in prayer. Later Leon reflected that others joining him at Ridley were part of a confirmatory seal from God that his own move was of God.
The die was cast, the summer break ended. Meetings and teaching resumed.42 In November, Leon tackled the debate surrounding Bishop John Robinson’s book, Honest to God, and Robinson’s arguments for a Christianity free of the constraints of organized religion. He presented a half-hour paper and took questions. The topic continued to occupy his mind for some time as he prepared topics and papers to refute the book’s biblical errors. Within a short space of time a small book would be published from Leon rebutting the incorrect arguments within Honest to God.43 Further activities outside of Tyndale House filled up December. In late January, Leon took his last journey north to Birmingham. Early on the Monday morning he returned to Cambridge for an 11.45 a.m. farewell to himself and Mildred.
Of Leon’s time as warden at Tyndale, Douglas Johnson later reminisced with him over how he made such good use of his time:
you persisted in working in your little room in the Lodge, when some folk (even with a modicum of scholarship) seemed to be incapable of overcoming the temptation to dissipate their energies in one hundred and other lesser directions. You were able to go on advising those who deserved advice … and to make your own presence felt in Cambridge in other than the immediate work of the House, and at the same time to employ the passing moments effectively in your study.44
I. Howard Marshall, in recalling his own theological studies at Cambridge, observed about Leon:
1. Here was a fresh evangelical scholar at a time when you could almost count the number of effective producers of scholarship in the UK on the fingers of one hand, a great inspiration.
2. He was obviously very capable, and set an example of how to do research the hard way.
3. He tackled a topic that was at the centre of evangelical theology and produced a convincing exposition and defence of it.
4. He began to produce books that were enormously helpful … his earlier Tyndale Commentaries were models of their kind and just what I needed at that stage in my studies. I … found him a gracious and helpful friend and adviser.45
At the time of his farewell from Tyndale, Leon was among the most influential conservative evangelical scholars in the world. He had already made a deep imprint on the minds of many fine, developing theological scholars who drank deeply from his resources.
On Australia Day, 26 January 1964, P&O Canberra sailed with Cabin A217 occupied by L. and M. Morris. It arrived in Melbourne on Tuesday 18 February 1964.