In his book In the end, God… Dr J. A. T. Robinson argues for luniversalism from two myths of the end, one taken from Matthew 25.31–46 and the other from Paul (London: James Clarke, 1950, p. 99 f). If the two myths were both taken from the sayings of Jesus his argument would be immeasurably stronger, though it is fair to add that he does see them both being represented in the present in John 3.17–18 (p. ioo).2

Recent study of the Gospels has concentrated on the contribution which the individual evangelists have made to the material they received. Here, and in such matters as their selection and arrangement of material, we can discern the particular point of view of each writer. Admittedly this is relatively easy when we see the way in which Matthew and Luke have varied the material they took from Mark, less easy when we examine the material they have in common from Q, and most difficult when they use material from their special sources. In the case of Mark it all, as we might say, comes from his special source and so it is extremely difficult to determine what he is trying to say to us. But, like going to the moon, the greater the difficulty, the greater the challenge. We take up this challenge in respect of one theme in Mark, viz. discipleship. This means we are not attempting to answer questions as ‘Was Jesus a Rabbi who instructed scholars with his own particular teaching?’; ‘Did Jesus attempt to weld his followers into a community to continue after his death?’ Indeed no attempt will be made to answer any of the questions about the historical relationship of Jesus to the actual disciples he had on earth; our concern lies with what Mark thinks a disciple ought to be.

The purpose of this paper is to take account of the contribution to religious thought of Professor Nels F. S. Ferré with special reference to two fairly recent books, Reason in Religion and The Living God of Nowhere and Nothing. For more than a quarter of a century Dr Ferré has occupied a prominent place in the field of theological education in the United States, first at Andover Newton Theological School and for the last few years at Parsons College; and by articles and books he has proved himself a most prolific writer. By and large, moreover, he has persistently evinced an evangelical concern to be faithful to the fulness of the Christian Gospel, so that if by chance, at this point or that, he is deemed to have fallen short, that has certainly happened, not by intention, but in spite of it, by the logical development of his presuppositions. In a much earlier book he offered his readers a choice, ‘either a staggering faith beyond our wildest imagination, centred in God, or else the darkness of description, explaining nothing’ and there is no doubt which alternative he himself preferred. ‘Feeding back modern man his own thoughts and feelings will not nourish him. He must be helped to see and to accept the truth that saves.’ ‘Unless “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself” in a historically factual way, without all cavil or equivocation, I know no Gospel for mankind.’