14. The classic introduction

Have you ever been speed dating? No, I didn't think so. Me neither. But the point of speed dating is to get a quick but true glimpse of someone: an introduction to them. Introductions open little windows on the souls of others so we can catch a glimpse of what might be inside. They are a beginning, perhaps.

Or maybe, they are enough: we all hope that we are good enough to make a rapid judgment about someone so that we can screen out any psychopaths that might really not be good people to get to know; but the trouble with this is that psychopaths, it turns out, are by definition extraordinarily good at the kind of superficial charm that you don’t notice is superficial until you scratch below the surface and discover something really alarming, like a collection of stuffed animals, or the entire Barry Manilow back catalogue.

By then it is usually much too late.

So it is with your essay. Not the psychopath bit. Your introduction is meant to serve as a window into the rest of the piece. And it has three important functions:

1) Your introduction should set the scene and frame the question. Briefly show that you have understood the question and why it is a question worth asking. Who is asking it? Why should we care? What is at stake? There needs to be a bit of drama here - a sense of conflict even. In a couple of crisp sentences tell us where the question has come from and why the reader has to read on. Be a bit alluring. Flirt with me!

2) your introduction should state your answer to the question. I'm sorry, but unless you are some kind of essay writing genius, this is a rule I pretty much insist upon. Most of us don't have the skill to create the kind of essay that only reveals its answer to the question at the end. This isn't a whodunnit. If you tell me upfront what the endpoint is, I'll have a way of making sense of what comes next in the essay. I'll have a point on which to hang all your loose ends, and it won't look like your essay is meandering. It gives it focus.

3) your introduction should give an indication of how you are going to answer the question. Yep, tell me your method. What's the procedure that's going to follow? Again, you can do this in summary form of course. But be explicit about what you are doing: first this, then this, and lastly this.

I cannot tell you what a difference this makes to the essay. If you have a good introduction you'll write a good essay, pretty much. It is that simple. So why do 70% of students not do it? They write no introduction. Or they only do one of the above. Then they wonder why no one asks them on a date...

13. Types of argument for your essay

Talking about quotations is getting ahead of ourselves though.

Let's say that you've begun researching the topic area, you've made some extensive notes and now you are feeling that the time has come to write. What are you going to write?

Remember at this stage what I said in the beginning: an essay is an argument about something trying to show your skills in the analysis of texts and the synthesis of ideas. That is to say: you need to argue something. Before you start writing ask yourself this absolutely crucial question: what am I arguing for? What thesis am I proposing and defending?

It will help you no end if you sit down, right now, and nut out a single sentence - a sentence that is clear to you, and that takes a position. Be a little bit brave even. Go on - what's life for, if not to live a little dangerously?

Actually, I am quite serious: a little courage in framing your argument is a good thing. You can always modify your statement as you go along. What you are putting up is a working thesis - that is, it is something for your essay to lean against while you write it. You may at the end of the process come back and change your thesis entirely.

Now, consider these two images:

On the right you have the classic on/off switch. It only has two positions: on and, well, off. You can switch it on. And you can switch it off. That's really all it does.

On the left is another design classic: the volume knob. It has 10 numbers which indicate a spectrum of positions. (It may even have 11, but that's another story, one about Marshall stacks, and so on.

Now: you might be a personality that prefers everything in the world to be a matter of on or off. Yes or no. Black and white (you knew I was going to say that, right?).

But the thing is that in an argument in which you are trying to convince the marker of your ability to make subtle distinctions, your really have to operate as if the world had volume knobs on it rather than on/off switches. That is: there may be degrees of certainty, elements of moderation, and many other ways of sitting between the extremes on a spectrum that give your essay greater persuasive power. This is partly because sitting at one extreme is often claiming far too much than you can possibly establish in your short piece.

Let me take you back to one of our sample questions:

Is ‘conscious eternal torment’ the only sound Biblical and theological description of the nature of hell?

You can see that this question is actually inviting you to take an extreme position - the word 'only' is the giveaway. But it would be a bit of a trap to accept that invitation. It would show a degree of analytical sophistication if you were rather to argue that (if this is your opinion) 'conscious eternal torment' is the most convincing interpretation of the Biblical material. Instead of using your on/off switch, you've used your volume dial - and you've settled on a 9 on that dial perhaps, but you've used a much more nuanced way of measuring the results of your study.

How are you going to argue for your thesis? Arguments can take various shapes. Here are some:

1) the cumulative argument is an argument that is in effect constituted by a list of points that do not necessarily relate to one another but that, when added all together, make the case. Because you don't have to say how the points relate, the cumulative argument is a very simple form to use - it works well in exams especially. Its weakness is that it doesn't make for a logical whole; and if you don't treat each piece of evidence carefully, it can look like each piece has equal weight - which is unlikely. The other problem is how you might deal with objections and counterarguments - but you can do this under each point as you go through.

2) the sparring partner argument is an argument in which you chiefly wrestle with the argument of another in a critical way. What you need to do here is offer an in depth AND FAIR exposition of their work and then engage with it, modifying it as you see fit. Don't worry about originality - even a small adjustment can be a new perspective on the problem. Your wrestle with the sparring partner may lead to fresh insights. It could be that the thinker is from a very different perspective than your own - and adapting their work critically leads to a very provocative synthesis. The danger of course is that you become intimidated or overwhelmed by the sparring partner.

3) the thesis proposed and dissected argument is one that I have found theologian John Webster using. He starts with a detailed proposition and then takes it apart element by element, before putting it back together at the end. This argument can be aesthetically quite tidy and also means that you concentrate on concepts that hang together rather than bits from here and there.

4) the evaluate the alternatives on the table argument immediately plunges you into the tradition of the discussion of the matter at hand and shows your awareness of the secondary literature discussion. You can explain each alternative, offer an evaluation according to strengths and weaknesses, and then offer your own synthesis, or choose the strongest option. The danger is that if you don't do a good job of describing the alternatives the whole thing looks like a mess.

TIP: you know those 'Three/Four/Five Views On' books? Do take great care when using these: they are designed for people just like you and they are inviting you to take a huge shortcut. Some students think they can do their entire research from one of these books. The essays are inevitably of uneven quality in these books. And what's more: I think they leave students feeling completely confused. I know I feel confused...

Well, that'll do for the moment. Are there any other argument types that I could add to this list?

12. Some advice on quoting

You probably know that quoting is part of the essay writing shebang. An essay's gotta have quotes, right, to show that you've read things - hasn't it?

But quotations can get way out of hand. They can be over-complicated, over-long and poorly chosen. Or, there can be just too many of them - so you can't see the argument for the quotes. As my supervisor once said,

I don't like there to be too many quotes.

Wise words.

There are three reasons that you should permit yourself the indulgence of a quotation.

1) The other author completely nailed it. That is, they have put something SO beautifully that you couldn't possibly put it that way yourself. You just have to put it in. Example "As Karl Barth put it: This man is man." Notice that it is short, and pithy. No pith, no quote.

Don't put in a quote that is full of jargon that you don't understand. That use does NOT fulfil this rule! As a general rule, write something around the quote that shows you DO understand it.

2) Yes, my opponent actually does say that. If your opponent has an outrageous point of view and you are trying to engage it, use quotation to illustrate and exemplify - just so we can see that you aren't misrepresenting her or him.

3) I am expounding this point of view to learn from it. If you are trying to explain what Luther's view on justification was, so that you can learn from it, throw in a couple of short quotes to pick up his voice, his language.

The golden rule is - KEEP IT SHORT. Quotes that take up 10 or more lines are just padding. Summarise the idea and put in a footnote.

And, as I said above: introduce and follow the quote with enough explanatory words to show that you know what it means. What work is the quote doing for you? What was I supposed to get from it as a reader? Just because a well known author said it doesn't mean it is a) right b) intelligible c) what you want to say.

Also: watch that your quote doesn't introduce new material into your essay that is just confusing. Clip the quote so it is PRECISELY relevant to your case and so that there is no extra material.

BUT: do read carefully. Sometimes an author is recounting someone else's argument. If you pull out a quote from the middle of such a passage, you will badly distort the views of the author. Take care!

11. How to treat your opponents

OK everyone: gather in. Shut down facebook, switch off your phone. I'm getting serious now. This is a biggie, I think.

Here it is:

You need to treat your opponents with charity and respect.

Yep - that's right: in your essay you need to give your opponents a fair hearing - as fair a hearing as you possibly can.

I know you've signed up for theological study because you think there is a right and a wrong, and because you are passionately comitted with all your being to the truth of the gospel and the authority of the Bible. I know you've probably been inspired by preachers in your life who painted things in black and white terms, and who pointed to the false teachers out there and told you to beware.

BUT: it is a) a matter of basic ethics and b) a matter of academic good practice to treat those with whom you disagree as fairly as possible.

