Sentences with phrase «in a theological school doing»

In contrast to the congregation, among whose practices doing theology is inherent but secondary, in a theological school doing theology is primary and central among its constituting practices.

Not exact matches

If they are defined in a theological way, how in actual practice is this school's goal to educate persons for «ministerial functions» related to its overarching goal in some way «to have to do with God»?

How does the fact that it is a theological school constrain the concrete ways in which the disciplines function in these practices?

A school is «theological,» I suggest, to the extent that everything done in its name has one overarching goal: more clearly to understand God and to understand everything in relation to God.

Teaching and learning these things make for truly theological schooling only when they are done in the service of a further end: learning so to love God with the mind as to come to understand God more deeply and more truly.

On the other hand, if the concrete way this school does «have to do with God» is ordered to education for ministerial functions, is it not then in practice using «having to do with God» for a further, ulterior purpose («educating for ministerial functions»), thus corrupting its proper theological character («having to do with God for God's own sake»)?

Without further qualification, the capacities cultivated in theological schooling could just as well be capacities for «doing» contemplation or capacities for specific affections as they could be capacities for intentional bodily action and discursive reasoning.

Accordingly, is it any more adequate to the way this theological school «has to do with God» to analyze it in terms of a contrast between «theory»» and «practice»?

Does this thesis mean that one has to be personally and existentially involved in the common life of a congregation in order to be capable of engaging fruitfully in the practices comprising a theological school?

Not only does the pluralism in question characterize past and present construals of the Christian thing and their respective social and cultural locations; it also characterizes particular theological schools, the practices that constitute them, and their respective social and cultural locations.

This is a major cause of the thinness of much worship that does go on in theological schools.

Hence a theological school does focus study on congregations, but is not defined by an interest in doing so.

This brings us back to our point: the differences and relation between a theological school and Christian congregations in regard to doing theology.

Whereas theology is necessarily done «properly» in congregations in the service of their «worship,» that is, their response to the odd ways in which God makes Godself present, it is done not only «properly» but also «educationally» in a theological school.

It does not follow, however, that the persons involved in the practices constituting a theological school must also be existentially engaged in the practices constituting a worshiping congregation.

Do they not, in the first place, reintroduce the distinction between «theoretical» and «practical» (or «academic» and «professional») which, once adopted as a way to organize the world of a theological school, ends up alienating the «theoretical» or «academic» and making it functionally irrelevant to the «practical» or «professional»?

However, it does not rule out that the group of persons cooperatively engaged in the practices constituting a theological school might also at other times cooperatively engage in the practices constituting a Christian congregation, and vice versa.

Theological schools do so through practices of self - governing that, as I argued in chapter 8, must be qualified in certain respects by the fact that they are theologicTheological schools do so through practices of self - governing that, as I argued in chapter 8, must be qualified in certain respects by the fact that they are theologicaltheological schools.

To do so, theological schools and religious bodies will probably need to make major, long - term investments in recruitment.

Thomas, the Bible does not teach this staff, it was was developed by Greek anchient philosophers and when philosophy was introduced in theological schools, the rest is history.

Not only does Wood distance himself from the «Berlin» model's picture of what is involved in education in Wissenschaft he also rejects its definition of theological education as professional schooling: «Theological education is not necessarily professional education for ministry, but the heart of proper professional education for ministry is theological education&rtheological education as professional schooling: «Theological education is not necessarily professional education for ministry, but the heart of proper professional education for ministry is theological education&rTheological education is not necessarily professional education for ministry, but the heart of proper professional education for ministry is theological education&rtheological education» (93).

Wheeler cites the research done by Auburn Seminary's Center for the Study of Theological Education in intensively examining theological faculties in several seminaries, with particular emphasis on whether such schools will be able to recruit enough qualified faculty to replace the many who are currentlTheological Education in intensively examining theological faculties in several seminaries, with particular emphasis on whether such schools will be able to recruit enough qualified faculty to replace the many who are currentltheological faculties in several seminaries, with particular emphasis on whether such schools will be able to recruit enough qualified faculty to replace the many who are currently retiring.

He has done graduate work at Yale Divinity School,, Union Theological Seminary, and McCormick School of Theology in Chicago.

What the proposal does argue is this: Study of various subject matters in a theological school will be the indirect way to truer understanding of God only insofar as the subject matters are taken precisely as interconnected elements of the Christian thing, and that can be done concretely by studying them in light of questions about their place and role in the actual communal life of actual and deeply diverse Christian congregations.

However, the proposal does not imply any major changes in the traditional array of subject matters studied in theological schools.

All of the disciplines actually employed in the study of various subject matters in a theological school are also used in a variety of types of schooling that do not claim to be and are far from being theological.

The proposal will be that doing this would provide a way to make a theological school's course of study genuinely unified without denial of the pluralism of ways in which the Christian thing is construed, and it could make the course of study more adequate to the pluralism without undercutting its unity.

At no point do they ask the normative question: Is this what ought to be happening in a theological school?

Even when I taught a course at Vanderbilt University divinity school in 1971 called «Forms of Religious Reflection,» in which we looked at the limitations and possibilities for religious reflection of various literary genres (parables, autobiographies, novels, poems, etc.), I did not know that a movement was aborning concerned with story and autobiography in theological reflection — a movement of which I was soon to feel very much a part.

The first, superficial impression is that the Protestant theological schools in the United States and Canada do not consciously count themselves members of one community but function as though they were responsible to many different societies.

These two reasons interlock because of a crucial fact in the sociology of theology: the institutional context in which most «intellectually serious» or «formal» theology has been done in North America for more than a century and a half has increasingly been the theological school.

Despite the American and democratic character of Protestant churches and the theological schools that serve them, an interpreter who tried to understand them primarily in this context would need to do violence to them, to twist the meaning of their affirmations of purpose and to misconstrue the character of the work that goes on in them.

Theological schools in North America in this period did not turn into research universities.

Whereas in 1939 few theological schools offered counseling courses, by the 1950s almost all of them did.

Adopting «in Jesus» name» as the necessary minimal condition for a counting as a «Christian congregation» for the purpose of a theological school's study does not, of course, require any particular answer to the quite different question whether God is truly known and worshiped by groups who do not worship in Jesus» name or whether God is redemptively present to them.

These two aspects of a theological school's theoretical work — its necessary disinterestedness and its necessary guidance by interest in God — do not conflict with each other but rather require each other.

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.

It is just as striking that he does not ground that unity in the structure of a theological school's object.

Those who engage in theological schooling, students and faculty, must themselves be engaged in these more inclusive activities also, not because we learn by doing, but because «we do not learn the meaning of deeds without doing».

Faculty in those fields who are members of departments of religious studies receive their doctoral education in the same graduate schools as do faculty in theological schools, and faculty move back and forth between the two contexts.

It is increasingly difficult to assign any actual content to Niebuhr's distinction between intellectual work that is done in theological schools, guided by love of God and attending to its objects in their God - relatedness, and intellectual work that is either not guided by love of God or, when it is, always attends to its object in abstraction from its God - relatedness, as must be done by definition in a secular college or university.

What we do have through the Niebuhr - Williams - Gustafson study, as through its predecessors, is clear evidence of the power of the «Berlin» Wissenschaft - cum - professional school model of excellence in schooling over North American theological schools.

Nonetheless, unity in theological schooling finally lies not in its structure but in how it is done, the manner in which it is undertaken.

The danger of proceeding in this way is that one may unify theological schooling but in doing so may hide larger inequities in the arrangement of social power and may validate particular oppressive arrangements of power.

But even those who wanted to teach in a theological school stumbled when we asked them: «What do you think ministers really need to know about your subject in order to lead people in lives of faith and action?

Instead of proposing to negotiate a synthesis of «Athens» and «Berlin» on the «Athens» model's home court, as the proposals we have just examined do, a second current in the present discussion of theological schooling tries to negotiate between them on the «Berlin» model's terms.

The sort of liberalism which looks with contempt upon conservative groups and their schools or even on conservative tendencies in theology in general, calling them all «Fundamentalist,» and the kind of conservatism that abhors all critical movements alike, cut themselves off from each other in the theological world more effectively than do Baptists from Presbyterians, Methodists from Anglicans.

There are few theological schools where these groups do not compete for the students» interest and time, where some members of the former group do not feel that the scholarliness of theological study is being impaired by the attention claimed for field work and counseling, where teachers of preaching, church administration and pastoral care and directors of field work do not regard much of the theological work as somewhat beside the point in the education of a minister for the contemporary Church.

However, it also is the case that a theological school does theology in an educational way.

This honors the tradition in theological schooling that insists that whatever else it does, a theological school should prepare «learned ministers.»