Here is some 'getting ideas out of my head' stuff regarding the first piece of my thesis.
Thomas Watson was born in 1617-1619, a turbulent time in England. To understand his context I've been studying English history beginning with the first Puritans in the 1500's, through Elizabeth I's reign, to the reign of James I, Charles I, the English Civil War, and then Charles II. I'm only just beginning though so my focus is on James I who reigned from 1603 - 1625, the king who was running the nation at the time of Watson's birth.
The nation was in the midst of some serious religious tension. The Church of England had successfully established itself apart from the Church of Rome for some time now but the pressure exerted by the Catholics and radical Protestants was a constant strain for both religion and politics. The Puritans, radical as well as moderate, had become quite popular and powerful within the House of Commons and began to dominate the discussions at parliament. They had endured decades of repression under Elizabeth who forced them to comply with the rites and ceremonies of the established Church of England and silenced their dissenting voices in the Church, government, and eventually in the streets. The Puritans wished to reform the Church of England and do away with Popish garments, rites, and ceremonies and argued vehemently that they were superstitious in nature and had nothing to do with true religion. They argued also that the Church ought to be run as a Presbytery and that the Episcopal model of bishops, archbishops, lordbishops, and archdecons with the monarch as the head of the Church was unbiblical and should therefore be completely done away with. I will at this time remind the reader that nearly every facet of medieval life was greatly affected by the Church and that what the Puritans were pushing towards would have great consequences for every facet of life for everyone in England. For suggesting such ideas, and attempting to implement them, they were cast out of their pastorate positions, thrown in prison, and some of them executed for writing seditious literature and for treason.
By the reign of King James I the Puritans were sick and tired of being attacked for refusing to play along with the stagnant religion of the age and they had enough support to begin digging their feet in and stand their ground. Every time the king called parliament (which he needed to do to make taxes to fund his needs) they made things difficult for him and requested (demanded really) that a commission investigate the many religious grievances done to the godly and that the Church of England by reformed. The king's response was to dissolve parliament and sternly warn them to not meddle in the affairs of the king. You can imagine how well that went over. The next time the king called parliament the Puritans had only grown bolder and more insistent, passing bills and laws to try and limit the king and provide learned and godly [puritan] ministers in every region of England. The king had to dissolve parliament again, this time without gaining the funds he required and he resolved not to call parliament again.
The Puritans meanwhile were secretly setting up Presbyteries across England in secret, within the Episcopal system. They also began to discuss when it might be permissible in God's eyes to take up arms against your king. The fire of revolution was beginning to spark. Then some kindling was added, some issues that were quick to create small flames. Prince Charles was set to marry the Spanish Princess Anna Maria, a dedicated Catholic. Rumors began to circulate which became a moral panic among the Protestants; the king was supporting the Catholics and Armenian heretics and had become one himself! The conspiracy theory was strong and difficult to combat within the minds of the English people. Those who supported the king in his tyranny were Arminians and Anglo-Catholics. Those who resisted the king and petitioned for the rights of the people were Puritans. The lines were being drawn for a civil war.
An interesting point in all this is that King James I seems to be represented very differently in history depending on who you read. To your average Puritan he was a tyrant. To an extreme nonconformist Puritan he was an incompetent, evil-hearted, hypocritical, dumb, evil, stupid, stupid, very stupid, dumb dumb head spawn of Satan stupid. [I might be exaggerating a little... but they really had nothing good to say about him]. To a moderate Protestant King James I was a godsend, a wise and theologically astute ruler who lead England through a tough bout with the Catholic Church amidst a difficult political climate at home. Even though the perception of him is widely varied one thing is for certain, King James had a very high opinion of his authority both within politics and the Church and he had a very hard time with the idea that he had to listen and work with other human authorities.
And now my ideas have run out.
Hope that was intersting
Greg Out
Saturday, August 30, 2014
What is Systematic Theology?
So I'm currently writing a thesis about Thomas Watson for my Master's in Systematic Theology. Cool. People ask what it's about and I start reciting the thoughts in my head and summing up my research about Thomas Watson, Repentance, The Puritans, the English Civil War, the Act of Uniformity, the list goes on and on. I generally have a good idea of what I am writing about and why. My friends and family support me, think my topic is really interesting, and have a hard time explaining what exactly systematic theology is. So for anyone who reads this blog and cares to know, here is my account of what I'm getting a degree in.
Systematic Theology has two components. Theology: the study of God (from a Christian perspective); and Systematic: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles.
Systematic Theology looks at the entirety of Scripture, doctrines, history, science, and philosophy and tries to make sense of them. The goal is to make all the pieces cohere one to another within a system or method of thought that can be applied broadly as well as particularly.
