This morning I finished reading Underwood's A History of the English Baptists.  Whether I have actually gleaned what I need for my research questions is debateable, but I have managed to get a glimpse of this man - but to actually find any biographical information has proved far more tricky.

Here's what I've managed to unearth...

Alfred Clair Underwood was born in 1885 and died April 1948.  He was married and had a son, Donald, who predeceased him by a short time whilst working for the Colonial Sevice in Nigeria.

Underwood had a BD from London and an MA from Oxford and in 1919 began a course for a Diploma in Anthroplogy through Mansfield College, Oxford; it is unclear whether he completed this course.  His Baptist training was via the Midland College in Nottingham. 

From 1911 to 1920 he was professor of Church History at Serampore College, India.  During this time he seems to have published a book on "Shintoism, India and religious Matters"  (http://history.prm.ox.ac.uk/students.php) he published something called Conversion: Christian and Non-Christian.  A Comparative Psycholoical Study, New York, MacMillan 1925 (review of this by Archibald Baker in Journal of Religion Vol 5 No 5 Sept 1925, pp 551-553, via JSTOR). (This paragraph corrected 4/11/2007; Underwood was the 'John Clifford Professor' rather than Clifford his co-author as originally stated.  duh!)

On his personality and style, Peter Shepherd, The Making of a Northern Baptist College, observes that he 'belonged to an age ill-equipped to cope with the realities of a modern world torn apart by war' (p189) that his 'lecturing style was formal, and he was remembered for his aloof style of leadership' (p 201).  'Morning prayers were led by Underwood, and were accompanied by a formal shaking of hands by tutors and students.' (p 202).  At the time of his death '[h]e had devoted the whole of his life to training ministers, first at Serampore... and then at Rawdon.'

Glimpses of his wider Baptist involvement can be gleaned from Ian Randall's English Baptists of the Twentieth Century.  He was involved in the Faith and Order movement, speaking strongly on issues of identity and unity.  His own writing shows evidence of strong views on ecumenism - for good and ill.  Randall notes that in 1937, Underwood wrote to the Baptist Times on the topic of religious decline of 'ambitious mothers who decided a "dissenting Bethel" would not help their chidlren's social advancement.'  (p 201).  This may explain in part why Underwood's History is so rich in potted biographies of successful Baptist men, especially lay men.

"Underwood demanded academic rigour," asserts Randall, in his retelling of an incident of a probationer minister who refused to read the books suggested by his college principal.  Yet, it sometimes seems to me that he fought shy of going where his argument led (something I used to be accused of as an undergraduate), wishing to maintain some sort of peace, or perhaps to maintain his own beliefs (notably on the links to Anabaptists and on the 'victory' of Particular Baptists).

Now that I've read the book, one thing that strikes me is the graciousness with which he handles the stories of those with whom he disagrees, and his ability to see the good in those he writes about.  He might have been a rather austere academic, but I wonder if there was a gentle edge to all of this, a grace and maybe humility shaped by his own experiences?  I wonder if having been in India during WWI, he had somehow been out of touch with feelings 'back home'?  I wonder how, spending WWII writing history, his college temporarily closed, shaped him?  I wonder if, as Shepherd hints (p 202), he died of a broken heart? 

I'm not sure I've found what I was looking for, but I have discovered richness hidden in a dusty blue book I picked up in a second hand shop for £8.50.

Perhaps Underwood should get the last word...

"[Baptists'] history also reveals their capacity to fuse the different strains in their heritage with a minimum of loss.  It also shows how lessons were learned, and tensions resolved in a higher unity.' (p 271).

I think he's more than a tad optimistic - his final few paragraphs are incredibly upbeat - but if he's right, even in part, my thesis is a step closer to reality...

A C Underwood doesn't feature in pictures of the 'great and good', and I still haven't found a photo of him, but he strikes me as a man of integrity and determination, committed to Christ, committed to the cause of the Baptist movement, whose contribution is valuable today in a world far beyond anything he might have imagined.

Last night "thing in a pub" (it does have a real name, I just disguise it to protect all parties) had a speaker from Christians in Science who was truly excellent.  My only disappointment, an ongoing one, was that the publicity had been loused up and that no one brought anyone along.  That said, there were nine of us plus a couple of eavesdroppers.

His main theme was Richard Dawkins' writings which he handled with repsect and sensible critique, as he did the various responses to them.  His main thesis seemed to be that Dawkins' book is unscientific in its approach; Dawkins' views may, at least in part, be correct but they are not supported from evidence - if an undergraduate submitted the book as their dissertation they'd be given it back with a poor mark!

When we got to the open forum, it was telling that the only person who really engaged was the person most on the fringe of the church, and her question was about evolution and how because we haven't found the missing link it must be wrong.  Theistic evolution, it seems, is more something that ministers know about, than people in the pew.

I asked him what he thought the current issues were for the science/faith interface.  He felt there were three: -

• The Dawkins-based type of debate - which can be stereotyped as religion in evil, science is good
• Conservation and 'creation care' vs a kind of 'the quicker we wear out the planet the sooner Christ returns' approach (scary!)
• Medical ethics, especially in relation to genetics and stem cell research, embryo research and questions of when life begins.

Our speaker was a man of deep faith, attends both Methodist and FIEC churches and preaches in the former.  A zoologist by training, he teaches both science and RE in secondary schools.  He was deeply respectful of other faiths, and none, willing to engage with people of any persuasion in honest debate.  I, for one, enjoyed and was entriched by the event.

Sounds like a good organisation to direct any scientists/technologists/engineers towards, and I get the impression that all hues of Christians would be welcomed and respected - plus they attract top speakers to their conferences from both theology and science.

Next month we are doing 'Sing Christmas' with Radio Leicester and hoping to match last year's 50+ folk.

Matt 10:34 "I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (NIV)

I am contemplating using this (in its slightly wider context) as part of my Remembrance Sunday sermon.

One commentator, offering a reasoned interpretation suggests it means, roughly, in my paraphrase, "my coming is not the beginning of the reign of peace, that's still in the future, rather my role is like that of a sword, cleaving flesh from bone."  Well, OK, but I'm not quite sure how that gets me any further on.

Any thoughts?  (Greek words allowed if you explain them - not everyone who calls by reads Greek or has a lexicon to help them; Hebrew I don't understand at all so if you use that I'll definitely need help)