Interdisciplinary Method
0 Followers
Recent papers in Interdisciplinary Method
Whereas most Christology books today limit their treatment to biblical scholarship or else are personal theology, this book presents a complete review of Christological issues: methodology, biblical scholarship, conciliar teaching, and... more
Whereas most Christology books today limit their treatment to biblical scholarship or else are personal theology, this book presents a complete review of Christological issues: methodology, biblical scholarship, conciliar teaching, and speculative development. The goal is to reconcile all of these and so present a complete systematic Christology.
This is the first text to apply consistently the method and Christology of Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S. J. The integrating principle of the book is an epistemological position that allows for historical development while avoiding static dogmatism, outright relativism, and soft "inspirationalism." As a result, the book, though solidly traditional, challenges current opinion on many fronts.
The Same Jesus: A Contemporary Christology is written on two levels: it addresses the ordinary reader in the text and the scholarly community in the endnotes. For non-professionals, the book provides periodic summaries, personal stories, and ease in reading. For professional critics, the epistemological basis is its strongest and most valuable contribution.
"The book is a work of thoughtful scholarship. It is a helpful guide to contemporary Roman Catholic Christology and New Testament scholarship." Donal G. Dawe, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, in Theology Today, July, 1987.
"His retrieval and defense of 'nature' and 'person' is a masterpiece of clarity. Very moving is his personal account of how he had to confront and affirm the divinity of Christ." Terry J. Tekippe, Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans, Louisiana, in Review for Religious, November-December, 1989.
"Helminiak succeeds in presenting an insightful Christological synthesis with a sound epistemological foundation that reconciles contemporary scholarship and concerns with traditional belief about Jesus. He also succeeds in articulating a creative soteriology that is integral to his Christology....It is clearly written with numerous helpful summaries." Gerald M. Fagin, S.J., Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana, in Theological Studies, December, 1987.
"This presentation on Jesus Christ deserves serious consideration....Helminiak has boldly taken up the very issues with which every major theologian has struggled since the Enlightenment." Robert A. Kreig, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, in America, November 7, 1987.
"Helminiak stresses the need for a new Christological paradigm. Yet, rather than abandon the conciliar tradition, he builds upon it and integrates into it the renewed appreciated of Jesus' full humanity....One must gratefully acknowledge the service Helminiak has rendered in setting forth so clearly the concerns which a new Christological paradigm must address." Robert P. Imbelli, Institute of Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry, Boston, Massachusetts, in Church, Spring, 1990.
"Pause a moment to think about this achievement. It's a complete restatement of Catholic orthodoxy, but it incorporates very contemporary ways of reading the Bible and philosophical theology....Jesus lives on these pages." In The Christian Century, September 10-17, 1986.
This is the first text to apply consistently the method and Christology of Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S. J. The integrating principle of the book is an epistemological position that allows for historical development while avoiding static dogmatism, outright relativism, and soft "inspirationalism." As a result, the book, though solidly traditional, challenges current opinion on many fronts.
The Same Jesus: A Contemporary Christology is written on two levels: it addresses the ordinary reader in the text and the scholarly community in the endnotes. For non-professionals, the book provides periodic summaries, personal stories, and ease in reading. For professional critics, the epistemological basis is its strongest and most valuable contribution.
"The book is a work of thoughtful scholarship. It is a helpful guide to contemporary Roman Catholic Christology and New Testament scholarship." Donal G. Dawe, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, in Theology Today, July, 1987.
"His retrieval and defense of 'nature' and 'person' is a masterpiece of clarity. Very moving is his personal account of how he had to confront and affirm the divinity of Christ." Terry J. Tekippe, Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans, Louisiana, in Review for Religious, November-December, 1989.
"Helminiak succeeds in presenting an insightful Christological synthesis with a sound epistemological foundation that reconciles contemporary scholarship and concerns with traditional belief about Jesus. He also succeeds in articulating a creative soteriology that is integral to his Christology....It is clearly written with numerous helpful summaries." Gerald M. Fagin, S.J., Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana, in Theological Studies, December, 1987.
