CH505syllabus - Fuller Theological Seminary...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Fuller Theological Seminary Post-Reformation & Modern Theology Spring Quarter 2007 John L. Thompson, Instructor Church History 505 | Course Syllabus | Assignments | Lectures & Readings | Disclaimer Notice In Acrobat Reader, click to return to top of document NOTICE This file contains the syllabus, lecture & assignment schedule, and other materials for a course regularly taught at Fuller Theological Seminary. All rights to this material are reserved. If you are enrolled in this class, you may use and retain a copy of this file in electronic and printed form. If you are reviewing this material from the Fuller Theological Seminary website, you have permission to browse the contents but not to retain an electronic copy nor to print a paper copy. If you have any questions about the course or would like to make further use of these materials, feel free to contact the instructor. John L. Thompson Professor of Historical Theology and Gaylen & Susan Byker Professor of Reformed Theology CH 505: Post-Reformation & Modern Theology INSTRUCTOR: OFFICE: OFFICE HOURS: HOME PHONE: WEBSITE: Spring 2007 John L. Thompson INTERNET: 211 Payton Hall FTS Box O OFFICE PHONE: (626) 584-5457 11:00-Noon, Mondays & Wednesdays. By appointment Tuesdays, 1-3 (818) 790-2906; please call between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. (626) 584-5235 (626) 304-3701 [no FTS box] (626) 794-5265 [no FTS box] (310) 622-5899 FTS box 517 (626) 798-0793 FTS box 90 (626) 298-0736 204 Payton 200 Taylor SECRETARY: Mark Baker-Wright ASSISTANTS: Maria Doerfler Rachel Grassley Michael Hensley Rebecca King-Cerling Josh Whitler medoerfler @ rgrassley @ mikedh1980 @ cerling @ earthenvessel04 @ COURSE DESCRIPTION: A survey of major developments in theology since the Protestant Reformation, with emphases on English Puritanism, Protestant Orthodoxy, Wesleyanism, and Enlightenment and postEnlightenment thought from Schleiermacher through Barth, Vatican II, and the rise of contextual theologies. COURSE OBJECTIVES / LEARNING OUTCOMES: There are four objectives to this course. First, that students become familiar with the central theological doctrines and developments in post-Reformation Protestantism as well as those that resulted from cultural shifts provoked by the Enlightenment and its modern legacy. Second, that students gain an understanding of the theological controversies of the period from diverse points of view, including the perspectives of the original participants and those of historians today. Third, that students practice the close reading of selected primary sources in order to analyze and faithfully articulate the theological arguments of a historical text. Fourth, that students reflect on the perennial nature of the doctrinal controversies that shaped Christian identity in this period as these doctrines and practices have engendered contemporary Christian diversity and ecumenical conversation. RELEVANCE FOR MINISTRY: By introducing a significant body of theological and historical data, the course seeks to lead students to a broader perspective on their own ecclesiastical traditions, beliefs, and practices, as well as to a sympathetic appreciation for the unity and diversity of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of which they are a part. Intensive work in primary sources will help students to acquire an improved facility in the analysis of theological arguments and an increased ability to articulate the meaning of the Christian faith in its historical development - skills that will also benefit the student's reading, understanding, and exposition of Scripture itself. FORMAT: Lecture & discussion, with small group sessions for discussing assigned paper topics. REQUIRED READING: The following texts will be read in their entirety, or nearly so. Readings assigned for a given lecture should be brought to class so as to facilitate discussion (Hgglund excepted). Hgglund, Bengt. History of Theology. Second revised edition. Concordia, 2007. In consultation with the instructor, students may substitute for Hgglund one of the recommended textbooks listed below. Lessing, Gotthold. Lessing's Theological Writings. Henry Chadwick, ed. Stanford, 1956. Photocopies and/or e-text (CD-ROM) of the following readings may be obtained from the bookstore; texts in the public domain may also be found as e-texts on the instructor's website, above: The (Thirty-Nine) Articles of ... the Church of England (1562), from The Book of Common Prayer. James Arminius, "Disputation XI: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers," "Certain Articles #14 (On Predestination Considered after the Fall) and #15 (On the Decrees of God ...)," from The Works of James Arminius, 3 vols. (London, 1825-75; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986) 2:189-96, 718-19. William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof (1639; reprinted 1975), pp. 90-98. The Westminster Confession of Faith (with scripture references). John Wesley, "The Scripture Way of Salvation" and "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection," in The Works of John Wesley (reprint of 1872 edition), 6:43-54 and 11:366-446. Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, tr. John Oman (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1893), pp. 1-118. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, tr. E.C. Hoskyns (Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), pp. 27-42. Karl Barth, "Foreword to the First, Second, and Third Editions of The Epistle to the Romans," trans. and ed. James M. Robinson, The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1968), pp. 61-62, 88-99, 126-130. "The Debate on the Critical Historical Method: Correspondence between Adolf von Harnack and Karl Barth," trans. and ed. James M. Robinson, The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1968), pp. 165-187. "The Platform of the German Christians" and "The Barmen Declaration," in Franklin Hamlin Littell, The German Phoenix: Men and Movements in the Church in Germany (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960), pp. 180-188. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: A Selection (Harper Torchbook #TB 95; Harper & Row, 1961), pp. 49-65 ("The Question of Natural Theology") and pp. 65-81 ("The Gospel and the Bible"). Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), pp. 20-31.. Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, promulgated by Pope Paul VI at the Second Vatican Council on November 21, 1964 . James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Philadelphia & N.Y.: Lippincott, 1970), pp. 212-19. In addition, selected articles on contextual theology will be available through the electronic resources of the Fuller Theological Seminary library. Information on these articles will be furnished halfway through the course. RECOMMENDED READING: Cross, F. L. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (second or third edition). Douglas, J. D. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Gonzlez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought, vols. 2-3. Abingdon, 1987. Placher, William C. A History of Christian Theology. Westminster, 1983. Muller, Richard. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. Baker, 1985. ASSIGNMENTS: 1. Assigned readings, to be completed as preparation for lectures and discussion. While attendance and class participation normally do not figure into the student's final grade as a percentage, such factors will come into play in cases of flagrant absenteeism or when resolving borderline grades. Preparation for lectures is crucial to the student's performance and to the health of the class as a learning community. For readings and lectures, see the Lecture and Assignment Schedule. 2. Three directed essays (5 pages each) on assigned topics, drawing on selections from primary source readings (= 60% of final grade). Precisely what I want from these papers is discussed in this syllabus, along with an account of my grading standards. Each essay has a prospectus that discusses the topic's implications and lists specific pages to be read. Topics are as follows: Wesley on salvation; Schleiermacher on religion; Barth and Harnack on history & exegesis. 3. Comprehensive final examination, objective and short essay (= 40% of final grade). Please note, however, that the weighting of the final at 40% has one exception clause, namely, that the student must pass the final exam in order to pass the course. If you want to do well on this exam, be sure to attend the lectures and read my advice on how to prepare for the final exam now. All students (especially those who are taking this course on a CR/NC basis) should note that all assignments must be completed in good faith for credit to be granted for the course. Late submissions of work are penalized heavily, as I explain in my lateness policy, below. CH 505: POST-REFORMATION & MODERN THEOLOGY Lecture and Assignment Schedule MONDAY, MARCH 26th, 2007 COURSE INTRODUCTION 1. THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCHES: "Denominational" Divisions and Diversity S "What I Want From Your ... Essays" Hgglund, pp. 285-90 (R.C. Reform) Optional: Hgglund, pp. 211-65 MONDAY, APRIL 2nd, 2007 2. REFORMED ORTHODOXY (continued) 3. ARMINIUS & THE SYNOD OF DORT Hgglund, pp. 291-98 S Arminius excerpts, 189-96, 718-19 MONDAY, APRIL 9th, 2007 6. WESLEY AND METHODIST THEOLOGY 8 10 {55} 6 6 Spring Quarter, 2007 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28th, 2007 2. REFORMED ORTHODOXY S Ames, Conscience & Cases, pp. 90-98 Hgglund, pp. 267-85 Hgglund, pp. 299-324 (Luth. Orth.) This week's page-count = 8 18 26 64 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4th, 2007 4. THE ENGLISH REFORMATION & THE PURITAN REACTION S 39 Articles of Religion S Westminster Confession, 5-14, 19-125 This week's page-count = 12 57 87 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11th, 2007 ESSAY #1 DUE AT BEGINNING OF CLASS S Wesley, "Way of Salvation," pp. 43-54, 12 81 103 Hgglund, pp. 325-34 (Pietism) MONDAY, APRIL 16th, 2007 6. JOHN WESLEY (continued) 7. ENLIGHTENMENT CHRISTIANITY 10 & "Christian Perfection," 366-446 This week's page-count = WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18th, 2007 7. ENLIGHTENMENT CHRISTIANITY (continued) We may have a PRACTICE QUIZ today! Hgglund, pp. 335-51 Chadwick's Intro to Lessing, pp. 9-49 This week's page-count = 17 41 58 MONDAY, APRIL 23rd, 2007 7. ENLIGHTENMENT (continued), with discussion of Lessing Lessing, pp. 51-64, 82-98, 104-6 34 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25th, 2007 8. KANT ON RELIGION & CHRISTIANITY This week's page-count = 34 abbreviations: Hgglund Lessing S W = = = = History of Theology, Bengt Hgglund = added pp. in 4th ed. Lessing's Theological Writings, ed. Henry Chadwick Syllabus, i.e. photocopied readings in bookstore packet Web-based articles, accessible via CH 505: POST-REFORMATION & MODERN THEOLOGY Lecture and Assignment Schedule MONDAY, APRIL 30th, 2007 9. THE THEOLOGY OF SCHLEIERMACHER Hgglund, pp. 353-60 S Schleiermacher, Speeches, pp. 1-118 MONDAY, MAY 7th, 2007 9. SCHLEIERMACHER (continued): The Glaubenslehre and modern theology 8 118 This week's page-count = 126 Spring Quarter, 2007 WEDNESDAY, MAY 2nd, 2007 ESSAY #2 DUE AT BEGINNING OF CLASS 9. SCHLEIERMACHER (continued) WEDNESDAY, MAY 9th, 2007 15. INTERLUDE ON ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY: FROM TRENT TO VATICAN I & VATICAN II S Lumen Gentium, 59 pp. Hgglund, pp. 380-83, 415-17 This week's page-count = 59 7 66 MONDAY, MAY 14th, 2007 10. LIBERAL PROTESTANTISM: HARNACK & SCHWEITZER WEDNESDAY, MAY 16th, 2007 12. THE GERMAN CHURCH CRISIS & THE BARTH / BRUNNER DEBATE S "Platform of German Christians" & "Barmen Declaration," pp. 180-88 8 32 81 Hgglund, pp. 360-80, 383-97, 397-411 MONDAY, MAY 21st, 2007 11. DIALECTICAL THEOLOGY: THE BARTH / HARNACK DEBATE S Barth / Harnack letters, pp. 165-87 S Barth, Romans (two selections), 35 pp. MONDAY, MAY 28th, 2007 49 S Barth, Church Dogmatics, pp. 49-81 This week's page-count = WEDNESDAY, MAY 23rd, 2007 ESSAY #3 DUE AT BEGINNING OF CLASS 23 35 11. BARTH / HARNACK (continued), with discussion of essay S Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/2:20-31 This week's page-count = 11 69 WEDNESDAY, MAY 30th, 2007 16. THE RISE OF "CONTEXTUAL" THEOLOGY: Black, Liberation, & Feminist Theologies no class today MEMORIAL DAY observed Hgglund, pp. 412-14 W Article TBA W Article TBA W Article TBA This week's page-count = 3 35 35 35 108 FINAL EXAM: Monday, June 4th, 8 a.m. total course reading = 796 WHAT I WANT FROM YOUR DIRECTED ESSAYS FOR POST-REFORMATION & MODERN THEOLOGY A Short Course in Reading and Writing with Precision John L. Thompson No student wants to spend a weekend (much less a month or more!) toiling away on an essay, only to be told when the professor returns it that "that really wasn't what I wanted." To spare you such waste of time, along with the anxiety that goes with it, as well as to spare myself having to read essays that, however sincere, miss the mark I'd hoped they'd hit, I offer you here my best advice for fulfilling this part of the course requirements. In this brief essay about essays, there are three areas that need some comment: the format of your essay, its style and organization, and its content. I. ESSAY FORMAT By "format," I simply mean those requirements for an acceptable essay which are peculiar to this course; for example, length. Nothing of what I say here should appear surprising or earthshaking, but if you will observe these suggestions, you'll make the task of reading and commenting on your work less strenuous. Please follow these six rules: 1. All essays should be typed and double-spaced (not triple-spaced or space-and-a-half). 2. Use a traditional font and set the font size to 12 points. 3. Leave one-inch margins on both the right and left, so I'll have room for comments. 4. How long? Back when typewriters came in two sizes (pica and elite), I would have told you to write about 5 pages. Figuring 250 to 300 words per page, that would work out to an essay of up to 1500 words. In this day of proportional and scalable fonts, page counts are highly unpredictable guides. At the old (typewriter) standard of 26 lines per page, a 12-point Roman font can fit 400 words on a page, while an 11-point font yields about 460 words. I suggest you aim for the "spirit" of five pages, that is, about 1800 words. If you exceed that by more than 20% or if your essay runs over to a seventh page, your grade may suffer, since it's not fair for you to indulge in verbosity when others have had to discipline their prose. I'm well aware that it's harder to write a short essay than a long one, but that is precisely the point: your paper will be better for having been pruned. While it's quite possible to fulfill the assignment in fewer pages, if your essay runs out of gas on page two, I suggest you spend more time pondering the questions assigned or, perhaps, talk with your classmates or your instructor. 5. While we're on the topic of length, please don't forget to number your pages! 6. Lastly, please just staple or clip your paper together. Plastic binders are spiffy, but they're a pain to deal with when you're trying to write comments. Also, as an insurance policy, never submit an original of which you have no copy, whether a photocopy, a pencil draft, or a backed-up file. Occasionally papers disappear in campus mail and in other ways, but you remain responsible to provide a back-up in such circumstances. -1- II. MATTERS OF STYLE & ORGANIZATION In speaking of style, I'm not concerned about whether you submit your essays on paper with a designer watermark, but about the presentation of your findings in a manner that is appealing and persuasive to the reader. Two aspects of your presentation call for comment: style and organization. First of all, good "style" involves attending to the details of your presentation that the reader ought to be able to take for granted. Among such details are grammar and spelling (including typographical errors). It is extremely distracting and often confusing to read an essay filled with grammatical and spelling errors. If you know your grammar or spelling is unreliable, have your roommate or spouse or significant other proofread your draft. For spelling problems alone, allow me to refer you to a handy reference guide: Webster's Word Divider. Mine cost about $6.00 and correctly spells and divides (for hyphenation) 45,000 words, which is more than you're apt to use in one essay. Most students these days use word-processing software, but it is amazing to me how few use the spell-checker! Indeed, some word-processors can even check grammar with a fair degree of accuracy, so there is less excuse than ever for a sloppy presentation. Another "detail" of presentation concerns how you document your argument. If you quote, paraphrase, or even allude to specific arguments or passages in the documents on which your essay is based, you must give a page reference. It is rare that I fault a student for too many page citations! Indeed, if you find you have few page references in your essay, your argument is probably not based closely enough on the text at hand (more on this in the next section). Normally, such references should be footnoted in full, but for this class I'd prefer that you simply put page references in parentheses, like this: (137) or this: (98, 104). If there's any doubt as to which work you're drawing on, use some simple code, such as (SW-49), where "SW" stands for page 49 in Wesley's sermon, "The Scripture Way of Salvation," which is itself part of the readings packet available online and on CDROM. This is surely the easiest way to footnote, and I expect you to use it! A final stylistic concern pertains to the use of inclusive language. Fuller Seminary has an "official" inclusive language policy, and I expect you to abide by it. This means you should avoid exclusively masculine pronouns when your point pertains to both men and women. But let me make two qualifications here. First, I know that this is a new idea for many students, and I know that it takes some practice to write elegantly and inclusively. So please make an effort, and if you need some coaching (or if you just want to talk about the policy), feel free to ask for help. Second, in a course where you are using and even quoting historical sources, it is not appropriate for you to change the gender of pronouns in another's work. Admittedly, it is often the case that an inclusive term in Latin or Greek has been translated as "he" (etc.) in the so-called "generic" sense, but unless you have verified this in an original-language edition, you should not presume to change it. In other words, your writing should be inclusive, but please don't casually rewrite your sources! Beyond these details of style there lies a larger concern for your presentation, namely, the overall organization of your essay -- or, rather, the organization of the observations, thoughts, insights, and reasoned arguments that are your essay. All essays should have three distinguishable parts: the introduction, the body of the essay, and a conclusion. The introduction is crucial, for it lays the foundation for all that follows. But what goes into a good introduction? Two ingredients. First, it is essential that an essay have a clear, well-formulated purpose, and it is equally imperative that you communicate this purpose to your reader at the outset of the essay. In all essays assigned for this course, the statement of purpose should be a virtual paraphrase of the question that constitutes both the assignment and the title of the essay. But how will you go about answering the question(s) assigned? What aspects of the question will you address -2- first (and why), second (and why), and so on? These two ingredients -- a statement of the essay's purpose and a roadmap or outline of its plan of attack -- comprise a good introductory paragraph. Once you've got the essay outlined in your introduction, the body of the essay should follow that outline. Having disclosed your plan of attack, keep your plan in mind as you write and keep your reader informed of where you are in your argument. Devices such as numbering your paragraphs ("Second, . . .") or using subtitles are helpful signposts for the weary reader! (You've probably guessed by now that this essay on essays is attempting to model such devices.) Don't worry that these devices will make your style "wooden." Believe me, clarity is rarely wasted on a reader! The conclusion should summarize your argument so as to leave the reader with the sense that you've achieved your purpose. This final paragraph should be neither labored nor abrupt. Just tell the reader what your findings have shown. Here's an example: Schleiermacher's emphasis on the universality of the "feeling" or awareness that he calls piety, coupled with his intention to redefine the traditional language of Christian theology so as to embody universal experiences rather than special or particular revelation, suggests that Christianity for him is but a subset of religion, and that the prior and more authentic category for Schleiermacher is in fact the latter of these two. "Christianity," therefore, is regarded as valid only when . . . [etc.] Sometimes it helps to write everything but the conclusion, then explain your findings to someone (roommate, spouse, significant other) who is not familiar with the issues. Such a discussion -- at any stage of reading and writing -- may clarify what the key issues and conclusions really are. III. ABOUT THE CONTENT OF YOUR ESSAY We come now to the most important part of your essay: its content. The essays assigned for this course are by no means research papers in the usual sense. That is to say, you're not being asked to compile the opinions of experts on a given question, then sort these opinions out and offer your own. Rather, the essays are to be "expositions" of a specific problem based on a limited amount of primary reading. It is the primary goal of these essays to encourage you to engage an author intensively on the basis of the author's text. Hence, it will always be crucial that you bear in mind this question: What does the text say? Every essay should bear an "exegetical" character (much as if you were exegeting scripture itself), in that the author's text is the final authority. Your task, then, is simply to answer the question assigned (paying attention to the terms and implications of the question) on the basis of the text assigned -- not on the basis of any secondary readings or authorities. Here it is especially important that you distinguish between the primary and secondary material in your textbooks! My own experience with student essays leads me to offer you here a brief excursus on this distinction. Secondary literature, for the record, consists of commentary on other authors' work. Hgglund is secondary literature. So is Henry Chadwick's introduction to Lessing on pp. 9-49 of Lessing's Theological Writings. So, for that matter, are the essays you will write for this course. Literature is to be considered "secondary" if it is not itself the main subject of the inquiry. I'm asking you to write (e.g.) about the theology of Wesley, not about Bengt Hgglund's comments on Wesley -- despite the fact that both are part of the course reading. (If I had assigned you to write on Hgglund's biases in favor of or against Wesley, then Hgglund's words would be the primary text, and Wesley would be virtually out of the picture.) The point is for you to study the original author. In the course of your own reading, you may find the secondary literature to be correct (or maybe incorrect) in its reading of the primary text. -3- Almost all of the primary sources I've assigned (that is, the material written by ancient or medieval authors) are preceded by this "secondary" material, namely, introductory material written by the modern editor whose name also appears on the book's title page. You're free to use such introductions (including Hgglund) to sharpen your own perception of what's going on in the primary text, but if you cannot document your insights from the primary text itself, you've missed the point of the assignment. Note also that while I prefer you to cite your primary texts parenthetically, e.g. (SW-49), if you feel that you simply can't resist citing the introductory material at some point, such citations must follow regular footnote form and clearly identify the modern editor or historian as the source of the insight.1 Mind you, citations of secondary authorities usually detract from this sort of assignment, since I will inevitably write this in the margin: "Fine, but where do you see this in the primary text?" It is important, then, that you not treat secondary literature as if it were primary literature. It is more important still, however, that you not treat secondary literature as if it were your own composition. I am not at all pleased when I read phrases, sentences, and sometimes whole paragraphs that are lifted (often with no significant changes) from these secondary authors and editors. If you use another author in any way, you must give him or her credit with a footnote in full. And if you're quoting even a brief phrase, you must put the author's words in quotation marks, in addition to giving a full footnote. To mislead your reader (me!) into thinking that what someone else has said is really your own composition is (a) destructive to the purpose of the exercise; (b) plagiarism; (c) dishonest; (d) a short route to a failing grade; and (e) all of the above. A good solution to the problem is to read the introductory (secondary) material, then set it aside. Use the primary text to prove your argument. I don't hold you accountable in these essays for insights that cannot be gleaned from the primary text, so don't worry if you don't sound as erudite as Henry Chadwick! Just be faithful to the primary text. If you simply must refer to the secondary literature, remember two things: (1) don't do it to impress me; (2) do use a full reference, in standard form, at the bottom of the page or at the end of the essay. Let us return to our main subject: the content of your essay. In answering the question assigned, your best bet is to spend some time analyzing the question -- even before you read the document -- in order to determine what the answer might look like. Break the question down into its components, into sub-questions. Try reversing the question: If you're trying to understand the relationship between revelation and history in Karl Barth, you also would do well to ask how the two are disjoined or unrelated. Keep all such questions in mind as you read the author's text and mark your margins accordingly. In addition, look for key terms and concepts, synonyms of those key terms and concepts, frequently used words, etc. Ask yourself as you read, "What's this author worried about?" That is to say (e.g., in the case of Barth), what is it about history that threatens to undermine So if you wanted, say, to quote Hgglund's account of Wesley's doctrine of sanctification (rather than quoting or paraphrasing Wesley yourself!), you should cite the full bibliographic data in a footnote. Similarly, if you're citing Lessing's own work (i.e., as a primary text), a parenthetic reference in the body of the text will do; but if you cite Chadwick's introduction, you must provide full bibliographic data in a footnote. Proper examples for Hgglund and Chadwick follow the present footnote as note 2 and note 3. If you find that you are unclear on correct footnote form, let me refer you to Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (sixth edition; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 318 pp., $14.00. This little book should fit nicely on your shelf next to Webster's Word Divider! 2 3 1 Bengt Hgglund, History of Theology (St. Louis: Concordia, 1968), p. 342. Henry Chadwick, Introduction to Lessing's Theological Writings (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1956), p. 22. -4- the effect of revelation? On the other hand (again, "reversing" the question), does Barth go so far as to repudiate the significance of history altogether? In setting forth your analysis of the question or problem, it is crucial to understand the distinction between an assertion and an argument -- and this distinction is crucial whether the "argument" at stake is your author's or your own! One key difference between an argument and an assertion is that an argument actually "goes" someplace, while an assertion just sits there. Similarly, an argument is more than a pile of evidence. Indeed, the only way to make your evidence of any value to the reader is for you to show how your supposed evidence logically supports or warrants a chain of reasoning that leads to the claim you wish the reader to accept. Please do not ask the reader to supply missing pieces of your argument, and please do not presume that "anyone can see" something that you've actually left unstated, however obvious it may seem to you. In other words, make the structure of the argument as explicit as you can, and attend to the presuppositions on which the argument is grounded. Your role in reading should be that of detective as you search for relevant facts and ferret out their interconnections. Then, as you compose your essay, your role changes to that of lawyer as you present your findings in an organized and persuasive manner, doing your best to re-present your author's thought in all its complexity. It may be that you find (or think you find) tensions, weaknesses, or even contradictions in a text. Don't be too quick to fault the author's logic or presentation when the problem may actually be in your own hasty reading. If you do find such problems in the text, you certainly should report on them if they pertain to your inquiry. Indeed, if you think you see places where an author is torn between two arguments or two agendas, by all means report your observation and document it with concise excerpts or references. You needn't "resolve" or "fix" the tensions in an author, though you may wish to offer an informed analysis of why the author felt constrained to hold on to both parts of a seeming or potential contradiction or paradox. Whatever you find, make your case with exquisite care and precise documentation -- again, as a lawyer would, bearing in mind that the jury (me) will be initially inclined to regard the author as innocent of your charges. Don't shoot from the hip! The one role I'm not asking you to assume is that of judge, at least insofar as that would involve patronizing or condemning your author for failing to grasp the sort of insights "that all Christians today would find elementary." That doesn't mean you shouldn't call attention to weaknesses or tensions or implications (whether curious or profound) of an author's argument or presentation, but I will expect you to argue for the validity of such observations on the basis of the author's text. Perhaps you will find it helpful to proceed on the analogy of exegeting a passage from Paul. Suppose you were assigned to write an essay on "What is Paul's understanding of `the law' in his epistle to the Romans?" You might rush off to find "the answer" in a commentary or in a dictionary of theology (= secondary literature!), but a better approach would be to read Romans yourself, first of all underlining every occurrence of "law," then noting the context in which each occurrence of the word is found and how that context serves to define what Paul means by "law" in various texts. You will soon observe that "law" bears a number of different definitions within Romans. Try analyzing, for example, the 23 occurrences of "law" found in Romans 7 alone! The point of this analogy is that a good "historical" exegesis will follow the same procedures that you should use in exegeting scripture, so that your argument will be based not on opinion, not on an outside authority, not on a stereotype or on a superficial reading, but on the solid evidence of the text itself. In presenting your case, do not fail to marshal as much evidence as you possibly can from the documents assigned. These are short papers, so there is not much room for lengthy quotations. Instead, paraphrase or quote key phrases -- and document the page where you found the phrase or -5- idea. If the idea, argument, or phrase is used in several places, put the additional page numbers in the parentheses as well, as (55, 66, 71). And heed this warning: it's easy to string quotes together to fill five pages, but your verbatim quotation is worthless if you haven't shown in your own words that you have understood and digested the significance of the passage cited. SO, IN CONCLUSION . . . It is my sincere hope that this brief narrative will help you to be less intimidated as you approach the task of reading (and writing about) the ideas of individuals who lie so many years distant. It is also my hope that you will re-read this essay periodically, and that you will not hesitate to seek personal help when beset with writer's block -- or reader's block! By way of conclusion, let me encapsulate my advice. As to format, the essay should consist of about 5 pages, printed double-spaced in a conventional 12-point font. Leave room for comments in your margins, number your pages, don't bother with fancy folders, and keep a copy of everything you hand in. As to the essay's style, good proofreading -- whether your own or that of a friend or your software -- will help ensure that your grammar, spelling, etc. clarify your arguments rather than obscure them. Spend time crafting your essay's outline and introduction with care, and the balance of your essay will follow with greater ease. Use signposts to direct the reader through the body of the essay, then look back with the reader over the ground you've covered. Lastly, as to content: In Karl Barth's farewell to his students at the University of Bonn shortly before his deportation from Nazi Germany, his closing statement was, "Exegesis, exegesis, and more exegesis!"4 Let this be the watchword of all your historical reading and writing as well: Exegete the text. Let the text speak. Give your authors the fairest hearing and the most diligent advocacy that you possibly can. See Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), p. 259. rev. 1/2007 4 -6- CH 505: PROSPECTUS for DIRECTED ESSAY #1 On the basis of the readings below, answer this question: What is John Wesley's doctrine of salvation? READINGS FOR ESSAY #1: John Wesley, "The Scripture Way of Salvation," in The Works of John Wesley (reprint of 1872 edition), 6:43-54. (12 pages on 7 sheets; abbreviate as "SW" + page) John Wesley, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection," in The Works of John Wesley (81 pages on 41 sheets; abbreviate as "PA" + page) (reprint of 1872 edition), 11:366-446. SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS: In writing an essay, it is crucial that you understand the question before you try to formulate an answer. If you are still puzzled about the assignment after reading the following remarks, ask your instructor for further clarification. "Salvation" is an exceedingly broad term. It can cover not only the moment or event of one's "conversion" or "justification" but also the entire process by which the God's likeness is restored in a human being -- which we usually describe as sanctification. In the case of John Wesley, as you will see, the broadest definition of salvation is just barely broad enough, yet Wesley can also use the term in a narrower sense as well. His doctrine of salvation is thus both subtle and complex. Your task in this essay is to analyze and describe Wesley's doctrine of salvation in all of its various aspects. Here, you would do well to sort out the successive stages of the typical Christian life according to Wesley, particularly since he distinguishes not only between believers and unbelievers, but also between Christians at various stages of their pilgrimage, from the babe in Christ to the Christian on the far side of death. Along the way, you will want to read the text with care so as to understand what Wesley means by "faith," and what role faith and works play in the typical Christian life. You will find that Wesley uses many of the usual theological terms in this discussion, and you should watch carefully to see how he defines them. What are the various relationships between justification, sanctification, salvation, perfection, and the reception of the Holy Spirit? According to Wesley, can a Christian lose salvation? Regain it? Naturally, given the title of the longer of these two treatises, you can probably guess that the question of perfection must be given special attention. How does perfection relate to salvation? Indeed, what are the various kinds of perfection Wesley mentions? Which are achievable? How, and when? In arguing that perfection is properly related to any sound doctrine of salvation, what arguments from scripture does Wesley employ? What other arguments are used? As in all the essays I assign, so here also I ask you not to presume to sit in judgment on Wesley's orthodoxy. But if you find tensions struggling within his work, you should attempt to demonstrate and document their existence. Even better, if you do find such tensions, see if you can discern why Wesley's theology seems to require such tensions; that is to say, what are the affirmations that he clearly treasures but that also seem to conflict? Those are my general suggestions for thinking about the assigned question. Let me add a few notes on special obscurities in the text. First, "A Plain Account" is really a compilation or anthology of many things that Wesley wrote on perfection over many years -- hence its repetitive character. You should not be surprised to find some inconsistency in terminology. Part of your task is to take this chronological aspect of Wesley's treatise into account. You'll also find some curious vocabulary, some of which is simply a matter of obsolete usage while other instances represent unfamiliar technical distinctions. Here are some to watch for: When Wesley refers to preventing grace, he is simply using "King James" English for what we now call prevenient grace -- the grace of God that acts on us before we are aware of it and thus "comes before" any conscious response on our part. When Wesley asks if the new birth is only a relative change or perhaps also a real change, he is correlating his discussion with the traditional distinction between imputed or forensic righteousness and infused or inherent righteousness. In other words, he is asking if the new birth merely changes our relationship to God insofar as we are still sinners but now also forgiven; or if the new birth also changes us "really" in the sense that our holiness is not a legal fiction but something real, so that we are really holier than before we were born anew. Wesley's distinction between the faith of adherence and the faith of assurance represents his engagement with the view of some of his contemporaries that one kind of faith was a faith that claimed no special religious experience but merely "adhered" to Christian beliefs and practices by going to church. This mild sort of faith would have described many Christians in the Church of England; only a few would likely have had (or wanted!) the sort of fervor that brought them personal assurance as well. Wesley does not like the received distinction and redefines it. At issue is the contest over whether being a Christian means making an orthodox confession or also having some sort of personal "religious" experience. That contest over Christian experience also explains yet one more special term that appears late in "A Plain Account," where Wesley refers to enthusiasm. Unlike most pastors today, who would love to have an enthusiastic congregation, Wesley is trying to distance himself from "enthusiasm" and "enthusiasts." That is because he's using this term in its technical sense, to refer to any outward manifestation of what we today might call "charismatic" phenomena, especially of the more extreme variety. Literally, the term enthusiasm means "God-possessed." Its etymological derivation is from en + theos (Greek for "in" + "God") and it implies that one has or claims to have God within oneself. The term roughly corresponds today to fanatic. rev. 1/2007 CH 505: PROSPECTUS for DIRECTED ESSAY #2 On the basis of the reading below, answer these two questions: What does Schleiermacher mean by "religion"? What is the relationship between religion and Christianity ? READINGS FOR ESSAY #2: Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, tr. John Oman (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1893), pp. 1-118. SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS: In writing any essay, it is crucial that you understand the question before you try to formulate an answer. If you are still puzzled about the assignment after reading the following remarks, ask your instructor for further clarification. If it is fair to describe Friedrich Schleiermacher as the founding father of liberal Protestantism, then one might also say that his Speeches -- two of which the present essay asks you to read -- constitute liberal Protestantism's "declaration of independence." To a generation of German intellectuals for whom Kant's critiques of religion had spelled religion's demise, the Speeches of Schleiermacher raised the hopeful possibility that there was more to religion than Kant had imagined. The Speeches of Schleiermacher are well worth reading today not only because they depict liberal Protestantism in its infancy, but also because Schleiermacher's approach to religion and Christianity is still alive and well in liberal Protestantism and Catholicism today. In grappling with the question of what Schleiermacher means by "religion" and how "religion" relates to Christianity, there is no shortage of data -- after all, religion is the focus of the entire work. But Schleiermacher is also aware that "religion" may signify many things, and he is careful to distinguish and define early on which of these options he has in mind. Thus, as you prepare your own account of what he means, you will do well to ponder the several ways Schleiermacher states what religion is not. For instance, what is the significance of his distinction between inner and outer religion? What does it add to his definition of religion when he asserts that neither science nor ethics can constitute the sum of religion? Why does he set these various options aside? What options remain, and why? (Please note well that the opening section of the second speech -- specifically, from p. 27 through about p. 34 or so -- is not primarily Schleiermacher's own position, but his review and critique of religion as understood by the "despisers" of his day.) Once you have followed Schleiermacher in paring away what religion is not, you will be ready to ponder what religion is. This aspect of our question is more subtle. You will quickly discover that, for Schleiermacher, both "piety" and "feeling" are close synonyms for "religion," but what does he have in mind? Schleiermacher defines this cluster of terms primarily in the first part of the second speech -- from p. 26 through p. 45, where he states that "the chief point in my speech is now uttered." Here, you will need to pay close attention to the various formulas and descriptions he offers in order to discover what he thinks comprises a moment of genuine religious feeling or piety. Your inquiry and analysis here may also be aided by some consideration of the purpose or "task" of religion, which Schleiermacher discusses in the second half of the second speech. Obviously, Schleiermacher's new and (he would claim) more precise definition of religion heavily stresses the place of "feeling." But what is this feeling? It's not mere sentimentalism! Here let me point out that pp. 26-45 is in many ways intended to guide your own reflection into an actual discovery or experience of the nature of that "feeling" or awareness. Whether or not you like (or even understand, at first reading) what Schleiermacher is describing, please do not be quick to dismiss him here -- I strongly suspect that you have indeed experienced what Schleiermacher is describing. Thus your understanding of the second speech will be facilitated if you allow yourself to be led by Schleiermacher in a meditation or reflection on exactly what the essence of "pious feeling" is. Schleiermacher's guidance is especially explicit and direct on pp. 41-44. As you turn to the other part of our question -- the relationship between religion in general and the particular teachings and practices of Christianity -- you should try to determine how far these two terms are synonyms, if at all. Given Schleiermacher's account of religion, what then is Christianity? In answering this question, is there a difference between Christian experience and Christian doctrine? Is there a difference between a moment of piety and our interpretation of that moment or experience? Part of the answer may lie in Schleiermacher's earlier distinction between inner and outer religion, but some other interesting clues appear in his "re-definitions" (or neologizing) of various theological terms and doctrines near the end of the second speech. At the risk of belaboring what I want you to address in the second question, let me stress that I am not asking you to critique Schleiermacher's account of religion according to historic Christianity so as to see if his view of religion fits your view of Christianity. We're after something closer to the opposite. That is to say, how does he think Christianity is or is not an expression of what he would regard as authentic religion or piety. Given that Schleiermacher was also a Christian pastor in the Christian church, he surely saw some things in Christianity that he would have regarded as valuable and authentic, along with spurious things that ought to be discarded or discredited. In other words, you will surely have seen in the Speeches that, depending on one's definition, religion can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing. The same is true for Christianity. Explain how Schleiermacher draws this distinction, and illustrate the distinction with a few examples of how he thinks we ought to explain the teachings and practices of Christianity to ourselves and to those outside the faith. A POSTSCRIPT CONCERNING THIS EDITION OF THE SPEECHES: The edition of the Speeches which we are using is a translation of the third edition (1821). The notes at the end of each speech represent Schleiermacher's own reflections on (and, in some cases, his defense and/or retraction of) his original work of some twenty-two years earlier. One advantage of this is that we get glimpses of both the old and the young Schleiermacher. In any case, if the notes sometimes seem to disagree with the main text, it is simply because Schleiermacher has come to moderate or refine his earlier views. As you will see, one accusation to which he is particularly sensitive is that his Speeches of 1799 were essentially pantheistic. rev. 1/2007 CH 505: PROSPECTUS for DIRECTED ESSAY #3 Based on the readings below, compare and contrast Barth and Harnack on these two questions: What role should history and historical concerns properly play in arriving at an understanding of the Bible's message? What are the requirements (methods, goals, etc.) of good exegesis? READINGS FOR ESSAY #3: Karl Barth, "Foreword to the First, Second, and Third Editions of The Epistle to the Romans," in James M. Robinson, ed., The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology, vol. 1 (John Knox, 1968), pp. 61-62, 88-99, 126-130. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (Oxford, 1933), pp. 27-42. "The Debate on the Critical Historical Method: Correspondence between Adolf von Harnack and Karl Barth," in James M. Robinson, ed., The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology, vol. 1 (John Knox, 1968), pp. 165-187. SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS: In writing any essay, it is crucial that you understand the question before you try to formulate an answer. If you are still puzzled about the assignment after reading the following remarks, ask your instructor for further clarification. The two questions for this essay may rightly be viewed as aspects of the far broader problem of the relationship between revelation and history. In speaking of "the proper role of history," however, the present essay is primarily considering the proper role of the historical-critical method. At the outset it should be noted that although this method came to full flower only in the 19th century, it is both acknowledged and used by nearly all students of scripture today, liberals and conservatives alike. In brief, modern historical criticism employs a two-stage method. First, historical criticism acknowledges the distance between interpreter and text by recognizing that every biblical text is the product of a culture and tongue foreign to us. Then, historical criticism attempts "to bridge the gap between interpreter and ancient text by relating [the text] to a particular history. . . . Thus the historical-critical method helps to establish both distance from and intimacy with the [text], two factors which are essential to a dialogue in which both interpreter and text are given voices."1 While this procedure differs little from the method Harnack used and defended, historians of the nineteenth century were more "positivist" in their assumptions, believing that this method -- and only this method -- could provide an "objective" understanding of an ancient text. Still, as a recent critic has noted, one byproduct of such firm belief in the adequacy of their method was that these nineteenth-century historians were thereby rendered "largely . . . incapable of appreciating the category of revelation."2 1 2 Gene M. Tucker, Foreword to The Historical-Critical Method by Edgar Krentz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), p. v. Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, p. 30 (a useful survey of the development of historical criticism). Few theological opponents have ever been as diverse in personality and in presuppositions as Adolf Harnack and Karl Barth. From Barth's perspective, Harnack epitomized the nineteenth century's confidence in historical criticism as the key to an objective (and optimistic!) understanding of history. But Barth saw Harnack's optimism as unwarranted and his confidence as unfounded, as proved (again, for Barth) by Harnack's public endorsement of Kaiser Wilhelm's "war policy" in August 1914 -- an endorsement that included a flimsy and ludicrous denial of German aggression at the outset of World War I. From Harnack's perspective, however, Barth's theology (as seen in The Epistle to the Romans) was a throwback to an irrational, subjectivist age -- an age in which theology and exegesis were determined not by a controlled or objective analysis of the text of scripture, but at best by confessional or denominational partisanship. You will discover early on when reading the exchange of letters between Harnack and Barth that both are concerned that the New Testament be read as it "ought" to be read, in order that the "good news" of the gospel message not be obscured by alien ideas. But exactly what that good news is, and precisely how an exegete or theologian should go about the task of recovering the "real" meaning of the Bible -- here, Barth and Harnack do not agree at all! Your task, then, is to document and analyze their disagreement. The first question centers on the role of the historical-critical method in reading scripture. The teachings of Jesus and Paul are, obviously, part of history. How do we recover these teachings from the past, and how can we be sure that we have understood correctly what Jesus or Paul meant to say? As you might expect, Harnack is wary of those who claim that the message of the Bible is either utterly self-evident or else known only by pious experience -- why? What is it that "historical knowledge and critical reflection" provide that Harnack deems so crucial? To be sure, Barth will also grant that there is a positive contribution to be made by historical criticism, but he is not at all willing to give this method such freedom in dictating the results of theology and exegesis. What benefits of historical criticism does Barth have in mind? What are the limitations of historical criticism? Why, for example, does Barth say (in Romans) that "the historical critics must be more critical to suit me!"? The second question (on the requirements of good exegesis) doesn't necessarily differ from the first. But it may be helpful to you to remember that a "historical" reading of scripture -- however clinical or technical that may sound -- may not be any different from what you are doing when you review a few commentaries or lexicons in order to prepare a sermon or Bible study. If the point of a sermon is to present the meaning of a text, what advice would Barth or Harnack offer? Are historical aids (e.g. lexicons, commentaries) helpful? Are they hindrances? What other factors -- that is, other than knowing historical "background" -- are involved in exegeting scripture? What, for that matter, is the point of reading scripture? What does scripture intend to offer us? Suggested abbreviations for footnoting Barth material in essay #3: B = Barth's correspondence with Harnack R = Barth's Epistle to the Romans H = Harnack's correspondence with Barth If you wish to cite other syllabus materials, use these abbreviations: GC = German Christians' Platform (note that this is not by Barth!) BD = Barmen Declaration CD = Church Dogmatics: A Selection rev. 1/2007 CH 501 503 505 Historical Theology John L. Thompson, Instructor GRADING STANDARDS what letter grades mean in my courses, particularly on the directed essays, and what you have to do to earn them One of the most recent developments in the faculty's assessment and review of courses taught at Fuller Theological Seminary has been the move to help students understand how specific grades are assigned. To that end, I'm placing in your hands the guidelines that I've long used to help my assistants identify an essay's strengths or weaknesses so that they can pass that diagnosis along to you in ways designed to foster improvement. Writing is hard work. But writing is also an effective way to force your thoughts to take shape. When you write thoughts down, you put them in a fixed and public form that can be read and examined by others. In order to write well, you have to think well about what you read, and that means you will have to read (and re-read) with care. If you've read my little treatise, "What I Want from Your Directed Essays," you'll know that my goal is for you read primary texts and articulate the author's views with clarity and precision -- to which I might also add fairness, which I think these terms imply. These are all habits worth cultivating, not only for the sake of your writing (which itself can shape your speaking, teaching, preaching, and even counseling) but also for the sake of your listening skills. PRECISION means you have noticed and explained the finer distinctions on which an author's argument often turns. It may also mean that you recognize which arguments are more central than others, or that you have seen and described the interconnections and implications of the author's arguments. CLARITY is related to precision. It means that your paraphrases or explanations of the text lead the reader to understand the author more clearly, without a shift in focus. Note that long quotations are no substitute for your own digest of what an author is saying, because quoting an author does not demonstrate that you yourself have understood the text. FAIRNESS doesn't mean you agree with your author, nor that you cover up tensions you may observe in an author's argument. Instead, it means you act as the author's spokesperson, keeping faith by not treating the text with prejudice, condescension, or "attitude." Most of your grade rests on whether your essay embodies these qualities, but the grade is also affected by the way your mechanics and argumentation contribute to clarity and precision. That is to say, a clear and cogent outline strengthens the essay, even as it is crucial that you show how your observations and analysis derive from specific textual references. There is, of course, no such thing as a perfect essay. Nonetheless, "excellent" essays will display most of these qualities most of the time and will thus fall somewhere in the A range. "Good" essays will display these qualities well enough to represent the basic shape of an author's text and views with fairness and accuracy, and will thus fall in the B range. Every student essay begins at the mark of B, which is my default setting, insofar as it is my hope and expectation that every essay will display a basic and accurate grasp of the material. An essays moves up from this starting-point to the degree that it adds greater precision and clarity; down, if it misreads or distorts the text or simply fails to answer the question. An addendum on the actual marks (comments) on your essay My assistants and I will do our best to give feedback on your essay in a way that is meant to "coach" you towards better writing -- towards greater clarity and precision. Here are the sorts of remarks you can expect to see on your essays, depending on what sort of coaching we see as appropriate: A A B+ B B C+ EXCELLENT Excellent, but ... you could have clarified ___, or pushed for more detail on ___, or explained the relationship between ___ and ___, or added some consideration of ___. Very good on all the basic positions / arguments / features. You could push your essay further by addressing [A guidelines]. GOOD: a competent / adequate grasp of the basic positions / arguments / features. You could push your essay further by addressing [A guidelines]. Good on many / most of the basic positions / arguments / features ... but some important points were omitted / muddled / unclear / erroneous. A commendable EFFORT or initial ATTEMPT to grasp the arguments of the author, but there are serious omissions / unclarities / flaws / mistakes / problems and/or there are mechanical / linguistic flaws that render parts of the paper and its arguments difficult to follow. Same as C+, but judgment pertains not just to parts of the essay but to most of it. It looks like you've read the assigned material, but you have not adequately grasped or represented crucial aspects of the question and/or the author(s) assigned, namely, ___; OR, you've done something that was not asked for instead of the assigned essay. It is not clear that you have read the material, OR it is hard to tell that you have grasped either the assigned question or the arguments of the author(s), OR your essay has committed some form of plagiarism. C C F At the end of the day, if you are unhappy with your grade, your first recourse should be to study the comments on your paper and take them seriously. You can consult with me if you wish, but you might also take advantage of the Writing Center here at Fuller Seminary. Please be assured that I know that many students find these essays difficult! I do have a high standard for your writing, but it is only because I want you to use words well in your service of the gospel. In any age, alas, the Christian church has rarely suffered from too much careful thinking or too much thoughtfulness in its public expression. My goal in these assignments is to help you raise that standard and so become a better theologian. CH 501 503 505 Historical Theology John L. Thompson, Instructor CONCERNING LATE ASSIGNMENTS It has always struck me as inappropriate that a student's paper be marked down for lateness if the lateness is due to circumstances which could not be controlled or anticipated. The essays for this course, however, are not merely exercises to be performed in solitude; rather, they form the basis for some in-class discussion, and they also lay a foundation for my own lecture on the topic. To write the essay yet miss the class discussion and lecture (because you were at home, typing your essay) diminishes the value of the assignment. To write or submit the essay after we have discussed the subject in class is rather unfair to your classmates, who had no such advantage. It is also unkind to your instructor and your teaching assistants. We do our very best to grade and return the essays to you before you write the next assignment. Late essays make this much harder. Moreover, if you have ever graded essays, you will know that grading a single essay apart from a batch of essays takes twice as long and is more subjective than grading it alongside its peers.) So, concerning essay assignments, this is my policy: 1. Papers are due at the beginning of the class for which they are assigned. This means both you and your paper are expected to be in the classroom when class is scheduled to start. 2. Papers submitted after class discussion of the essay has begun -- but which are delivered to the instructor (including e-mail attachments) no more than four hours after the day's class -- will be accepted, but such papers will be penalized by HALF A GRADE POINT, regardless of circumstances, unless you contacted the instructor and made such an arrangement in advance of the deadline. 3. Papers submitted more than four hours after the day's class will be accepted up to one week late, though such papers will be penalized by ONE FULL GRADE POINT, regardless of circumstances, unless you contacted the instructor and made such an arrangement in advance of the deadline. 4. Papers submitted more than a week after the due date will not be given credit and the score for the essay will be computed as a ZERO. Students may pass the course with one missed essay, assuming other work is satisfactorily completed and submitted in timely fashion, but two essays scored as a zero will constitute grounds for a failing grade. I know you have obligations outside this course, and I know that emergencies arise. If you inform me of such circumstances in advance, I will do my best to advise and accommodate your circumstances. But think of these assignments as you would a sermon for Sunday morning, or an airplane reservation. The best sermon is of little value if the preacher shows up at noon. Likewise, if you arrive late for a plane, the ticket agent is unlikely to be moved by a plea that "I didn't know it would take me so long to pack!" 5. Finally, all students (and particularly those who are taking this course on a CR/NC basis) are advised that I expect all assignments to be completed in good faith for credit to be granted for the course. Incompletes are not granted except in cases of severe illness or family emergency. Poor planning, church duties, and other coursework are not considered grounds for granting incompletes. Please spare me the grief of having to impose grade penalties. Don't leave your essays to the last minute, always back up your files, and "just say no" to schedule conflicts. If your life begins to fall apart during the course of this term, please don't wait until finals week to let me know! rev. 1/2006 CH 501 503 505 Historical Theology John L. Thompson, Instructor HOW TO STUDY FOR THE FINAL EXAM The historical theology sequence, as I teach it, seeks to survey the development of doctrine in the church from the first century through the present day. Even though we cover a lot of data, you should have no trouble on the exam if you study regularly and with a strategy in mind. Here are some suggestions: First, recognize that the exam will test most heavily on lecture material, followed by primary sources. Secondary readings (e.g. Hgglund) are intended to supplement lectures and to support your readings of the primary sources. Because some students (by permission) substitute other secondary readings, don't expect to be tested on the peculiarities of Hgglund. Second, since lecture material is most crucial, you should commit yourself not only to attend the lectures and take notes, but also to review your notes after each lecture -- even ten minutes' reflection will help! As you look over the outlines, the supporting quotations, and your notes from any given lecture, try to apply one or more of these strategies: Although a lecture may fill as much as four classroom hours, virtually every lecture still has but one or two major points to make. Using the outlines provided (as well as my in-class comments), try to identify the main points. Frankly, there are not really more than a handful of good essay questions that one might ask; try making up a question, then answer it. In almost every lecture it is necessary to draw distinctions on the way to explaining a doctrine or argument. These distinctions are what we call technical terms. There are rarely even half a dozen per lecture; often these terms (or pairs of terms) appear on the outline. Pay attention to them! They are terrific "hooks" on which to hang information. They might show up on an exam just as they appear on an outline, as terms to identify. But they might also be "embedded" in a quotation, implicitly or explicitly; or they might form one of the "building blocks" for an answer to a longer essay question. If you learn these terms well, you can adapt your knowledge to a variety of questions. Pay special attention also to the quotations discussed in the course of the lecture. (Some of these are in the syllabus; others are drawn from the required reading.) Just as the directed essays for the course ask you to explain a document, so on the final exam you should explain the content of a quotation by interpreting what the quote actually says -- not by rehearsing what you may have memorized about its author. Bear in mind, too, that over the entire term we will not be reading (or quoting) from all that many authors. If you make a list, you'll see that there are probably fewer than twenty writers, and even these are focused on rather specific topics. Finally, bear in mind that my exams feature lots of choice. Usually I ask students to write essays on three questions out of twenty-five or more. This means you can probably pick your way around areas of ignorance, if you are aware of where you're strong and where you're weak. I want to test you at your strongest points, not trap you with tricks. In other words, it's better to know some things well than to know everything superficially. Take time when you begin the exam to choose your questions with care, then map out your answers. Remember that in your final exam, as with all assignments in my courses, the first measure of your answers will always be their clarity -- clarity of understanding and clarity of presentation. If you need help in attaining such clarity before the exam, by all means let me know. rev. 1/2006 At the November 2001 meeting of the faculty of the School of Theology, it was voted to include this statement as part of every course syllabus. Please read it now. If there is anything you do not understand, contact your instructor as soon as possible, for you will be held to these standards. Academic Integrity Commitment At the beginning of this course we, as faculty and students, reaffirm our commitment to be beyond reproach in our academic work as a reflection of Christian character. We commit to honesty in all aspects of our work. We seek to establish a community that values serious intellectual engagement and personal faithfulness more highly than grades, degrees, or publications. Students are expected to review and understand the commitments to academic integrity as printed in the Student Handbook and the Seminary catalog. Some infractions can be addressed by personal confrontation and corrective counsel. The following violations of these commitments will be firmly addressed formally: Submitting the same work in whole or in part in more than one course without the permission of the professor(s); Submitting as one's own work paper(s) obtained from another source; Plagiarism: unattributed quotations or paraphrases of ideas from published, unpublished, or electronic sources; Unpermitted collaboration in preparing assignments; Cheating on exams by any means; Aiding another student on papers and tests in violation of these commitments. Any of these violations will result in a failing grade on the assignment and possibly in the course, and will be reported to the Academic Integrity Group, which may impose further sanctions in accordance with the Academic Integrity Policy. Evidence of repeated violations will result in a formal disciplinary process. For the full statement on Academic Integrity see the Appendices section of the Fuller Academic Catalog, available online at: Implementation of the academic integrity policy is administered by the Academic Integrity Group (AIG), a committee comprised of three faculty members, one from each of the three schools. E-mail contact for AIG: rev. 1/2006 CH 505: POST-REFORMATION & MODERN THEOLOGY Spring Quarter, 2007 John L. Thompson, Instructor This survey requests your address and phone numbers in case I need to contact you; the other questions are designed to help me become better acquainted with you. All information will be kept confidential and you are free to leave any or all questions blank. I would also appreciate it if you would take time now, before you turn in this survey, to read the academic integrity commitment (on the back of this sheet or on the previous page) and, after you have read it, check this box: `. Thank you! Name:__________________________________________________ Home Phone: ( _____ ) _____-___________ Address:________________________________________________ Cell Phone: ( _____ ) _____-____________ City-State-Zip:___________________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________ College, major, & year of graduation:_________________________________________________________________ Denominational background / affiliation:______________________________________________________________ Present occupation:______________________________________________________________________________ How many other courses Degree program at Fuller:_______________________________________ have you taken at Fuller? ____________ Career goal and/or why are you taking this course? _____________________________________________________ What church history or theology courses have you taken? _______________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Anything else I should know about? _________________________________________________________________ . . . A Special Request Part of my work as a faculty member here at Fuller Theological Seminary entails regular self-assessment of my courses. To that end, I need to assemble an "assessment portfolio" that includes samples of student work. This portfolio is not made public, but because it is subject to examination by administrators and external accreditors, these sample essays and exams are carefully "anonymized" by me to remove all identifying information. However, I still need signed consent from students whose work I retain for this purpose. Would you be willing to allow my to retain copies of your work, anonymously, as part of this portfolio? If you are NOT willing, check this box ` (just so I know you read the previous paragraph). If you ARE willing, please check this box `, sign here: __________________________ and print your name below your signature: __________________________ ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online