What else should you read? Don't forget to take notice of the electronic resources available to you for quick and accurate searches of recent journal articles. You should scan journals like The Scottish Journal of Theology and Modern Theology for articles relevant to your subject. The thing about journal articles, however, is that they tend to be highly focussed, highly specialised pieces of writing. That is their great benefit and their great flaw (for you and your essay). The highly focussed nature of the journal article means that it can get the point more quickly than a larger work. But you may find that an article that comes up when you search for articles on 'resurrection' is entitled 'Hans Urs von Balthasar's view of the resurrection in his Theological Aesthetics, in conversation with Han Kung'. That is possibly interesting (really!), but too specialised for your purposes here. Take note, however, of names of authors you might have read before - an article by contemporary theologian Miroslav Volf, for example, will be part of his much larger body of work on a subject and might be worth chasing through.
It is worth asking: what am I reading for? What am I seeking to gain from this reading?
First, you are reading to gain basic information. The reading should give you simply more things to say - a wider grasp of the details on view and the particulars of the subject. Recently, I marked a paper which was a coherent and lucid essay, and actually answered the question in its own way (so I reluctantly passed it). But because the student, who only listed three bibliographical items, had clearly not read very much at all, he (or she) had completely missed the very vigorous debate that had occured about the subject. Reading would have given him the basic information that he needed for a proper answer.
Second, you are reading for the purpose of deepening your understanding of what is involved in the question. You are reading to complexify things - to gain nuance and subtlety. Where has this question taken other thinkers? That is why it is a complete must to read the works of the big fish and not the minnows. You won't get complexity and depth if you hang out with minor minds.
Actually, that's really vital, so I'll say it again: swim with the big fish, don't paddle with the minnows. You can trail in the wake of some big fish: the standard of your work will increase because you are riding on their strength. One of my pet hates is reading a theology essay that refers only to the works of popular preachers. Do these guys do good theology? Sometimes. But it is usually derivative and simplified. That's why they are good at being popular preachers - they make things simple! Read them for your devotions, but keep them out of your essay! (Let me clear: I don't want to see the names Piper, Keller, Driscoll or Mahaney in an essay ever again! Fair enough? What about Stott? Well be careful - sometimes he wrote scholarly works, but often he didn't. Learn to distinguish).
Third, you are reading to develop arguments you can use. Remember, you are trying to form a thesis statement, or an argument. Mine the theologians for arguments that seem persuasive. Is their synthesis of Scripture viable, as far as you are concerned? Is it worth taking some of that wisdom on board. Modify if you need to.
Fourth, you are reading to find stimulating conversation partners. We read because the people we hang out with usually are those that agree with us. They come from where we come from. When we read, we are able to have access to the meditations and expositions of people from another time and place - and they may have perspectives on the subject that we would never be able to see. You don't have to agree with everything they say, but they may push you to discover a great deal about your own position, or to develop a new position that takes into account things they have said.
One of my teachers used to talk about finding 'surprising friends'. What he meant was: when you find someone from a perspective that is completely alien to yours with whom you can actually agree, this adds quite a deal of weight to your argument. You can't just be dismissed as a product of your own context if someone with vastly different presuppositions comes to similar conclusions.
Fifth, you are reading to find out what the opposition says! You are reading because you need to read first hand the best case you can find against the position you want to run. For example: you need to know what those who deny the bodily resurrection are saying before you can argue properly against them in defence of the bodily resurrection. Otherwise your essay will descend to mere polemics.
That is: you aren't reading to find the craziest, most extreme point of view on the topic. You are reading to find what the most serious and sophisticated and convincing theological arguments are. You need to be brave to this, I know. I used to have the habit of finding the most nutty scholar I could find, and then writing an essay in response to them. My 'surprising friends' teacher read one of my pieces like this and said 'well, what have you achieved? Your opponent is simply wrong! You didn't need to tell me this! There is no credit to you if you defeat them'.
It would be like sending off Manchester United to play against the Balmain under 10s. Does it prove that Man U are the best team in the world when they beat Balmain 42 - 0? No, it doesn't. A real test is when they play Barcelona: that would actually prove something.
You have to locate your Barcelonas, and Chelseas, and AC Milans. Beat them, and then you'll have something to brag about.
No comments:
Post a Comment