Despite attempts of harmonizers and oratorio librettists to concoct something called the Seven Last Words, Jesus» words from the cross in each Gospel provide a perspective on each evangelist's
particular theological understanding of the crucifixion.
Not exact matches
Questions of a
particular religious culture or
theological position may be important to
understand.
They suggest that it would be helpful to reflect on the following questions when we seek to
understand, to criticize, and perhaps even to reform some
particular theological school:
By engaging people in the effort to
understand God by focusing study of various subject matters within the horizon of questions about Christian congregations, a
theological school may help them cultivate capacities both for what Charles Wood [2] calls «vision,» that is, formulating comprehensive, synoptic accounts of the Christian thing as a whole, and what he calls «discernment,» that is, insight into the meaning, faithfulness, and truth of
particular acts in the practice of worship (in the broad sense of worship that we have adopted for this discussion).
If the goal that makes a school «
theological» is to
understand God more truly, and if such
understanding comes only indirectly through disciplined study of other «subject matters,» and if study of those subject matters leads to truer
understanding of God only insofar as they comprise the Christian thing in their interconnectedness and not in isolation from one another, then clearly it is critically important to study them as elements of the Christian thing construed in some
particular, concrete way.
We've already discussed Chapter 2 — «The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature» — in which Enns tackles the difficult question of how to
understand the Bible as special and revelatory when Genesis in
particular looks so much like other literature from the ancient Near Eastern world, and Chapter 3 --- «The Old Testament and
Theological Diversity» — which addresses some of the tension, ambiguity, and diversity found within the pages of Scripture.
Christ the Key is less a single, overarching argument than a series of closely connected studies of how a
particular understanding of Christ reshapes various
theological topics.
We shall be speaking of a focus in a
theological school on questions about «
particular Christian congregations» as a means to
understanding God Christianly.
It will be impossible to assess the fruitfulness of that larger proposal to a
particular theological school if the
understanding of «worship» and of «congregation» it takes for granted is inapplicable in a
particular tradition.
That is the reason for urging that study of all the subject matters to which
theological schools attend, in the hope of
understanding God more truly, be focused through the lens of questions about
particular Christian congregations.
In
particular, these studies of the «Berlin» model of excellence suggest several morals and cautions about any effort to analyze and
understand a
theological 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.
[24] A
theological school in
particular is a community whose central purpose is to come to
understand God more truly.
Especially as one harbors hopes for significant changes in a
theological school, it is important to
understand a
particular school in its concrete particularity.
My fourth hope is to make a cogent case for a sketch of the
particular theological view that the purpose of a
theological school is to seek to
understand God more truly, and that a school's «nature» follows from this «purpose.»