I was meeting with my advisor yesterday, and we spoke briefly about JH Newman. The prof asked me where I saw myself fitting in theologically in the Anglican tradition. I didn’t quite know how to respond I remain poorly read in many of the Anglican theologians with whom I would align myself. I guess I could have answered Rowan Williams, but that would have been to evade the obvious question. I think he was asking me if I align myself with a robust (ahem, catholic) theological tradition that looks to Aquinas, etc. for its systematic and philosophical guidance. Seeing as how he is a Newman scholar, I suppose he would have expected something like Newman. Guessing that, I sincerely noted that I hoped to be better read in Newman upon the end of my degree. Add to that Hooker, Cranmer, Taylor, all the Cambridge Platonists, Farrer, Blake, and Herbert - and those are just the Anglicans!
DJW at ipsumesse has offered two meaty posts on Newman - the first is a brief, but helpful introduction to Newman (the man and theologian) that will help you develop a coat hook, so to speak, upon which you can hang the content of … the 2nd post, on Conscience. His exposition of conscience in Newman leads to an interesting comment on Intelligent Design:
It is interesting to note the contrast between Newman’s view and that of contemporary ‘Intelligent design’ proponents. Newman states flat out that “I believe in design because I believe in God; not in God because I see design”. Perhaps all ‘ID’ theorists should bear in mind that “The Almighty is something infinitely different from a principle, or a centre of action, or a quality, or a generalisation of phenomena”.
I imagine the difficult thing for some of us (Anglicans) with Newman is reconciling our appreciation for his work, and maybe even pursuing it on either academic or personal levels, with his conversion to Roman Catholicism.
I’m in the same boat as you: would like to read Newman, et alii, once I get the time. I was happy to find, in unpacking and shelving all my books yesterday, that I have a copy of Hooker’s Ecc. Laws. SO I at least have no excuse about a necessary condition for reading him. :o)
The development of doctrine is indeed such a crucial question, as it seems to suppose a certain understanding of the kind of knowledge that the Church can find or achieve through its life and work in Christ. One issue, of course, was the church’s understanding of Mary and how to construe her role for the life of all believers.
Book in the flesh or not, you can always go to Project Canterbury for Hooker and Anglican co.
Newman’s conversion, though heartfelt, wasn’t a “happy thing” for him and he was deeply disappointed by the late papal pronouncements on Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, though he felt duty bound to defend them. He’s very close now to be canonised which is a great thing.
Keble is the one I’d look to and of course Farrer.