Lexham Survey of Theology - feedback
Comments
-
Hi Francis:
Hope the rumors are indicative of actual pipeline production.
In the Lexham Survey of Theology faithlife group, Bro. Sean Boisen posted a discussion about: "Identifying missing concepts".
I was not able to post anything there, neither in the discussion nor in the activity area. So hope you do not mind Francis that I use this space for saying something about "missing concepts".
Long time in an article, I noticed a Pastor from certain group listed "Christian living" as an area in Systematic theology.
I have not being able to find the article again. But I would imagine that the area includes:
Stewardship, which according to Pastor Guido Nunez include: personal salvation, words of my mouth, assets, time, married or single status, sills / talents, gifts, family (close), local church, outreach missions, our physical body, planet (ecofriendly initiatives, etc.).
I would also imagine would touch on the difference between absolute and relative perfection: Only Christ has absolute perfection. We are encouraged to strive for relative perfection.
Daniel, Joseph of Egypt, Enoch, Stephen the deacon, John the loved Apostle, were relatively more perfect than David, Abraham, Moses, the Pharisees, who made more mistakes, etc.
Looking for relative perfection is trying to achieve Christlikeness deliberately under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for God's glory, to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to God's Kingdom of Light.
Related to christian living, I would include Moral theology, as it outlines methods one can use for better decision making, and the consideration of cardinal and theological virtues to check that we are properly living a life according to our professed beliefs. Conduct, action, charity, weightier matters of the Law: justice, mercy, Love of God, Holy Spirit etc. are all included.
Christian responsibility would be another area: we are expected to take care of ourselves, our families and our communities. We must solidarity develop innovative socioeconomic initiatives to help cope with the exigencies of life. God gave us intelligence, vigor, grace and the like for that purpose.
Good works yes, thanking for an unmerited salvation (free gift), and to walk in the deeds God prepared before the foundation of the world for us to walk in, good works not for salvation, but because of that free gift.
A little more on Prolegomena would be nice also: presuppositions, assumptions, previous understanding, the correct definition of objective, neutral, unbiased study, etc.
I also did not see about "Angel of Yahweh" who many believe was pre-incarnated Jesus.
Some details of ministry, planning, strategic balanced score card would also be good:
Sample of an excellent strategic map by the Methodist brothers.
I mention the above points to fill the need of regular sheep, that would really like to zap the gap between high level systematic theology and everyday life, at some point the rubber needs to meet the road.
Blessings.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
I am trying to show that there are so many little details in each group's doctrines, so is best to keep them separate so that there is no misrepresentation, and clear comparison can be done among them.
Fr. Damian's already explained why I won't be responding to most of what you wrote, but this part has to deal specifically with how to design/organize a survey of theology, such as LST or any future one that FL may create, and I think I can respond to it without doing theology.
If, by what I've quoted, you mean that you would be in favour of something where the articles were something like this:
[quote user=""]Christians accept A.
Anglicans, historically, would tend to phrase it more like B.
Lutherans tend to highlight C when discussing A.
Methodists and Wesleyans elaborate to the effect that D.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both disagree with part of D, and hold instead that E. Catholics would also say F about A.
Pentecostals do not have a settled position on the details of how A works.
I would not oppose that kind of approach, but I'm certainly not committed to it.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Hi Francis:
Hope the rumors are indicative of actual pipeline production.
I'm guessing he's joking.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
In the Lexham Survey of Theology faithlife group, Bro. Sean Boisen posted a discussion about: "Identifying missing concepts".
I was not able to post anything there, neither in the discussion nor in the activity area. So hope you do not mind Francis that I use this space for saying something about "missing concepts".
<snip />
Hamilton, there was a problem with the permissions on the Lexham Survey of Theology Faithlife group which was preventing followers from posting (thanks, MJ, for bringing that to my attention). I'm sorry for that oversight, but I believe i've fixed that now, and that is an appropriate place to discuss theological questions related to the survey (including missing concepts). So feel free (you and others) to discuss these theological points over there.
Feedback on the objectivity and inclusiveness of the current LST content, however, is still best addressed directly to Dr. Mark Ward, as requested in his recent post.
0 -
Thanks Sine Nomine for speaking your mind.
SineNomine said:Christians accept A.
Anglicans, historically, would tend to phrase it more like B.
Lutherans tend to highlight C when discussing A.
Methodists and Wesleyans elaborate to the effect that D.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both disagree with part of D, and hold instead that E. Catholics would also say F about A.
Pentecostals do not have a settled position on the details of how A works
This is something I can really relate to, I wish most theology guides, surveys, etc would follow this format. It would make things easier for regular sheep like me to study and learn.
Thanks for sharing.
