The brief account of the hospitality offered by Martha and Mary to Jesus has been interpreted allegorically in at least three different ways. The majority tradition has identified the figure of Mary with contemplation, and considered this to be the ‘one thing necessary’ to Christian life. Meister Eckhart suggests, however, that Martha, representing action, has chosen the better part, and Aelred of Rievaulx that action and contemplation are both commended. Feminist and other recent interpretations continue, sometimes unconsciously, to draw on this allegorical tradition. The theological importance and significance of the passage has been due largely to its use as the gospel reading for the feast of the Assumption of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Recent ecumenical dialogues have focused on the question of ecclesiastical offices. At the heart of this debate lies the question of how to relate the Holy Spirit's guidance of the church to its structures. Two alternative visions frame the debate. The Roman Catholic Church insists on the authority of the church's teaching office, as the channel through which the Holy Spirit guides the church. In contrast, Protestant churches emphasize the self-sufficiency of scripture, the normative function of the Gospel vis-à-vis the church, and the freedom of the Holy Spirit in, with, and over against all ecclesiastical structures. My essay engages this ecumenical debate through fundamental ecclesiological reflections on the relation between the Holy Spirit on the one hand, and the scriptural witness and ecclesial authority on the other. I argue that no ecclesial structure must be identified undialectically with the voice of the Holy Spirit, but that the church must discern the guidance of the Spirit in the context of the Christian assembly, as it emerges ever anew from the “gaps” left open in the assembly's juxtapositions of texts, bath, and shared meal. In order to develop my thesis, I first retrieve Karl Barth's christological foundation of ecclesiology, his definition of divine freedom over against the church, and his introduction of scripture as the critical principle for the church's permanently needed self-reform. Second, I discuss Walter Kasper's insistence on the incarnational and sacramental nature of the church and his threefold understanding of the church's apostolicity in terms of succession, tradition, and communion. Finally, I develop Gordon Lathrop's reading of the Christian assembly of worship in terms of liturgical juxtapositions for my ecclesiastical purposes.

The ways that Thomism has historically thought about knowledge and habit in Thomas Aquinas's ethics have become increasingly destabilised. This article briefly documents this destabilisation before considering three images that have emerged in recent engagements with the ethics of Aquinas on moral knowledge and action. The three images are brought to bear on a discussion of what Aquinas may have meant by calling synderesis a ‘natural habit’. The first image is John Milbank's and Catherine Pickstock's image of God as country bumpkin and it follows Aquinas's own description of the way God knows particulars out of divine simplicity. They argue that human knowledge of particulars comes from participation in the mind of God. This is participation in eternal law from which natural law is derived and so natural law cannot constitute a separate, sufficient system of moral knowledge. With the second image, the bricoleur, Jeffrey Stout argues that system-building was far from the kind of work that Aquinas was about, despite appearances that have disguised how freely Aquinas himself made use of the moral resources at his disposal. The third image, the forester, is deployed by Charles Pinches intentionally to improve on some of the problems with Stout's image. The Christian moral agent develops habits of mind that both aid in right perception, and hence right knowledge, and depend on right perception for right action. A discussion of this apparent paradox reveals something of the complexity of theoretical knowledge and practical skills that are involved in moral reasoning for Aquinas.

This paper elucidates the connections in Gregory of Nyssa's thought between the rite of baptism, the doctrine of God as Trinity, and practices of ecclesial pedagogy. These components formed a dynamic and differentiated whole for Gregory. To consider one element in isolation from the others runs the risk of interpretive distortion of Gregory's work. This means that the current tendency to harvest Gregory's trinitarian ideas abstracted or disembodied from the rite of baptism and practices of ecclesial pedagogy perpetuates the false notion that the doctrine of the Trinity can be adequately treated apart from liturgical and pedagogical concerns.

Jeffrey Stout's latest book is likely to command even wider attention amongst theologians than Ethics after Babel (1988). Written in three parts and comprising material some of which has already appeared in other contexts, the book argues several theses. The modern democratic tradition is richer and more complex than exponents and critics of Rawlsian liberalism tend to recognise. This tradition should continue to accommodate religious voices, although these need to be more patient of democratic politics than recent theologies of ‘resentment’. A moral pragmatism provides the best philosophical framework for promoting the discourse and practices of democracy. Each of these claims merits further elaboration before some critical remarks are ventured.

This article review considers the recent book by Jeffrey Stout, Democracy and Tradition, as a response to the work of Stanley Hauerwas and other Christian ‘new traditionalists’. The essay presents a brief overview of the book in order to ask questions of both Stout and Hauerwas. The author considers how ‘new traditionalists’ might respond to Stout with a theological concern for ‘participation’ in God's triune life as a model for citizenship, recommending that the scriptures play a more central role in public, democratic discourse.

This paper responds to two article reviews of Democracy and Tradition – one by David Fergusson, the other by C. C. Pecknold. The first part of the paper seeks to clarify the author's critique of Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas, in particular MacIntyre's claim that our society is inherently incapable of sustaining rational discussion and Hauerwas's conception of what ‘being the church’ implies. The second part defends and extends the author's account of secularization. The third part considers truth, objectivity and the relationship between philosophy and political culture.