The Confession of 1967 in the United Presbyterian Church marks the official end of the four-century Presbyterian venture into covenant theology. Now past that milestone, perhaps we have reached a vantage point where we can turn dispassionately to survey that curious but historic route. Seen from its concept of responsible man, we here argue, that route has been a prolonged detour away from the insights of the Reformers.

At the present time the Church is frequently exhorted to give an ethical lead. Yet what would be the nature of such direction—the dissemination of practical wisdom from the Scriptures, the provision of a blue-print for the realisation of the Kingdom of God on earth, or just emotional encouragement to moral effort? Theological colleges offer courses on ‘Christian Ethics’, and for certain degrees there are papers bearing this title, yet what exactly is the nature of the discipline? Is it any more than the retailing of the moral judgments of distinguished Christians in the past, and information concerning certain important areas of life in regard to which Christians ought to come to some sort of practical decision? Is Christian Ethics a discipline at all, or just an unmapped, and possibly an unmappable, field between dogmatics and practical theology?

With what shall I appear before the Lord and bow before the sovereign God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings and year-old calves? Will the Lord want a thousand sheep or ten thousand cattle from the rich valleys? Shall I give my first-born son in payment? The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? O Man, He has told you what is good; and what else does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly withyour God

For many, that might well be the motto of Scottish Religious Education. It is what older people remember of it—Bible stories and the learning of the Scottish psalms. For a great many children, it is still its basis—except that by the time they reach Primary 7 they most certainly have heard it before and have no desire to hear it again. Scottish Religious Education, like much outside Scotland, has been Bible-centred.

Much recent discussion of Luke and his theology has revolved around his interpretation of the eschatological outlook of early Christianity. That he has at this point entered upon a certain amount of redefinition seems clear from his handling of St. Mark's gospel. What is less clear, however, is that his interpretation represents the turning away from eschatology that is sometimes attributed to him and that, because of this, he merits the accusation of having compromised the outlook of the early proclamation. Wilckens defends Luke against such accusations on the grounds that they rest upon a one-sided conception of Paul's theology. It may also be suggested that they can be substantiated only by a failure to appreciate Luke's own outlook and by a determination to force him into the mould of ‘redemptive historya’.