Lexham Survey of Theology - feedback

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?

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.

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.

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

MJ. Smith said:

You've missed one critical element.

Just wait, I'm sure you'll discover more!

In all seriousness, I totally agree that there's real work to be done to improve and extend the LST (as I said in my previous post). And of course, sometimes growing in understanding means having the humility to revisit what we think we already know. As Henri Nouwen said, “Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God's incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God.”