ST 2488 THEOLOGY 2: INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, PART 2 Spring 2019 Tuesdays, 2:10–5:00, Tucson Common Room Scott MacDougall, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Theology smacdougall@cdsp.edu Parsons Hall 216 Kai Moore LeFranc, M.Div. Teaching Assistant kmlefranc@gmail.com Study day: Friday Overview This course is the second in a two-course sequence that introduces students to the core topics and methods of Christian systematic theology. Although special emphasis is placed on the Anglican tradition, students encounter the central theologians and theological perspectives necessary for an adequate foundation in Christian theology. For non-Anglican students, Anglican-specific readings may be replaced with appropriate material from the student’s own tradition, at the discretion of the instructor. In this final course, the theological topics considered are: church, sacraments, eschatology, Christianity’s relationship to other religions, hermeneutics, and theological method. The course is taught as a mixture of lecture and seminar, with the instructor presenting material at the start of each session that is then discussed by the class. Active participation in class discussion, writing assignments consisting of responses to class readings, and three short synthesis papers, also based on class readings, are the central requirements. Curricular Learning Outcomes This course, while addressing a number of the learning outcomes of the CDSP M.Div. curriculum, especially emphasizes the following: • Learning Outcome 1.1.1: Students will articulate in critically reflective ways how and why views of Scripture have evolved over time and in a variety of contexts, serving as the foundation of Christian understandings of mission, especially in the Anglican tradition. • Learning Outcome 2.1.5: Students will demonstrate understanding and practical use of a variety of methods of theological reflection in their own practice of ministry leadership, and in relation to the life of Christian communities. • Learning Outcome 3.1.6: Students will show the capacity to engage with sources and resources in the Anglican tradition and beyond, in order to formulate their own critically reflective theologies of the place of evangelism in God’s mission, in relation both to those who are willing to receive the Gospel and those who are not. The course also addresses a number of learning outcomes of the MTS curriculum, especially: • Learning Outcome 1.1.1: Students will articulate in critically reflective ways how and why views of Scripture have evolved over time and in a variety of contexts, serving as the foundation of Christian understandings of mission, especially in the Anglican tradition. • Learning Outcome 2.1.5: Students will demonstrate understanding and practical use of theological reflection in pursuing their own vocations. • Learning Outcome 3.1.2: Students will demonstrate skills in developing contextually sensitive and authentic language, practices, and strategies for witness and evangelism that are usable in a variety of settings, with particular attention to the challenges of the post-colonial and inter-religious context. Course Learning Objectives Students who complete this course successfully will be able to: • • • • • Identify questions, figures, and concepts that are central to the discipline of systematic theology Articulate the role that systematic theology plays in the life of Christian faith and discipleship Express theological ideas in a critical, scholarly, and coherent manner Address urgent questions posed by church and society in theological terms at a basic level Employ the resources of systematic theology in beginning to develop and defend a theological perspective that both informs and is informed by a larger vocational practice Bibliography NOTE: You will be supplied with electronic versions of all texts except those set in bold type, which you are expected to obtain for yourself. Recommended reference: González, Justo L. Essential Theological Terms. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Everyone should have a good theological dictionary on the shelf! Aichele, George, Peter Miscall, and Richard Walsh. “An Elephant in the Room: Historical–Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 383–404. Avis, Paul. “Anglican Ecclesiology.” In The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, edited by Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge, 202–16. New York: Routledge, 2010. Barton, John, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Beaudoin, Tom, and Katherine Turpin. “White Practical Theology.” In Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction, edited by Kathleen A. Cahalan and Gordon S. Mikoski, 250–270. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Coakley, Sarah. “Recasting ‘Systematic Theology’: Gender, Desire, and Théologie Totale.” In God, Sexuality, and the Self: An Essay “On the Trinity,” 33–65. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Cornwall, Susannah. “Is Queer Theology Synonymous with Gay Theology?” In Controversies in Queer Theology, 43–71. London: SCM, 2011. Dupuis, Jacques. “History and Covenants: One and Many” and “The Reign of God, the Religions, and the Church.” In Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, 211–24 and 330–57. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001. Grau, Marion. “Considering Hermeneutics, Method, and Cultural Diversity in Anglican and Episcopal Contexts.” In The Oxford Handbook of Anglican Studies, edited by Mark D. Chapman, Sathianathan Clarke, and Martyn Percy, 176–89. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2016. Greer, Rowan A. “A Foreword Written Afterwards.” In Anglican Approaches to Scripture: From the Reformation to the Present, ix–xxxiii. New York: Herder & Herder, 2006. Hedges, Paul. “Comparative Theology and Hermeneutics: A Gadamerian Approach to Interreligious Hermeneutics.” Religions 7 (2016): 1–20. House of Bishops Ecclesiology Committee. “A Primer on the Government of The Episcopal Church and Its Underlying Theology,” rev. 2016. In Re-membering and Re-imagining: Essays on the Episcopal Church, 2nd ed., n.p. The Episcopal Church. April 30, 2016. https://www.episcopalchurch.org/ library/document/remembering-and-re-imagining-essays-episcopal-church. Jasper, David. A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Junior, Nyasha. “Womanist Biblical Interpretation.” In Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World: An Introduction to Feminist Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, edited by Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler, 37–46. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Kaye, Bruce. “The Role of Eschatology in Recent Anglican Ecclesiology: A Study of Three Recent International Doctrine Commission Reports.” Sewanee Theological Review 56 (2013): 262–72. Law, David R. “Introduction.” In Historical–Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed, 1–24. London: Continuum, 2012. MacDougall, Scott. “Church in the World: An Eschatological Imagination for Christian Communities.” In More Than Communion: Imagining an Eschatological Ecclesiology, 141–76. London: Bloomsbury–T&T Clark, 2015. ———. “The Covenant Conundrum: How Affirming an Eschatological Ecclesiology Could Help the Anglican Communion,” Anglican Theological Review 94 (2012): 5–26. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th (25th anniversary) ed. Malden, MA: Wiley– Blackwell, 2016. McMichael, Ralph, ed. The Vocation of Anglican Theology. London: SCM, 2014. Morgan, Robert. “Liberal Theological Hermeneutics.” Journal of Theological Studies 68 (2017): 212–29. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “The Kingdom of God, the Church, and Society.” In Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 27–57. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Rieger, Joerg. “Liberating God-Talk: Postcolonialism and the Challenge of the Margins.” In Postcolonial Theologies: Divinity and Empire, edited by Catherine Keller, Michael Nausner, and Mayra Rivera, 204–20. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2004. Rigby, Cynthia L. Holding Faith: A Practical Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2018. Rogers, Eugene F., Jr., “Doctrine and Sexuality.” In The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality, and Gender, edited by Adrian Thatcher, 53–66. London: Oxford University Press, 2017. Rowland, Christopher, “Introduction: The Theology of Liberation.” In The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, edited by Christopher Rowland, 1–16. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Schaab, Gloria L. “Feminist Theological Methodology: Toward a Kaleidoscopic Model.” Theological Studies 62 (2001): 341–65. Tanner, Kathryn. “Eschatology without a Future?” In The End of the World and the Ends of God: Science and Theology on Eschatology, edited by John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, 222–37. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Thiel, John E. Nonfoundationalism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994. Thomas, Owen C., and Ellen K. Wondra. Introduction to Theology, 3rd ed. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 2002. Timpe, Kevin. “Defiant Afterlife: Disability and Uniting Ourselves to God.” Work in progress. Kevintimpe.com. N.d. http://kevintimpe.com/files/Defiant.pdf. Tonstad, Linn Marie. Queer Theology: Beyond Apologetics. Cascade Companions. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2018. Veeneman, Mary M. Introducing Theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017. Williams, Delores S. “Black Theology and Womanist Theology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Black Theology, edited by Dwight N. Hopkins and Edward P. Antonio, 58–72. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Williams, Rowan. On Christian Theology. Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000. Yarbrough, C. Denise. “Radical Hospitality: Interreligious Dialogue as Christian Mission in the Twenty-First Century.” In The Open Body: Essays in Anglican Ecclesiology, edited by Zachary Guiliano and Charles M. Stang, 153–68. New York: Peter Lang, 2012. Schedule Abbreviations CT HF ITT VAT McGrath, Christian Theology Rigby, Holding Faith Thomas and Wondra, Introduction to Theology McMichael, The Vocation of Anglican Theology (*main essays in assigned chapters required; primary texts suggested but optional) February 5 The Doctrine of the Church I Session objective: Elucidate and adjudicate between theological perspectives on the nature and significance of church Reading: CT, chap. 15, “The Church” HF, chap. 7, “Where Is Our Home?: The Doctrine of the Church” Pannenberg, “The Kingdom of God, the Church, and Society” Questions for Consideration: • What was at stake in the Donatist controversy? • What are the notes of the church? • How does Pannenberg think we ought and ought not to understand the character of church? • In what ways do the ecclesial and political realms relate? • What other areas of systematic theology play a role in ecclesiology? February 12 The Doctrine of the Church II Session objective: Articulate the role church plays in Anglican theology and practice—or in the theology and practice of your own tradition Reading: ITT, chap. 17, “Church” VAT*, chap. 5: Mark D. Chapman, “The Church” Avis, “Anglican Ecclesiology” MacDougall, “The Covenant Conundrum” Questions for Consideration: • Is there an Anglican ecclesiology? • How do we best understand the idea of Anglican comprehensiveness in ecclesiological terms? • What is the theological significance of provisionality in Anglican ecclesiology? • How and why did Huntington develop the quadrilateral? • What are currently our most pressing ecclesiological questions? February 19 The Doctrine of the Sacraments Unit objective: Demonstrate a historically informed theology of sacrament and ministry Reading: CT, chap. 16, “The Sacraments” ITT, chaps 18–20, “Sacraments,” “Worship,” and “Ministry” VAT*, chap. 7: Kenneth Stevenson, “The Sacraments” Williams, chap. 13, “The Nature of a Sacrament” Questions for Consideration: • What is the overall character of sacramentality? • What are the sacraments for? • What are some ecclesial implications of sacramental theology? • What is Thomas and Wondra’s reconstructed Anglican view of sacramental theology? • How would you characterize the heart of Williams’ sacramentology? February 26 The Doctrine of the Last Things I Unit objective: Distinguish between competing and complementary strands of eschatological theology and to state the significance of eschatology in the theological enterprise Reading: CT, chap. 18, “The Last Things: Christian Hope” HF, chap. 9, “Where Are We Headed? The Doctrine of Christian Hope” MacDougall, “Church in the World” Questions for Consideration: • What is the character of Christian hope? • How are the present life and the life to come related? • What is the eschatological significance of the resurrection? • What are we really talking about when we talk eschatology? • In what ways does eschatology contribute to or detract from spirituality and/or active discipleship? SYNTHESIS PAPER 1 DUE March 5 The Doctrine of the Last Things II Unit objective: Distinguish between competing and complementary strands of eschatological theology and to state the significance of eschatology in the theological enterprise Reading: ITT, chaps 15–16, “History” and “Eschatology” VAT*, chap. 8: Christopher A. Beeley, “Eschatology” Tanner, “Eschatology without a Future?” Timpe, “Defiant Afterlife” Kaye, “The Role of Eschatology in Recent Anglican Ecclesiology” Questions for Consideration: • How does a theology of resurrection impact pastoral practice? • How do Tanner and Timpe each envision the persistence of personal identity in the eschaton? • Are there circumstances that make Christian hope untenable? • How do eschatological expectation and present action interact? • In what way(s) does Kaye think that eschatology plays a role in ecclesiology? March 12 Christianity and World Religions Session objective: Define the main theological approaches to understanding Christian faith with reference to other religions and to mount a convincing theological defense of one’s own view in conversation with those concepts Reading: CT, chap. 17, “Christianity and the World Religions” Dupuis, “History and Covenants” and “The Reign of God, the Religions, and the Church” Hedges, “Comparative Theology and Hermeneutics” Questions for Consideration: • What are the differences between comparative religion, comparative theology, and a theology of religions? • What do exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism mean in this context? • What is the role of trinitarian theology in Dupuis’ position? • How does Dupuis think that church and basileia are related? • How does Hedges think comparative theology contributes to the interpretive enterprise? March 19 Theological Hermeneutics I Unit objective: Describe the discipline, historical development, and importance of hermeneutics Reading: Jasper, Short Introduction to Hermeneutics, introduction–chap. 5 Questions for Consideration: • What is a hermeneutic? What are hermeneutics? What is the task of the hermeneutic enterprise? • What is the hermeneutic circle? • What is Jasper trying to demonstrate in explicating the faith–suspicion dynamic? • What is the broad, general character of the hermeneutics employed during the time periods covered by these chapters? SYNTHESIS PAPER 2 DUE March 26 NO CLASS—Spring Break April 2 Theological Hermeneutics II Unit objective: Describe the discipline, historical development, and importance of hermeneutics Reading: Jasper, Short Introduction to Hermeneutics, chap. 6–conclusion Law, “Introduction” Barton, chap. 