Sed Contra, Ergo, Responsio: Honoring the Legacy of Christopher Morse as a Teacher of Christian Theology

D. Spencer, M. Walsh
{"title":"Sed Contra, Ergo, Responsio: Honoring the Legacy of Christopher Morse as a Teacher of Christian Theology","authors":"D. Spencer, M. Walsh","doi":"10.7916/D8K35T05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the fall of 1991, with two years of course work toward our doctoral studies completed, we began two years of work as UTS Tutors for Professors Christopher Morse and James Cone in the introductory theology sequence of ST103 and ST104. To say this experience was formative would be an understatement. A central component of Christopher’s ST104 course, Foundations of Christian Theology, was gaining skills in theological argumentation in order to demonstrate how Christian doctrines can be applied to contemporary issues. Generations of Union students developed this skill through writing Utrum essays. In this exercise Christopher adapted the steps of “theological dialectic” set forth by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae. We were lucky to be working with Christopher as he was completing his seminal work, Not Every Spirit: A Dogmatics of Christian Disbelief, and enjoyed applying the Utrum form to the foundational theological claims. In Not Every Spirit Christopher states, “The purpose of this exercise is to develop the complementary skills in addition to doing scriptural exegesis and historical exposition required for what is called “dialectic,” meaning here the pros and cons of argument involved in adjudicating disputed issues, a task of dogmatic theology as a “testing of the spirits.”1 Reading dozens of Utrum essays and watching Christopher demonstrate this skill in many classes over two semesters of tutoring ST104 shaped our own theological method profoundly. Learning to examine contemporary theological and ethical issues through the Utrum format remains one of the most important intellectual and academic skills we gained in our doctoral programs at Union. When we were approached individually to contribute to a volume honoring Christopher and his career we responded enthusiastically “Yes!” Given our joint work together as tutors with Christopher we thought it appropriate to coauthor an essay for this festschrift by choosing two contemporary issues central to our own current work and using the Utrum format to examine them and develop our own positions. That is what follows in the two sections below.","PeriodicalId":83394,"journal":{"name":"Union Seminary quarterly review","volume":"65 1","pages":"26-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Union Seminary quarterly review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8K35T05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the fall of 1991, with two years of course work toward our doctoral studies completed, we began two years of work as UTS Tutors for Professors Christopher Morse and James Cone in the introductory theology sequence of ST103 and ST104. To say this experience was formative would be an understatement. A central component of Christopher’s ST104 course, Foundations of Christian Theology, was gaining skills in theological argumentation in order to demonstrate how Christian doctrines can be applied to contemporary issues. Generations of Union students developed this skill through writing Utrum essays. In this exercise Christopher adapted the steps of “theological dialectic” set forth by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae. We were lucky to be working with Christopher as he was completing his seminal work, Not Every Spirit: A Dogmatics of Christian Disbelief, and enjoyed applying the Utrum form to the foundational theological claims. In Not Every Spirit Christopher states, “The purpose of this exercise is to develop the complementary skills in addition to doing scriptural exegesis and historical exposition required for what is called “dialectic,” meaning here the pros and cons of argument involved in adjudicating disputed issues, a task of dogmatic theology as a “testing of the spirits.”1 Reading dozens of Utrum essays and watching Christopher demonstrate this skill in many classes over two semesters of tutoring ST104 shaped our own theological method profoundly. Learning to examine contemporary theological and ethical issues through the Utrum format remains one of the most important intellectual and academic skills we gained in our doctoral programs at Union. When we were approached individually to contribute to a volume honoring Christopher and his career we responded enthusiastically “Yes!” Given our joint work together as tutors with Christopher we thought it appropriate to coauthor an essay for this festschrift by choosing two contemporary issues central to our own current work and using the Utrum format to examine them and develop our own positions. That is what follows in the two sections below.
Sed Contra,因此,回应:纪念克里斯托弗莫尔斯作为基督教神学教师的遗产
在1991年的秋天,我们完成了两年的博士课程学习,我们开始了两年的工作,作为UTS教授Christopher Morse和James Cone的导师,在ST103和ST104的入门神学序列中。说这段经历对我的成长有影响是轻描淡写的。克里斯托弗的ST104课程的一个核心组成部分,基督教神学基础,是获得神学论证的技能,以证明基督教教义如何应用于当代问题。一代又一代的学生会通过写Utrum论文培养了这项技能。在这个练习中,克里斯托弗采用了托马斯·阿奎那在《神学大全》中提出的“神学辩证法”的步骤。我们很幸运能与克里斯托弗一起工作,当时他正在完成他的开创性作品,《不是每一种精神:基督教不相信的教条》,并享受将乌特鲁姆形式应用于基本神学主张。在《不是每一种灵》中,克里斯托弗说,“这个练习的目的是发展互补的技能,除了做所谓的‘辩证法’所需要的圣经注释和历史阐述之外,这里的意思是,在裁决有争议的问题时,论证的赞成和反对,这是教条神学作为‘检验灵’的任务。”在两个学期的辅导ST104中,阅读了几十篇乌特鲁姆的文章,看着克里斯托弗在许多课上展示了这种技巧,深刻地塑造了我们自己的神学方法。通过乌特鲁姆格式学习研究当代神学和伦理问题仍然是我们在联合大学博士课程中获得的最重要的智力和学术技能之一。当我们被邀请为一本纪念克里斯托弗和他的事业的书出力时,我们热情地回答:“是的!”考虑到我们作为导师与Christopher的共同工作,我们认为通过选择两个对我们当前工作至关重要的当代问题,并使用Utrum格式来研究它们并发展我们自己的立场,来共同撰写一篇文章是合适的。这就是下面两节的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信