0 -
0
-
Sean Boisen said:
So feel free (you and others) to discuss these theological points over there.
Sean Boisen said:Either it is still broken, or no one has posted anything.
0 -
Michael S. said:Sean Boisen said:
So feel free (you and others) to discuss these theological points over there.
Sean Boisen said:Either it is still broken, or no one has posted anything.
I think it is still broken.
I'm not sure whether it is the intended set of rights, but as a follower I seem not to be allowed to write a new News item (post to the group) or to start a new Discussion threat. However, at a minimum we'd need to be allowed to take part in the discussions. This is not possible. While I see the "reply" link to answer in Sean's discussion about potential missing ontology items, it is not opening the editor to compose a reply, but an empty page which says there are no discussions. So it's no wonder that no one answered yet.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
I'm not sure what good any discussion would produce, since Logos is in the habit of cutting things off without recourse. I had many ChristianDiscourse conversations I wanted to have access to but they all evaporated into inaccessible non-existence.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
I'm not sure what good any discussion would produce, since Logos is in the habit of cutting things off without recourse. I had many ChristianDiscourse conversations I wanted to have access to but they all evaporated into inaccessible non-existence.
You can still access your CD conversations through archive.org. Don't get confused when it only shows blank pages. The content is all there in the source code.
(I've been thinking about a structural recovery of the content, but obviously without FL's permission, that'd be quite a severe copyright violation…)
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
(I've been thinking about a structural recovery of the content, but obviously without FL's permission, that'd be quite a severe copyright violation…)
Is it their content?? I don't remember signing away my copyrights to FL. I seriously doubt extracting user content would be any kind of violation. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different than going through their trash, and that's perfectly legal.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Is it their content?? I don't remember signing away my copyrights to FL. I seriously doubt extracting user content would be any kind of violation. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different than going through their trash, and that's perfectly legal.
It is (was) their site, and it is not my content. A recovery project would take several days. Without FL's permission, there would be quite some risk for it to be a waste of time. Since the content was on CD first, I wouldn't stand a chance against any DMCA complaint.
0 -
Sean Boisen said:
there was a problem with the permissions on the Lexham Survey of Theology Faithlife group which was preventing followers from posting (thanks, MJ, for bringing that to my attention). I'm sorry for that oversight, but I believe i've fixed that now, and that is an appropriate place to discuss theological questions related to the survey (including missing concepts).
Sean, the permissions still are not fixed. In my opinion, while discussing the theological questions would be beyond the scope of this forum, discussing the ontology itself, especially regarding its completeness and potentially missing concepts, could probably happen here as well.
In the Faithlife group you posted:
The Lexham Survey of Theology/Systematic Theology Ontology currently includes 234 concepts, organized into eight major branches that reflect the traditional structuring of systematic theological writing and inquire. Our purpose was to include all the major beliefs common to a broad range of Christian groups, without taking particular positions on disputed issues or attempting to capture every minor point.
Are there any concepts that you would argue should be added to the ontology to ensure that it is a reasonably complete account of Christian systematic theology? Are there areas with significant discussion in the theological literature that fall outside these concepts?
Is there a quick way to overview those concepts (such as a list or an Excel spreadsheet)? This would probably make it easier to grasp them and maybe look at non-reformed ST resources and try to reconcile ToC entries.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
NB.Mick said:Sean Boisen said:
there was a problem with the permissions on the Lexham Survey of Theology Faithlife group which was preventing followers from posting (thanks, MJ, for bringing that to my attention). I'm sorry for that oversight, but I believe i've fixed that now, and that is an appropriate place to discuss theological questions related to the survey (including missing concepts).
Sean, the permissions still are not fixed.
Agreed. While it seems to be possible to reply to Sean's thread, it's not possible for me as a follower to start new threads, such as ones about theological questions related to the survey.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Hi David:
Most likely some of CD participants have copies of some of the threads.
Problem is how to contact them, and how to share the files.
Maybe if your are really interested in obtaining some of your content, you can try to start a Faithlife group just about that.
0 -
NB.Mick said:Michael S. said:Sean Boisen said:
So feel free (you and others) to discuss these theological points over there.
Sean Boisen said:Either it is still broken, or no one has posted anything.
I think it is still broken.
I'm not sure whether it is the intended set of rights, but as a follower I seem not to be allowed to write a new News item (post to the group) or to start a new Discussion threat. However, at a minimum we'd need to be allowed to take part in the discussions. This is not possible. While I see the "reply" link to answer in Sean's discussion about potential missing ontology items, it is not opening the editor to compose a reply, but an empty page which says there are no discussions. So it's no wonder that no one answered yet.
My apologies: i've adjusted the permissions again, please see now if you can post to the news feed.