"This presentation on Jesus Christ deserves serious consideration....Helminiak has boldly taken up the very issues with which every major theologian has struggled since the Enlightenment." Robert A. Kreig, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, in America, November 7, 1987.
"Helminiak stresses the need for a new Christological paradigm. Yet, rather than abandon the conciliar tradition, he builds upon it and integrates into it the renewed appreciated of Jesus' full humanity....One must gratefully acknowledge the service Helminiak has rendered in setting forth so clearly the concerns which a new Christological paradigm must address." Robert P. Imbelli, Institute of Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry, Boston, Massachusetts, in Church, Spring, 1990.
"Pause a moment to think about this achievement. It's a complete restatement of Catholic orthodoxy, but it incorporates very contemporary ways of reading the Bible and philosophical theology....Jesus lives on these pages." In The Christian Century, September 10-17, 1986.
Spiritual Development Traditional theology teaches that there are three stages in the spiritual life: the purgative, wherein one moves away from sin; the illuminative,... more
Spiritual Development
Traditional theology teaches that there are three stages in the spiritual life: the purgative, wherein one moves away from sin; the illuminative, wherein one grows in virtue; and the unitive, wherein one attains abiding union with God. This conception was never meant to define discrete successive stages. At any time in one's spiritual journey, any of the three emphases—purgative, illuminative, or unitive—might take priority over the others, or in some way one may be at all the stages simultaneously. Or again, if strict succession was suggested, it was only that of "beginning, middle, and end."
The history of spirituality provides many accounts of the "scale" or "ladder" of perfection. Scattered throughout the voluminous writings of Augustine of Hippo alone are at least eight accounts of the path of spiritual development, most with seven stages and some with three, but all different. Clearly those accounts intended a suggestive and inspirational presentation and not a strictly systematic one. Nonetheless, inherent in these and all conceptions of spirituality is the notion of a path, a journey, a process, a developmental sequence.
Contemporary psychology also speaks of the human in terms of development. But with the rigor of a methodical science, psychology attempts systematically to delineate the stages of that development. If spiritual development were conceived as human development viewed against a particular set of concerns, the stage theories of psychology could significantly contribute to defining systematic stages of spiritual development. Then spiritual development would stand with other psychologically defined conceptions of human development: Piaget's cognitive development, Kohlberg’s moral development, Fowler's faith development, and Loevinger’s ego development.
Psychology, Theism, and Christianity
That is the hypothesis pursued in this essay. Acceptance of that hypothesis necessitates separate treatment of the psychological and the theological questions. Accordingly, Part I of this essay begins by critically reviewing the scant literature at this early date, 1987, that theoretically either treats spiritual development from a psychological point of view or attempts to integrate psychological developmental findings into theological concern for spiritual growth. Borrowing on the reviewed literature, the second chapter of Part I develops an initial definition of spiritual development and a list of the distinctive factors that determine it in contrast to other specific facets of human development. Next Chapter 3 presents an overview of current research on the stages of human development. Although all conclusions in this domain remain tentative, according to the purposes of this essay, focus will be on the integrative position in James Fowler’s Stages of Faith and of the encyclopedic statement in Jane Loevinger’s Ego Development. Insofar as developmental research hazards to suggest such a conclusion, the result is a sketch of the more or less currently determined lines and stages of human development within the populations studied. Finally, integrating this developmental material with the understanding developed in Chapter 2, Chapter 4 suggests a summary understanding of spiritual development and its stages.
Part I uses a critical, analytical, synthetic approach, sorting out the issues as they arise, consolidating issues where possible, introducing new material when necessary, all the time forging a progressively more coherent understanding of a very elusive subject. In the end the hope is to have justified as reasonable that psychology properly conceived can appropriately and adequately deal with many of the questions about spiritual development traditionally treated in theology. Indeed, within the contemporary context of extensive differentiation and specialization of disciplines, an adequate psychology and not theology is the discipline that properly treats questions of spirituality, at least insofar as practical issues are concerned.
