The Theological Methodology of John Oman and H. H. Farmer

Thomas A. Langford

doi:10.1017/S0034412500002493

The Theological Methodology of John Oman and H. H. Farmer

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008

Thomas A. Langford

Show author details

Thomas A. Langford: Affiliation:
Chairman of the Department of Religion, Duke University

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Two successive theologians at Westminster College, Cambridge, John Oman and Herbert H. Farmer, represented a distinctive theological development which extended over fifty years of the present century. Oman with his original mind was the inaugurator; Farmer was the disciple who followed with great devotion, but who also exhibited independence and attempted to bring his teacher's insight into creative relation with later theological emphases, especially with the renewed interest in Christology.

Type: Research Article
Information: Religious Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 1966 , pp. 229 - 240

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500002493 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{Page 229 note 1} The Natural and the Supernatural (Cambridge University Press, 1931), p. 102.Google Scholar

^{Page 229 note 2} Ibid, p. 110.

^{Page 230 note 1} The Natural and the Supernatural, p. 27.

^{Page 230 note 2} Ibid. p. 17.

^{Page 230 note 3} Ibid, p. 27.

^{Page 230 note 4} Ibid, pp. 120–1.

^{Page 231 note 1} The Natural and the Supernatural, p. 58.

^{Page 231 note 2} Ibid. p. 69. Oman defines these terms, ‘The “holy” I propose to use for the direct sense or feeling of the Supernatural, and the “sacred” for its valuation as of absolute worth’. Ibid. p. 59.

^{Page 231 note 3} Ibid p 71.

^{Page 232 note 1} The Natural and the Supernatural, p. 82.

^{Page 232 note 2} Ibid. p. 375.

^{Page 232 note 3} Cf. especially Niebuhr's, H. R. introduction to The Religious Situation (New York, H. Holt, 1932).Google Scholar

^{Page 232 note 4} Found in Tennant's review of The Natural and the Supernatural, Mind (04 1932), vol. 41, p. 212.Google Scholar

^{Page 232 note 5} The Natural and the Supernatural, pp. 448, 451.

^{Page 233 note 1} Cf. Morris, John Selwyn, An Examination of John Oman's Theory of Religious Knowledge (Columbia University, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1961), pp. 142–3.Google Scholar

^{Page 233 note 2} The Natural and the Supernatural, pp. 339–42.

^{Page 233 note 3} Ibid. p. 340, italics mine.

^{Page 233 note 4} Ibid. p. 340. italics mine. Farmer says of Oman's theology in his memoir of the author in Honest Religion (Cambridge University Press, 1941, pp. xxviii–xxix:Google Scholar ‘What distinguishes Oman is the profound consistency with which this is wrought out into every department of religious experience and theological reflection under the guidance of the three categories already referred to—reverence, freedom, and sincerity.’

^{Page 233 note 5} Ibid., p. 342.

^{Page 233 note 6} This is also maintained in a good study of Oman by Weaver, Harold R., The Significance of John Wood Oman for the Problem of Religious Knowledge (Drew University, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1950), pp. 31, 37, 269.Google Scholar Cf. also Grace and Personality (London, Fontana Library, 1960), pp. 35, 52 ff.Google Scholar Tennant says Oman is probably more like Schleiermacher than any other predecessor (op. cit. p. 214). But if there is a likeness to Schleiermacher, it must also be insisted that Oman maintains an ontological pluralism and denies every form of pantheism. On this see Nichol, F. W. R., ‘John Oman's Theology’, The Reformed Theological Review (06 1957), vol. xvi, p. 36.Google Scholar See also Oman's own statement on the importance of Schleiermacher, The Problem of Faith and Freedom (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1906), p. 328.Google Scholar

^{Page 234 note 1} Grace and Personality, p. 52 f.

^{Page 234 note 2} Ibid., p. 62.

^{Page 234 note 3} Ibid., p. 45.

^{Page 234 note 4} Ibid. p. 75. Cf. also The Natural and the Supernatural, pp. 451, 455. Nichol writes, ‘British theology of his time was characteristically concerned with the doctrine of the Atonement: it was Oman's special contribution to find the point at issue to be the doctrine of grace.’ (op cit. p. 35). At the same time, it must be clear that for Oman grace is very nearly equal to the structure of the total environment. There is little emphasis upon forgiveness or the personalness of God's grace in Jesus Christ. See, for example, his list in Honest Religion (Cambridge, The University Press, 1941), pp. 76–83,Google Scholar in which he enumerates Jesus's belief in God as Father. The order here is crucial.

^{Page 234 note 5} The Natural and the Supernatural, p. 364.

^{Page 235 note 1} Grace and Personality, p. 77. In an earlier book he could go so far as to say, ‘Jesus is the chief corner-stone precisely because he means more for our direct knowledge of God than all others. He gave the creative impulse and abides the supreme inspiration of the church’, The Church and the Divine Order (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), p. 321.Google Scholar

^{Page 235 note 2} Experience of God (New York, Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1929), p. 38.Google Scholar

^{Page 235 note 3} The World and God (London, Fontana Library, 1935), p. 28.Google Scholar Cf. also on this argument Samuel Hill, S. Jr, The Religious Thought of H. H. Farmer with Special Reference to the Doctrine of Providence (Duke University, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1960), p. 40 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 236 note 1} The World and God, p. 29.

^{Page 236 note 2} Religion and Revelation (London, Nisbet and Company, 1954), p. 28.Google Scholar In a footnote on this same page Farmer deplores the fact that Oman does not in The Natural and the Supernatural make the personal nature of God more regulative for his thought.

^{Page 236 note 3} Ibid., p. 20.

^{Page 236 note 4} Ibid, p. 23, cf. also p. 18.

^{Page 236 note 5} Ibid. p. 24.

^{Page 237 note 1} Religion and Revelation, p. 25. Cf. Oman's, identical point, The Natural and the Supernatural, p. 27.Google Scholar Farmer's use of the word ‘religion’ must be understood as follows: Religion with a capital ‘R’ is used to refer to ‘The vital essence of religion’ while a lower-case ‘r’ refers to ‘What is merely the routine of religion or parasitic to iť’ Religion and Revelation, p. 25, cf. also pp. 82–3.

^{Page 237 note 2} Ibid. p. 28.

^{Page 237 note 3} The World and God, p. 41, cf. also pp. 37–41.

^{Page 237 note 4} Ibid. pp. 70, 72.

^{Page 238 note 1} The World and God, p. 84.

^{Page 238 note 2} Ibid. pp. 169–70.

^{Page 238 note 3} Religion and Revelation, pp. 54–5.

^{Page 238 note 4} Ibid. pp. 78–9.

^{Page 239 note 1} Religion and Revelation, pp. 54–5.

^{Page 239 note 2} Ibid. p. 114.

^{Page 240 note 1} The World and God, p. 129.

Article contents

The Theological Methodology of John Oman and H. H. Farmer

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests