Sentences with phrase «nature of their role as»

[2] Research widely finds that the nature of their role as both instructional leaders and summative judges inhibits principals» ability to reliably serve as evaluators.

The majority of in - house legal counsels continue to report strong levels of job satisfaction, citing the intellectual challenge and relatively flexible nature of their role as attractive features of their chosen career path.

How hard is it to «sell» your partners on the idea of real, meaningful change in processes, practice, or the nature of their roles as partners?

Not exact matches

One of the most unfortunate aspects of a transition such as this is when your incoming boss doesn't understand the nature of the business, customer needs or your respective role.

Proponents argue that blockchain's role as a transparent, tamper - proof record and its decentralized nature make it more secure than any repository under the control of one entity, because central sources are far easier to hack.

Although aspects of our trading system, such as the timing model, are mechanical and rule - based in nature, discretion still plays a major role in our overall trading strategy.

Keynesian economists have assumed the role of God in defying the laws of nature as they pertain to markets.

Similar essays include Ben Avery's study of the ramifications of the Fall as they play out in Jackie Brown and Russell Hemati's «Like A Man,» which illuminates the important role of group dynamics in the nature of sin.

In what sense does nature have a role in the sweep of God's history with God's creation, as it is depicted in the Bible?

to ascribe anything but evil intent to the Pope's motives make one suspect that it is not one decision that is the real problem: it is really about the fact that the nature of Catholicism and the role of the Pope have at their core a claim so audacious as to provoke outrage.

(Because of the nature of this magazine and my own role as a Christian theologian, I will speak only of the church in what follows.)

«52 And both are exercising a healing role as they reveal absolute truth about the nature of things: «Churches and Rituals,

Is it possible that his rejection of «This structure as bare possibility» reflects some anxiety on his part about a possible but undeveloped connection between idealism and the role of abstract possibility in the primordial nature of God?

Thus, the common faith of early Christianity involved a considerable measure of agreement not only as to the significance of the event and the meaning of the community, but also as to the nature and role of the person: Jesus was Lord and Christ.

The only significant point of difference between my understanding of the Trinity and theirs is the one which I urged earlier in my critique of their respective theories: namely, that the role of the Spirit within the Trinity as the bond of love between the Father and the Son should not overshadow the fact that God is by nature community or interpersonal process.

The Whiteheadian answer to these questions is simply that the past is preserved as objectively immortal in the consequent nature of God and has what efficacy it has on the present as a result of the role played by God at the birth of every actual occasion.

«44 Yet over against human activity, the role of nature stands out as the focus of the agricultural parables of Jesus.

The writings of Harold Lindsell, Francis Schaefer, Bernard Ramm, Carl Henry, Clark Pinnock, Dick France, James Packer and others present a range of contradictory theological formulations on such issues as the nature of Biblical inspiration, the place of women in the church and family, the church's role in social ethics, and the Christian's response to homosexuality.

Being in a state of connection with nature should not stop us from carrying out our role as predator, but instead teach us what it means to be an appropriate predator, one that contributes to the proper functioning of the biotic pyramid.

This passage contains the combination of Jesus» nature (as sinless) and role (as sacrifice) that is central to the traditional idea of Jesus as Savior: he was a person without sin, and by offering himself up in our place as a perfect sacrifice he has secured salvation for those who join themselves to him by faith.

By characterizing nature as the other of spirit Hegel does manage to assign nature a significant role in the general scheme of things, one which manages to leave nature and all its particularity fully intact.

What results is a highly exaggerated representation of the place and role of mind in the world, and a consequent devaluation of nature and its place as a condition of mind.

Referring to C. S. Lewis's much - cited claim in The Abolition of Man, Kass writes that if «man's so - called power over nature is, in truth, always a power exercised by some over others with knowledge of nature as their instrument, can it really be liberating to exchange the rule of nature for the role of arbitrary human will?»

Quite simply, he fails to take full account of the origins of mind in nature, and thus is unable to recognize the significant role which those naturalistic qualities such as finitude, contingency, chance, and decay play in mind.

Unlike Hegel and Nietzsche then (and the general traditions which each may be seen to represent) Whitehead's general account of the relationship between mind and nature not only acknowledges the role of nature as a condition of mind (as the general theory of evolution demands), but it also recognizes the place of mind (or reason) in nature.

On the one hand there is a tendency to overlook the role of nature as a condition of mind, and on the other a tendency to put forth a purely natural account of the world that fails to establish sufficient conditions within nature for the existence of mind.

By approaching the question of mind and nature in this way Whitehead is able to provide us with an aesthetically rich understanding of nature, which at the same time preserves a necessary role for reason and the search for truth as an indispensable element in the determination of conscious experience, the enhancement of our aesthetic sensibilities, and the general advancement of civilization as such.

As the emerging church conversation has focused on the nature and role of truth, the epistemological effects and aspects of the Enlightenment have been pretty well worn over (though I see John Franke's latest will probably restart that conversation for a while).

History could be conceived only as some portion of nature; for example, that part in which life or mentality plays a significant role, or as still further limited to the events in which consciousness, or some special form of consciousness, is decisive.

