With the death of Cameron Dinwoodie in April of this year the Scottish Journal of Theology has lost one of its oldest and most devoted friends. From the very beginning he threw himself into the enterprise that set it going and gave it his assiduous support. In particular he contributed to every number from its start in 1948 the compilation of its index.

In The Bible in the Modern World Professor Barr points out that recent discussion has largely lost interest in the description of the Bible as the ‘Word of God’. He suggests three reasons for this:

When an exegete approaches a biblical text, he wants to find out ‘what it means’. But which meaning is he after? Is he interested only in what the speaker (or author) intended? Or is he interested also in the speech product (which may not fully succeed in embodying the speaker's intention)? Is he interested in what the audience thought of the discourse? And which of these meanings (if any) is the appropriate starting point for a modern sermon?

During his lifetime Kant offered a number of versions of his moral proof of the existence of God, but the classic statement of his argument is normally taken to be that found in the Dialectic of the Critique of Practical Reason. It is to this argument that the phrase ‘Kant's moral proof’ is normally taken to refer.

Of the many difficult formulations in Karl Barth's ‘Special Ethics’, none seems less amenable to acceptable interpretation than his conception of the relation of male and female. I do not refer to Barth's insistence that Man, created as male and female, maintain both the unity and distinction required for true co-humanity. I refer, rather, to his puzzling (even if textually supported) assertion that this co-humanity is ordered by God in such a way that the woman is ‘sub-ordinate’ to the man without inferiority or disadvantage. Putting aside the exegetical issues involved, I will try to show that Barth's redefinition of the concept of sub-ordination gains coherence when understood as an ‘ordering’ of human life by a revealed order of creation, which in turn is an expression of the divine life itself. I will argue that the analogy Barth draws between the order of the Trinity and sexual relationship is authorized by his doctrine of creation, by his view of Christ as the analogia relationis, and by what I believe to be his application of the doctrine of perichoresis to anthropology. And finally, I want to suggest that, while some of Barth's language may have to be set aside, the arguments described here inform the presuppositions and method of an ethic more relevant for moral discrimination than has commonly been supposed.

Indian Christian theology has begun to make a significant contribution to total Christian theology in a number of ways. One of these ways is to look at the doctrine of the Trinity again not merely in terms of the Godhead itself but also in terms of the religious life resulting from the fact that Christians think of God in terms of a Trinity.