“Faith Alone”—Primus Inter Pares: Welcome to the Banquet

Faith alone represents the primus inter pares of the sixteenth‐century Reformation's four solas. Gary Simpson introduces five authors who critically explore and creatively extend the doctrine of justification by faith alone as Dialog with its Fall issues (2013–2017) leans into the 500^th anniversary of the Reformation (2017).     

“Thine is the Kingdom,the Power,and the Glory”: New Vistas for the Theology of the Cross

Abstract : This article examines fifteen recent books on a theology of the cross in the English language. Following the publication of Moltmann's The Crucified God and Hall's Lighten Our Darkness in the 1970s, unprecedented interest has been devoted to a theology of the cross in theological literature. The author categorizes this literature into four types: exegetical and historical treatments, critiques of theologies of glory, challenges to the abuse of power, and signals of the coming of God's kingdom. Two hypotheses are ventured regarding the emergence of these works at this time: 1) they evidence a theological response to the enormity of human suffering brought into awareness in an age of instant electronic communication; and 2) the urgent concern for the poor and the cry for social justice, which emerged with liberation theologies, are now finding expression through advocates for the theology of the cross.     

THE PROBLEM OF “GOD” IN PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION: LONERGAN'S “COMMON SENSE” (RELIGION) VERSUS “THEORY” (THEOLOGY)

The emphasis on God in American psychology of religion generates the problem of explaining divine‐versus‐natural causality in “spiritual experiences.” Especially “theistic psychology” champions divine involvement. However, its argument exposes a methodological error: to pit popular religious opinions against technical scientific conclusions. Countering such homogenizing “postmodern agnosticism,” Bernard Lonergan explained these two as different modes of thinking: “common sense” and “theory”—which resolves the problem: When theoretical science is matched with theoretical theology, “the God‐hypothesis” explains the existence of things whereas science explains their natures; and, barring miracles, God is irrelevant to natural science. A review of the field shows that the problem is pervasive; attention to “miracles”—popularly so‐named versus technically—focuses the claims of divine‐versus‐natural causality; and specifications of the meaning of spiritual, spirituality, science, worldview, and meaning itself (suffering that same ambiguity: personal import versus cognitive content) offer further clarity. The problem is not naturalism versus theism, but commonsensical versus theoretical thinking. This solution demands “hard” social science.     

Development of the AAS Statement on “Suicide” and “Physician Aid in Dying”

In August 2017, the American Association of Suicidology board passed a statement titled “Suicide” is not the same as “Physician aid in dying,” which was developed partly in response to the fact that aid in dying is now legal in a number of jurisdictions. In Phase 1, eight members of the AAS who had indicated interest in this issue were asked to independently draft such a statement; the convener consolidated these drafts and comments into an initial statement. In Phase 2, five additional experts who might be expected to object were asked for their independent input; the convener consolidated these with the previous draft. No one objected to the statement altogether; extensive copyediting and rewording suggestions focused primarily on issues of overlap between “suicide” and “physician aid in dying.” The resulting document represents an effort to try to accommodate the basic concerns of all participants. The document does not speak for or against legalization of this practice, but it may have bearing on whether suicide prevention professionals have an obligation to try to prevent such deaths and whether they may serve as consultants for psychological or psychiatric evaluations as sometimes required under US state law.     

“I Stand in the Middle of the Ocean”

The challenge of climate change for the South Pacific Island of Kiribati demands a 21st‐century missional vision to help respond effectively to the hopes and fears of islanders. This article employs a “coconut theology” embedded within an Indigenous knowledge thought‐system and the daily cultural experiences of the Kiribati people. Using coconut theology as a qualitative method, this study views climate songs as a source of primary data. The songs are collected and analyzed through a thematic approach. The findings demonstrate that songs play a critical role in the Kiribati people’s culture, keeping their voice alive and helping them make sense of their experiences of climate change. Based on the findings, the article argues that climate change songs embody critical theologies that could help the church embrace Indigenous imagination in its search for contextual relevance and effective response to climate change.     

“SCIENCE,” “RELIGION,” AND “SCIENCE‐AND‐RELIGION” IN THE LATE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Many intellectuals wrote texts on the relations between Islam and science in the nineteenth‐century Ottoman Empire. These texts not only addressed the massive social and cultural changes the Empire was going through, but responded to European authors’ claims about the extent to which Islam was compatible with the modern world. Focusing on several texts written in the second half of the nineteenth century by the influential Muslim Ottoman authors Namik Kemal, Ahmed Midhat, and ?emseddin Sami, this article shows the influence of these exigencies on arguments on Islam and science. In order to represent Islam as a respectable religion in harmony with science, these intellectuals defined a “pure Islam” that was a set of basic principles that could be found in the Qur'an. Rather than an embedded way of life, Islam in these texts was an objectified, delimitable entity that could be imagined as having relations with other entities, such as science.     