This is a little different than the other theology degrees offered through Briercrest Seminary. A degree in Theological Studies: New Testament focuses on understanding the New Testament specifically the authors, genres, messages, history and how it applies to today. Same can be said for the Theological Studies: Old Testament degree. Systematic Theology by comparison doesn't focus in on any particular point and is extremely big picture. It's theological philosophy.
So practically speaking what is Systematic Theology? Systematic Theology is a broad and deep knowledge God's working in the world and how we ought to live in light of it. It's understanding how the big abstract ideas in Christianity relate to each other and being able to explain and apply these things in real life. An example would be being able to understand and explain how the Doctrine of the Trinity relates to both the Old and New Testaments, is essential to the Christian faith, and manifests itself within the experience of Christian believers throughout history around the world. It's being able to explain the 'Predestination / Freewill' tension within Scripture in a coherent manner beyond the common Calvinist / Arminian stereotypes. It's being able to explain how God created everything and yet nothing created God.
In it's most basic form I suppose a simple definition would be: understanding the how and why for everything to do with the Christian belief.
Training in Systematic Theology is (hopefully) a humbling experience that will encourage the student to seek and be guided by wisdom. A good systematic theologian is able to identify and look past cultural bias, rigid thinking, and unfruitful debate.
So there it is, a hastily put together definition of what I've dedicated the five years to.
Greg Out
Training in Systematic Theology is (hopefully) a humbling experience that will encourage the student to seek and be guided by wisdom. A good systematic theologian is able to identify and look past cultural bias, rigid thinking, and unfruitful debate.
So there it is, a hastily put together definition of what I've dedicated the five years to.
Greg Out
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Putting together a Master's Thesis 1(?)
So I am trying to grapple with how to put together my Master's Thesis. I have 5 chapters with fairly straightforward structure but I am not sure where to start. It's like trying to fit a whole bagel in my mouth except the bagel is the size of ten bags of bagels... or is that beagles? ... Bugles?
Anyway, I thought I would start with reading through Watson's Doctrine of Repentance and take notes like usual. I read through it, took some notes, and then also read through his Jerusalem's Glory. This book wasn't nearly as straight forward as the other but still useful because it dealt with corporate repentance which he only covers briefly in Doctrine. Alright, off to a reasonable start I suppose. Now to re-read Doctrine and turn my notes into pros for use in chapter 4, defining Watson's doctrine of repentance. This is quite a job in itself and as I began I found something that makes it easier and harder at the same time.
Two years ago I had written a paper on this topic and this is when I was first encouraged to pursue it as a thesis. Well, I found the paper, the pros, and the notes for all my research that I had done two years ago. About 40 pages worth of literature typed by me two years ago. This obviously makes taking study notes on Doctrine easier... since it's already done. How does it make it harder? Well, I don't remember how thorough I was when I made these notes and I think my perspective may have changed since then. Deep inside I feel like I have to start all over again just in case I missed something the first time. At the same time I am very NOT motivated to do that because I already did it. So I am at a loss for what to do now since the work I set out to do is already done but may need to be redone.
Right now I think I will just relax though. I don't get the chance to relax all that often and with only four more days left for visiting my in-laws I think being present with them should be a priority. That, and I am tired. I have been tired for two years I am just starting to feel not tired again. My thesis adviser told me to take a break before beginning if I needed, and I think I do need it.
When I get back though I have a few things that I need to do ASAP. I need to find the Doctrine of Repentance Paper that I submitted and got marked up by my supervisor two years ago. I need to take a look at other Master theses that follow a pattern of research similar to my own to create a mental template to build mine off of. Once I do both of those things I should have a meeting with my supervisor. Then I will have a clearer understanding of how to go about stuffing ten beagles in my mouth.
Greg Out
Anyway, I thought I would start with reading through Watson's Doctrine of Repentance and take notes like usual. I read through it, took some notes, and then also read through his Jerusalem's Glory. This book wasn't nearly as straight forward as the other but still useful because it dealt with corporate repentance which he only covers briefly in Doctrine. Alright, off to a reasonable start I suppose. Now to re-read Doctrine and turn my notes into pros for use in chapter 4, defining Watson's doctrine of repentance. This is quite a job in itself and as I began I found something that makes it easier and harder at the same time.
Two years ago I had written a paper on this topic and this is when I was first encouraged to pursue it as a thesis. Well, I found the paper, the pros, and the notes for all my research that I had done two years ago. About 40 pages worth of literature typed by me two years ago. This obviously makes taking study notes on Doctrine easier... since it's already done. How does it make it harder? Well, I don't remember how thorough I was when I made these notes and I think my perspective may have changed since then. Deep inside I feel like I have to start all over again just in case I missed something the first time. At the same time I am very NOT motivated to do that because I already did it. So I am at a loss for what to do now since the work I set out to do is already done but may need to be redone.