0 -
NB.Mick said:
<snip />
In my opinion, while discussing the theological questions would be beyond the scope of this forum, discussing the ontology itself, especially regarding its completeness and potentially missing concepts, could probably happen here as well.
<snip />
While I agree that discussing the structure of the data in general is appropriate for the forums, discussions about completeness and missing concepts seem likely to quickly lead to theological debates, which aren't. So the Faithlife group (whose permissions should now be fixed) is still the best choice.
NB.Mick said:<snip />
Is there a quick way to overview those concepts (such as a list or an Excel spreadsheet)? This would probably make it easier to grasp them and maybe look at non-reformed ST resources and try to reconcile ToC entries.
The Table of Contents in the Lexham Survey of Theology lists the concepts, and shows the hierarchy: is there more that you need for overview purposes?
0 -
Sean Boisen said:
My apologies: i've adjusted the permissions again, please see now if you can post to the news feed.
I can't post a reply to your "Identifying Missing Concepts" discussion. I get "The discussions for this group are not available" when I click "Reply".
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
I also can't post anything directly to the news feed.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
SineNomine said:Sean Boisen said:
My apologies: i've adjusted the permissions again, please see now if you can post to the news feed.
I can't post a reply to your "Identifying Missing Concepts" discussion. I get "The discussions for this group are not available" when I click "Reply".
SineNomine said:I also can't post anything directly to the news feed.
same here.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
SineNomine said:Sean Boisen said:
My apologies: i've adjusted the permissions again, please see now if you can post to the news feed.
I can't post a reply to your "Identifying Missing Concepts" discussion. I get "The discussions for this group are not available" when I click "Reply".
Repeated apologies! I've made another adjustment to the group settings, and this time I tested to make sure an alternate follower me could both post in the group and reply to the existing discussions. Please try once again.
0 -
I can reply to discussions. I didn't test posting to the group.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
both work.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
-
While I realize this thread started a bit over a year ago, I just discovered it while researching this resource that I also just came across in my Logos library. The concerns raised in this thread regarding theological focus vs breadth (denominational/theological perspective) perfectly reflect why I have personally never been enthused with Lexham's development of in-house, curated products (resources, datasets). I much prefer to use resources (books) written by an author who has developed a reputation in their field of expertise and theological/denominational background/commitment.
A pastor friend and theologian taught me that knowing who the author is and what they believe (What is their premise?) is critical to the value of a book. In my opinion, a book publisher should leave authoring to authors who intend to communicate something specific from their belief system. Books that attempt to represent multiple perspectives tend to be shallow or unwieldy in my experience.
As a protestant of 50+ years, I recently had the great pleasure of reading a couple books from Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger). I found so much in common with and told wisely by this author. I'm grateful for friends from many denominational backgrounds and believe we have more in common than different. This thread unfortunately has a tendency to highlight the differences. While understanding our differences is important, I hope we can also celebrate our common belief and faith.
0 -
Andrew Loney said:
As a protestant of 50+ years, I recently had the great pleasure of reading a couple books from Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger). I found so much in common with and told wisely by this author. I'm grateful for friends from many denominational backgrounds and believe we have more in common than different. This thread unfortunately has a tendency to highlight the differences. While understanding our differences is important, I hope we can also celebrate our common belief and faith.
I think it's easier to celebrate our common belief and faith when we are accurately describing what we are writing. I'm sure there was no ambiguity in either of those works by the Pope Emeritus that he was writing from a Catholic position. As such, you could appreciate what was common and see what was not and potentially benefit from that part anyway. My own theological studies are broad, including plenty of Protestant and Orthodox scholarship, and I have benefited plenty from studying works written from theological perspectives that differ meaningfully from my own.
As the OP, I'm still waiting for Faithlife to either acknowledge within the reference or library info pane that LST is a Protestant work or explain why Faithlife refuses to do so. I am disappointed that Faithlife has, to my knowledge, thus far done neither.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
SineNomine,
I feel your frustration. The LST could stand to have a General Introduction, which Mark Ward and I haven’t written yet.
The LST’s editorial stance follows Lexham’s: broadly evangelical (which, in this case, implies a Protestant perspective) while being appreciative of the grand tradition of catholic and orthodox Christian reflection (which includes upper-case Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Each topic is supposed to cover areas of intramural agreement and debate with an objective but invested tone. Just as importantly, we want to better orient people to the how of theological reasoning, not just the what of theological information. Not everything in the LST lives up to those high aspirations, but I’m still proud of what the team was able to accomplish.
The LST’s lack of a traditional introduction, if I can step back and justify it for a moment, partly reflects the reality that this resource isn’t designed to be a stand-alone “book” (although we may derive something like that from it one day).