2, David Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible” Aichele, Miscall, and Walsh, “An Elephant in the Room” Questions for Consideration: • What are the main features of historical–critical interpretation? • What does reading the Bible as literature allow to come to the fore? • What do Aichele, Miscall, and Walsh think are the shortcomings of the historical–critical approach to texts? • What approaches do they recommend instead? • What do they think will be the result? April 9 Theological Hermeneutics III Unit objective: Describe the discipline, historical development, and importance of hermeneutics Reading: Barton, chaps 5–6: Tim Gorringe, “Political Readings of Scripture” and Anne Loades, “Feminist Interpretation” Junior, “Womanist Biblical Interpretation” Morgan, “Liberal Theological Hermeneutics” Greer, “A Foreword Written Afterwards” Questions for Consideration: • What is the central theme of Gorringe’s argument? • What is the character of feminist interpretation, as described by Loades? • What is the hermeneutical key of womanist interpretation? • What does Morgan think it is that makes liberal theological hermeneutics “liberal”? • Is there anything that makes Anglican approaches to scripture particularly Anglican? April 16 Theological Method I: Overview, Part 1 Unit objective: Recount the history and development of theological method, from the ancients to the present day, demonstrating sensitivity to the methodological role of context and location Reading: Veeneman, Introducing Theological Method, introduction–chap. 5 Questions for Consideration: • What is a theological method? • What are the components of a theological method? • What is the purpose of a theological method? • How is a theological method related to a scriptural hermeneutic? April 23 Theological Method II: Overview, Part 2 Unit objective: Recount the history and development of theological method, from the ancients to the present day, demonstrating sensitivity to the methodological role of context and location Reading: Veeneman, Introducing Theological Method, chap. 6–conclusion Questions for Consideration: • How would you characterize the various methods described? • How would you begin to critically assess a given theological method? • What are some examples of the ways in which a theological question is answered differently by those who use different methods? • Having explored methods of various kinds, what do you think Anglican method typically entails? April 30 Theological Method III: Nonfoundationalism Unit objective: Recount the history and development of theological method, from the ancients to the present day, demonstrating sensitivity to the methodological role of context and location Reading: Thiel, Nonfoundationalism Questions for Consideration: • What does the term “foundationalism” mean? Be precise and concise. • What are the key arguments in the philosophical critiques of foundationalism? • Why does Thiel think that nonfoundationalism is valuable for theology? • What does Thiel think are some concrete and practical implications of employing a nonfoundationalist perspective? • Does Thiel think that nonfoundationalism is actually another form of foundationalism? May 7 Theological Method IV: Liberationist Methods Unit objective: Recount the history and development of theological method, from the ancients to the present day, demonstrating sensitivity to the methodological role of context and location Reading: Schaab, “Feminist Theological Methodology” Williams, “Black Theology and Womanist Theology” Rowland, “Introduction” Rieger, “Liberating God-Talk” Beaudoin and Turpin, “White Practical Theology” Questions for Consideration: • Why does Schaab use the image of the kaleidoscope to illustrate feminist method? • In broad, general terms, what is the theological method of Black and womanist theologies? • How can a theological method aim at liberation as an outcome? • What are Beaudoin and Turpin attempting to convey? • What role does experience play in these methods? May 14 Theological Method V: Queer Methods Session objective: Assess the meaning and continued value of systematic theology in the face of both contemporary challenges to its validity and a historical Anglican resistance to systematizing Reading: Rogers, “Doctrine and Sexuality” Cornwall, “Is Queer Theology Synonymous with Gay Theology?” Tonstad, chaps 1–3 Questions for Consideration: • What is the method that Rogers offers and why does he offer it? • What does “queer” mean in the context of queer theology? • How does queer theology generally make use of the sources of theology? • What do queer theologies have in common with theologies of liberation? May 21 Theological Method VI: Anglican Methods Session objective: Assess the meaning and continued value of systematic theology in the face of both contemporary challenges to its validity and a historical Anglican resistance to systematizing Reading: Williams, Part One, Defining the Enterprise Grau, “Considering Hermeneutics, Method, and Cultural Diversity in Anglican and Episcopal Contexts Coakley, “Recasting ‘Systematic Theology’ ” Questions for Consideration: • How would you summarize and characterize Williams’ theological method? • How would you summarize and characterize Grau’s theological