永恒、痴呆和对实践的诉求:对斯文顿的反驳的回应

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Wilko van Holten, M. Walton
{"title":"永恒、痴呆和对实践的诉求:对斯文顿的反驳的回应","authors":"Wilko van Holten, M. Walton","doi":"10.1558/HSCC.18876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, Wilko van Holten and Martin Walton continue the exchange with John Swinton regarding the understanding and usefulness of the “timelessness of God” (Swinton, 2016) in the context of dementia (see HSCC 8(1), “A Critical Appraisal of John Swinton’s Theology of Time and Memory” by van Holten and Walton, 2020, and “A Rejoinder to van Holten and Walton” by Swinton, 2020a). Both van Holten and Walton argue that Swinton’s restatement of God’s eternal presence in terms of unchangeableness comes with a serious theological price, namely, a static image of the divine. Swinton’s refusal to pay this price points to a tension in his thinking on this point. The authors adduce some empirical evidence to substantiate the claim that a timeless and immutable God is psycho-spiritually less appropriate in the context of pastoral care. For van Holten and Walton, their major concern is not with the intentions or conclusions at which Swinton arrives, but with the way in which he argues for those conclusions and expresses these intentions. In this exchange, practical and philosophical theology meet, and the authors explore some of the questions which are raised. These questions ultimately are concerned with theological method. A response to this article by Swinton will also be published in this issue of HSCC (see Swinton, 2022).","PeriodicalId":37483,"journal":{"name":"Health and Social Care Chaplaincy","volume":"39 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Timelessness, Dementia and the Appeal to Practice: A Response to Swinton’s Rejoinder\",\"authors\":\"Wilko van Holten, M. Walton\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/HSCC.18876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, Wilko van Holten and Martin Walton continue the exchange with John Swinton regarding the understanding and usefulness of the “timelessness of God” (Swinton, 2016) in the context of dementia (see HSCC 8(1), “A Critical Appraisal of John Swinton’s Theology of Time and Memory” by van Holten and Walton, 2020, and “A Rejoinder to van Holten and Walton” by Swinton, 2020a). Both van Holten and Walton argue that Swinton’s restatement of God’s eternal presence in terms of unchangeableness comes with a serious theological price, namely, a static image of the divine. Swinton’s refusal to pay this price points to a tension in his thinking on this point. The authors adduce some empirical evidence to substantiate the claim that a timeless and immutable God is psycho-spiritually less appropriate in the context of pastoral care. For van Holten and Walton, their major concern is not with the intentions or conclusions at which Swinton arrives, but with the way in which he argues for those conclusions and expresses these intentions. In this exchange, practical and philosophical theology meet, and the authors explore some of the questions which are raised. These questions ultimately are concerned with theological method. A response to this article by Swinton will also be published in this issue of HSCC (see Swinton, 2022).\",\"PeriodicalId\":37483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Social Care Chaplaincy\",\"volume\":\"39 17\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Social Care Chaplaincy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/HSCC.18876\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Social Care Chaplaincy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/HSCC.18876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在本文中,威尔科·范·霍尔顿和马丁·沃尔顿继续与约翰·斯文顿就痴呆症背景下“上帝的永恒性”(斯文顿,2016)的理解和有用性进行交流(见HSCC 8(1),“对约翰·斯文顿的时间和记忆神学的批判性评价”,范·霍尔顿和沃尔顿,2020,以及“对范·霍尔顿和沃尔顿的反驳”,斯文顿,2020a)。范·霍尔顿和沃尔顿都认为,斯文顿以不可改变的方式重述上帝的永恒存在,这需要付出沉重的神学代价,即上帝的静态形象。斯温顿拒绝付出这样的代价,表明他在这一点上的思想存在紧张。作者引用了一些经验证据来证实一个永恒不变的上帝在精神上和精神上不太适合教牧关怀的说法。对于范·霍尔顿和沃尔顿来说,他们主要关心的不是斯文顿得出的意图或结论,而是他论证这些结论和表达这些意图的方式。在这种交流中,实践神学和哲学神学相遇,作者探讨了提出的一些问题。这些问题最终都与神学方法有关。Swinton对这篇文章的回应也将发表在本期的HSCC上(见Swinton, 2022)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Timelessness, Dementia and the Appeal to Practice: A Response to Swinton’s Rejoinder
In this article, Wilko van Holten and Martin Walton continue the exchange with John Swinton regarding the understanding and usefulness of the “timelessness of God” (Swinton, 2016) in the context of dementia (see HSCC 8(1), “A Critical Appraisal of John Swinton’s Theology of Time and Memory” by van Holten and Walton, 2020, and “A Rejoinder to van Holten and Walton” by Swinton, 2020a). Both van Holten and Walton argue that Swinton’s restatement of God’s eternal presence in terms of unchangeableness comes with a serious theological price, namely, a static image of the divine. Swinton’s refusal to pay this price points to a tension in his thinking on this point. The authors adduce some empirical evidence to substantiate the claim that a timeless and immutable God is psycho-spiritually less appropriate in the context of pastoral care. For van Holten and Walton, their major concern is not with the intentions or conclusions at which Swinton arrives, but with the way in which he argues for those conclusions and expresses these intentions. In this exchange, practical and philosophical theology meet, and the authors explore some of the questions which are raised. These questions ultimately are concerned with theological method. A response to this article by Swinton will also be published in this issue of HSCC (see Swinton, 2022).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health and Social Care Chaplaincy
Health and Social Care Chaplaincy Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Health and Social Care Chaplaincy is a peer-reviewed, international journal that assists health and social care chaplains to explore the art and science of spiritual care within a variety of contexts. The journal was founded in 2013 through the merger of the Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy (issn:1748-801X) and the Scottish Journal of Healthcare Chaplaincy (issn:1463-9920) . It continues to be the official journal of the College of Health Care Chaplains and members of the society receive the journal as part of their annual membership. For more details on membership subscriptions, please click on the ''members'' button at the top of this page. Back issues of both previous journals are being loaded onto this website (see Archives) and online access to these back issues is included in all institutional subscriptions. Health and Social Care Chaplaincy is a multidisciplinary forum for the discussion of a range of issues related to the delivery of spiritual care across various settings: acute, paediatric, mental health, palliative care and community. It encourages a creative collaboration and interface between health and social care practitioners in the UK and internationally and consolidates different traditions of discourse and communication research in its commitment to an understanding of psychosocial, cultural and ethical aspects of healthcare in contemporary societies. It is responsive to both ecumenical and interfaith agendas as well as those from a humanist perspective.
×
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