seminary, week one

This is a short reflection on my first week of seminary. It is for the purposes of synthesizing what I learned and there is no need for anyone to read it but me. But I figured I'd post it anyway. 

 

My Intro to Theological Research and Writing class is going to save my life this semester. It is an incredibly practical class covering just that: how to do theological research and how to write theologically. 

 

Over the course of the semester, we will write one research paper on a controversial topic in our local faith community. I have chosen the topic: "In the context of youth ministry, when does charismatic/emotionally-charged worship cross the line from emotionally healing to emotionally damaging?" It is a rather heavy topic, but one that I hope will be enlightening.

 

There were two helpful lists in our readings, one that covered questions to ask when writing any theological assignment, and one that covered questions to ask when doing a research assignment. 

 

My second class of the week was Old Testament Interpretation. We looked at the text of Genesis 1-2 as A) a dialogic text, and B) as a remix of other sources. 

 

We talked about the fact that whatever God did in creation is larger than a single narrative, which shows us that God is not able to be contained by a single narrative. (I am fascinated by the insistence of scholars that we should obviously understand these texts as not literal, because I grew up being taught the opposite.)

 

Our assignment this week was to choose one of the two creation narratives which would remain canon, and to defend why it should be chosen over the other. I really enjoyed the assignment (except that it's really hard to flesh out an argument in 250 words)!

 

In Historical Witness, we examined the Didache, and the writing on the matyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua. We also learned about the backdrop upon which this early Christian church history was happening. 

 

Some important concepts to keep in mind:  

• Water was the easiest mode of transport in Christ's lifetime, so the Roman empire (and the Greek empire before that) was molded around the Mediterranean Sea. 
• Koine Greek was the common language in that time, thanks to Alexander the Great's conquest.
• Religion looked almost nothing like we think it did in the ancient world (most classical paganism was very local, tied to the land and the household gods). 
• Around the time of Christ, religion and politics become intertwined, thanks to Octavian (who called himself "pontifex maximus").
• Judaism's identity wasn't set in stone around this early church formation time; it went through a good deal of transformation in the first century. 
• the first five centuries of church history may be known as the era of "the undivided church," but it actually was a period of very intense division. 

We discussed the significance of the Sacraments and Eschatology in the Didache, as well as the way Christianity was learning to define itself as separate from Judaism, while borrowing the "mental furniture" of the faith. 

 

We talked about the incredible weirdness of the story of Felicity and Perpetua and how the text defied and subverted many expectations of the culture. Defiance against patriarchy, against Rome as controller, against heady philosophical ways of being. It is a *very* earthy text. 

 

Finally, Nicaea and Chalcedon started this morning. It is easily my most conceptual class and one that I am still wrapping my head around. 

 

Some of Dr. Sonderegger's initial thoughts on Trinity:  

• Apophatic vs. kataphatic theology: apophatic meaning "we can't say anything true of God because God is beyond words" and kataphatic meaning "there are absolutely true (and false) things we can say/know about God" 
• A criticism of the apophatic view is that one can't exactly be wrong about Trinity because one can never be right either
• A criticism of the kataphatic view is that there is a danger in saying too much 
• There are several predications of God (how we attribute true statements of God): the univocal, the equivocal, and the analogical - e.g. saying Jesus weeps, so God weeps is univocal, whereas saying Jesus weeps and God weeps is equivocal. 

We then began to discuss the council of Nicaea and the Nicene creed. We discussed the one God of Christianity as also being the creator, the significance of monotheism, and how to understand the "eternally begotten" clause. (These correspond to Marcion, Sabellius, and Arius) 

 

Thinking of the Trinity is a rather heady task for me, but one that I will attempt briefly. 

 

We understand God as creator. We understand Jesus as "eternally begotten" of the Father, therefore proceeding from the Father, but with the modifier of "eternal." (I think of Lewis' examples of the book resting on another book for eternity.) 

 

The bishops in the council argued that the "begetting" does not refer to Christ as a temporal creature, and thus the word must be modified by the term "eternal." This portion of the creed was designed to deny all of Arius' claims. 

 

That's as far as we made it in the creed in class today, so I shall wrap up here. I look forward to next week's readings and classes, and I think there is much for me to learn this semester!