Showing papers in "Theology in 1984"
16 citations
TL;DR: The information for the years 1912, 1927 and 1937 is provided by the Lincoln Diocesan Calendar for these years as mentioned in this paper, and the information of the years 1961 to the present day is provided from the Lincoln diocesan Directory.
Abstract: 1 F. West, TheCountry Parish Today and Tomorrow (1964) p. ix. 2 Lincolnshire Returns of the Census of Religious Worship 1851. 3 The information for the years 1912, 1927 and 1937 is provided by the Lincoln Diocesan Calendar for these years. 4 G. W. E. Russell, Edward King(1912) p. 212. 5 C. F. Garbett, In an AgeofRevolution (1952) pp. 259-60; a passage extolling the parochial system and reviewing its post-war adjustments. 6 A. C. Smith, The South Ormsby Experiment (1960); from which much of the information about South Ormsby is derived. 7 ibid., ch. II. 8 A. Russell (ed.), Groups and Teams in the Countryside (1975). 9 ibid., ch. 8. 10 L. Paul, TheDeployment and Payment ofthe Clergy (1964). 11 ibid., p. 137. 12 The Deployment of the Clergy. GS 205 (1974). 13 See The Historic Resources of the Church of England, Church Commissioners (i 983). 14 L. Paul, op. cit., p. 93. 15 ibid., p. 305, Table 55. 16 Central Board of Finance, Statistics Department. 17 Church of England Year Book 1982, Statistical Supplement; though note that in the 1970's the basis of calculation was somewhat altered. 18 The information for the years 1961 to the present day is provided by the Lincoln Diocesan Directory. 19 ibid. 20 Norwich Diocesan Directory (1982). 21 See E. Schillebeeckx, Ministry (t9 8 I) p. 73. 22 ibid. p. 1. 23 See A. Russell, TheClerical Profession (tg8o). 24 Schillebeeckx, op. cit., p. 72. 25 See R. Allen, TheCasefor Voluntary Clergy (1930).
6 citations
6 citations
2 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, it is pointed out that music therapy is not a problem-solving technique; and one can only applaud the clinician writing on pain relief who says, 'What we speak (to a patient) is not truth unless it is communicated in love'.
Abstract: Pastoral care for those who suffer experience of loss (whether by divorce or death) seems to be an amalgam of problem-solving techniques and measures to strengthen those who must needs live with unsolved or insoluble problems. It is the latter rather than the former which enables spiritual growth to occur: problem-solving treats disturbance as an irritant to be removed rather than as a stimulus to growth. Mrs Bryce, like the authors of Letting Go) is explicit in seeing the loss experience as an opportunity for growth. By contrast, for the clinicians, growth possibilities tend to be implicit if not unconscious: problem-solving techniques have their own fascination, whether in the relief of pain or in the organization of services for delivering care to those who need it. This is an observation, not a criticism: music therapy is not a problem-solving technique; and one can only applaud the clinician writing on pain relief who says, 'What we speak (to a patient) is not truth unless it is communicated in love'. The two books invite reflection on the proper relation of problem-solving to theology. Problem-solving implies techniques, and these can be used well or badly, and for bad ends or good ones. In themselves they are morally neutral. Perhaps this is why theology seems a little uncomfortable in the clinical atmosphere, but relatively quite at home in Mrs Bryce's treatment of divorce, whether or not one shares her theological stance.
TL;DR: Weil's approach was to develop a doctrine of mediation which is overly speculative and unsuitable as a description of the world's dependence on God as mentioned in this paper, and it is argued that the reconsideration of Weil's work in light of the problem of analogy will make the appreciation of her thought more possible by making the form of its expression less arbitrary, less a matter of external appointment.
Abstract: In recent years the writings of Simone Weil (1909-43) have attracted a good deal of attention from diverse quarters, but nowhere has her influence been more deeply felt than in the field of theology. Her paradoxical meditations on the ways of God with the human soul show her to be not only one of the most reliable spiritual guides of our age, but also a thinker of great theological originality. Weil's theological writings are not systematically related. She wrote occasional pieces, the intent of which was, for the most part, to express the nature of the contact between the divine and the creaturely. But no one who writes on such matters can do so without considering the question of the appropriateness of the terms used to describe this contact. This has generally been referred to as the problem of analogy. The construction of analogies is undertaken in the hope that some way can be found of expressing the transcendence of things that are not perspicuous. Every non-perspicuous object enjoins us to analogize, and in the case of the supernatural object, this enjoinder is absolute. As Austin Farrer has said, 'We are condemned to analogize in speaking of God not because God is inferred by us from other things but because, whether inferred or encountered, he [God] transcends us.' I The problem of analogy is the problem of determining what terms are appropriate for meaningful reference to God, the problem of finding a proportion between the finite and the infinite which can support thought about God's living touch. Although Weil did not address the topic of analogical predication directly, she, like all who propose to talk about God, had to have some means by which to understand the infinite in terms of the finite, some means of interpreting her experience of God. Her approach was to develop a doctrine of mediation which, I shall be arguing, is overly speculative and unsuitable as a description of the world's dependence on God. It is my view that the reconsideration of her work in light of the problem of analogy will make the appreciation of her thought more possible by making the form of its expression less arbitrary, less a matter of external appointment.
TL;DR: Christ, with death and the dissolution of his personality upon him, gives what he still (just) is, as person, to others for their good as discussed by the authors, with the dreaded touch of that reality beyond persons can then, by proper mediation, be grace and life and communion.
Abstract: pending neighbourly business. Christ, with death and the dissolution of his personality upon him, gives what he still (just) is, as person, to others for their good. 'This is my body which is given for you.' The dreaded touch of that reality beyond persons can then, by proper mediation, be grace and life and communion. That is why the Christians return to the ritualizing of that saving possibility again and again; to learn this Christ, dying and giving life, who was all the theological knowledge that Paul needed.
TL;DR: White Indigenous Churches as mentioned in this paper must ask themselves what they are going to do with the western theological and cultural heritage, for example, the trinitarian doctrine, the Christology, the western critical approach to historical and religious documents.
Abstract: White Indigenous Churches. They must ask themselves what they are going to do with the western theological and cultural heritage, for example, the trinitarian doctrine, the Christology, the western critical approach to historical and religious documents. Do they reject it outright? In any case the statistical constellation makes for a challenging either/or, which is not confined to our category of churches but is relevant for the whole of Christianity. However, the either/or is posed in a particularly telling and illuminating way within our group of churches. It is this: either the Christians are successful in finding a new unity, which is not based (or at least not entirely based) on the traditions of the West and its organizational models, or we will face a split in Christianity which will have more painful consequences than the split between Catholics and Protestants. It will be a split which strengthens the already existing political and economic antagonism between the north and the south. Such a development would contradict the very essence of twentieth-century ecumenism. It can only be avoided if we resolutely develop tools for the forging of an intercultural theology which will not be conceptually uniform but still nevertheless provide the basis for a mutual recognition and a global learning process. Such an intercultural theology would have to make use of parabolic, dramatic and narrative patterns and shift the emphasis from the debate of conceptual consensus statements to the exploration and identification of those questions which matter for our cultural, spiritual and physical survival. Such a theology would not rule out the use of Mediterranean European categories but their use would not be governed entirely by faithfulness to the historical heritage but equally by commitment to the vital issues of our time.