The LST represents one step in a broader vision for making Logos Bible Software as powerful and useful for theological study as it is for biblical study. But perhaps even saying it that way is a false choice: what we really want with this project is to show how the way each of us engages in the work of learning and reasoning through Christian doctrine is inseparable from what Scripture claims about God and his ways. Theology is likewise inseparable from the fruits of the broader community of faith and its wrestling with what the Bible says and what it means (even where we may disagree). Studying the Bible and studying theology, well understood, are inseparable. The God of the Bible says that his goal for creation is that the knowledge of his glory will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea (Hab 2:14). That knowledge encompasses more than what we usually call theology, but it certainly isn’t less.
Pursuing this broader integrative vision for theological study in Logos is very much a work in progress, and so is the LST itself. The original idea came from Carl Sanders, who has been an avid Logos user throughout his career as a professor of theology. I’ll be the first to admit that the current LST doesn’t live up to Carl’s big vision for doing theology in Logos, nor does it take advantage of nearly enough opportunities for platform integration. But we have lots of plans that I’m pretty excited about. I’d call LST 1.0 a good first step in the right direction.
All that notwithstanding, we should still write a General Introduction for 2.0. Maybe I’ll draw from this response to start.
0 -
Brannon Ellis said:
The LST represents one step in a broader vision for making Logos Bible Software as powerful and useful for theological study as it is for biblical study.
Er .. uh ... Logos is useful only for a vary narrow swath of Biblical study. Just work through the types of Bible criticism included in Tate, W. Randolph. Handbook for Biblical Interpretation: An Essential Guide to Methods, Terms, and Concepts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. and show me how each is supported in Logos. It is fine for Lexham to have a broadly evangelical perspective but only if that perspective in placed in the wider context of 2000 years of Christianity from China (7th century) to Patagonia (15th or 16th century). To have any academic credibility, your data must be neutral; your interpretation need not be.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hi Andrew,
I saw your comment here and it made me think. I'm not trying to argue your point, but I want to offer a few thoughts you might want to consider.
Andrew Loney said:I have personally never been enthused with Lexham's development of in-house, curated products (resources, datasets). I much prefer to use resources (books) written by an author who has developed a reputation in their field of expertise and theological/denominational background/commitment.
I totally get what you mean. Some people seek out Walmart or Target's off-brand generic version of household products to save a few bucks, but those brands don't exactly scream premium quality for the discerning buyer. But is that a fair evaluation of Lexham?
First, I think you'll find something like what you're describing to be a universal practice in publishing. Before I completed my doctoral work, I contributed to several dictionaries and other multi-contributor volumes from IVP UK to T&T Clark, etc. I wasn't a recognized expert in anything, much less in the topical areas which I covered for those books. Almost every single one of my young colleagues did the same thing. Who were the experts ensuring quality from all those folks? The external and internal editors overseeing the project for the publishing houses.
Second, I estimate that in any given year roughly 50% of books from established publishers were based on book project ideas that didn't originate with the authors of those projects. Again, this has always been part of publishing. Publishers know the audience and market quite well (at least we should), and so we often see the opportunities clearly and approach those we know will pull off those projects well.
Third, quality, reputation, and expertise are hard to quantify and don't always overlap with being a recognized author. The Care of Souls from little-known pastor Hal Senkbeil just won several book awards from Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition. But the Lexham Geographical Commentary on the Gospels won the same Christianity Today award last year, and it was an in-house curated project. Which part of those successes do you attribute to the authors and which to the publisher? It's hard to say. Or let's look again at scholarly quality. Most of the folks involved in the Lexham Survey of Theology (for example) hold PhDs in biblical and theological disciplines, have published scholarly works, and teach at reputable institutions. That's not just the external contributors—the internal editors hold PhDs in relevant fields and are published authors. When I published with Oxford was it more legitimate than when I worked on the Survey? Perhaps you could make the case, but either way, the author is the same.
Again, I'm not trying to argue with you—I just thought you might appreciate some "in house" perspective on this. Hopefully you don't find it too generic.
Blessings,
Brannon
0 -
Brannon Ellis said:
Most of the folks involved in the Lexham Survey of Theology (for example) hold PhDs in biblical and theological disciplines, have published scholarly works, and teach at reputable institutions.
You've missed one critical element. In my field of study, an encyclopedia on Japanese Buddhism (primarily Zen) would be garbage if written by the world experts in Theravadan Buddhism. Where the LST gets in trouble is when the author is writing about the view of a church whose theology is so far from his own that they don't know that they don't know. You need to get editors in each of the major denominational strands to read the text specifically with respect to their own tradition being accurately portrayed. Given some of the simple misunderstandings (and therefore misrepresentation) of the history of Catholicism, I simply shrugged the LST off as unreliable - likely unfairly but not uncommon.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