Right now I think I will just relax though. I don't get the chance to relax all that often and with only four more days left for visiting my in-laws I think being present with them should be a priority. That, and I am tired. I have been tired for two years I am just starting to feel not tired again. My thesis adviser told me to take a break before beginning if I needed, and I think I do need it.
When I get back though I have a few things that I need to do ASAP. I need to find the Doctrine of Repentance Paper that I submitted and got marked up by my supervisor two years ago. I need to take a look at other Master theses that follow a pattern of research similar to my own to create a mental template to build mine off of. Once I do both of those things I should have a meeting with my supervisor. Then I will have a clearer understanding of how to go about stuffing ten beagles in my mouth.
Greg Out
Monday, August 4, 2014
Who I want to be
I didn't think I would ever want to be a pastor. Overworked, underpaid, slandered, abused by Church goers, elders, friends, and strangers. And yet hear I am, taking a pastoral stance on a lot of things these days. When I encounter someone I disagree with I don't care about winning an argument, I want to understand them, I want to know why they think the way they do. Everyone comes with a story and that story defines them and speaks louder than cold logic. It is better to listen than to speak. It is better to pick your battles and try to keep the peace. It is better to be gentle than confrontational. The truth should be spoken in love, the welfare of others should come before proving yourself right. Once I thought I wanted to outwit and put the enemies of Christ to shame, now I see them as hurting people and I think I begin to understand why it is God who judges and why it is inappropriate for me to condemn anyone. What do I know about a stranger's past or the inner thoughts of another? My hope is to offer anyone who comes to me a listening ear, the best of good will, a helping hand, and through the will of the Father and the action of the Holy Spirit, Christ himself.
I still want to teach and use logic but it needs to be used appropriately, tempered with grace. I have to face it, God has given me a pastoral heart. Within a year I will have graduated from seminary with a Master of Arts in Systematic Theology. I can put two and two together, I will probably be involved in ministry. And why not? Preaching is similar to teaching except you are teaching specifically from the Scriptures. I think I would like that. I believe it was Karl Barth who said that unless you are going to preaching to Gospel you have have learned nothing about theology.
And then there is the topic of my thesis. Thomas Watson and his doctrine of repentance. The more I read about him the more I admire him. According to the editor's notes in his Glory of Jerusalem: a vision of what the Church should be, Watson was not considered especially brilliant by his contemporaries. He was a studious man who deeply cared for others and made his living by preaching the Gospel, bringing the ivory tower of philosophical and theological thought down to the vulgar and common everyday life. He was not a clever innovator or an outstanding theologian, he was a faithful witness of Christ and a good steward of what God had given him. If I could learn from him and become what he was in his day, I think I would be most happy. I don't consider myself especially brilliant, but I do care for others and wish to see them come into the fullness of Christ. Some might consider me studious. When I read about Watson I do not consider myself so. He graduated with a Masters, the same sort of Masters that I will be graduating with. He graduated with a thorough understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin in addition to a thorough knowledge of Classical literature, the Patristics, the Scholastics, and the Reformers. I will be graduating with a minimally functional understanding of Greek and Hebrew and a general overview of the Patristics and a loose map of a host of theological concepts. I will need to continue my studies privately if I am to ever catch up to him. Then again, a Master's degree in the 17th century could have been about the equivalent of 3 doctorates today. Will have to look into that at some point.
In any case, I find in Watson a vision of the sort of man I want to be. A pastoral teacher who uses the academic training he received to encourage, instruct, exhort, challenge, and lead God's sheep, his precious Church. The sort of man who multiplies what his master entrusts him with who will one day be able to say, "you gave me these talents, look I have put them to good use and multiplied them in your name!"
I still want to teach and use logic but it needs to be used appropriately, tempered with grace. I have to face it, God has given me a pastoral heart. Within a year I will have graduated from seminary with a Master of Arts in Systematic Theology. I can put two and two together, I will probably be involved in ministry. And why not? Preaching is similar to teaching except you are teaching specifically from the Scriptures. I think I would like that. I believe it was Karl Barth who said that unless you are going to preaching to Gospel you have have learned nothing about theology.