Part II of this essay turns to the question of God and theist faith. Three chapters present a theory of theodicy, treatment of practical religious issues related to spiritual development, and the question of growth in holiness. The overall argument is this. Theism adds a further dimension of meaning to even an adequate psychological understanding of spiritual development. This is a contribution to a comprehensive theoretical account of the matter. But granted that God exists and is active whether acknowledged or not, theism changes nothing in an adequate psychological treatment and, as such, offers no answer to practical questions about spiritual development. An adequate psychological account already provides this. Finally, growth in holiness, understood as a profound relationship with God, is not the same as spiritual development. The different possible coincidences of the two are multiple.
Part III, limiting its consideration to Christianity, treats the still further question about Christian faith and its contribution to a comprehensive understanding of spiritual development. In the present context, the distinctive contribution of Christianity is the conception of human life as a process of divinization—theosis in the Greek, which provides a name for this distinctive facet of spiritual development, theotic (not merely theological or theist). Because of the redemptive work of Christ and the sanctifying mission of the holy spirit, the human life created by God and studied by the human sciences is actually a growing participation in divine life. Granted the incarnation and resurrection of the eternal son, Jesus Christ, an understanding of the Holy Spirit as God’s own Love poured into the human heart is the key to this specifically Christian contribution. But once again, since divinizing grace is available to all whether they recognize it or not, Christianity’s contribution is a further expanded understanding of this matter rather than a distinctive prescription for living it or any change in its mechanisms and requisites.
Throughout, when practical issues of spiritual development are at stake, adequate psychological treatment retains the priority. It explains the process of development, and it defines the stages. Yet a comprehensive theoretical understanding of spiritual development is incomplete without the theist and Christian components.
Traditional theology teaches that there are three stages in the spiritual life: the purgative, wherein one moves away from sin; the illuminative, wherein one grows in virtue; and the unitive, wherein one attains abiding union with God. This conception was never meant to define discrete successive stages. At any time in one's spiritual journey, any of the three emphases—purgative, illuminative, or unitive—might take priority over the others, or in some way one may be at all the stages simultaneously. Or again, if strict succession was suggested, it was only that of "beginning, middle, and end."
The history of spirituality provides many accounts of the "scale" or "ladder" of perfection. Scattered throughout the voluminous writings of Augustine of Hippo alone are at least eight accounts of the path of spiritual development, most with seven stages and some with three, but all different. Clearly those accounts intended a suggestive and inspirational presentation and not a strictly systematic one. Nonetheless, inherent in these and all conceptions of spirituality is the notion of a path, a journey, a process, a developmental sequence.
Contemporary psychology also speaks of the human in terms of development. But with the rigor of a methodical science, psychology attempts systematically to delineate the stages of that development. If spiritual development were conceived as human development viewed against a particular set of concerns, the stage theories of psychology could significantly contribute to defining systematic stages of spiritual development. Then spiritual development would stand with other psychologically defined conceptions of human development: Piaget's cognitive development, Kohlberg’s moral development, Fowler's faith development, and Loevinger’s ego development.
Psychology, Theism, and Christianity
That is the hypothesis pursued in this essay. Acceptance of that hypothesis necessitates separate treatment of the psychological and the theological questions. Accordingly, Part I of this essay begins by critically reviewing the scant literature at this early date, 1987, that theoretically either treats spiritual development from a psychological point of view or attempts to integrate psychological developmental findings into theological concern for spiritual growth. Borrowing on the reviewed literature, the second chapter of Part I develops an initial definition of spiritual development and a list of the distinctive factors that determine it in contrast to other specific facets of human development. Next Chapter 3 presents an overview of current research on the stages of human development. Although all conclusions in this domain remain tentative, according to the purposes of this essay, focus will be on the integrative position in James Fowler’s Stages of Faith and of the encyclopedic statement in Jane Loevinger’s Ego Development. Insofar as developmental research hazards to suggest such a conclusion, the result is a sketch of the more or less currently determined lines and stages of human development within the populations studied. Finally, integrating this developmental material with the understanding developed in Chapter 2, Chapter 4 suggests a summary understanding of spiritual development and its stages.
