Theology Science Research Articles

Metaphor and Method in Concrete Ecclesiologies

AbstractThe past twenty-five years have seen a widespread turn to the concrete in theology, and an increased awareness of the importance of practices, believing communities and material culture for both Christian faith itself, and theological engagement with it. In ecclesiology, this turn to the concrete has manifested itself in the rise of concrete approaches to ecclesiology. These have developed over the past fifteen years or so, as ecclesiologists have integrated theological and social-scientific perspectives on the church, to create both general methodological studies, and smaller scale ‘ecclesiological ethnographies’ of particular church communities.This article critically explores some of the key methodological moves of the emerging discipline of concrete ecclesiology. In the first part of the article, I argue that concrete ecclesiologies display two characteristic methodological tendencies. First, they exhibit a tendency to define their approach as concrete and realistic in contrast to twentieth-century doctrinal approaches to ecclesiology, which they perceive as unhelpfully idealising and abstract. Second, they tend to express the task of ecclesiological ethnography as one of balancing the claims of two descriptive languages, theology and social science, with regard to a single object, the church. The underlying metaphor here is borrowed from christology: just as theological language about Christ's divine and human nature must be kept in balance, so doctrinal and social perspectives on the church must be kept in balance to avoid ‘ecclesiological Nestorianism’.In the second part of the article, I argue that these two methodological tendencies result in caricatured understandings of theology and ethnography as functional opposites. Theology tends to be regarded as an inherently abstracting and idealising influence in ecclesiology, while ethnography tends to be regarded as a means of straightforwardly accessing the ‘real’ church. This in turn creates a problematically thermostatic understanding of the relationship between theological and ethnographic insights in ecclesiology, casting them as mutually regulating and opposite influences. The article closes by proposing a potentially more fruitful alternative model for integrating theology and ethnography, by exploring the similarities between the ways in which the two disciplines understand and relate to their respective objects of study.

Thomas F. Torrance’s theology of ministry and the pressing issues of today

Thomas F. Torrance (born 1913) is chiefly remembered for his work on the early dialogue between theology and natural science. Out of tune with the liberal theology of the 1960s which he labeled as ‘dualist’, the dialogue with science was just one way whereby Torrance steered towards realism in an attempt to recover the classic structures, doctrines and forms of the Christian tradition. This short paper looks at the neglected topic of his theology of ministry. During the wary and fenced ecumenism of the 50s and 60s, Torrance systematically reconnected church order with the servant ministry of Jesus Christ. He recognised the temptations of ministry either to seek worldly credibility and prestige or to become otherworldly and merely pious. He eschewed both, but refused to over-specify ministry, insisting that the actual form it took is ambiguous, provisional and unfettered. That conception of ministry is tested against Torrance’s criticism of what he saw as a ‘detached’ understanding of the episcopate in the Church of England of the 1960s and in his support for the ordination of women. He maintained that those who obstructed the ordination of women argued as though the Incarnation had made no change in the order of fallen humanity. In his lifetime, Torrance never engaged with the issue of the ordination of gay persons, but the structures within which he understood ministry would be hospitable to any who committed to the servant ministry of Jesus.

Hegel and Whitehead: In Search for Sources of Contemporary Versions of Panentheism in the Science–Theology Dialogue

Panentheism has recently become a widely accepted and appreciated concept among scholars in the science-theology dialogue, and its theological repercussions have been discussed to great extent. Yet, there remains to be studied in more detail the notion of the philosophical foundations of the term. A prominent gap in our understanding of these foundations is the potential similarity between the metaphysics of Hegel and Whitehead, their understanding of the transcendence and immanence of God, and their respective versions of panentheism. In this article, I present a critical reflection on the possible resemblance between process thought and Hegelian metaphysics and philosophy of God. In the last section I refer to those who use panentheism within the science-theology dialogue. I try to specify which of the two versions of panentheism, that of Hegel or Whitehead, is more popular among those scholars.

