This article explores sources in the Christian tradition that can be helpful for re-shaping present Roman Catholic ecclesial polity. The underlying theme is that the Catholic Church, in order to enhance efforts at church reform, needs to re-structure itself from a monarchical polity to a democratic one. A theological subtheme argues that the monarchical polity is not mandated by the gospel, but is rather a creature of history. Furthermore, the monarchical polity is a root cause obstructing reform in specific areas. By selecting loci from early church history to the present time, democratic movements and ideas are highlighted as constituting an important part of Catholic history. Certain of these loci have not yet been examined for their democratic potential. This democratic tradition can be a springboard for moving toward a democratic church in the twenty-first century.

The debate about salvation history brings to the surface a variety of issues, problems, and proposals that can be designated with some justice postmodern. In an effort to explore these contested issues, I offer a composite portrait of the meaning and uses of the concept of salvation history, drawing attention to its importance for recent Roman Catholic theology. I then review the various kinds of criticism leveled against salvation history models in an attempt to show that Peter Hodgson's contention is warranted: that is, the concept salvation history is problematic both as a category for interpreting the scriptural witness and as a pivotal category for fundamental and systematic theology. Thus, postmodernity, understood in broad terms, should mean the end of salvation history. The final section will explore how the legitimate concerns that generated interest in salvation history models can be recast in light of these broader postmodern approaches.

This essay is a comparison of the teachings of Socrates and Jesus on non-retaliation and love of enemies as they appear in Crito 47c-49d and Republic I, 331e-336a, and in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36. It asks in each case precisely what the authors meant and how they grounded their conclusions.

Socrates held that one must never do harm to another even in return for harm received. His arguments were based on his general theory of virtue and on certain ambiguities in Greek ethical language. Ultimately the arguments are based on a form of self-interest; retaliation is a form of injustice and hence harmful to the one who practices it. He does not propose a doctrine of general non-violence, nor does he ever say that one must actually love one's enemy.

The gospel texts go beyond simple non-retaliation and make positive love of all enemies, inside and outside the community, an absolute command of Jesus. It is a positive attitude and is not based on hope of love in return. God will reward it, but the primary motive is imitation of the Heavenly Father, whose daughters and sons the disciples are. Enemy love does not give them this status; rather it flows from the fact of discipleship.

Recent criticism of higher education challenges professors to facilitate learning which involves critical thinking, self-awareness, social consciousness, creativity, and interdisciplinary perspective. The ancient art of alchemy, which antedated post-Newtonian scientific categorizations, was directed toward much more than the transmutation of base metals into precious ones. As a process involving philosophical and religious views brought to bear on self-improvement as well as the improvement of all creation, alchemy may function as an appropriate metaphor for learning which is transformative of both learners and their environments. A psychological interpretation of alchemical pursuits facilitates an understanding of transformation in this way. Higher education is thus directed toward and affirmed in its mission of fostering in students a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and skills which may be utilized both personally and socially.