Part I uses a critical, analytical, synthetic approach, sorting out the issues as they arise, consolidating issues where possible, introducing new material when necessary, all the time forging a progressively more coherent understanding of a very elusive subject. In the end the hope is to have justified as reasonable that psychology properly conceived can appropriately and adequately deal with many of the questions about spiritual development traditionally treated in theology. Indeed, within the contemporary context of extensive differentiation and specialization of disciplines, an adequate psychology and not theology is the discipline that properly treats questions of spirituality, at least insofar as practical issues are concerned.
Part II of this essay turns to the question of God and theist faith. Three chapters present a theory of theodicy, treatment of practical religious issues related to spiritual development, and the question of growth in holiness. The overall argument is this. Theism adds a further dimension of meaning to even an adequate psychological understanding of spiritual development. This is a contribution to a comprehensive theoretical account of the matter. But granted that God exists and is active whether acknowledged or not, theism changes nothing in an adequate psychological treatment and, as such, offers no answer to practical questions about spiritual development. An adequate psychological account already provides this. Finally, growth in holiness, understood as a profound relationship with God, is not the same as spiritual development. The different possible coincidences of the two are multiple.
Part III, limiting its consideration to Christianity, treats the still further question about Christian faith and its contribution to a comprehensive understanding of spiritual development. In the present context, the distinctive contribution of Christianity is the conception of human life as a process of divinization—theosis in the Greek, which provides a name for this distinctive facet of spiritual development, theotic (not merely theological or theist). Because of the redemptive work of Christ and the sanctifying mission of the holy spirit, the human life created by God and studied by the human sciences is actually a growing participation in divine life. Granted the incarnation and resurrection of the eternal son, Jesus Christ, an understanding of the Holy Spirit as God’s own Love poured into the human heart is the key to this specifically Christian contribution. But once again, since divinizing grace is available to all whether they recognize it or not, Christianity’s contribution is a further expanded understanding of this matter rather than a distinctive prescription for living it or any change in its mechanisms and requisites.
Throughout, when practical issues of spiritual development are at stake, adequate psychological treatment retains the priority. It explains the process of development, and it defines the stages. Yet a comprehensive theoretical understanding of spiritual development is incomplete without the theist and Christian components.
I present an overview of Bernard Lonergan’s phenomenology-like account of human consciousness, which supplements treatments in current consciousness studies. They often tend to build on a model of sensation; to be constrained by... more
I present an overview of Bernard Lonergan’s phenomenology-like account of human consciousness, which supplements treatments in current consciousness studies. They often tend to build on a model of sensation; to be constrained by mechanistic computer simulations; and thereby to overlook its distinctive characteristic and focus on one aspect of consciousness, intentionality or awareness of objects and their qualia. According to Lonergan, human consciousness is bimodal, conscious as well as intentional; it carries a non-objectified experience of self-consciousness (subjectivity) as well as an experience of awareness of any object. Granted this conscious access to the data of consciousness, a list of discernible characteristics of consciousness per se follows. Expressing itself variably as experience, understanding, judgment, and decision, human consciousness is structured on four interactive “levels”; it is dynamic, open-ended, self-constituting and malleable, ordered, self-regulating, and unifying; and on the basis of the epistemology that this structure and its processes entail, consciousness qualifies as a kind of reality in its own right, enjoying the same validity as other non-palpable realities reasonably affirmed by contemporary science on the basis of relevant evidence.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-05715-001
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-05715-001
Most theorists of consciousness explain consciousness on a model of perception--this against that, awareness of something, a subject encountering an object. This dimension of consciousness is called "intentionality"--from the Latin which... more
Most theorists of consciousness explain consciousness on a model of perception--this against that, awareness of something, a subject encountering an object. This dimension of consciousness is called "intentionality"--from the Latin which means tending toward. In contrast, Eastern philosophy and some few Western theorists acknowledge another dimension of consciousness, that by which the subject is present to his or her intending the object. One could say that the the subject is "self-present," present to him- or herself precisely as the subject, not as the object "me." Thus, subjects are aware of their awareness. Subjects are conscious of their intentionality. In the service of clarity, let the terms "conscious" and "intentional" take on a technical meaning and say that consciousness is both conscious and intentional. Both William James and Bernard Lonergan acknowledge these two dimensions or modes of consciousness. James's account is phrased in metaphors; Lonergan proposes technical terminology. But an analysis makes clear that they both report the same dual nature of human consciousness.
