gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (08/22/85)
> = Paul Dubuc >Gary likens the craft of theology to secular professions like law and >medicine. I suppose we should have a requirement that ministers be >licensed by the state too? Doctors and lawyers deal with fairly >objective and technical goals with regard to their clients. >Apparently Gary views the obtaining of knowledge of God in a similar >light. Could you describe that goal, Gary? I don't think you'll get >much help from Schleiermacher there... I can get plenty of help from Schleiermacher as to the requirements for a "licensed theologian". In 1811 Schleiermacher published his "Brief Outline on the Study of Theology" that would set the agenda for the modern theological enterprise. Schleiermacher considers theology a science in every way. "Theology is a positive science, whose parts join into a cohesive whole only through their common relation to a particular mode of faith, i.e., a particular way of being conscious of God. Thus, the various parts of Christian theology belong together only by virtue of their relation to Christianity. This is the sense in which the word 'theology' will always be used." And what constitutes the science of theology ? "The whole of theological study is composed of this trilogy: philosophical theology, historical theology and practical theology." Who are the theologians ? "If one could imagine both a religious interest and a scientific spirit conjoined in the highest degree and with the finest balance for the purpose of theoretical and practical activity alike, that would be the idea of a 'prince of the Church'." Now, I would wonder where Mr. Dubuc is going to get his education in the trilogy of disciplines that Schleiermacher mentions in his "Brief Outline" ? Philosophical theology, historical theology, practical theology. Does Mr. Dubuc wish to imply that these are not "objective" disciplines of study such as law and medicine - that they do not constitute considerable and formidable bodies of knowledge ? Schleiermacher did not wish to imply that the preparation undertaken by the theology student in philosophical theology was other than the study of secular philosophy - or simply philosophy in the broadest sense of the term. Nor was historical theology other than the best critical (secular) historiography. As for practical theology, it was the "crown of theological study" which stood under the proviso that "we posit the planting and extension of the Christian Church as the object of the divine government of the world." - No small task Mr. Dubuc ! Is that enough of a "goal" for you ? Theology as a discipline in this contemporary world is much more complex than Schleiermacher could imagine in 1811 when he wrote the "Brief Outline". It would be in the "spirit" of Schleiermacher to say that, for the theologian, he must know the ancillary disciplines such as philosophy and history as well as any professional secular philosopher or secular historian - and this does not come easy. I know of few Protestant denominations(Baptists) that will allow you to become a pastor without a degree("license") from a seminary. A seminary education takes some 3-4 years of uninterrupted study. If you want to be a professional theologian and intend to make a positive contribution to the field then your education will take considerably longer - at which point you may *begin* serious theology. Paul, you're removed from the "performance" about as much as the ticket stub that is torn, discarded and left in that dark box at the entrance to the theatre. The "princes of the church" are on stage - they are neither shut up in a box nor are they spectators. Access to the stage is much more than simply the price of ticket admission. It requires a great deal of hard work and, might I say, some talent. Gary
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (08/23/85)
Gary,
Thou art great
Thou art wise
We thank thee for the pearls
You drop before our eyes.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
-:) -:) -:)
"You sure do take yourself super seriously son"pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/24/85)
A (last) response to Gary Buchholz: >> = Paul Dubuc >>Gary likens the craft of theology to secular professions like law and >>medicine. I suppose we should have a requirement that ministers be >>licensed by the state too? Doctors and lawyers deal with fairly >>objective and technical goals with regard to their clients. >>Apparently Gary views the obtaining of knowledge of God in a similar >>light. Could you describe that goal, Gary? I don't think you'll get >>much help from Schleiermacher there... > >I can get plenty of help from Schleiermacher as to the requirements for >a "licensed theologian". In 1811 Schleiermacher published his "Brief >Outline on the Study of Theology" that would set the agenda for the >modern theological enterprise. Schleiermacher considers theology a >science in every way. > > "Theology is a positive science, whose parts join into a cohesive whole > only through their common relation to a particular mode of faith, > i.e., a particular way of being conscious of God. Thus, the > various parts of Christian theology belong together only by virtue > of their relation to Christianity. This is the sense in which the > word 'theology' will always be used." > >And what constitutes the science of theology ? > > "The whole of theological study is composed of this trilogy: > philosophical theology, historical theology and practical > theology." > >Who are the theologians ? > > "If one could imagine both a religious interest and a scientific > spirit conjoined in the highest degree and with the finest balance > for the purpose of theoretical and practical activity alike, that > would be the idea of a 'prince of the Church'." > >Now, I would wonder where Mr. Dubuc is going to get his education in >the trilogy of disciplines that Schleiermacher mentions in his "Brief >Outline" ? A seminary teaching "secular theology" isn't the only place. Neither are books by "secular theologans". Anyway, more to