Search Results

Restricted Access

Series:

Brian Douglas

Restricted Access

Series:

Brian Douglas

Restricted Access

Series:

Brian Douglas

Restricted Access

Brian Douglas

Anglican eucharistic theology varies between the different philosophical assumptions of realism and nominalism. Whereas realism links the signs of the Eucharist with what they signify in a real way, nominalism sees these signs as reminders only of past and completed transaction. This book begins by discussing the multifomity of the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology and goes on to present extensive case study material which exemplify these different assumptions from the Reformation to the Nineteenth century. By examining the multiformity of philosophical assumptions this book avoids the hermeneutic idealism of particular church parties and looks instead at the Anglican eucharistic tradition in a more critical manner.
Restricted Access

The Eucharistic Theology of Edward Bouverie Pusey

Sources, Context and Doctrine within the Oxford Movement and Beyond

Series:

Brian Douglas

In The Eucharistic Theology of Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800-1882 and Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University from 1828 to 1882), Brian Douglas offers a critical account of Pusey’s eucharistic theology set in the context of his life and work at Oxford and as the leader of the nineteenth century Oxford Movement. Pusey has often been characterised as conservative and obscurantist but in this book Douglas critically assesses Pusey’s eucharistic theology as a consistent expression of moderate realism which is both wise and creative. The book analyses Pusey’s extensive written output on eucharistic theology and ends with a reassessment of Pusey as a theologian, portraying him as a thinker owing much to Scripture, the early church Fathers, Anglican divines and philosophical reflection. Pusey is also seen to anticipate modern eucharistic theology. Reassessments of Pusey in the modern era are rare and this book contributes to a significant gap in the literature.
Restricted Access

A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology

Volume 2: The 20th Century to the Present

Brian Douglas

Anglican eucharistic theology varies between the different philosophical assumptions of realism and nominalism. Whereas realism links the signs of the Eucharist with what they signify in a real way, nominalism sees these signs as reminders only of past and completed transaction. This book begins by discussing the multifomity of the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology and goes on to present case extensive study material which exemplify these different assumptions from the 20th Century to the Present. By examining the multiformity of philosophical assumptions this book avoids the hermeneutic idealism of particular church parties and looks instead at the Anglican eucharistic tradition in a more critical manner.
Restricted Access

A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology

Volume 1: The Reformation to the 19th Century

Brian Douglas

Anglican eucharistic theology varies between the different philosophical assumptions of realism and nominalism. Whereas realism links the signs of the Eucharist with what they signify in a real way, nominalism sees these signs as reminders only of past and completed transaction. This book begins by discussing the multifomity of the philosophical assumptions underlying Anglican eucharistic theology and goes on to present extensive case study material which exemplify these different assumptions from the Reformation to the Nineteenth century. By examining the multiformity of philosophical assumptions this book avoids the hermeneutic idealism of particular church parties and looks instead at the Anglican eucharistic tradition in a more critical manner.
Restricted Access

Beth E. Rivin, Douglas S. Diekema, Anna C. Mastroianni, John N. Krieger, Jeffrey D. Klausner and Brian J. Morris

We evaluate Peter Adler’s challenge to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc) draft recommendations on male circumcision (this issue, see pp. 237–262). The cdc advocates elective male circumcision (mc) to improve public health in the usa based on strong scientific evidence. In marked contrast to the cdc, Adler’s criticisms depend on speculative claims and obfuscation of the scientific data. Adler’s central argument that circumcision in infancy should be delayed to allow a boy to make up his own mind as an adult fails to appreciate that circumcision later in life is a more complex operation, entails higher risk, is more likely to involve general anaesthesia and presents financial, psychological and organisational barriers. These limitations are avoided by circumcision early in infancy, when it is convenient, safe, quick, low risk, usually involves local anaesthesia and provides benefits immediately. Benefits of male circumcision include: protection against: urinary tract infections that are ten times higher in uncircumcised infants; inflammatory skin conditions; other foreskin problems; sexually transmitted infections and genital cancers in the male and his female sexual partners. Circumcision during infancy is also associated with faster healing and improved cosmetic outcomes. Circumcision does not impair sexual function or pleasure. Some authorities regard the failure to offer circumcision as unethical, just as it would be unethical to fail to encourage paediatric vaccination. Since the benefits vastly outweigh the risks, each intervention is in the best interests of the child. In conclusion, Adler’s criticisms of the cdc’s evidence-based male circumcision policy are flawed scientifically, ethically and legally, and should be dismissed as endangering public health and individual well-being.