A constructive critique of neuropsychological research on human consciousness and religious experience that applies the thought of Bernard Lonergan. Brain, Consciousness, and God is a constructive critique of neuroscientific research on... more
A constructive critique of neuropsychological research on human consciousness and religious experience that applies the thought of Bernard Lonergan.
Brain, Consciousness, and God is a constructive critique of neuroscientific research on human consciousness and religious experience. An adequate epistemology—a theory of knowledge—is needed to address this topic, but today there exists no consensus on what human knowing means, especially regarding nonmaterial realities. Daniel A. Helminiak turns to twentieth-century theologian and philosopher Bernard Lonergan’s breakthrough analysis of human consciousness and its implications for epistemology and philosophy of science. Lucidly summarizing Lonergan’s key ideas in a long introductory chapter, Helminiak applies them to questions about science, psychology, and religion. Along with Lonergan, eminent theorists in consciousness studies and neuroscience get deserved detailed attention, e.g., Brentano, Chalmers, Dennett, M. Donald, W. James, P. McNamara, Natsoulas, A. B. Newberg, R. Penrose, Searle, Wilber.
This book demonstrates the reality of the immaterial mind and, addressing the Cartesian “mind-body problem,” explains how body and mind could make up one being, a person. Human consciousness is presented not only in the standard way as awareness of objects, but also as self-presence, the self-conscious experience of human subjectivity, a spiritual reality. Lonergan’s analyses allow us to say exactly what “spiritual” means, and it need have nothing to do with God. Yet in the end, the book elaborates what belief in God adds to the argument.
“This book makes a seminal contribution to the psychology of religion and is on the cutting edge of the growing interest in the spiritual dimensions of human beings. Daniel Helminiak writes knowledgeably about neurobiology, psychotherapy, philosophy, and even psychedelic experience. His chapter on the ‘God’ concept is a tour de force and worth the price of the entire book. Once I started this book, I could barely put it down.” — Stanley Krippner, Saybrook University
Brain, Consciousness, and God is a constructive critique of neuroscientific research on human consciousness and religious experience. An adequate epistemology—a theory of knowledge—is needed to address this topic, but today there exists no consensus on what human knowing means, especially regarding nonmaterial realities. Daniel A. Helminiak turns to twentieth-century theologian and philosopher Bernard Lonergan’s breakthrough analysis of human consciousness and its implications for epistemology and philosophy of science. Lucidly summarizing Lonergan’s key ideas in a long introductory chapter, Helminiak applies them to questions about science, psychology, and religion. Along with Lonergan, eminent theorists in consciousness studies and neuroscience get deserved detailed attention, e.g., Brentano, Chalmers, Dennett, M. Donald, W. James, P. McNamara, Natsoulas, A. B. Newberg, R. Penrose, Searle, Wilber.
This book demonstrates the reality of the immaterial mind and, addressing the Cartesian “mind-body problem,” explains how body and mind could make up one being, a person. Human consciousness is presented not only in the standard way as awareness of objects, but also as self-presence, the self-conscious experience of human subjectivity, a spiritual reality. Lonergan’s analyses allow us to say exactly what “spiritual” means, and it need have nothing to do with God. Yet in the end, the book elaborates what belief in God adds to the argument.
“This book makes a seminal contribution to the psychology of religion and is on the cutting edge of the growing interest in the spiritual dimensions of human beings. Daniel Helminiak writes knowledgeably about neurobiology, psychotherapy, philosophy, and even psychedelic experience. His chapter on the ‘God’ concept is a tour de force and worth the price of the entire book. Once I started this book, I could barely put it down.” — Stanley Krippner, Saybrook University