Ethics? That's right. You need to treat people as you would want to be treated. You are not a tabloid journalist. You would hate it if:

a) your views were heard at second hand and no-one ever asked you what you thought in person in your own words
b) it was assumed that you were trying to decieve people and acting in bad faith
c) it was assumed that you trying to avoid the clear statements of the Bible
d) a caricature of your views were offered, then dismissed in a glib sentence

But - can I say this? - that is how many theological college students treat their opponents in their essays. It is actually a matter not only for changing techniques, but for repentance in my view. It is that serious.

Now hear me right: I am not saying 'go soft on naughty liberals' or something. It is in fact the opposite: if ideas are influential and credible then to respond to them properly so that the people of God are well served we ought to take great care to treat them ethically. It is the seriousness of the matter that in fact demands that we don't resort to cheap shots, polemics and over-heated rhetoric.

Don't put these in your essay.

And it is actually bad academic practice. It makes your argument look weak if you do this. I once read a sheaf of essays on Karl Barth most of which did not show any attempt to engage with him at first hand. Most of them used an essay by Roger Nicole to summarise Barth's arguments, and then, surprise suprise, dismissed Barth in the terms Nicole did. Now, Nicole was a fine scholar: but Barth is a major thinker whose writing you need to deal with AT FIRST HAND or not at all. Sure, you can read Nicole. But not to read Barth in this case? Fail.

If you put up a caricature of your opponent, and then argue the caricature down, what have you demonstrated? Precisely nothing. In addition, you need to ask: is there nothing that can be learnt from this person? Barth himself was a great critic of the 19th century theologian Fredrich Schleiermacher. But he once said something along the lines of 'you cannot hate here until you have loved'. It was precisely because Barth knew Schleiermacher at first hand and could appreciate what he was trying to do that made him such a devastating critic of Schleiermacher's work. That's a model worth aspiring to - your future congregations deserve no less.

This flaw of lack of charity also reveals an often unwarranted overconfidence in your own position. The person who is dismissive of the other person 'because the Bible clearly teaches otherwise' usually hasn't done the hard work to establish that the Bible does in fact teach what they think it does. Have they actually heard the case for the other side? Often not, I am afraid.

10c. Using the Bible in Theology Essays

Righto - I've had a rant about proof texting and word studies (argh!) and I have made the point about reading the Bible as a whole, but I still need to say more. I still encounter a great degree of scepticism about the discipline of theology amongst evangelical Christians, even very well educated and thoughtful ones. And this is because they feel that theology asks questions about which the text of Scripture isn't directly concerned or says things without making apparently direct reference to the text of Scripture.

I appreciate the concern. Whereas the great vice of bibical studies is to get lost in the labyrinths of unanswerable and irrelevant historical questions, so the great vice of theology or doctrine is to follow the trail of bread crumbs leading up philosophical passageways to no clear or important destination.

Theology is, as Webster explained (and see above), 'exegetical reason'. Its job is simply faithfulness to Scripture. But in working out faithfulness to Scripture it will seek to probe the concepts that Scripture introduces, and to articulate them with precision and depth and clarity. It works with Scripture as a whole.

This I've said already. But we have to realise just how difficult this is. This is not simply a matter on each question of finding the simple proof texts and citing them. It is thinking through 'what is consistent with the God of Scripture and his might acts in the world'?

That's why we refer to this thing called 'orthodoxy' - because it gives us a set of intuitions, already carefully worked out, with which to begin our theological work on Scripture. We don't read Scripture alone, but in the company of a great number of faithful bible readers before us. And the consensus of the Christian church down the ages is that God is triune - three persons in one God. That is not, per se, the explicit testimony of Scripture. It is an inference drawn from Scripture and summarised in the great creeds of the Church. When you read Scripture and attempt a piece of Christian theology, you can legitimately begin with this as your presupposition and work from there.

Discovering the relations between the three persons, and between the acts of God in history and his transcendent being is a valid theological task which may involve passages of thought without proof texts. Yet it can be thoroughly, profoundly Scriptural - because it is taking the essential testimony of Scripture as a whole and working out how it is coherent and how it applies in our world.

For example: British theologian Colin Gunton makes the interesting observation that the unity and the diversity of the triune God who is at the heart of reality is neither a form of monism (all is one) nor a way of seeing the world as sheer unconnected chaos. The trinity - a doctrine established by a reading of the whole of Scripture and not from merely a set of proof texts or from a single text - provides a challenge in this way to both a tyrannical modernism and its postmodern opposite.

