My personal relation with Polanyi, discussions with him in Oxford, contribution to the International Academy of the Philosophy of Science, the relevance of his innovative thought for Christian worship and theology, Magda and Michael in Oxford, the role of his literary executor.

Polanyi supports institutional autonomy against political control, and advocates free markets rather than central planning. Value neutrality is replaced with dedicated communities, and explicit rules are taken to require interpretative practices. Knowing is situated, but viewed as a source of progress. Attention is drawn to the role played by authority, but the universal values to which he believes a freesociety ought to be dedicated are identified as transcendent.

Although Polanyi regards technological knowledge as inferior to scientific knowledge, he uses the idea of machine-like operational principles as an analogy for both his epistemology and his ontology. Since his epistemology is based on personal knowledge, this suggest the need for a personal ontology. Polanyi tries to avoid such a conclusion by invoking impersonal evolutionary factors.

This review essay argues that the emphasis on the personal commitments sustaining all knowledge, while permitting some fruitful insights into structural parallels between Newman's and Polanyi’s epistemological positions, finally is not fully satisfactory for developing a theological program. Moleski’s effort to develop such theological insights may be advanced if it were supplemented by incorporating a more detailed structural analysis of the illative sense and of tacit knowing.

Moleski responds to reviews of Personal Catholicism by Joseph Kroger and John Apcyznski. He argues that theology is tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge and therefore cannot be fully articulated. He portrays the Roman Catholic tradition as an interpretative framework that differs from scientific frameworks by being bound to a particular revelation made in history which is then preserved by a Specific Authority.

Despite Hunsberger’s apology for Newbigen’s use of Polanyi, Newbigen in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society reverses Polanyi’s essential elements of heuristic passion and universal intent. The outcome is a misunderstanding of the common ground and differences between science and theology and a stifling and narrowing theology of cultural plurality. In contrast, Charles McCoy’s federal theology and understanding of Polanyi shows an approach of openness yet grounding in the biblical God present in the believed-in realities of global life.