The Denominations of Metaphysics and its Science in the Late Antique Philosophy

In late antiquity, in the context of the jagged tradition of Neo-Platonism,Aristotle’s Metaphysics and the specific science that is traced out in itare indicated with the current denominations of meta ta physika andtheologikē pragmateia, which are seen as consistent with one anotherand closely interconnected. In this connection, the Metaphysics, in thewake of previous philosophical readings, is considered as a treatise on“theological science” — the most elevated among the sciences — and thedenomination meta ta physika is seen in a specifically theological sense.According to a widespread Neo-Platonic reading, the science thematizedin the Metaphysics is “metaphysics” in that it is theological science,an epistemic discourse on divine realities, which, within the ordo rerum,transcend the physical ones, and, therefore, according to the ordo cognoscendi,must be studied after the latter.

Practical Theology as part of the landscape of Social Sciences and Humanities – A transversal perspective

At the University of Pretoria the author, a practical theologian, experiences a fruitful soil for the development of an interdisciplinary process. He referred to concrete examples of cooperation, but used the article to reflect on best practices for the interdisciplinary dialogue. He came to the conclusion that it probably made more sense to talk of Practical-theological alternatives rather than to describe the subject in a single fixed manner of understanding and action. Our goal should rather be to open up the boundaries between Practical Theology, Human, Social and Natural Sciences.

Hobbes and Theology

Going beyond the belief-unbelief controversy in the scholarly debate about Hobbes’s theological ideas, the essays in this issue look at the philosopher’s theology as a practical science for attaining particular ends, irrespective of his religious feelings. This approach is both to reassert the seriousness of Hobbes’s discourse on theology and to show how deeply political issues are involved in the development of his theological science. From this perspective his theses on heresy turn out to be the necessary corollary of his attempt to de-legitimate clerical control over politics; while in order to answer to the Foole and solve the legitimacy enigma, Almighty God appears to be the divine icon of earthly kings rather than the Lord of a transcendent world. Likewise this issue looks at the correspondence between political theology and materialism by investigating both the new meaning of ‘Potentia Dei’ in Hobbes’s theological thought and the radical outcomes he draws with his criticism of the Cartesian argument of the Deus deceptor. On the whole, all the essays converge in highlighting the strong connection between new ideas on nature and knowledge, theological nonconformity and political science in Hobbes’s thought.

Scientific Theology? Herman Bavinck and Adolf Schlatter on the Place of Theology in the University

Abstract This article, primarily historical in focus, explores the contributions of Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) and Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938) to discussion on the place of theology within the university. Schlatter’s belief that theology is a science belonging within the academy is explored via his debate with Paul Jäger on the possibility of ‘atheistic theology’. Bavinck’s similar convictions, it is seen, were formed in response to the Higher Education Act (1876), a piece of legislation which sought to marginalise theology in a Dutch academic context. The article concludes by tentatively encouraging twenty-first century theology to see itself as a necessary subject (on the grounds of its divine object and power to bring coherence among the sciences) within the contemporary university.

The Power of Words. Political and Theological Science in Thomas Hobbes

Far from being only an insincere homage to the spirit of his time, Hobbes’s concern for theology is a consequence of his political individualism. Irrespective of God’s real existence, in order to answer the ‘Foole’ and to assure legitimation and obedience to Leviathan, calculating reason is not enough, as individual faith in God and in the binding force of His law of nature is required. In Leviathan II, chapter XXXI, the correspondence between the earthly king, i.e. the mortal god, and the immortal God proves to be the starting point for a new political theology, conceived as a practical science for the needed order of peace in this unique, material world. The divine image of sovereignty, embodied by Almighty God, is the beginning and the end of an immanent, sacred history of salvation that resembles a utopian tale, not in an attempt to oppose or overturn the present political order, but to solve the problems of modern political rationality by means of theological imagination.

Speech science in the light of modern and contemporary changes (analytical study)

Theology represented the response and the epistemological statement to the challenges that Islam faced at its inception and its civilizational dominance in the middle of the Middle Ages, and it had a positive effectiveness in responding to the internal and external attempts that wanted to obliterate the truth of Islam and its general principles of belief, so it was effective in discouraging Muslims from surrendering The judiciary, destiny, and standing in front of authoritarian currents that arose in the Umayyad state that says obedience to the caliph, whoever he is (1), so the science of theology represented a corrector for prevailing beliefs and ideas that represented an intellectual danger to the Muslims’ belief and their understanding of Islam. .