The artistic nature of the scene is clear: the setting of the questions to build up to a climax; the representative role of Peter; the post-Easter confession; the sudden appearance of the crowd when the time comes for general instruction, as so often in Mark; the reflection of the situation of a Church facing the possibility of persecution; and the way in which the whole pencope moves to its climax in the last two verses.

The role of the woman as a mother and spouse and her very nature as a woman would be nothing more than a social construct: «one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman,» said Simone de Beauvoir.

But, curiously enough, when I came to my first clear conviction on the materialism - dualism - idealism issue it was not of any particular philosopher or writer that I was thinking but of life and nature as I then experienced them while serving in a humble role in an army hospital.

But beyond this, the consequent nature does not have unification as its primary function because it is needed for a different role, called forth by the problematic of transcendence and immanence.

As Yves Simon and Heinrich Rommen long ago demonstrated, there is room for disagreement within the tradition of natural law about how one envisions the role played by God as the author of human nature, or about the tortuous problem of culpability when there is deeply rooted perversity of basic inclinationAs Yves Simon and Heinrich Rommen long ago demonstrated, there is room for disagreement within the tradition of natural law about how one envisions the role played by God as the author of human nature, or about the tortuous problem of culpability when there is deeply rooted perversity of basic inclinationas the author of human nature, or about the tortuous problem of culpability when there is deeply rooted perversity of basic inclinations.

What disturbs Rieff most, however, is the prospect of humanitarian organizations as an instrument of «the new imperialism» and the way this role alters the very nature of relief work.

Instead, she shows that medieval natural law theories always paid serious attention to the roles of Scripture and nature as well as reason.

There is a deep connection between God's role as creator ex nihilo and the nature of God's role as one actual entity» among other actual entities.

History and nature, nature and history, are inter-related most intimately and directly; and although much may be wrong with Professor Toynbee's discussion of history, he is surely right in insisting that climate, situation, and natural phenomena in all their great variety have played a genuine role in what he describes as the «challenge - and - response theme which for him is the basic historical motif.

Christian thought has traditionally, of necessity, defined evil as a privation of the good, possessing no essence or nature of its own, a purely parasitic corruption of reality; hence it can have no positive role to play in God's determination of Himself or purpose for His creatures (even if by economy God can bring good from evil); it can in no way supply any imagined deficiency in God's or creation's goodness.

But as we are taught by our deepening insight into the dominant role of love in the world and the central place of man's response to that love, and as a consequence of our better understanding of human nature in its psychological depths, we are beginning to see ever wider implications of the truth that God wills and works for men to become men and in freedom to act like men.

When the astronomical revolution of the sixteenth century — in which the Italian philosophers of the Renaissance played a far more important role than historians of science admit — removed the universal cosmic clock, there were two alternative ways open to physics and philosophy of nature: either to retain the relational theory of time and to hold with Bruno (Bruno 1879, p. 144) that «there are as many times as there are the stars» (tot tempora quot astra), since there is no body possessing a privileged rotation motion, and the only body which allegedly had it — the sphere of the fixed stars — has been swept away; or to save the unity and homogeneity of time by separating it from any particular motion — and this is what Newton did, anticipated in this respect by Isaac Barrow and, in particular, Gassendi.

In the late 8th century Mary Wollstonecraft perceived that raising questions about the role of women in society raised the issue of the nature of structural relationships as a whole and the destructiveness of authoritarian models of social order.

He can in this way realign philosophy with contemporary scientific theory, while at the same time providing the latter with a «ground» in immediate experience which had been lacking in traditional empiricism, modeled as that was on corpuscular theories of nature.8 In his early work, Whitehead employs Bradley's antiatomism within a classically empiricist framework; redefined as a continuum, sensation still plays its conventional role as a theory of «presentation» (EPNK 60), the given foundation of the reflective process.9

And that law supports and is evidence for the Theory of gravity, which is a larger, umbrella explanation of gravity itself (what it is, what form the force takes — wave or particle, why gravity has that specific strength and not some other, its role as a fundamental force of nature and how it interacts with other forces, etc).

They grow up with a belief about the nature of the embryo, so events in their lives lead them 10 believe that the embryo is a unique person, or a fetus; that people are intimately tied to their biological roles, or that these roles are but a minor part of life: that motherhood is the most important and satisfying role open to a woman, or that motherhood is only one of several roles, a burden when defined as the only role.

Indeed, Blomberg writes, «as far as we know, there was never any dispute on the unique nature and authoritative role of the four New Testament Gospels; the book of Acts» (55); the epistles of Paul; 1 Peter; and 1 John.

In this mariner, Suchocki gives God's consequent nature a role as medium, a role which the consequent nature of God does not have in Whitehead?

«4 Ford calls this Whitehead's «First Metaphysical Synthesis» and says that it is continuous with Whitehead's earlier philosophy of nature.5 But when Whitehead adds the concept of «temporal atomicity» (elementary events can not be subdivided into subevents which are fully actual), this provokes a»... subjectivism of actual occasions open to the real influence of possibility,» and»... generates an unexpected role for God as the antecedent limitation of this possibility.

Compost also plays a key role for soil management, but unlike in Biodynamics, Nature Farming typically does not utilize animals, it does not put the same emphasis on crops grown for animal consumption, and avoids the use of animal manure and waste products as soil amendments.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits