Theology and Liverpool

Re: Still more language griping

.................................

I think Latin would be the most advantageous third language to acquire for me with my interest in historical theology. Still the Biblical languages are a most useful tool. Nor must they be 'mastered' for much benefit to follow.

Dave, I suggest you look at Burk's paper above. That is the product of a ThMMER. Any Western MDiv grad can understand and critique it( I hope). Its topic is vital to Christology or trinal relations and highly relevant to the ongoing debate re functional subordination. I would like any with a UK BA in Theology to evaluate that paper. That's my challenge!

 

Hey Bill,

Well, I certainly agree with your concern about the languages being understood and effectively applied. I'm sure that you and I could not agree on that more.

What's even harder, though, is explaining to people the value of using it. It feels almost like trying to explain what something tastes like. Most will not learn the languages because they think it's not useful, or takes too much time. I lament that the whole community so often, in my experience, jettisons the value for the closest reading of the text for utility.

I agree with you that the MDiv probably knows more, has been exposed to more stuff and probably has tons of useful tools. I would agree with you, though, that the MA model is pretty much better overall.

I guess I would recommend that people do what I did, get an education in the languages first (Greek minor, college; Hebrew major, MA), and then take some theology courses on the side before applying to do research.

Thanks for your passion to carry the languages Bill. May as few students as possible get stuck in the MA, MDiv, ThM, PhD route as possible!!

Blessings to you,

Chris

 

-----------------------



I agree with Unk here. I am not meaning to find fault in the UK program at this level or in those who persue such. The essence of my responses are:

1) The UK thM and the US thM are dissimilar in prerequisites, in length and in outcome. This is no fault of the grads. The US program may well be 'overkill.'

2) One normally could not achieve in 5 years what another achieves in 8 regardless of where he/she does schooling.

3) There is value in requiring the Biblical languages for grad work in theology as these significantly enable research. This would be my criticism against some USA programs as well. Anyone who wishes to argue this point is invited to critique Burk's article above ,written at a USA (Dallas) ThM level , which, as it concerns trinal relations and an interpretation of a vital Christological passage, is quite crucial to any discussion of Christian Theology.


Again congratulations to Malcolm and to Cory.

 

Congratulations, Malcolm. But I thought Liverpool theology degrees were completed via Trinity in Indiana.

 

Re: Re: Theology and Liverpool

At last someone has picked up why I started this thread. I will be able to give more information about the degree certificate after I receive it on March 7th next year.

Malcolm

 

The answer is quite simple!

Many British institutions of higher education that do not have the power to award their own degrees, or may be in the process of seeking such powers, often ask their local/regional university to 'validate' the degree programmes. When a stiudent successfully completes the course of study the local/regional university confers the degree. In the Case of Chester College, it is a relativerly old Church of England college that was originally set up to train school teachers. Since its establishment it has widen (like all the old CofE teacher training colleges) its overall offerings and most now include non-teaching programmes and credentials. Liverpool validates Chester College's programmes.

Aside from this basic point, a personal view is that many of the smaller colleges of higher education that have received, or are seeking, their own degree granting powers are shooting themselves in the foot. The future of British higher education, largely governed by interference from central government, will be based on strategic federal allicances between institutions and I am of the opinion that the smaller colleges stand a much better chance of survival as part of a larger local/regional university pattern of higher education.


'telfax'

 

Telfax

Your UK style insights are appreciated. South Africa seems to also do that. But the Trinity arrangement with Liverpool is not like these.

 

Bill,

Sorry-I've been away from my computer through the weekend. I appreciate your dialogue.

I thought you'd be interested to have a look at the Spurgeon's BD curriculum:

YEAR 1 SYLLABUS
SEMESTER 1
The Biblical World
Basic Greek or Introduction to Paul
Leadership and Teamwork
Context of Mission
The Practice of Theology
Introduction to Mission
Basic Preaching Skills
Leading Public Worship
SEMESTER 2
Credits Module
Basic Hebrew or Old Testament Prophetic Literature
Intermediate Greek or John's Gospel in English
Doctrine & Practice in the Early Church
Aspects of Leadership in the Old Testament
Defining the Church
Spirituality
Pastoral Theory & Practice

YEAR 2 SYLLABUS
SEMESTER 1
Models of Atonement
Pentateuch in Hebrew or in English
Luke's Gospel in Greek or in English
Reformation Church History
Contemporary Society
Christian Ethics
Alternative World Views
SEMESTER 2
Old Testament writing in Hebrew or in English
A Pauline Epistle in Greek or in English
Doctrine of the Spirit
Modern Church History
Communication & Hermeneutics
Pastoral Care & Counsel

YEAR 3 SYLLABUS
Modules to the total of 120 credits from . . .
Biblical Hermeneutics
Advanced Hebrew Texts
Old Testament Theology
Old Testament Narrative
Book of Revelation
New Testament Christology
Advanced Greek Texts (Book of Acts)
Church & Sacraments
Faith & Reason
Pluralist Religious Context
Transforming Ministry
Educating the Church
Dissertation


As I mentioned earlier, this is a "first degree," which means that it does not require a prior qualification in theology. In this respect, it is very much like the American MDiv. You'll notice that students are provided the option of pursuing this degree with languages or strictly with English Bible. This is very much like what is happening (though I agree that it is most unfortunate) with many American MDiv programs recently (e.g., our denomination's seminary in Sioux Falls, SD). I once had an interesting discussion with a retired classics professor from Spurgeon's who was lamenting the departure of the days when competency in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin was required as a prerequisite for ENTRY into the BD!

Of course, as you mention, some students come to the MDiv with a prior background in theology, although this is not required. Conceivably, students could come to the BD with a similar background. However, in both cases, such a background generally is neither assumed or required. Thus, both ThM and MTh generally follow a minimum of three solid years of theological preparation. While some American students may have more, this cannot rightly be represented as the required norm. At most institutions, an MDiv holder with an undergraduate degree in Bible will not necessarily receive preferential treatment over an MDiv holder with an undergraduate degree in engineering when decisions are being made with regard to ThM admission. This is so because the 3 years of MDiv preparation constitute the core consideration for ThM admission committees. Of course, this also rings true with the DMin.

You suggest that the MA might be a better example of a "first degree" than the MDiv. However, this depends on which MA one means. Some MA's, like Covenant Seminary's MA in General Theological Studies, do not require prior studies in theology, and thus can be rightfully understood as a "first degree" in theology. Others, however, such as Providence Theological Seminary's MA degrees in Theology or New Testament, require a background in Bible, Theology, and Biblical Languages, and thus cannot be referred to as "first degrees." This being so, the MDiv actually provides a more consistent example of a "first degree" in theology than the MA.

Interestingly enough, I was told that only about 5% of all Baptist Union of Great Britain pastors ever gain a master's level degree. This being so, if there were not some level of equivalency between the BD and the American MDiv, the vast majority of British Baptist pastors would be grossly underprepared when compared to their American counterparts. However, my experience (and, again, this is only my experience) has demonstrated a reality quite to the contrary.

By no means do I wish to attempt to fuel contention. Bill, please understand that I don't come to this discussion with anything at stake emotionally. I simply relish a good debate. So, I thought I'd add these thoughts to spur things on. Blessings! I'll look forward to your response.

Cory Seibel

 

Cory not SA...I meant, rather than debating about the virtues of
the UK BD vs the US MDiv/Thm, perhaps you'd like to discuss whether either program, or any grad program intending to produce Biblical expositors including ensuing doc work as well, can be done effectively without employing the Biblical languages.

 

Bill,

I think that the role of original languages in theological education is an important issue. However, it really is far more complex than "languages: to be or not to be?" I am of the impression that the differences in value afforded the original languages, in part, reflect differing definitions of "theology." For instance, members of the conservative evangelical camp of theology tend to think in terms of theology being born out of historico-grammatical textual analysis. It is a rather purely systematic, text-based discipline. The operative question is "What does the text say?" Thus, the study of languages is deemed to be of the utmost importance. Furthermore, this provides a justification for coursework in "diagrammatical analysis," which Dr. Paul Fink first introduced at Grace Seminary, and which now is a regular part of the curriculum at Master's Seminary and Liberty.

However, as you know, in other corners of the larger theological community, theology is being defined differently. Some see it as a "correlative" process, or a "dialogical" one. In these settings, the biblical text is viewed differently in relation to the whole process of "doing theology." As a result, the role of the biblical languages is also viewed differently.

We are told that postmodernism has fragmented society to the point where we no longer share a common "language" that enables us to communicate with common meaning. I think that this issue provides a keen example of this reality. We can't really speak of the value of original languages to doing theology until we agree upon the definition of theology. Unfortunately, a universally agreed upon definition does not exist; thus, an ecumenical discussion regarding the components of proper theological training is hindered.

Fortunately, Bill, you and I seem to agree, by-and-large, about the definition of theology. Thus, I share your concern about the role of languages. I certainly hope that I haven't given you the impression that I think otherwise. As the BD curriculum shared above demonstrates, in the British system, BD students are provided the opportunity to engage in advanced exegesis in the original languages. My arguments on their behalf were contingent upon this awareness.

My apologies for suggesting that some sort of debate was in play here. Your two previous posts in which you sought to dissect and respond to my observations led me to draw the mistaken impression that you were debating me. Blessings!

Cory Seibel