A Review Article: John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion

A Review Article: FRANK M TRUNER. John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion. New Haven, Connecticut, and London: Yale University Press, 2002. Pp. xii + 740, 14 illus., index. $35.00. Roman Catholics have dominated Newman studies since upsurge of academic interest dating from 1960s. Ian Ker, Stanley Jaki, Sheridan Gilley and Peter Nockles have published extensively in area, and other significant living contributors include Louis Bouyer, Roderick Strange, James Pereiro, James Tolhurst, Michael Perrot, Andrew Nash, Michael Davies and Avery Dulles. This spurt in Roman Catholic interest might repay investigation. Some relation with dramatic changes in church since about 1950 is very likely. To some writers, clearly, Newman looks like a suitable figurehead to compete with theological giants whose thought and spirituality underpinned earlier pastoral practice. In 1958 liturgical radical Bouyer endorsed view that What St. Augustine was for ancient world, that St. Thomas Aquinas was for Middle Ages, and that Newman must be held to be in relation to world of today.1 Better known is Ker's description of Newman as the Father of Vatican II. In short it would be naive to presume that studying Newman came closer to being an innocent historical enterprise in later twentieth century than it had been in nineteenth. Frank Turner is unusual for a recent contributor in that he appears to have no denominational axe to grind. In his book, a biography of Newman in his Anglican period, he doesn't intentionally contribute to any internal Catholic debate, nor does he adopt a stance which is hostile on Protestant grounds. He doesn't even seek to judge Newman morally, though his description of Newman's character lends itself to negative moral judgment from Christian readers. His assessment of Newman's importance in history of Western ideas is flattering in extreme, and given author's qualifications as an intellectual historian, should no doubt be taken seriously.2 The extent of his research into primary sources, both published and unpublished, is undeniably impressive. Nevertheless book cannot be judged a success overall. One danger of secular detachment can be a blanket refusal to take religious or virtuous motivation at face value, and an overzealous attempt to find an alternative aetiology. Turner's treatment is so sceptical (not to say cynical) in regard to Newman's presentation of his own reasons for acting that it lacks historical plausibility. In particular he mostly discounts notion that Newman's personal Christian commitment, together with his clerical vocation to cure of souls, might have strongly influenced his behavior. Any reader willing to take a more positive view of Christians in past will regard his interpretations of evidence as very often strained or transparently tendentious. Turner sets out to achieve two goals, both of which, as it turns out, are poorly designed for task of illuminating story of Newman and Tractarians. The first aim is to explain Newman's behavior in starting, fighting for and finally abandoning anglocatholic movement. The second is to argue that Oxford Movement was dedicated more to countering Anglican evangelicalism than to opposing liberalism or rationalism. His chapters move chronologically through stages of Tractarian adventure, and arguments intended to achieve both ends are juxtaposed throughout. His central contention about Newman's character is that he was a manipulative egotist. For Turner, Newman's writings and his relations with others were all calculated to serve selfish goals: first to pursue a career as a celibate cleric and intellectual, and second to ensure that he was always surrounded by a supportive coterie of dependent and sycophantic younger men. These drives originated, in Turner's view, in family relationships which were so intense that they repeatedly determined his behavior at critical junctures in later life. …