- This topic has 2 voices and 0 replies.
-
Posts
-
I have a question for you guys….I am taking an upper level course called "The History of Christianity: The Early Church." The main class text is "A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction" by William C. Placher.This is an online class and the instructor is a M.Div., Church History & Theological Studies from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.The textbook is clearly what I would consider Postliberal Theology. And it is the only textbook we are using. The Bible was not a required text. I have found discrepancies, and even what I would consider falsehoods and biblical passages taken totally out of context. I have decided that the Bible HAS to be included if you are going to discuss, at an advanced level, Christian theology. However, I am getting flack from the class for "preaching" to them and how the bible is not an assigned text and they aren't going to read anything they don't have to and one excuse after another to tilt the balance in the favor of liberal theology without even considering the biblical view.So far the instructor has been mostly mum on my postings, but acknowledges those of the class as they trail off into some farcical theology discussion.My question is really this. Should I just suck it up and play their little game? I don't see how I can and quite honestly, I feel dirty in doing so. I am not out to convert anyone or that, I just want a balanced, meaty discussion devoid of the surface fluff they are going on about. Again, this is an upper level class, so I am expecting discussion and yes even debate and getting freshman garbage.... I'm afraid that my grade will suffer because I cannot really contribute to the discussions because they are so trite and then get accused of stirring the pot. If I continue to speak and write as I believe I should I feel like I will get shunned by the instructor and again my grade will suffer.This is just an overview of what I am experiencing but I was just curious what you guys think....
The best way I would advise how you could argue your points without being accused of “preaching” is by framing your points in the form of “Figure X would argue against your point because…” or “On the contrary, Figure Y would say….”. This removes it from being your opinion (whether or not it is a grounded opinion) and makes it academic. If someone argues against your points, you can simply ask them the source of their information. Basically, you can call them out in a legitimate way by asking “what are you basing that on?” If I were you, I would probably stick with it. You don't have to agree with everything that is taught in order to learn it; rather, you are learning a specific interpretation. It could actually prove useful in the future, because you will know how erroneous theology is presented. If you need to regurgitate concepts on exams and such, you can simply phrase answers such as "According to this post-liberal theology, ...". In other words, you would be stating not that you believe in what is taught, but you are simply showing that you know what is taught.
