Sentences with phrase «theological education point»

Feminist practices of theological education point us toward the conversation that needs to occur about theological education.

Not exact matches

Yet, though all this may be true, these «points» may still not seem to add up to anything substantive for understanding theological education.

[2] One apparent exception to this is Christian Identity and Theological Education by Joseph C. Hough, Jr., and John B. Cobb., Jr. (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), who make a point of stressing that theological education must have as its end or telos the education of ministers Theological Education by Joseph C. Hough, Jr., and John B. Cobb., Jr. (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), who make a point of stressing that theological education must have as its end or telos the education of ministers (pEducation by Joseph C. Hough, Jr., and John B. Cobb., Jr. (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), who make a point of stressing that theological education must have as its end or telos the education of ministers theological education must have as its end or telos the education of ministers (peducation must have as its end or telos the education of ministers (peducation of ministers (pp.4 - 5).

Similarly, the point of theological education should be to learn how to think theologically.

Furthermore, he argued, the point of theological education is not necessarily to acquire practical skills.

These points brought the conversation around to that perennial concern of theological education mentioned earlier: the gap between church and seminary and how to bridge it.

In Germany, under the leadership of Rolf Zerfass and Norbet Mette, there has been an important revival of practical theology But a very powerful recent statement pointing to its revival can he found in Edward Fancy's recent book, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education

Farley's work points in the right direction, but more work needs to be done to establish practical theology as procedure and as method before it can become the center of theological education.

But our work together thus far has already established several points that may have an important bearing on the future of theological education in America: (1) the party - strife between «evangelicals» and «charismatics» and «ecumenicals» is not divinely preordained and need not last forever; (2) the Wesleyan tradition has a place of its own in the theological forum along with all the others; (3) «pluralism» need not signify «indifferentism»; (4) «evangelism» and «social gospel» are aspects of the same evangel; (5) in terms of any sort of cost - benefit analysis, a partnership like AFTE represents a high - yield investment in Christian mission; and (6) the Holy Spirit has still more surprises in store for the openhearted.

Insistence on the importance of that point for theological education is one of the major contributions of the Mud Flower Collective to the agenda of the debate about what makes theological education theological.

Throughout our review of Wood's proposal about what makes theological education theological we have been noting points of convergence with and divergence from the other four voices in this conversation.

So I'm back to my original point: theological understanding is what unites the various enterprises of seminary education.

My point is that theological education can not be reduced to the learning of clerical skills or to scholarly knowledge.

In an October 1988 consultation on seminary education and urban ministry hosted by New York Theological Seminary, three brief papers addressed this point.

My point is that theological education can not be reduced to the learning of clerical skills or to...

Almost thirty years had passed since the last major, comprehensive, and theologically self - conscious study of Protestant theological education.1 It is also remarkable, indeed unprecedented, that such a sustained debate emerged, not in response to one large study of theological education, but as a conversation among several quite different theological points of view.

The modifications of the «Berlin» type, and the incoherences in theological education to which they seem to have led, come at four points.

This brings us to the point at which this study differs decisively from previous studies of Protestant theological education.

I suggest these four points correspond directly to four crucial areas of need in theological education.

Our review of literature on the nature and purpose of theological education suggested several points about how to address issues of pluralism and unity.

The point here is not to denigrate the importance of educating clergy; nor is it to deny that education of clergy is embraced by theological education.

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.