In choosing a problem the investigator takes a decision fraught with risks. The task may be insoluble or just too difficult. In that case his effort will be wasted and with it the effort of his collaborators, as well as the money spent on the whole project. But to play safe may be equally wasteful. Mediocre results are no adequate return for the employment of high gifts, and may not even repay the money spent on achieving them. So the choice of a problem must not only anticipate something that is hidden and yet not inaccessible, but also assess the investigator's own ability (and those of his collaborators) against the anticipated hardness of the task, and make a reasonable guess as to whether the hoped for solution will be worth its price in terms of talent, labour and money. To form such estimates of the approximate feasibility of yet unknown prospective procedures, leading to unknown prospective results, is the day-to-day responsibility of anyone undertaking independent scientific or technical research. On such grounds as these he must even compare a number of different possible suggestions and select from them for attack the most promising problem. Yet I believe that experience shows such a performance to be possible and that it can be relied upon to function with a considerable degree of reliability (Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958], 124).
If what Lessie Newbigin has said is right, it should also prove helpful. So let's put Newbigin and his beloved Polanyi to the test, shall we? I am providing two ways to phrase what amounts to the same assignment.
A. Adventurous po-mo narrative format:
Pretend you come to my office hours with a problem that has been bothering you. (See the above quote and Newbigin pp. 62f on what constitutes a "problem.") Perhaps it is a practical or moral problem; perhaps an intellectual or spiritual one. The distinctions do not matter much. It does not even have to be "religious" in nature; perhaps it is a problem posed in a class in another department! At any rate, it is a persistent one that seems insoluble to you.
When we meet, you tell me about your problem. Ever the irritating pedagogue, I ask you how the modern west tells you to understand it. "How would the line of thinking from Thomas Aquinas to Descartes, Kant, and/or Nietzsche frame your problem?" I say. "What kinds of solutions might they propose?"
The blank stare that follows makes me try an alternative tack. "Okay," I say. "Let's try this a different way. Near the end of the book Newbigin describes three traditions that are all formed in this western Enlightenment way of thinking: Modern "natural law" Catholicism, fundamentalism, and liberal Christianity. How would those traditions frame your problem? What kinds of solutions might they propose?"
You start worrying that the long silence that follows will only be broken by an answer from you. But like all teachers, Telford's tolerance for silence is lower than he likes to think it is. "Well, get back to me on that, okay? Answer either the first set of questions or the second." Whew.
"Now then. Our whole book is working to present an alternative to that range of Enlightenment strategies. Think about the bulk of the book, chapters 1 and 4ff, where Newbigin is contending for a truly Christian account of knowledge in which faith is the prior basis for understanding. There he uses Polanyi to argue that that kind of knowledge that really matters comes only through training and participation in a tradition — and specifically, since Jesus is creator and Lord of all, in the Christian tradition that presupposes the truth of the incarnation and the priority of trusting obedience to truly helpful knowledge. I could ask you how that way of thinking would frame your problem, but my next appointment time is coming up, so let's cut to the chase. Just assume for the sake of argument that Newbigin is right and that this is how it really works. Suspend whatever disbelief you may have, take him at his word, and live in his world for the time being."
He continues, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he has already been speaking for five minutes straight. "While you are doing that, I want you to 'intuit' a solution to your problem. Do you have a hunch or an educated guess as to either what a satisfying answer might be, or a way for getting at a possible answer?"
"But how am I supposed to do that?" you reply. "Where's my method?"
What you really want to say is, "What are you talking about?! I'm paying how much money to be at this place and I'm in an upper division course in systematic theology and you're telling me to guess?"
What you do say is: "So I'm just supposed to take a leap of faith?!" It comes out automatically, with more exasperation than you really wanted to reveal.
Telford gets that awful smile on his face that reminds you of a cat toying with its prey, and immediately you regret saying that. "That depends on what you mean," he says. "A modern Descartes-style leap of faith? Nah. Those don't exist anyway. A Polanyi-style leap of faith? Sure. But you could just as well call that a leap of reason. In this case, the reason is the reason of Christian faith."
Great, you think. A leap of reason. At least I have a soundbite to use when I whine to my roommates about this ridiculous assignment.
"Look over Newbigin again," Telford says, "and the in-class presentations too, and see if it starts making more sense. Lay out the problem according to those other ways of thinking, then try to intuit a solution according to Newbigin's way of thinking. Maybe you will be able to do that, maybe you won't. Just try. Then get back to me and let me know what happened."
"Okay," you say. Part of you feels like you're beginning to get it, but more of you feels totally lost. Still, it does sound kind of intriguing.
"See you in a week," he says. "Don't wait until the night before to do this. Give yourself time."
Write a transcript of what you say when you come back a week later.
B. Safe-'n'-stodgy analytical format:
1. Describe a problem (see the above quote and Newbigin pp. 62f on what constitutes a "problem") that vexes you. It may be a practical problem, an intellectual one, a moral one, or a spiritual one; if Newbigin is right, the distinctions are not absolute anyway. But let it be a persistent and apparently insoluble problem you face. (Make sure you are comfortable analyzing it with your group and me as readers.)
2. Now review Newbigin's brief intellectual history of the west. Answer one of the following two sets of questions: (a) How would the western traditions that come after Thomas Aquinas (Newbigin chapters 2-3) describe or frame your problem? What solutions might they prescribe, if any? (b) How would the contemporary traditions of Catholicism, fundamentalism, and liberal Christianity (as Newbigin describes them in his final chapter) describe or frame your problem? What solutions might they prescribe, if any?
3. Next, review chapters 1 and 4ff where Newbigin describes a truly Christian account of knowledge in which faith is the prior basis for understanding. Assume with Polanyi that knowledge comes through training and participation in a tradition, and assume with Newbigin that the Christian tradition is well suited to addressing your particular problem. Intuit a solution to your problem, or at least a way of coming to a solution, that presupposes the truth of the incarnation and the Augustinian approach to knowledge. You may find this difficult; you may find it impossible; but try. (Trying and failing will not necessarily hurt your grade.)
4. Finally, offer a judgment: So far, do you sense that Newbigin offers a way forward for you?
Reassurances and recommendations:
Discovering and substantiating a thorough solution to the problem is not in the scope of this assignment. It is early in the semester, and it may take the rest of the course to work through the problem whose solution you are trying to discover. You may even find that the problem is too elusive at your level of facility with Christianity. That is fine with me! Perhaps I will allow you to revise this assignment and draw on your other sources as the semester progresses and you gain familiarity with the ways of thinking that accord with Christian doctrines of revelation.
I recommend you get to work on this assignment as soon as possible so you have as much time as you can to ponder it. I suspect this will not work well as a last-night-before-the-due-date project.
Please keep your paper three pages, double-spaced, and follow the directions in my handout for writing papers.
Remember, I want to see proper style, clear writing, a thorough answer to the question, and explicit citations of course materials.