Worship and Theology: Lancelot Andrewes in Durham,Easter 1617

Abstract

On Easter Day 1617, Lancelot Andrewes, one of the foremost preachers in England in the first quarter of the 17th century, preached before King James I in Durham Cathedral. This article sets the sermon in its historical and liturgical context, including the choice of an unusual text with nautical imagery – the allegory of the ‘sign of Jonah’ (Matthew 12.39–40). The preacher is shown to move subtly through the book of Jonah, his flight from God, the storm in the sea, the three days in the whale's belly, his escape to dry land, and the repentance of the people of Nineveh, applying each episode to growth in the Easter faith. The ‘three days’ in particular are seen as the ‘Sacred Three Days’ (‘Triduum Sacrum’) of patristic tradition, which point to a journey of faith that includes repentance and forgiveness, and participation not only in the sacrament of the Eucharist, but in the great sacrament of Easter as well. Andrewes emerges from this sermon as an imaginative thinker, with an original way of handling Scripture and tradition.     

Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders Who Were Abused as Children

Should a history of child abuse be taken into consideration when a juvenile offender is punished? Although some research shows that child abuse is used as a mitigating factor for juvenile offenders (i.e., elicits less punitive sentences), surveys of juvenile court officials reveal that it is considered an aggravating factor. Specifically, in controlled mock jury studies in which child abuse is experimentally manipulated, child abuse elicits less punitive sentences. In contrast, child abuse elicits more punitive sentences in a nonexperimentally controlled environment—the juvenile justice system. This article provides a comprehensive literature review to explain these conflicting bodies of research by considering factors that naturally covary with childhood abuse: chaotic family environment, mental health problems, behavioral problems, and school problems.     

Reasoning from uncertain premises: Effects of expertise and conversational context

Four experiments investigated uncertainty about a premise in a deductive argument as a function of the expertise of the speaker and of the conversational context. The procedure mimicked everyday reasoning in that participants were not told that the premises were to be treated as certain. The results showed that the perceived likelihood of a conclusion was greater when the major or the minor premise was uttered by an expert rather than a novice (Experiment 1). The results also showed that uncertainty about the conclusion was higher when the major premise was uttered by a novice and an alternative premise by an expert, compared to when the major premise was uttered by an expert and the alternative by a novice (Experiment 2). Similarly, the believability of a conclusion was considerably lower when the minor premise was uttered by a novice and denied by an expert, as opposed to when an expert uttered the minor premise and a novice denied it (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 showed that the nature of the uncertainty induced by a denial of the minor premise depended on whether or not the context was a conversation. These results pose difficult problems for current theories of reasoning, as current theories are based on the results of experiments in which the premises are treated as certain. Our discussion of the results emphasises the importance of pragmatics in reasoning, namely, the role of general knowledge about the world in assessing the probability of a premise uttered by an expert or a novice and the role of interpretations of the premise based on pragmatic inferences in revising these initial probabilities.     

Neuroethics,confidentiality, and a cultural imperative in early onset Alzheimer disease: a case study with a First Nation population

The meaningful consideration of cultural practices, values and beliefs is a necessary component in the effective translation of advancements in neuroscience to clinical practice and public discourse. Society’s immense investment in biomedical science and technology, in conjunction with an increasingly diverse socio-cultural landscape, necessitates the study of how potential discoveries in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer disease are perceived and utilized across cultures. Building on the work of neuroscientists, ethicists and philosophers, we argue that the growing field of neuroethics provides a pragmatic and constructive pathway to guide advancements in neuroscience in a manner that is culturally nuanced and relevant. Here we review a case study of one issue in culturally oriented neuroscience research where it is evident that traditional research ethics must be broadened and the values and needs of diverse populations considered for meaningful and relevant research practices. A global approach to neuroethics has the potential to furnish critical engagement with cultural considerations of advancements in neuroscience.     

Minimizing rivalry in San Miniato

A workshop on binocular rivalry and perceptual ambiguity was held in San Miniato, Italy, on 12-15 June, 2002.     

Mandated Supervision: An Intervention for Disciplined Professionals

Mandated supervision with disciplined mental health professionals is defined and discussed. In the absence of empirical support for supervision in this context, sources of theoretical support are provided. Risks, benefits, and implications for practice for supervisors are also discussed.