Greetings
http://lamdepcothe.com/wash.php?rich=1hfc52n5yk7n
bsykes62@yahoo.com
Monday, May 23, 2016
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Final Lesson Master of Spirituality - lesson 19
Final Lesson Master of Spirituality - lesson 19
Having reached the end of the Master of Spirituality course I am happy to offer my assessment of its construction, arguments and content. I will lay out my views in no particular order.
I enjoyed this study very much and looked forward each week to receiving a –fresh lesson. As the course progressed a succession of philosophers were discussed with reference to their teachings some of which were quite challenging. However, the writer had a flair for breaking down complex issues using vivid illustrations to aid learning. That was very good. The stated object of this course is to help ministers convey their faith to scientifically minded people; and it achieved that end magnificently in my view.
I have been in Christian ministry in England for over twenty five years and during that time I've studied a great deal of theology and related topics. Prior to that, and many years ago, I studied to "A" and "O" level passing various public exams from Economic and Social History to Religious Studies. One course I did was in "Classical Civilisation" which included a study of ancient Greek culture and philosophy. So, it was wonderful to get my old books out again and revisit: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thales and Anaximander etc. The first time I studied them I learnt a great deal and this course helped to build on that by digging a bit deeper. That was very rewarding and I enjoyed it a great deal. Throughout this course I bought additional books to broaden what I learnt and to help me write the essays I submitted.
As a Christian some of the teaching in this course challenged me deeply and at times made me feel distinctly uncomfortable. I was taken out of my comfort zone which made me defensive of my beliefs. However, I gradually came to see this as a positive thing. Having preached the Bible for over twenty five years during which time I've been totally immersed in my faith I've rarely been exposed to alternative (atheistic) points of view. So, again although challenging it has made me stronger, wiser and more able to deal with similar arguments when I meet them. In that sense the course has achieved the purpose it was designed for. I also liked the fact that I could write freely in response to the lesson notes without feeling hemmed in or restricted in what I could say. That was truly liberating and enabled me to be creative in my responding.
But there were down sides too. If I were to undertake an MA in England a supervisor would be appointed; between us we would have to agree a title for a dissertation; I would have to submit work from time to time for marking and the whole thing would take around two years. This course on the other hand seems to require little from anyone which seems odd to say the least. As far as I can see I could have completed this course without doing anything at all not even reading the weekly lessons. That cannot be right. A course needs to set "outcomes" and then have some means of assessing whether those outcomes have been met. How could the ULC know with any degree of certainty if these outcomes have been achieved if there is no means of assessing a student's work? Won't this make the qualification worthless? It would certainly be laughed out of court in England – and that's discouraging as it won't build confidence. To counter this I made up my mind to write an essay for every lesson received as a way of stretching me and getting me engaged academically. And because of this I feel I have justly earned this qualification through the work I put in. I guess the ULC's philosophy is to present various ideas and then leave the interpretation up to the student. That maybe commendable but it will not promote consistency across the board.
I was also surprised at some of the views expressed by the writer - some of which I felt were bazaar and occasionally offensive. For example presenting the God of the Old Testament as a child throwing its toys out of the pram was, in my view, offensive particularly as it has no basis in historical fact; and when "Star Trek" made several appearances during the course this, in my view, was bazaar. I found these things challenging and, to a degree, threatening but I stuck with it for reasons already stated above.
Finally, I would recommend this course for various reasons. Firstly, it encourages one to think carefully about what one thinks one knows. Do we know anything at all? For Christians the ideas expressed by ancient Greek philosophers will help to illuminate what they read in the New Testament e.g. where Paul speaks in his letters of opposites: "when I am weak then I am strong" etc. Also, living in a scientific age this course presents a convincing argument of science as a "faith" every bit as unprovable as any other philosophy. The prospective minister will learn from this course how to enquire of the scientifically minded person how s/he "knows" what s/he knows as Socrates did of old - not to win an argument or to come across as superior, but to challenge people and so get them thinking about what they think they know about life; death and beyond. Well done!