method? • How would you summarize and characterize Coakley’s theological method? • How has each method reflected the core commitments of the theologians articulating them? • What is Anglican about these methods? May 28 SYNTHESIS PAPER 3 DUE by 11:59 p.m. Requirements The requirements for the course are the following: Class preparation and active participation: 15% Ten one-page reading response papers: 40% (4% each) Three five-page synthesis papers: 45% (15% each) CLASS PREPARATION AND PARTICIPATION You must come to class having read and digested the material due for that day’s session. “Questions for Consideration” are offered for many sessions. Use those to guide your reading. Be sure you bring the text with you to class, either in hard copy or in an electronic format. It is very difficult to discuss a text you have not read and do not have at hand, so this is very important. The extent to which you find our time together to be fruitful and (hopefully!) enjoyable will result, to a significant degree, from the depth of your engagement in the material and our discussion of it together. Your participation grade will be determined by your attendance and your contribution to class discussions. The following factors will be taken into account as the participation grade is calculated at the end of the semester: • Regular attendance, with no unexcused absences, pre-arrangement if you make use of any of your two excused absences for a reason other than illness, prompt communication afterward in the event of illness, a reading response for any excused absences, even if the required number of them have already been submitted, and participation in the online section of the course the week of the absence (see point number 2 under “Policies” below for details) • Timely and thorough completion of all assigned readings • Regular, constructive, and substantive contributions to in-class discussions, making it clear that you have done the required readings, and contributing to the growth of our shared knowledge and insights Factors that will negatively affect your participation grade: • Absence from class without excuse, failure to complete required reading responses if you were absent with excuse, non- or inadequate participation in the online section of the course the week of an absence • Consistent silence in plenary and/or small-group discussions • Failure to complete the assigned readings • Failure to observe standards of courtesy and respect in discussions READING RESPONSE PAPERS You are required to prepare ten one-page reading response papers over the course of the term. You may submit them for any sessions you choose, except please note that you are required to submit a reading response paper for any session for which you have an excused absence. The remaining reading response papers can be submitted for any of the other sessions. Please plan and monitor this activity carefully, as you, not the instructor, will be responsible for keeping track of how many you have submitted. Note that, while you must submit at least 10 responses, you may submit up to 15 (one for each session), and only your top ten grades on the responses will be counted toward your grade. Submit reading responses via Moodle in Word or Rich Text format ONLY by the time class begins. Because a large part of the rationale for requiring these papers is to facilitate discussion, late papers will not be accepted (save in extraordinary circumstances, at the instructor’s discretion). Please bring your paper to class in either hard or digital format for reference purposes. A reading response paper is one page and only one page, single-spaced, one-inch margins all around, no extra space between paragraphs, 12-point standard font (e.g., Times New Roman, Cambria), new paragraphs indented half an inch. You are highly encouraged to use one of the templates for these papers that is posted to Moodle. That file contains the proper format and settings. In terms of its content, the first and largest part of the paper should engage—not describe—some aspect of the content of the day’s reading that you find compelling, exasperating, or intriguing. If more than one reading has been assigned for the day, it can deal with one text or multiple texts. You can approach this in any number of ways. For example, you could choose a theme and build a case for its theological significance. You could relate a theme or idea in your reading(s) to other theme(s) or idea(s) in the reading. You might draw inspiration from the “Questions for Consideration” that are offered for a given session. There are many acceptable possibilities, but the response must always proceed with constant reference to and engagement with the reading for the day, which is the focus of the exercise. Conclude the paper with a second and briefer portion that poses a live, non-rhetorical question about the day’s reading, one that you have not been able to resolve. Posing this question, which may or not be connected to the first part of your response, should, were you to raise it in class, further discussion and engaging it should benefit both you and your fellow students. It is crucial that you explain: (1) why this question matters; and (2) what is at stake depending on the answers the question might receive. These