Challenges for Christianity and Barriers to Dialogue in World Religions

Mutual respect and understanding between the world's religions has become increasingly necessary in a global society where peace can be tenuous. This article will concentrate on challenges for Christianity in relationship with other world religions. Can interreligious dialogue benefit from what we learn from the dialogue1between science and theology? Yes.2The science–theology dialogue is part of the ongoing effort to bridge3the intellectual divide between the discoveries of natural science that have made our lives in the material world better, and interpretations and understandings in the various faith traditions that have given meaning and value to our living in the material world.

Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury 1945–1961; Reformed Dogmatics, Abridged in One Volume; Wild and Robust, The Adventure of Christian Humanism; 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law; The Miracle of Kindness, Changing the World One Act at a Time; A Different Priest, The Epistle to The Hebrews

Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury 1945–1961; Reformed Dogmatics, Abridged in One Volume; Wild and Robust, The Adventure of Christian Humanism; 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law; The Miracle of Kindness, Changing the World One Act at a Time; A Different Priest, The Epistle to The Hebrews J. Harold Ellens, PhD Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury 1945–1961 David Hein Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2008, pp. 122 + xviii, pb, $17.00. David Hein, Professor of Religion at Hood College and author of The Episcopalians, has given us a minor gift. Aside from some infelicities of syntax that obstruct the smooth flow of his narrative, he has given us in one chewable chunk a constructive and balanced life of Geoffrey Fisher, Churchill's surprising selection for Archbishop of Canterbury at the end of World War II. Following an adequate introduction, setting the course of this little work, Hein offers seven chapters shaped by the stages of Fisher's rise to and service as archbishop. These are simply: Formation: 1997–1932, Chester and London: 1932–1945, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945–1961: The Church of England, The Anglican Communion, Ecumenical Outreach, Church and State, and Retirement 1961–1972. Fisher was an administrator and made no special demonstration of his spiritual leadership, piety, or theological prowess. He was simply a soundly dedication Christian Anglican with devotion to the institution of that church, as his numerous generations of clergy ancestors before him. This book is rounded off with a good bibliography, but unfortunately lacks an index. Reformed Dogmatics, Abridged in One Volume Herman Bavinck (John Bolt, Editor) Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011, pp. 848 + xvi, cloth, $60.00. Herman Bavinck has been revered for a century for his superior four volumes of Reformed Dogmatics. He lived from 1854 to 1921 and taught Systematic Theology at the Vrie Universität te Amsterdam, beginning at outset of the twentieth century. The predictable endorsers, Donald McKim, Richard Mouw, J. I. Packer, and Michael Horton, have all promoted this one volume, abridged edition: and well they might. John Bolt of Calvin Theological Seminary has done yoeman's service in capturing all of Bavinck's useful perspective in this volume. Its nearly 1000 pages are packed with over 700 words per page, nearly twice the normal number. Thus a very large portion of the original Bavinck is captured in this compact work, making it readily and readably available to any college or seminary student, as well as the Sunday afternoon lay reader. It is highly recommendable for that. Bavinck was a bit unconventional in his structuring his Reformierte Dogmatik in that he did not conform to the traditional six loci of Malancthon and Calvin. Instead his work is organized in seven parts. The first is Prolegomena: Introduction to Dogmatic Theology; including an address to Dogmatic Theology as Science, The History and Literature of Dogmatic Theology, Foundations of Dogmatic Theology, Revelation, Holy Scripture, and Faith. Second comes The Triune God and Creation; explicating the themes, Knowing God, The Living Acting God, The Triune God and his Counsel, and Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Third section is Humanity and Sin and treats The Image of God, The Fallen World, and Sin and its Consequences. Part Four has to do with Christ the Redeemer, with such topics as The Only Begotten Son of the Father, The Servant Savior: Christ's Humiliation, and The Exalted Lord Christ. The Fifth section teaches of The Holy Spirit and Salvation in Christ: The Order of Salvation, Calling and Regeneration, Faith and Conversion, and Justification, Sanctification, and Perseverance. Six is The Spirit Creates a New Community: The Church as a Spiritual Reality, and The Spirit's Means of Grace. The final section, The Spirit Makes All Things New, has three subsections: The Intermediate State, The Return of Christ, and The Consummation. This volume has 49 pages of scripture index, fifty pages of name index, and 17 pages of subject index. Each page of the entire volume is able to boast nearly twice the normal words because the type is small and the paragraphing intensely compact. Bavinck's work is thoroughly comprehensive, excitingly lucid, and filled with inspiring surprises of insight and illumination. John Bolt's abridgement...

