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”

Q1 Arts and Humanities Health and Social Care Chaplaincy Pub Date : 2021-06-15 DOI:10.1558/HSCC.19766
J. Swinton, B. Brock
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对话对牧师神学发展的重要性——对范霍尔滕和沃尔顿的神学方法及其“上帝永恒”问题的思考
为了回应范·霍尔顿和沃尔顿对约翰·斯文顿对时间和残疾的神学方法的批评(范·霍尔顿和沃尔顿,2020年,2022年)(斯文顿,2016年,2020年),神学伦理学家布莱恩·布洛克教授加入了约翰·斯文顿。斯文顿和布洛克认为,虽然范霍尔顿和沃尔顿声称试图开启对话,但这是值得商榷的。对话对于这样的对话是必要的,但他们的工作重点一直集中在批评和争论上,没有任何建设性的理论或实践建议。如果我们只是讨论概念和想法,这可能是可以接受的。当我们与真实的人打交道时,它就不那么令人信服了。正如他们之前的工作一样,van Holten和Walton不断地试图将他们的想法付诸实践,而没有真正考虑到经验,这导致了重大的矛盾和问题。在这篇文章中,我们将探讨van Holten和Walton研究神学和做神学的方法——神学是什么,谁应该被允许参与神学的形成,什么样的方法被认为是合适的,更重要的是,谁来做决定。当涉及到研究复杂的现实世界问题,如痴呆症和残疾的经历时,我们研究了一些与他们的立场有关的重大问题。当前的文章涉及到提出的各种批评和关注,并强调了我们对他们方法中的缺陷以及他们缺乏对实践影响的认识或关注的一些关注和担忧。尽管我们在许多问题上存在很大分歧,但文章的结论是,如果认真对待对话的愿望,实际上可能会有一条前进的道路。文章以一个建设性的命题结束,这个命题有可能积极地奠定和鼓励未来实践神学和哲学神学之间的对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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.
期刊最新文献
Shining a Light in COVID-19 Darkness Roberts, S. B., and Dunlop, S. (Eds.) (2022). Chaplaincy and Practical Theology: Researching a Pioneering Ministry Working on the Clinical Frontline During the COVID-19 Pandemic Nolan, S., and Damen, A. (Eds.) (2021). Transforming Chaplaincy: The George Fitchett Reader Weiner, J. (2022). Care and Covenant: A Jewish Bioethic of Responsibility
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1