And then there is the topic of my thesis. Thomas Watson and his doctrine of repentance. The more I read about him the more I admire him. According to the editor's notes in his Glory of Jerusalem: a vision of what the Church should be, Watson was not considered especially brilliant by his contemporaries. He was a studious man who deeply cared for others and made his living by preaching the Gospel, bringing the ivory tower of philosophical and theological thought down to the vulgar and common everyday life. He was not a clever innovator or an outstanding theologian, he was a faithful witness of Christ and a good steward of what God had given him. If I could learn from him and become what he was in his day, I think I would be most happy. I don't consider myself especially brilliant, but I do care for others and wish to see them come into the fullness of Christ. Some might consider me studious. When I read about Watson I do not consider myself so. He graduated with a Masters, the same sort of Masters that I will be graduating with. He graduated with a thorough understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin in addition to a thorough knowledge of Classical literature, the Patristics, the Scholastics, and the Reformers. I will be graduating with a minimally functional understanding of Greek and Hebrew and a general overview of the Patristics and a loose map of a host of theological concepts. I will need to continue my studies privately if I am to ever catch up to him. Then again, a Master's degree in the 17th century could have been about the equivalent of 3 doctorates today. Will have to look into that at some point.
In any case, I find in Watson a vision of the sort of man I want to be. A pastoral teacher who uses the academic training he received to encourage, instruct, exhort, challenge, and lead God's sheep, his precious Church. The sort of man who multiplies what his master entrusts him with who will one day be able to say, "you gave me these talents, look I have put them to good use and multiplied them in your name!"
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Who I do not want to be
I have been confronted with two visions. One is who I thought I wanted to be and realize now that I do not and the other is the one I didn't want to be which I realize now that I do. If you find that sentence a little confusing then you are probably close to the same frame of mind that I find myself in.
Once upon a time I thought I wanted to be a rational teacher and a debater who could put atheists, liberal talk show hosts, politicians and other perceived enemies of God to shame with heavenly inspired logic and a rapier whit. Then I spent four years at Briercrest and got a BA in Theology and an additional five years working on a MA in Systematic Theology. Halfway through my education I learned that the world wasn't as black and white as I thought it was and I was not as smart as I thought I was. Life went on and I continued my studies and that dream vanished from my mind until I saw someone else living it... and I didn't like what I saw.
Defeating people with logic alone is disgusting. The friend I saw doing this definitely won the argument but the argument was stupid and definitely not worth crushing the other. He boasted about his triumphs, mocking the woman he had baited and trolled, quoting her private messages to him for others to laugh at. She pleaded that he respect her privacy and act as a Christian brother but he mocked her pleas, quoting them for his friends to show how stupid and ridiculous she was being. I was shocked. Horrified. I was struck numb, my soul cringed inside me. What had he accomplished? Is a conversation about Gluten really worth baiting and spitting upon your fellow image bearer of God? More than that, fellow heir of whom you share the bond of Christ?
No, there is a better way. I tried to explain it but he became defensive and tried continued on with his logical correctness. This is not who I want to be.
Then there is Thomas Watson, the puritan I have started writing about. I didn't think I would ever want to be a pastor. Overworked, underpaid, slandered, abused by Church goers, elders, friends, and strangers. And yet hear I am, taking a pastoral stance on a lot of things these days. More on that tomorrow after I have slept.
Once upon a time I thought I wanted to be a rational teacher and a debater who could put atheists, liberal talk show hosts, politicians and other perceived enemies of God to shame with heavenly inspired logic and a rapier whit. Then I spent four years at Briercrest and got a BA in Theology and an additional five years working on a MA in Systematic Theology. Halfway through my education I learned that the world wasn't as black and white as I thought it was and I was not as smart as I thought I was. Life went on and I continued my studies and that dream vanished from my mind until I saw someone else living it... and I didn't like what I saw.
Defeating people with logic alone is disgusting. The friend I saw doing this definitely won the argument but the argument was stupid and definitely not worth crushing the other. He boasted about his triumphs, mocking the woman he had baited and trolled, quoting her private messages to him for others to laugh at. She pleaded that he respect her privacy and act as a Christian brother but he mocked her pleas, quoting them for his friends to show how stupid and ridiculous she was being. I was shocked. Horrified. I was struck numb, my soul cringed inside me. What had he accomplished? Is a conversation about Gluten really worth baiting and spitting upon your fellow image bearer of God? More than that, fellow heir of whom you share the bond of Christ?
No, there is a better way. I tried to explain it but he became defensive and tried continued on with his logical correctness. This is not who I want to be.
Then there is Thomas Watson, the puritan I have started writing about. I didn't think I would ever want to be a pastor. Overworked, underpaid, slandered, abused by Church goers, elders, friends, and strangers. And yet hear I am, taking a pastoral stance on a lot of things these days. More on that tomorrow after I have slept.