Chronic stress and epigenetics. Relation between academic sciences and theology

The author gives a short account on the principles of Selye's stress theory, and discusses similarities and dissimilarities of acute and chronic stress. Both the external, and the internal environment, as well as the psycho-mental status are involved in the notion of the environment. Basic principles of epigenetics are reviewed: interaction between environment and genes, neuroendocrine and enzymatic mechanisms involved in silencing and activation of genes, notions of phenotypic plasticity, and epigenetic reprogramming are discussed. Epigenetic mechanisms of interrelation between pathological clinical states (diseases) and the characteristic phenotypes, causative role of psycho-mental status in evoking pathological somatic alterations, and the potential therapeutic consequences are briefly discussed. The etiological role of chronic, civilization stress in producing the worldwide increment of cardiovascular morbidity is cited, argumentation and criticism of the current therapeutical practice is discussed. The author concludes that recent advances in epigenetic knowledge seem to solve the controversy between the academic and theological sciences.

Wesleyan Theology and Social Science: The Dance of Divinity and Discovery – Edited by M. Kathryn Armistead, Brad D. Strawn, and Ronald W. Wright

Wesleyan Theology and Social Science: The Dance of Divinity and Discovery – Edited by M. Kathryn Armistead, Brad D. Strawn, and Ronald W. Wright

Theology, Faith, Universities: From Specialization to Specification in Theology

AbstractThe issue of hyper-specialization within the various academic fields has often been raised in the context of recent discussions concerning the purpose or end of the modern university. Theology, one such field in which continual specialization seems prevalent, is further complicated by questions regarding the relationship between faith and the scientific character of theology, as well as the role of the university with regard to that relationship. Though seemingly diverse, a resolution to both of these questions may be found by giving an account of how the sciences, like theology, are specified. It is the purpose of the present article to explore the classical Thomistic position on this subject, and to apply its principles to the case of theology. It is shown that the specification of a science can be understood in terms of both the “formal object which” is known in a given science and the “formal object under which” it is known. The former can provide a correct starting point for managing the multiplicity of “sub-fields” and various specializations within the science of theology, while the latter can help to answer the question of the interrelation between faith and theology as a science in a university setting.

Modernism and the Problematic Relation between History and Theology. The Search for a Compromise by Louvain Historians and Theologians (1870–1910)

The progress of historical science in the second half of the nineteenth century could not have but consequences on the discipline of church history. Traditionally, (Catholic) church history was conceived as an auxiliary science of theology, charged with demonstrating the truth of faith by means of historical witnesses. Bold pioneers like Ernest Renan and Louis Duchesne transferred (elements of) the methodology of historical science to the study of early Christianity. The resistance of the Magisterium and dogmatic theologians urged Catholic church historians—especially at the time of the modernist crisis—to restrain their pursuit of autonomy from dogmatic and theological directions. A case in point is that of the Louvain historians and positive theologians (Charles De Smedt, Alfred Cauchie, and Joseph Lebon) trying to reconcile the exigencies of critical historiography with the basic principles of dogmatic theology (o.a. the immutability of dogma, the infallibility of the Church, the possibility of divine supernatural intervention in human history and the unity of truth). Components of their via media come to the fore in their methodological approach of the history-of-dogma research, such as the implicit acceptance of a theology of history, the emphasis on the dogmatic authority of the Magisterium as to compensate the lack of dogmatic authority of the historical sources (especially the writings of the Church Fathers) and the elaboration of a new “positive” apologetics, based on the firm confidence in the eventual reconciliation between faith and science.

