Just a little question from my OT Prophets class; one my prof used to wake the class up by making us pick sides and offering arguments for one of the positions.
The Question: Was Jonah swallowed by the fish for transportation, punishments, or protection?
Seminary doesn’t usually degenerate into such senseless questioning, although some might say that merely going to seminary is an excersise in senseless futility.
Something which may not be to far off the mark...or not.
June 30, 2005
June 29, 2005
Intern Update (1)
I had a good meeting with the pastors at Agape (our church) today. We discussed my internship that started last week. My title (as if it mattered) is Outreach Coordinator. These first few month I’ll simply be praying about/for the local context, and doing research, which primarily means doing interviews with people that have been around, as I try to understand the challenges facing Pasadena. All of this is starting from scratch, so I have no idea how it will end up.
June 28, 2005
June 26, 2005
Theology in Context (Part Two)
My Theology in Context lectures covered both technical missiology and guest visits from people who were in the field doing the technical things we were discussing. On the technical side, our professor, Dr. Van Engen, walked us through five perspectives or paradigms through which people have sought to do “theology in context”. He then sought to integrate these into an “appropriated Christianity”.
His five perspectives were: contextualization (cont.) as communication, cont. as indigenization, cont. as translatability, cont. as local theologizing, and cont. as epistemology.
Yesterday I was thinking that I would say more today, but I’m realizing that the minimum amount of time and energy necessary to communicate what was taught is more than you or I want to exert. (you would be reading forever.)
If this is a subject that interests you e-mail me, and I can provide you with some resources, including some handouts from class. One of the primary books we worked from was Steven B. Bevans’ Models of Contextual Theology.
His five perspectives were: contextualization (cont.) as communication, cont. as indigenization, cont. as translatability, cont. as local theologizing, and cont. as epistemology.
Yesterday I was thinking that I would say more today, but I’m realizing that the minimum amount of time and energy necessary to communicate what was taught is more than you or I want to exert. (you would be reading forever.)
If this is a subject that interests you e-mail me, and I can provide you with some resources, including some handouts from class. One of the primary books we worked from was Steven B. Bevans’ Models of Contextual Theology.
June 25, 2005
Theology in Context (Part One)
Theology in Context is the last class to discuss from this past quarter. In it we discussed various technical models through which one can do theology in a manner that is relevant to the local context.
A little bit on the word “theology”. In my traditions, (all of them fundamentalist leaning evangelical), it is usually used to describe "biblical theology" or "systematic theology". These are excellent variations of theology, but narrowing the definition of the word to these two things makes communication on so many other subjects a bit troublesome.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives these three definitions for theology.
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.
At Fuller, and I’m sure throughout academia, the word has been tagged onto many different subjects to denote a desire for "rational inquiry into religious questions" in that sphere. For instance, at Fuller, one can take classes on not only systematic theology and biblical theology, but also theology of music, theology of film, or my course, Theology in Context, to name a few.
When one considers theology in a particular context, one of the most important of the many questions asked is: “how does a given context or culture affirm Christ and Christianity; where is it ambivalent; and in what ways does it attack or malign the gospel?” The technicalities of this question, and how people are actually doing this (some of them in a North American context) were the primary concerns of the class.
What some of these models are, and how they are used, will be the subject of tomorrows post.
A little bit on the word “theology”. In my traditions, (all of them fundamentalist leaning evangelical), it is usually used to describe "biblical theology" or "systematic theology". These are excellent variations of theology, but narrowing the definition of the word to these two things makes communication on so many other subjects a bit troublesome.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives these three definitions for theology.
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.
At Fuller, and I’m sure throughout academia, the word has been tagged onto many different subjects to denote a desire for "rational inquiry into religious questions" in that sphere. For instance, at Fuller, one can take classes on not only systematic theology and biblical theology, but also theology of music, theology of film, or my course, Theology in Context, to name a few.
When one considers theology in a particular context, one of the most important of the many questions asked is: “how does a given context or culture affirm Christ and Christianity; where is it ambivalent; and in what ways does it attack or malign the gospel?” The technicalities of this question, and how people are actually doing this (some of them in a North American context) were the primary concerns of the class.
What some of these models are, and how they are used, will be the subject of tomorrows post.
June 23, 2005
Church in Mission
Another of my classes recently finished this spring was Church in Mission, a subject that I truly get excited about. (Note: “Mission” does not necessarely corespond to “Missions”, I will post more on this latter.)
Rather than re-write what it was all about, here is the professor, Dr. Gibbs, description of the subject:
This course seeks to interrelate the disciplines of ecclesiology and missiology from a biblical perspective, and covers the following topics: the Trinitarian nature of the church, the relationship of the Church to the Kingdom of God, New Testament images of the Church, the classical marks of the Church, worship, unity, the Sacraments, ministry of the people of God, mission in the world, and the structuring of the church to facilitate its missionary calling.
What made the class further interesting was the format, one hour of lecture, followed by one hour of small groups in which we worked on a rather extensive group paper.
I think the most important thing I took away from the class is an understanding of the missional nature of God, and the churches responsibility to reflect and engage in that mission. (this also will be covered in another post sometime in the future) It also helped me to articulate why the church must me missional. Though we’ll never do it perfectly, we have a lot of room for improvement. In my estimation, the status quo of most churches is not acceptable, though since I’ve never been a pastor, I must give much grace because I am sure I too will fail in this area. (as I do in so many others) That said, we need to aim high, regardless of our chances for success. (more can be read from my previous post The Missional Ministry of the Church)
Rather than re-write what it was all about, here is the professor, Dr. Gibbs, description of the subject:
This course seeks to interrelate the disciplines of ecclesiology and missiology from a biblical perspective, and covers the following topics: the Trinitarian nature of the church, the relationship of the Church to the Kingdom of God, New Testament images of the Church, the classical marks of the Church, worship, unity, the Sacraments, ministry of the people of God, mission in the world, and the structuring of the church to facilitate its missionary calling.
What made the class further interesting was the format, one hour of lecture, followed by one hour of small groups in which we worked on a rather extensive group paper.
I think the most important thing I took away from the class is an understanding of the missional nature of God, and the churches responsibility to reflect and engage in that mission. (this also will be covered in another post sometime in the future) It also helped me to articulate why the church must me missional. Though we’ll never do it perfectly, we have a lot of room for improvement. In my estimation, the status quo of most churches is not acceptable, though since I’ve never been a pastor, I must give much grace because I am sure I too will fail in this area. (as I do in so many others) That said, we need to aim high, regardless of our chances for success. (more can be read from my previous post The Missional Ministry of the Church)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)