-
8/12/2019 CHICAGO JOURNALS
1/3
Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald OCollins, eds., The
IncarnationThe Incarnation by Stephen T. Davis, ; Daniel Kendall, ;
Gerald OCollins,Review by: Kathryn TannerThe Journal of Religion,
Vol. 85, No. 1 (January 2005), pp. 142-143Published by: The
University of Chicago PressStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/428534.
Accessed: 21/02/2014 10:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available
at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/428534?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/428534?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress
-
8/12/2019 CHICAGO JOURNALS
2/3
The Journal of Religion
142
Those who start from an orientation other than that of the
authors mightwant to read the third part of the book first. In Mat
hematics, Empirical Sci-ence, and Theology, Gerhart and Russell
examine the relationship math isto science as science is to
theology. Here we get to one of the main points ofthe book about
changes in world meanings made possible by metaphoric pro-cess in
both science and religion. Metaphoric process brings about change
inwhat is believable (p. 165). When current unde rstandings in
either scie nceor religion are challenged, it is metaphoric process
that allows for a changein what it is acceptable to believe.
In the remaining chapters, the authors offer a welcome caution
against tooeasy an equation of concepts such as uncertainty in
quantum physics with con-cepts in philosophical theology. They
critique Anne Foersts discussion of em-bodied intelligence in the
robot Cog and the image of God. Lastly, in Mythand Public Science,
they apply the genre of myth, usually associated withreligious
beliefs, to certain characteristics of public science.
The topics of these essays are wide-ranging, and the reader must
work tounderstand the relationship between the various chapters.
Relating seeminglydisparate concepts and fields in the way the
authors do requires a high degreeof creativity. Amid the literature
in science and religion, Gerhart and Russellswork stand s as a
unique and challenging contribu tion whose full influence isyet to
be felt. They have help ed point the way for furt her work that
needs tobe done in relating science and theology in terms of
metaphor, text, and nar-rativeexchanging new maps for old.LOU ANN
TROST, Council for a Parliament of the Worlds Religions.
DAVIS, STEPHEN T.; KENDALL, DANIEL; and OCOLLINS, GERALD, eds.
The Incar-nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. xxv404 pp.
$55.00 (cloth).
This volume on the incarnation (like its predecessors, also from
Oxford Uni-
versity Press, on the Resurrection and the Trinity) assembles
papers given byestablished scholars at an interdisciplinary and
ecumenical symposium devotedto the topic. Many of the essays are of
high quality (for example, those byEleonore Stump and Brian
Leftow). Others do readers the service of indicatingsomething of
the perspective of their authors to be found in more
sustainedtreatments of the topic elsewhere (in the case of the
essays, for example, byN. T. Wright and Steven Evans). Because the
incarnation is treated from avariety of viewpointsb iblical,
historical, syste matic, philosophical, homiletic,literary,
artistic, and so forththe volume as a whole does a very nice job
ofconveying the richness of its subject matter.
The potential downsides of such a project are, however, amply
evident. Aninterdisciplinary, ecumenical symposium obviously holds
great promise forgenuine intellectual engagement and argumentative
advance, but none of thathappens here. Established scholars with
preestablished views on sometimes er-udite particulars merely offer
up what they already think. Individual essays
acknowledge the input of other participants at the incarnation
summit butrarely across disciplinary lines. And there is very
little effort to bring the essaysinto direct dialogue with one
another, even within the same disciplinary frame-works. The read er
might have benefited, for example, from knowing the de-gree to
which the similar-seeming philosophical apparatuses of Leftow
andStump are compatible with one another, or from a more direct
airing of the
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014
10:15:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/12/2019 CHICAGO JOURNALS
3/3
Book Reviews
143
apparent disagreement between Wright and Alan Segal on Judaisms
capacityto envision incarnation as it is exhibited in the biblical
texts, or from hearingwhat Kathleen Norris, with her plea for inca
rnational language that give s fl esh-and-bones reality to ideas,
might make of the mostly technical analytical toolsof philosophy on
display here. Many of the essays are quite fascinating, onceone
makes the leap of accepting their starting pointsfor example,
StephenDaviss essay develops into an apologetic argument that Jesus
would have hadto be either insane or malevolent to think he was God
when he wasnt. Butthere is very little that holds this collection
of quite disparate essays togetheror counters the occasional
impression of simple idiosyncrasy in either theirindividual focus
or overall principles of organization. On the latter score,
forexample, why are biblical, patristic, and medieval materials
initially given sucha heavy emphasis in the volume and followed by
a jump made to the contem-porary positions of the authors from an
exclusively analytic perspective? GeraldOCollins, in an
introductory essay that sets up the project as a whole,
outlinestwelve different issues surrounding the incarnation, and
many of the contrib-utors bother to mention which of these issues
they take up for discussion. Butthe interconnections among the
issues themselves are nowhere developed, andlittle work is done to
address the way the contemporary situation (e.g., a sit-uation of
religious pluralism) might be playing up theseor perhaps
otherissues. The collection, for all its variety, seems to circle
around what is takento be a doctrinally orthodox view of the
incarnation, but even here, this readerat least was not convinced
that the contributors really agreed about what thatmeant. One is
left, then, with the sense of a wasted opportunity: if only
thesevery smart people from very diff erent disciplines had been
asked at the begin-ning to hammer out together the assumptions and
questions about the incar-nation that would form the basis of both
their essays and a more sustainedconversation with one
another.KATHRYN TANNER, University of Chicago.
OBRIEN, GEORGE DENNIS. The Idea of a Catholic University.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 2002. 336 pp. $28.00
(cloth).
The fundamental clash between Catholic faith and the modern
university,George Dennis OBrien contends, is rooted in the failure
to differentiate be-tween three types of truth: the propositional
truth of science, which the uni-versity has elevated to dogmatic
status; the signatured trut h of art, which pre-serves the
particularized, historical insight of the creative individual;
and,finally, the truth of Revelation, that is, a truth about the
real that escapesthe categorization of science and the shaping
power of art (p. 58).
Unfortunately, religions willingness to subject faith claims to
the criteria ofscientific reason, a sign of the Enlightenments
enduring legacy in higher ed-ucation, has fostered a confusion of
categories. Revelation, OBrien insists, isnot a truth continuous
with reason and beyond its grasp: rather, the truth of
Revelation is essentially not available to reason. More
important, the authorwrites, the trut h of revelation is fund
amentally dist orted when formed uponthe universitys [scientific
rationalist] model of truth (p. 24).
Catholicism, rightly understood, does not compete with science;
rather, itengages the truth about the real. For Christians, Jesus
Christ is that truth.Theology, the discipline appropriate to the
exploration of this truth, must be
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014
10:15:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