‘Is theology a science?’ Paul Feyerabend's anarchic epistemology as challenge test to T. F. Torrance's scientific theology

AbstractTo answer in the affirmative Barth's question ‘Is theology a science? is to acknowledge both that such a question has a history and that the predicate ‘scientific’ is a contested one. T. F. Torrance inTheological Scienceand subsequent publications, seeks to proceed with a minimalist conception of science, as a study whose methods are directed by ‘faithfulness to object’. Paul Feyerabend, inAgainst Methodand subsequent publications, contends that such a minimalism amounts to an admission that there is no such thing as ‘the scientific method’, and that therefore the predicate ‘scientific’ lacks coherence and substance. According to Feyerabend, philosophers like Michael Polanyi (an important influence upon Torrance) are simply not bold enough to see their work through to the radical conclusions which it demands and he provides. For Feyerabend, science's reference to qualities such as ‘objectivity’ and ‘rationality’ are simply a smoke-screen for decisively influential vested interests of power and wealth – it is these which ultimately determine what we mean by science, and these which therefore must be unmasked in the cause of humanism. However, in the course of this dialogue we reveal that Feyerabend is too careless a thinker, given to rushing prematurely and too willingly to unwarranted and simplistic dichotomies. Thus Torrance's notion of the ‘scientific’ emerges intact, but not without Feyerabend's stimulating challenge raising important questions, not least to theology as a science. For here, above all, ‘human’ factors are likely unduly to influence scientific knowledge. Thus Feyerabend also points to areas where Torrance's project needs further development and closer scrutiny.

Ralph Wendell Burhoe and the Natural Selection of God

A crisis is looming for religious man as science claims sovereignty over our objective reality and threatens the stability of communities of faith. One by one, prior claims to explaining ultimate reality are systematically shown to have little correlation with scientific fact. This paper addresses the problem of meaning in Ralph Wendell Burhoe’s scientific theology. Through a detailed analysis of Burhoe’s writings and subsequent criticisms and responses, Burhoe is rescued from Ian Barbour’s claim that “[scientific theology cannot] deal adequately with the problems of human freedom, evil and conflict in nature.” Of primary importance is the demonstration that Burhoe’s Lord of History (God as natural process) is worthy of Paul Tillich’s conception of faith as ultimate concern. Further analysis reveals how one may derive meaning from a scientific theology, providing a basis for Burhoe’s world-view as the next step for homo religiosus.

Science, Intelligibility, Creation: How the Doctrine of Creation Unites, Delineates, and Ennobles Modern Science

Science, Intelligibility, Creation:How the Doctrine of Creation Unites, Delineates, and Ennobles Modern Science Scott G. Hefelfinger (bio) I. Introduction If the province of modern science seems today to be all encompassing, a quick survey of the situation will prove otherwise. Science can often seem to have no room for philosophy, no time for the immaterial, and no patience with God. Through all of these factors it seems we are left with no hope for reconciliation between science and philosophy, science and theology, and ultimately, science and ordinary life.1 If a "theological doctrine" were to come to the rescue and serve to make sense of the divide between ancient and modern science that would indeed be something.2 This is precisely what I would like to suggest. I hope to show that the doctrine of creation best accounts for and makes sense of the situation found today between departments of science and departments of philosophy and theology: a historically diverging but essentially complementary relationship between ancient and modern science. This assertion can either be viewed philosophically, or it can be assessed, to a certain extent, empirically. That is to say, for the scientist, I propose it as a hypothesis [End Page 131] that, as I hope to indicate, accounts for a number of things in a remarkably sensible and convincing way. In this article I will briefly trace the development of modern science in relation to ancient science, focusing on the evident rift that has formed between the two. But then I will show that such a division is in no way essential but rather an accidental occurrence. This is to say, it need not be so. Indeed, in cannot be so, which will become clear as I turn to creation and its accounting for the intelligibility of the objects of both philosophy and science. Finally, I hope to show that creation accounts for the possibility of any empirical inquiry in the first place, its hypothetical and seemingly unending quest for knowledge, and its dignity and nobility. I begin with the first part: a consideration of the growing rift. II. The Growing Rift The science of today is not the same as that of yesterday, and only by way of contrast can the novelty of modern scientific inquiry be brought to light. The ancient view of science finds representative expression in Aristotle, who describes science in the following terms: "We think ourselves to possess science simply, and not in the manner of the Sophists, i.e., accidentally, when we think we know the causes through which something is, that it is the cause of this [something], and further, that it is impossible that the thing be otherwise."3 Aristotle, the first to formulate it with precision, is not however the first to identify the mode of certainty that is characteristic of science. Rather it is Plato who is the first to express, albeit somewhat metaphorically, the constitutive element of true science. Through the words of Socrates, this specific character emerges in the dialogue Meno: True opinions, as long as they remain, are a fine thing and all they do is good, but they are not willing to remain long and they escape from a man's soul, so that they are not worth much [End Page 132] until one ties them down by [giving] an account of the cause.. . . After they are tied down in the first place they become science, and then they remain in place. That is why knowledge is prized more highly than correct opinion, and knowledge differs from correct opinion in being tied down.4 Here, Plato describes the certainty of science metaphorically as "being tied down." This descriptive turn of phrase implies that a particular bit of knowledge, some conclusion, becomes science when rooted in or reduced to principles more certain and more known, which are of their nature more general than the knowledge tied down to them. Despite the figurative language, clear precursors to Aristotle's more precise formulation are found in the terms "cause" and "science," terms inherited verbatim by Plato's most famous pupil. Thus formulated by Plato and Aristotle, the ancient "scientia or episteme meant a very perfect knowledge, a...

Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (review)

Reviewed by: Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England Charles M. Stang Benjamin John King Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009 Pp. xvii + 289. $100.00. This book surveys John Henry Newman's (1801–1890) lifelong study of the Alexandrian tradition with an eye to understanding both how he consistently turned to the Alexandrians as a resource for his own Anglican, and later Catholic, theological agenda and how his reading of the Alexandrians reflected and in turn shaped western historiography of Christian doctrine for many decades to come. Newman was an Alexandrian loyalist from start to finish, even as his tastes shifted over the years from the pristine pre-Nicene faith of Origen to the architects of conciliar orthodoxy, Athanasius and Cyril, and finally to his later tryst with Rome and a "scholasticized" Athanasius. King bucks a certain trend by refusing to read Newman through two stages, the Anglican and the Catholic, and charts instead a tripartite chronological frame: (1) the 1830s, when Newman operates with a "twofold system of doctrine"; (2) the 1840s and 1850s, when Newman deploys the notion of the "development" of doctrine; and (3) the 1860s and 1870s, when Newman increasingly saw doctrine as a "theological science." What cuts across these periods, however, is Newman's conviction that there is a compelling analogy between the fourth and fifth centuries, on the one hand, and the nineteenth, on the other. In other words, he feels as if the forces arrayed against the church (of England or of Rome) in his own day—namely liberalism and secularism—are deeply aligned with those forces arrayed against the church of Athanasius and, later, Cyril—Arianism and Nestorianism. The thinnest film, as it were, seems to separate the two beleaguered orthodox communities, and so he consistently turns to the Alexandrians for solace and guidance in his own perceived struggles on behalf of right belief and faithful authority. During the first phase, Newman's heroes were the pre-Nicene authors, especially Origen. He substantiated this elevation of the pre-Nicenes by what King calls a "twofold system of doctrine," according to which there were two categories of doctrine: the "Apostolic" or "Episcopal," which was unchanging, necessary to salvation, and concerning which the pre-Nicenes were consistent and unfaltering, [End Page 339] and the "Prophetical," which was dynamic and responsive to challenges. His preference for the pre-Nicenes can be seen in his assigning the belief that "God is three persons in one" to "Apostolic" doctrine, while the consubstantial relationship between persons (homoousios) falls into "Prophetic" doctrine. In fact, as Rowan Williams argues in his recent introduction to Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century (1833), the twofold system of doctrine implies that the Nicene formula is an arid and technical, if ultimately necessary, explanation of what the pre-Nicenes richly and dynamically confessed in a variety of idioms. The hero of the second phase, however, was undoubtedly Athanasius. Already in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), just as Newman was converting to Roman Catholicism, he was pushing Origen to the periphery of the orthodox center and faulting him for his hesitations avant la lettre regarding homoousios. King acutely notes that this shift to "development" is something of a shibboleth, for, as he puts it, "Newman's 'development' is shorthand for the triumph of Athanasian orthodoxy—an orthodoxy which, in the way he presents it, allows little room for complexity or dynamism" (185f.). One of the threads running through the first and second phases of Newman's Alexandrian enthusiasms is a peculiar geographical configuration of orthodoxy and heresy. Already in the 1830s, Newman could not countenance the fact that Arius, the heretic par excellence, was in fact an Alexandrian. Rather than imagine that Alexandria might have been home to more than one theological tradition, the Athanasian-Cyrillian line, Newman redrew the Mediterranean map such that Arius was, in his temperament and training, an Antiochene and so a descendent of the dubious line of Lucian of Antioch and Paul of Samosata. By prying Arius away from the Alexandrian context in...