are scholarly but informal papers. No formal citations or bibliographies are required. Simply note page numbers in parentheses for ease of reference. The papers will be returned via Moodle, graded on a 10-point scale according to the following rubric: Criteria Engagement with material Concluding question Above standards Actively engages with the substance of and ideas in the chosen text(s) Meets standards Mostly describes the content of the chosen text(s), but with some engagement Near standards Mostly a report on what is contained in the text Below standards Largely deviates from responding to the text and focuses on extratextual matters 7 points Question is nonrhetorical and its importance and what’s at stake in how it is answered are outlined 6 points Two of the criteria for a response that is above standards are met 5 points One of the criteria for a response that is above standards is met 4 points The question section meets none of the criteria or is missing entirely 2 points 1.5 points 1 point 0 points rubric continues on next page Style and format Clearly and logically written and adheres to the formatting requirements Acceptably written and/or mostly adheres to the formatting requirements 1 point .5 point Not well-written or significant formatting problems .25 point Not well-written and significant formatting problems 0 points SYNTHESIS PAPERS You are required to submit three five-page synthesis papers. Unlike the reading responses, these are formal academic essays and should be written in an appropriate tone and with the proper scholarly apparatuses. The due dates for these papers are noted in the Schedule above and also in the directions below. A prompt is provided for each of the synthesis papers. In each case, your task is the same: to develop a proper thesis that responds to the prompt and to mount a logical, insightful, well-written argument in support of it. The argument is to proceed by marshaling the resources of the readings encountered in the timeframe specified for each assignment. Use no outside sources but only class materials. You may make limited use of the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and the 1982 Hymnal. Cite these parenthetically; do not use footnotes and do not include them in your bibliography. Cite Bible verses by book, chapter, and verse number(s), as appropriate, unless you cite them in the essay text itself (e.g., “The name of God revealed in Exodus 3:14 shows that…”). Cite the BCP as (BCP pp) and the hymnal as (Hymnal nnn), no commas in either case. Again, your job is to present and defend a testable thesis. Note well: a thesis is not the same as an opinion. A thesis is an hypothesis, ideally one sentence in length, presenting an idea or position that can be tested and demonstrated with evidence. The thesis is the backbone of your paper. It is the claim that your paper will argue for in a sustained, convincing, and logical manner. If you have trouble developing a thesis, please do not hesitate to make an appointment with the instructor or TA to discuss your ideas. They are also happy to comment on a draft thesis statement via email. (Regretfully, reviewing draft papers or outlines is not possible.) Your five-page paper will present a theological argument in support of that thesis. In doing so, you must bring together ideas, concepts, and arguments from the spectrum of texts encountered in class. This demonstrates your mastery of and facility with the core theological perspectives that they offer. You will show how they fit together to create a coherent theological perspective or question the places where, in your estimation, that coherence is lacking. Formatting: The body of your essay is to be five pages and only five pages in length. Include no cover sheet. Double-space your text. Set your margins at one inch all around and use a standard, 12-point font. Indent new paragraphs half an inch. Use footnotes to cite sources. Provide a bibliography as a sixth page. Footnotes and bibliography must conform to the Notes–Bibliography Style detailed in chapters 16 and 17 of Kate Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers, 8th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). Do not rely on automatic citation generators. These are often wrong. Be certain that you are doing this correctly. Pro tips: (1) Please take a look at the end of chapter 16 for guidelines on using short forms for footnotes citing work in subsequent citations (i.e., after the first time you’ve footnoted them). (2) Be sure your footnotes and bibliographies are laid out properly. If you would like to see how footnotes are supposed to look on the printed page, please see pp. 392, 394, 396. To see what a bibliography is supposed to look like, please see p. 402. Papers are due to the instructor electronically via Moodle, in Word or Rich Text format ONLY. Papers are due by the start of class on the due date, in accordance with the following schedule of assignments: Synthesis Paper 1, due February 26 Read the document from the House of Bishops Ecclesiology Committee provided in the link to the assignment on Moodle. Imagine that this is a draft document and that you have been asked to appear before the committee to comment on it before it is finalized. In substantive conversation