The Importance of Dialogue for Pastoral Theological Development: Some Reflections on van Holten and Walton’s Theological Method and its Problems with the “Timelessness of God”
{"title":"The Importance of Dialogue for Pastoral Theological Development: Some Reflections on van Holten and Walton’s Theological Method and its Problems with the “Timelessness of God”","authors":"J. Swinton, B. Brock","doi":"10.1558/HSCC.19766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to van Holten and Walton’s critique (van Holten & Walton, 2020, 2022) of John Swinton’s theological approach to time and disability (Swinton, 2016, 2020), John Swinton is joined by the theological ethicist Professor Brian Brock. Swinton and Brock argue that while van Holten and Walton claim to be attempting to open up a dialogue, this is debatable. Dialogue is necessary for conversations such as these, but the thrust of their work has been focused on criticism and argument, without any constructive proposals for theory or practice. This might be acceptable if we were simply discussing concepts and ideas. It is less convincing when we are dealing with real people. As per their previous work, van Holten and Walton constantly attempt to push their ideas into practice without actually taking experience into consideration, which leads to significant contradictions and problems. In this article, we explore van Holten and Walton’s approach to theology and doing theology – what theology is, who should be allowed to participate in its formation and what approaches are considered appropriate, and, importantly, who makes that decision. We examine some of the significant problems with their position when it comes to examining complex real-world issues such as the experience of dementia and disability. The current article engages with the various criticisms and concerns that are put forward, and highlights some of our concerns and worries about the flaws in their approach and their lack of awareness of or attention to its implications for practice. Despite the fact that we are far apart on many issues, the article concludes that there may actually be a way forward if the desire for dialogue is taken seriously. The article ends with a constructive proposition that has the potential to positively ground and encourage future conversations between practical and philosophical theology.","PeriodicalId":37483,"journal":{"name":"Health and Social Care Chaplaincy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Social Care Chaplaincy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/HSCC.19766","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: 1
Abstract
In response to van Holten and Walton’s critique (van Holten & Walton, 2020, 2022) of John Swinton’s theological approach to time and disability (Swinton, 2016, 2020), John Swinton is joined by the theological ethicist Professor Brian Brock. Swinton and Brock argue that while van Holten and Walton claim to be attempting to open up a dialogue, this is debatable. Dialogue is necessary for conversations such as these, but the thrust of their work has been focused on criticism and argument, without any constructive proposals for theory or practice. This might be acceptable if we were simply discussing concepts and ideas. It is less convincing when we are dealing with real people. As per their previous work, van Holten and Walton constantly attempt to push their ideas into practice without actually taking experience into consideration, which leads to significant contradictions and problems. In this article, we explore van Holten and Walton’s approach to theology and doing theology – what theology is, who should be allowed to participate in its formation and what approaches are considered appropriate, and, importantly, who makes that decision. We examine some of the significant problems with their position when it comes to examining complex real-world issues such as the experience of dementia and disability. The current article engages with the various criticisms and concerns that are put forward, and highlights some of our concerns and worries about the flaws in their approach and their lack of awareness of or attention to its implications for practice. Despite the fact that we are far apart on many issues, the article concludes that there may actually be a way forward if the desire for dialogue is taken seriously. The article ends with a constructive proposition that has the potential to positively ground and encourage future conversations between practical and philosophical theology.
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.