my point about Schliermacher, was how he would answer a question Gary isn't asking of him: What is religion? That is a question "secular theologans" may ignore, but Schliermacher didn't. Maybe he viewed theology as an objective science, but one still wonders what basis he had for doing so. If you ignore the right questions, I supose you can get it down to an "objective core", but my contention in subsequent remarks, which Gary has not bothered to address, is that this makes "secular theology" totally irrelevant. What need does secular society have for secular theologans? Schliermacher's view of religion was totally experiential and subjective, as one might gather from his "On Religion: Speeches to It's Cultural Despisers" (trans. John Oman, Harper Torchbooks, 1958 [first published 1799]). You might find a lot to argue with him about in there. He viewed science as a way of knowing but religion as a way of being and feeling "ultimate dependance on the All". I am no fan, or disciple, of Schleiermacher myself, but if you are going to use this man as your authority in defining "secular theology", then swallow the whole pill, will you? >Philosophical theology, historical theology, practical theology. Does >Mr. Dubuc wish to imply that these are not "objective" disciplines of >study such as law and medicine - that they do not constitute >considerable and formidable bodies of knowledge ? > >Schleiermacher did not wish to imply that the preparation undertaken by >the theology student in philosophical theology was other than the study >of secular philosophy - or simply philosophy in the broadest sense of >the term. Nor was historical theology other than the best critical >(secular) historiography. As for practical theology, it was the >"crown of theological study" which stood under the proviso that "we >posit the planting and extension of the Christian Church as the object >of the divine government of the world." - No small task Mr. Dubuc ! >Is that enough of a "goal" for you ? What need or objective reality validates the goal? For lawyers there is a distinct legal problem, for doctors an illness. Lawyers work from the law as an authority guiding the outcome of their legal solution, doctors from knowledge of medical science and the ethical belief that illness ought to be combatted. My contention is that secular theology knows nothing of any god, or qualities thereof, by which it may support any idea of what constitues "divine government". In my last article, I mentioned Harvey Cox as an example of a secular theologian. All he does, however, is import theology into whatever secular society has already formulated and justified. He has no real basis for critique of society. He seemed to be in the business of making us think that whatever is happening is really happening according to God's will. Secular theologians seem only to be theological justifiers for the status quo. I hear Cox has changed his tune somewhat in the 20 year since he wrote "The Secular City", but you still seem to be whistling it, Gary. >Theology as a discipline in this contemporary world is much more >complex than Schleiermacher could imagine in 1811 when he wrote the >"Brief Outline". It would be in the "spirit" of Schleiermacher to say >that, for the theologian, he must know the ancillary disciplines such >as philosophy and history as well as any professional secular >philosopher or secular historian - and this does not come easy. It is also in the spirit of S. to follow intution in matters of religion. "Become conscious of the call of your deepest nature and follow it, I conjure you". (op. cit. p. 92) >I know of few Protestant denominations(Baptists) that will allow you to >become a pastor without a degree("license") from a seminary. A >seminary education takes some 3-4 years of uninterrupted study. If you >want to be a professional theologian and intend to make a positive >contribution to the field then your education will take considerably >longer - at which point you may *begin* serious theology. How long does it take after that to be able to discuss it with God personally? :-) Seriously though, conservative thologians who have paid the dues you expect, don't seem to count either. I recognise the value of an education in theology. You, however, seem to maintian that it must be an education of a *particular* sort. >Paul, you're removed from the "performance" about as much as the ticket >stub that is torn, discarded and left in that dark box at the entrance >to the theatre. The "princes of the church" are on stage - they are >neither shut up in a box nor are they spectators. Access to the stage >is much more than simply the price of ticket admission. It requires a >great deal of hard work and, might I say, some talent. I admire hard work and talent. But what the hard work is going toward and what the talent produces is also important, I might say. Maybe my intrests in theology haven't carried me along the same vein as yours and maybe they'll never carry me as far or in the same direction. You have a very poetic way of calling those who don't see as you do, "blind". Lots of people like to examine the fruit that one's work has produced in his life. If that's bad, it hard to be convinced that I will be better for drinking at the same fountain. If your attitude towards those who don't see as you do it exemplary of a "prince" of theology, I appeal to the King! Nuf said by me, -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/27/85)
In article <1035@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) writes: > >Philosophical theology, historical theology, practical theology. Does >Mr. Dubuc wish to imply that these are not "objective" disciplines of >study such as law and medicine - that they do not constitute >considerable and formidable bodies of knowledge ? > How about, "Biblical Theology"! It is "Biblical Theology" that teaches us the qualifications for church leaders. See the first letter to Timothy chapter 2. These are the men that God has called to lead His people. Do you read anywhere in there about Phd's in theology? Dan