Not exact matches
A
given theological school may
in fact be explicitly committed to a particular
theological tradition or «position.»
1 have thought of still others
in writing this: Sunday
school teachers, that brave breed, who
give so much and are so often
given too little; and that wonderful, ubiquitous «man
in the street» who wants his questions answered without
theological indoctrination and
in such fashion as to be spared from professional initiation.
Yet despite their number, their denominational affiliation and their service of denominational purposes the
theological schools usually
give evidence of sharing
in a community of discourse and interest that transcends denominational boundaries.
In this situation churches and
theological schools sense that more is expected of them by their fellow men than they once thought and that they owe their neighbors more than they are prepared to
give.
The technical emphasis
in recent
theological education has
given us better pedagogies, opened up the larger society as a field for ministry, redistributed authority and power
in the
schools, and added new and important areas of study.
To speak
in that way of factors that make a
given theological school concrete is to speak very misleadingly.
A purely sociological or anthropological study of a Christian congregation or of «the church» that purports to
give a full account of what a congregation is, how and why it functions as it does, and when and why it succeeds or fails, would meet severe objections
in most
theological schools.
As with Kelly's recommendations, the rhetoric of this proposal honors Wissenschaft
in theological schooling, but the proposal's structure
gives schooling in critical, systematic, disciplined inquiry no role to play
in the «training» of religious «professionals.»
In this story man's supremacy is
given technical
theological expression, peculiar to this writer and his
school.
These are major
theological factors that help make it the concretely particular
school it is, and analyzing it
in the light of these three questions will help
give a realistic understanding of it.
In its extreme form this ethos can tend to alienate the common life and familiar language of a
theological school from the ordinary language and patterns of common life of the churches,
giving rise to complaints that
theological schooling is «irrelevant» to the «real life» of actual congregations.
This has several implications for
theological education, all of which are entailed
in the distinctive twist this view
gives to the
school's overarching and unifying goal to educate leaders for the church.
Innocent idealizations of
theological education
give way before concrete realities of the particular
theological school whose ethos is the medium
in which one now largely lives and whose polity constrains one's life
in powerful but often elusive ways.
But the
theological colleges for graduates aimed mainly to
give a year or so of disciplined study and prayer to men who had already laid the foundation of general
theological knowledge
in school and university.
Given these concerns, AAAS and the Association of
Theological Schools (ATS) co-hosted a panel discussion on November 18 that explored the role of science
in seminary education.