Defining Professionalism: Newman Then and Now

Defining Professionalism: Newman Then and Now Len Findlay (bio) John Henry Newman, like many Canadian scholars in the 1960s, was trained in a well-established institution and commissioned to start a new one. Newman used his experience in shaping reform in Victorian Oxford to design the first Catholic university in Ireland while rethinking the university more generally and defending liberal knowledge against the incursions of mechanical knowledge and the radical secularism it encouraged. The resultant lectures known as The Idea of a University are still revered today for defending core humanist values against crass instrumentality. What is less appreciated is how Newman’s version of the academy was anxious and compromised. For extended evidence of this I refer you to his famous Fifth Discourse on “Knowledge Its Own End,” but my example here comes from a lecture incorporated later, following on a recognition of epic poetry as imbricated with and subordinated to national destiny, in a locus classicus of imperialist ideology (Aeneid 6) that requires from Newman a more explicit, inadvertently revealing gloss: What an empire is in political history, such is a University in the sphere of philosophy and research. It is … the high protecting power of all knowledge and all science, of fact [End Page 3] and principle, of inquiry and discovery, of experiment and speculation; it maps out the territory of the intellect, and sees that the boundaries of each province are religiously respected, and that there is neither encroachment nor surrender on any side. It acts as an umpire between truth and truth, and, in taking into account the nature and importance of each, assigns to all their due order of precedence. … It is deferential and loyal, according to their respective weight, to the claims of literature, of physical research, of history, of metaphysics, of theological science. It is impartial towards them all, and promotes each in its own place and for its own object. (220) Newman’s personified university with its own distinctive citizenry and guilds embraces a full-blown civilizing mission. Cognitive imperialism dictates the nineteenth-century university’s monopolistic mapping and managing of physical and mental borders. Within these borders, knowledge seekers, bearers, and producers will be attended to individually and collectively by the paternal university as a supreme but caring power. It is a hierarchy impartial because quasi-imperial accords each discipline or mode of inquiry the right to be “its own object,” but only within an hierarchically assigned place, and aligning that arrangement with the reach and longevity of “old Rome” as ancient empire and then Christianity’s world religion. Here in Ireland, the anteroom of British empire and scene of centuries of Protestant ascendancy, Newman’s globalizing Britishness is muted and displaced, but it still requires him to negotiate the professorial-professional nexus as follows: In this point of view, its several professors are like the ministers of various political powers at one court or conference. They represent their respective sciences … and should dispute arise between those sciences, they are the persons to talk over and arrange it, without risk of extravagant pretensions on any side, of angry collision, or of popular commotion. A liberal philosophy becomes the habit of minds thus exercised; a breadth and spaciousness of thought, in which lines, seemingly parallel, may converge at leisure, and principles, recognized as incommensurable, may be safely antagonistic. (ibid.) The scholars that Newman had just likened to judges and priests are now named “professors,” a term that went to the heart of Oxbridge debates about teaching and “research” (Huber 1.xxviii–xxix: Francis Newman’s Preface; Engel 15, 28), about the Germanizing and secularizing of English universities (Bill 28), and about the reproduction of elites versus an [End Page 4] opening up of universities beyond religious tests and clerical subscriptions, while women, as usual, waited their turn. Newman reasserts the authority of tradition by sustaining his analogy between universities and empires in the professor/minister simile. Just as Newman had substituted revelation for revolution a paragraph previously, so revolution’s increasingly feeble enemy, the reactionary Congress System, cannot be named either. Newman, who had been in the thick of academic politics in Oxford, reduces that turmoil to courtly or Episcopal play...