On “Naturalistic” Family Research

Much is made of the desirability of “naturalistic” research on the family. Indeed, experimental research is often rejected for not being “naturalistic.” The purpose of the present article is to draw out and to examine some of the assumptions underlying such a position. The assumptions behind criteria such as “real,”“relevant,” and “typical” for research topics and settings are held to be questionable, not least because they are inconsistent with a communicational, context-oriented approach to the family. Alternative assumptions more consistent with this approach are described.     

“PURE” VERSUS “PRACTICAL” EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION

Abstract: In this article I distinguish a type of justification that is “epistemic” in pertaining to the grounds of one's belief, and “practical” in its connection to what act(s) one may undertake, based on that belief. Such justification, on the proposed account, depends mainly on the proportioning of “inner epistemic virtue” to the “outer risks” implied by one's act. The resulting conception strikes a balance between the unduly moralistic conception of William Clifford and contemporary naturalist virtue theories.     

“Alkie,”“Frat Brother,” and “Jock”: Perceived Types of College Students and Stereotypes About Drinking1

Two studies assessed perceived types of college students and associated stereotypes about drinking. In the first study, 64 university students responded to an open‐ended probe asking them to list types of college students and then rated the amount of drinking done by each of a set of preselected types. In the second study, 236 students responded to the same open‐ended item and directly rated a set of types that had been revised based on Study 1 in terms of drinking and involvement in the academic and sociosexual collegiate subcultures. As hypothesized, consensual responses to the open‐ended probe reflected the college student culture. Also as hypothesized, types of students socially defined in terms of the sociosexual aspects of college (e.g., “fraternity boy”) were rated as likely to drink heavily, whereas types that were seen as being pulled away from college social life, through assumed involvement in academics (e.g., “brain/straight As”), were rated as drinking relatively little. Finally, rated sociosexual involvement was positively correlated, and academic involvement was negatively correlated, with perceived drinking, which supports a central assumption of the framework guiding the research.     

Embodying Confident Agency: Luther's “Three Estates” as a Resource for Virtue Theory

Martin Luther's social writings (volumes 44–47 in the American edition) provide a robust account of human agency that might help Lutheran social ethics address contemporary crises of confidence. When Luther addresses concrete moral issues, he enriches his two‐kingdoms frame with a focus on particular social roles such as ruler, merchant, soldier, parent, etc. This (often tacit) “three‐estates” approach creates room for a distinctly Lutheran contribution to contemporary virtue theory by focusing on the functions served by particular social roles more than on individual self‐chosen pathways of moral improvement. It also supports a prophetic affirmation of vocation against the contemporary breakdown of expectations and confidence in social roles.     

On Reinstating “Part I” and “Part II” to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations

The Editors’ Preface to the fourth edition of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is disparaging of the earlier editorial efforts of G. E. M. Anscombe and Rush Rhees and in particular of their inclusion and titling of the material in “Part II”. I argue, on both historical and philosophical grounds, that the Editors have failed to refute the editorial decisions of Rhees and Anscombe – a failure born both of a neglect of the historical circumstances and Wittgenstein's own expressed hopes and intentions for his writings, and of a myopic understanding of his philosophy. Wittgenstein's legacy has not been well served by their interventions, which should be undone in future editions.     

TECHNO‐SECULARISM AND “REVEALED RELIGION”: SOME PROBLEMS WITH CAIAZZA'S ANALYSIS

Abstract. Instead of focusing my remarks on John Caiazza's interesting and important thesis about the way in which modern technology is drastically secularizing our culture today, I examine the frame within which he sets out his thesis, a frame I regard as seriously flawed. Caiazza's argument is concerned with the broad range of religion/science/technology issues in today's world, but the only religion that he seems to take seriously is what he calls “revealed religion” (Christianity). His consideration of religion is thus narrow and cramped, and this makes it difficult to assess properly the significance of what he calls techno‐secularism. I suggest that employing a broader conception of religion would enable us to see more clearly what is really at stake in the rise of techno‐secularism. Instead of defining the issues in the polarizing terms of revealed religion versus secularity, I argue for a more integrative approach in which concepts are developed that can bring together and hold together major religious insights and themes with modern scientific thinking. If, for example, we give up the anthropomorphism of the traditional idea of God as creator and think of God as simply creativity, it becomes possible to integrate theological insights with current scientific thinking and to formulate the issues posed by the rise of techno‐secularism in a more illuminating way. This in turn should facilitate effective address of those issues.