Rog
7th May 2016
Having reached the end of the Master of Spirituality course I am happy to offer my assessment of its construction, arguments and content. I will lay out my views in no particular order.
I enjoyed this study very much and looked forward each week to receiving a –fresh lesson. As the course progressed a succession of philosophers were discussed with reference to their teachings some of which were quite challenging. However, the writer had a flair for breaking down complex issues using vivid illustrations to aid learning. That was very good. The stated object of this course is to help ministers convey their faith to scientifically minded people; and it achieved that end magnificently in my view.
I have been in Christian ministry in England for over twenty five years and during that time I've studied a great deal of theology and related topics. Prior to that, and many years ago, I studied to "A" and "O" level passing various public exams from Economic and Social History to Religious Studies. One course I did was in "Classical Civilisation" which included a study of ancient Greek culture and philosophy. So, it was wonderful to get my old books out again and revisit: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thales and Anaximander etc. The first time I studied them I learnt a great deal and this course helped to build on that by digging a bit deeper. That was very rewarding and I enjoyed it a great deal. Throughout this course I bought additional books to broaden what I learnt and to help me write the essays I submitted.
As a Christian some of the teaching in this course challenged me deeply and at times made me feel distinctly uncomfortable. I was taken out of my comfort zone which made me defensive of my beliefs. However, I gradually came to see this as a positive thing. Having preached the Bible for over twenty five years during which time I've been totally immersed in my faith I've rarely been exposed to alternative (atheistic) points of view. So, again although challenging it has made me stronger, wiser and more able to deal with similar arguments when I meet them. In that sense the course has achieved the purpose it was designed for. I also liked the fact that I could write freely in response to the lesson notes without feeling hemmed in or restricted in what I could say. That was truly liberating and enabled me to be creative in my responding.
But there were down sides too. If I were to undertake an MA in England a supervisor would be appointed; between us we would have to agree a title for a dissertation; I would have to submit work from time to time for marking and the whole thing would take around two years. This course on the other hand seems to require little from anyone which seems odd to say the least. As far as I can see I could have completed this course without doing anything at all not even reading the weekly lessons. That cannot be right. A course needs to set "outcomes" and then have some means of assessing whether those outcomes have been met. How could the ULC know with any degree of certainty if these outcomes have been achieved if there is no means of assessing a student's work? Won't this make the qualification worthless? It would certainly be laughed out of court in England – and that's discouraging as it won't build confidence. To counter this I made up my mind to write an essay for every lesson received as a way of stretching me and getting me engaged academically. And because of this I feel I have justly earned this qualification through the work I put in. I guess the ULC's philosophy is to present various ideas and then leave the interpretation up to the student. That maybe commendable but it will not promote consistency across the board.
I was also surprised at some of the views expressed by the writer - some of which I felt were bazaar and occasionally offensive. For example presenting the God of the Old Testament as a child throwing its toys out of the pram was, in my view, offensive particularly as it has no basis in historical fact; and when "Star Trek" made several appearances during the course this, in my view, was bazaar. I found these things challenging and, to a degree, threatening but I stuck with it for reasons already stated above.
Finally, I would recommend this course for various reasons. Firstly, it encourages one to think carefully about what one thinks one knows. Do we know anything at all? For Christians the ideas expressed by ancient Greek philosophers will help to illuminate what they read in the New Testament e.g. where Paul speaks in his letters of opposites: "when I am weak then I am strong" etc. Also, living in a scientific age this course presents a convincing argument of science as a "faith" every bit as unprovable as any other philosophy. The prospective minister will learn from this course how to enquire of the scientifically minded person how s/he "knows" what s/he knows as Socrates did of old - not to win an argument or to come across as superior, but to challenge people and so get them thinking about what they think they know about life; death and beyond. Well done!
Rog
7th May 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)