About Providence, Divine Action and the Church


In this blog, Terry J. Wright posts thoughts and shares research on the Christian doctrine of providence. This doctrine testifies to God’s provision for all things through creation’s high priest, the man Christ Jesus. However, the precise meaning and manner of this provision is a perpetually open question, and this blog is a forum for discussion of the many issues relating to providence and the place of the Church within God’s action.

Thursday, 3 June 2010

Essay Competition: Results

The results of the ISSR's competition to celebrate the 80th birthday of John Polkinghorne have been released:

ISSR IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS OF ITS ESSAY COMPETITION IN HONOUR OF JOHN POLKINGHORNE, IN WHICH SEVERAL ESSAYS WERE SO CLOSE AT THE TOP THAT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED TO INCREASE THE TOTAL PRIZE MONEY SLIGHTLY AND TO AWARD IT AS FOLLOWS:

JOINT FIRST PRIZE (£6000 EACH) TO:

JUNGHYUNG KIM: "Christian Hope in Dialogue With Natural Theology:
Polkinghorne's Incorporation of Bottom-Up Thinking Into Eschatology";

DANIEL DARG: "Cosmic If Statements";

JOINT THIRD PRIZE (£3000 EACH) TO:

RUSSELL MANNING: "On Revising Natural Theology: John Polkinghorne and the False Modesty of Liberal Theology";

JAMES WATKINS: John Polkinghorne's Kenotic Theology of Creation and Its
Implications for a Theory of Human Creativity".

A fifth essay - Pat Bennett's "Subtle and Supple: John Polkinghorne's Engagement With Reality" was not awarded a prize but was nevertheless awarded a special commendation by the judges.


Congratulations to the winners!

The perceptive among my readers will notice that my submission, which focused on the distinction between primary causality and informational causality, is not in this list. I've emailed the competition organisers for the reviewers' comments, as I intend to revise my paper slightly and submit it to a journal.

On a mercenary note, I find curious the effective reduction in prize money for the joint winners: from £10,000 to £6,000. If I had been one of the joint first prize winners, I sure I'd feel a little cheated. Perhaps it's a good thing that I didn't win!

5 comments:

  1. Well, given that they decided to have two first prizes and two third prizes, they have actually increased the total prize pool by £1,000 from what was advertised (from a total of £17K to £18K).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, they've increased the overall amount - and the joint third prizes get more each than originally advertised (£2000).

    I think I'm in an interesting place at the moment, focussing on losing £4000 rather than winning £6000. It's quite a bleak place, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps the fairest way of dividing up the money would be to keep the original pool (£17K) and the original ratio of 1st to 3rd prize (5:1), meaning that each first prize would be £7,083.33, and each third prize £1,416.66. But I'm sure they have a clause somewhere in the rules that gives them the ability to do whatever they like. Perhaps they didn't feel there was that large a gap between the firsts and the thirds? Who knows.

    Hope you find some light in your bleak place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Best Essay in your paper is hard to achieved. but by your hardwork you will gain what you wanted.

    ReplyDelete