with at least five readings* assigned from the beginning of the course through February 19, write a thesis-based essay in the form of an address to the committee on its proposed ecclesiological “primer,” from the perspective of both ecclesiology and sacramental theology. Synthesis Paper 2, due March 19 Read the chapter by C. Denise Yarbrough provided in the link to the assignment on Moodle. In substantive conversation with at least five readings* assigned for February 20 through March 12, write a thesis-based essay that assesses and evaluates Yarbrough’s perspective. It must rely meaningfully on concepts provided by both eschatology and the readings on Christianity’s relationship to other faiths. Synthesis Paper 3, due May 28 Imagine that you are faced with a pressing theological concern. In substantive conversation with at least five readings* assigned for March 19 through May 21, write a thesis-based essay that details the hermeneutical approach and theological method you would employ for addressing it. Note well: the idea here is not to delve into the intricacies of the problem itself nor is it to carry out the work of solving it. The point of the essay is to demonstrate why you have chosen your hermeneutical and methodical approaches. How can they help? Why these and not others? What difference does using them make? Essentially, what you are doing here is describing and defending the bases of your own developing theological perspective. How are you going to do theology going forward? *Please note that readings are different than sources. Two chapters from McGrath, for example, if assigned for different days, count as two readings even though they come from the same source text. Texts by the same author, if assigned for the same day, count together as one reading for the purposes of the synthesis papers. Texts by two or more different authors but from the same volume count as separate readings, even if they are assigned for the same day. Synthesis papers will be graded on a scale of 100 points according to the following rubric (see next page): Criteria Clear thesis Use of sources Structure and organization Original and critical thinking Formatting Style and clarity Citations Bibliography Above standards Clear, testable thesis statement Meets standards Thesis is less clear and/or testable Near standards Thesis is only a restatement of claims in the text(s) 1 point Claims in source texts often misrepresented and/or not well analyzed, possibly limited to using quotes to prove points Below standards No thesis statement 4 points Claims in source texts consistently represented well, analyzed with skill, and used effectively in the essay argument 2–3 points Claims in source texts generally represented and analyzed well, with good use in the essay argument 28–30 points Structured as an academic essay and organized into a coherent, logical, cumulative, and effective argument that clearly supports the thesis 24–27 points Structured as an academic essay and organized into a generally logical and cumulative argument that supports the thesis 21–23 points Loosely structured academic essay organized into a weak argument that may or may not support the thesis 18–20 points Structured as a reflection rather than an essay and the points made are often too disconnected to constitute an argument 19–20 points Essay shows evidence of a high degree of original and critical thinking 15–18 points Essay shows evidence of original and critical thinking 12–14 points Essay shows lack of evidence of original or critical thinking 9–11 points Essay shows lack of evidence of original and critical thinking 19–20 points Format conforms to all technical requirements 15–18 points Format conforms to most technical requirements 12–14 points Format conforms to few technical requirements 9–11 points Format conforms to no technical requirements 9–10 points Well-written, with excellent grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, and logic 7–8 points Solidly written, with generally good grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, and logic 7–8 points Citations mostly conform to standards in form and content 5–6 points Acceptably written, often featuring challenges in grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, or logic 5–6 points Citations rarely conform to standards in form and content 3–4 points Poorly written and featuring belowstandard grammar, logic, spelling, diction, and/or punctuation 3–4 points Citations are unacceptable 2 points Bibliography contains some errors in form or content 2 points 1 point Bibliography contains significant errors in form or content 1 point 0 points Bibliography is missing or unacceptable 9–10 points Citations conform to standards in form and content 3 points Bibliography conforms to standards in form and content 3 points 0 points Incorrect or insufficient number of texts engaged and/or material used in a manner that does not advance the essay 0 points Policies 1. Preparation for class. Preparing for class allows you to be an active contributor to our learning community. It is important that you have read and understood the assigned material for each class. Make sure you have grasped the author’s major claim(s), the reasons that the author gives to support his or her claim(s), and the evidence that substantiates the reasons. 