It is hard to believe that it has been a half century this year since I finished my PhD at Harvard. My professors at the time, understandably, have all passed on -- all except one, that is. At the time Krister Stendahl became the professor who would guide me through the writing of my thesis -- and at last give final approval -- he was in his early 30s, three years younger than I. It was his first year at Harvard. He received tenure when only 35. He is now 85 and I 88. It must be a common stubbornness!

He had been imported from the University of Uppsala in Sweden, and was part of an effort to replace retiring professors with young, international scholars. He brought with him the demanding scholarship for which “the Scandinavian school” was noted. With Stendahl as my thesis professor, I got the message early on that I was in for a rough ride. But it turned out to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.

As for my thesis, it ended better than it started. When I at last submitted my first chapter, Stendahl scrawled across the first page “This is not a thesis.” I had submitted a lot of data, he admitted, but “I want to know what you think.” When I saw what he wanted I was soon on course. He was not one to pass out accolades, but I got the impression that I was satisfying him, demanding as he was. He at least wrote me no more notes requiring me to start over!

It was 20 years later at Abilene Christian that Prof. LeMoine Lewis told me that when he returned to Harvard to do his thesis, soon after I finished, he too was assigned to Stendahl. LeMoine told me he asked the professor if he might name four or five Harvard theses that he considered well done so that he might get a feel of what to expect. Stendahl said he would name but one.

To this day that remains my only claim to fame. And I would not have known about that if LeMoine had not just happened to tell me, two decades later!

Stendahl was something new to me at Harvard. He was a believer! Five years before I had finished my resident work under the old Divinity faculty, known for its ultra liberalism. I didn’t have a single professor who believed in the divinity of Christ, and the one who taught theology was an atheist! The new faculty was more moderate. Stendahl was a high-church Lutheran, who call their ministers priests, and they conduct mass. Later in his academic career, after serving as dean of the Divinity School, Stendahl took leave of Harvard to serve a four-year term as bishop of Stockholm in his native Church of Sweden (Lutheran). Being the state church, it is both a political and ecclesiastical position.

In this context I use “believer’ in reference to one who believes that Jesus of Nazareth became the risen Christ. The resurrection is the linchpin of the Christian faith, as per Paul the apostle: “ If you believe God raised him from the dead . . .”

An enterprising student thought he would put Stendahl to the test. In class one day when they were studying the resurrection narratives, the student asked, “All right, professor, suppose one was there on Easter morning with a Brownie camera at just the right time and took a picture, what would he have?” Without equivocation, Stendahl answered, ‘I suppose he would have a picture of the resurrection.”

Even so I was hardly prepared for an article in the current issue of the Harvard Divinity Bulletin on “Why I Love the Bible” by Krister Stendahl. It seemed out of place in an Harvard publication, authored by any professor. While I was not surprised that Stendahl loves the Bible, I would not have expected him to say so in such a testimonial fashion. And I was especially interested in his reasons for loving the Bible, given his incredibly fertile mind.

In an attending interview Stendahl gave a caveat that serves to reveal his approach to the Bible as well as all the critical issues of life -- There is no absolute clarity -- except for fundamentalists. You are never sure whether your decisions are right or wrong. God is the ultimate judge.

As I read those liberating lines I thought how well it would have been if I had learned them when I was young. It is a take on Paul’s “We see through a glass darkly.” The professor is not saying there are no absolutes, but that there is no absolute clarity in our understanding of them. We do well to remember that whatever the issue -- abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, immigration, gun control, the war, biblical questions -- there is no absolute clarity, and that we should avoid dogmatism. I agree with the professor’s take on fundamentalists. They know too much.

He tells how he came to love the Bible by first loving Jesus, rather than the other way around, and that Jesus first became his friend, then his savior. As a boy growing up in the Church of Sweden he would steal away to church -- in his family it was thought Pharisaic to go to church! -- and it was there that Jesus became his friend. He was awed by the Lord’s love, compassion, and forgiveness. He wanted to be like his newly found friend, and this lead him to the Bible. Someone gave him a New Testament, and “I was hooked for life.“ He came to love the Bible because it is about Jesus.

It may strike one as odd, but Stendahl gives five “nots” in reference to his lifetime rendezvous with the Bible -- “an ever transforming affair of the heart.” They read like principles of interpretation as well. The first “not” is It is not about me, which he found especially liberating since he had been misled to believe that the Bible was about him. The story of the Prodigal Son is about the elder brother, not about us, and the story of Job is about Job. Reading the Bible this way -- that it is about the way God has dealt with different people and different churches -- gave him a renewed appreciation for the nature of Scripture.

The second “not” -- It is not always as deep as we think -- says that the Bible is often quite simple, in spite of our inclination to make it deep and ponderous. Of course, he admits, since the Bible is the word of God it is bottomless in its revelation, but it is nonetheless often couched in simple terms. Even when language may appear obscure, such as “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23) -- which he sees as “a wonderful statement” -- the context make it clear. So, he loves the Bible because of its simplicity.

The third “not” is that Even Paul was not always totally sure. He points to 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul frankly states that on some matters he had a word from the Lord, while on others he was speaking on his own. He sees the apostle saying that he is doing the best he can. He is not sure, for he has no word from the Lord, but here is my advice for what its worth. Stendahl sees virtue in a Book that tells us that we sometimes have to think for ourselves, that everything isn’t settled.

The fourth :”not’ -- Don’t be uptight -- reveals that the professor finds little place for apologetics. He sees “defending the Bible” or “defending God” as an arrogant exercise. The Bible -- and certainly God -- need no defense. He sees it as shallow and silly for one to “help God.” He quotes an old Swedish saying, “It is pathetic to hear mosquitoes cough.“ He sees apologetics as mosquitoes coughing.There is no reason to get uptight about conflicts in Scripture, for it is part of the beauty of the Bible that we have different perspectives, he allows.

The fifth and last ‘”not is It is probably not as universal as we think. I think especially of my people in Churches of Christ on this one, for one of our fallacies has been to confuse the transitory and the permanent, the particular and the universal. It is amiss to suppose that everything Paul wrote to a church -- such as the Corinthians -- applies to all situations for all time to come. I recall what another Harvard professor, Henry J. Cadbury, said, “It is not that we are to do precisely what they did (in the early church), but to do for our time what they did for theirs.”

In the interview Stendahl was asked how he assessed his long life both in the church and in academe. He said, “The ultimate goal is the kingdom of God. Compared to that ideal, everything is a failure.”

Notes

After six weeks in two hospitals Ouida has improved enough to at last be back home, but she yet has a way to go.. I am caring for her, but I have some help from home health care professionals, and substantial help from dear sisters in the Lord who bring in food and others who come in and do chores in both house and yard. Phoebe is still in the hospital and somewhat improved. Again, we thank you for your loving concern. Your prayers have made a difference.

All these essays are available at leroygarrrett. org, along with other writings. Restoration Review, which I edited for 40 years, is being added to thewebsite, volume by volume.

New names will be added to our mailing list upon request.