2. Attending class. In addition to the seminary-wide attendance policy noted in the most recent version of the CDSP Academic Handbook, please note that attendance directly affects the participation grade. Up to two excused absences may be granted, if arranged in advance and for proper cause. Excused absences may be granted for illness if there is prompt communication with the instructor about the situation. Excused absences require submission of a reading response paper for the missed session, even if the number required have already been submitted, and participation in the online section of the course that week. An excused absence, therefore, requires that you: • Notify the instructor in advance so that you can be added to the online section of the course in Moodle • Read the required reading(s) and submit a reading response, even if you have submitted your required ten reading responses, through the link in your regular Moodle site • View the online lesson posted to the Moodle site for the online course, which will appear on Wednesday morning • Follow the directions for completing the work online students are assigned that week, which most often consists of posting in the online forum(s) • View the video response to the forum(s) early the following week 3. Engaging in class discussion. Although the instructor will make presentations, the heart of each session is our discussion of the day’s reading(s) and topic(s). Your participation grade—and your personal satisfaction with the course—will reflect your level of engagement in that. Be sure to bring the reading(s) assigned for the day with you to class in hard copy or digital format and be prepared to participate in discussion. 4. Academic integrity. Your instructor takes academic integrity very, very seriously. CDSP’s policies on academic integrity will be rigorously enforced. For details about what “academic integrity” means, how to maintain yours, and what will happen if you do not, please see the “Seminary Policy on Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty” in the most current version of the CDSP Academic Handbook. 5. Due dates and submission of work. Assignments must be submitted by the due date. Any work submitted late will be marked down for lateness at the discretion of the instructor. Please be in touch with the instructor ahead of time if you have pressing extenuating circumstances that require you to request an extension on an assignment. 6. Electronic devices. Laptops and tablets are permissible in class for the purpose of accessing course material. You may also use them for note-taking, although current research suggests that taking notes longhand improves learning outcomes. Turn off and put away cell phones while in class. 7. Communication. Be sure to check your email frequently. You will receive course-related information, material, and updates through email. Also, if you wish to be in touch with us—and you are invited to be!—please use the email addresses on the front page of the syllabus. Please do not message us through Moodle. Unless you receive an out-of-office response stating otherwise, you can expect to receive a response to your email within 24 hours, and often sooner. An exception might be emails that come in on Tuesdays, which is an especially heavy day for the instructor. If you would like to connect on social media, please feel free to friend me on Facebook at www.Facebook.com/ScottMacDougall.4 and follow me on Twitter (@scottmacdoug). Finally, you are warmly invited to use the hashtag #CDSPTheology on either of those platforms to share and discuss thoughts and material that might be of interest. 8. Requirements for written work. The requirements for the style and format of assignments are noted above. In addition, note well the “Seminary Policy on Gender-Inclusive Language” in the most current version of the CDSP Academic Handbook. 9. Grading scale. Grading in this course is in accordance with the following schedule: A AB+ B BC+ C CF 100–95 94–90 89–87 86–83 82–80 79–77 76–73 72–60 59–0 Excellent. Honors-level work, outstanding. Still Excellent. Very Good. High level of performance. Good. Solid and above average level of performance. Good. Still above average. Average level of performance. Satisfactory. Acceptable level of performance. Minimally acceptable. Failure. Inferior performance. 10. Pass/fail. If you opt to take this course on a pass/fail basis, please note you will earn a “P” only if you: (1) submit every required assignment by the assigned (or extended) deadline; (2) earn a minimum of a C- on each synthesis paper (i.e., a grade of 60) and as an average on your reading responses (i.e., an average grade of 6 out of 10); and (3) earn a minimum of B- (i.e., a grade of 80) as a final grade in the course. 11. Accommodation notice. Your instructor is committed to ensuring that no student is barred from fulfilling his or her potential in this course due to circumstances for which remedies are available and accommodations can be made. If you have special needs, please be sure they are addressed by following the GTU policy for accommodation, which can be found here: http://gtu.edu/admissions/life-atgtu/students-with-disabilities HERE’S TO A GREAT SEMESTER!