Another example is this: the 'openness of God' movement was a group of evangelical theologians who taught that God is 'open' to the future - that he changes, grows and indeed learns, and that he carries out his plans in reaction to what occurs in history as much as according to his foreordination. As evangelicals, this group of theologians claimed that the Bible was on their side - and so it certainly seems to be. The Old Testament depicts God in exactly this way.

And yet what they taught was a deviation from classic Christian orthodoxy. So what? Well, I am happy to grant that orthodoxy is open to revision if you can provide enough force from Scripture to establish that it needs to be. But orthodoxy - those theological convictions worked out in the first few centuries of the Christian church - also gives you a way of reading Scripture such that we ought to read much of the Bible's language of God changing and so on in an analogical way. It isn't a straightforward case of God changing his mind. We cannot, according to orthodoxy, always move directly from Scriptural statements about God to direct claims about his nature without first interpreting them in the light of what the orthodox doctrine of God says about him.

This means that you have more work to do than you may have thought to get your theology essay cooking on the stove. All the worst heretics have been Bible readers who claimed that Scripture supported their case and could point to proof texts that supported them. To defeat them, you need to show how what they say doesn't fit with the whole of Scripture and isn't consistent with Christian orthodoxy (which itself derives from Scripture).

Capiche?

What this means by the way for your reading of theologians is this: they may not cite a whole lot of texts directly, but they still might be Bible theologians. You can still be faithful to Scripture by working out the concepts of Christian orthodoxy. This is simply a way of reading Scripture - and is subject of course to the text of Scripture as its authority. But simply saying 'hey, there's not a whole lot of Bible references here' doesn't tell me anything about the Scriptural faithfulness or otherwise of a writer.

Like I said: all the worst heretics have been Bible men.

10b. Using the Bible in Theology Essays

Now, to say that your theology essay ought to be properly and thoroughly Scriptural does not allow you to indulge in the vice of prooftexting. What is prooftexting, and why don't I like it? Didn't I do a bit of it in the passage from my essay above?

Well ok, yes I did, a bit. Prooftexting is when you pull out a statement and then offer a list of bible verses to back it up, in brackets. Some essayists actually seem to believe that offering this list actually is what making your essay scriptural means. (There are some terrible examples of published works that do it, the worst in my opinion being Grudem's Systematic Theology - which is a woeful model of how to use Scripture for theology in my opinion).

Why don't I like it?

1. Instead of drawing my attention to the text of Scripture, it actually makes me skip over it and move on. It makes me think I know what the Bible says when I don’t.

2. SO OFTEN, when I look up the verses in a list, they don’t say what the author claims they self-evidently say. Or, they say it in a very, very different way. Or, a subtle point is lost. It makes no allowance for genre, for context, for the difficult work of exegesis and so on.

3. It looks messy. (OK, that’s not so important!)

4. It treats the Bible like a bank of data to be mined, and not a narrative of salvation-history. I would like there to be a ban on the phrase ‘biblical data’. The Bible is NOT data!

5. It means a tendency to prefer ‘direct-statement’ evidence in theological argument over the testimony of say, the character of God revealed in his mighty acts, or the nature of the literary and biblical-theological context.

A great example of this is Is 45:7.

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Which apparently looks like it charges God with direct agency in evil. I’ve seen it cited in lists of bible references as a proof text to this end. But this short-cuts an enormously complex and very serious exegetical AND theological discussion which needs to be had… don’t it? What's the biblical-theological context here? To whom is this prophecy addressed? Should we allow for hyperbole here?

What I do instead is that I try to quote the actual words of a particular text, and refer to those. Not without its own difficulties, but I think it is preferable. I have even seen texts from Job's comforters cited in lists of prooftexts - when their views are precisely those being satirised by the book of Job!!

The bottom line is this: you need to show where necessary that you are aware of differences in interpretation - and if necessary, argue for yours.

Things tend to go horribly wrong most often when there is a controversial issue on the table that the student feels they have to defend polemically and aggressively. But your academic essay is not the place for such polemics. You need to show that you have considered the evidence - including the biblical evidence - carefully and maturely. Why have others comes to a different view on the interpretation of the biblical witness?

As a marker, I tend to smell a rat when a student keeps insisting that 'the Bible clearly says' and then simply asserting that it is so on a particular issue without any argument. That isn't to say that their interpretation isn't in fact the best one: but it requires establishing with careful scholarship. For example: there is a lot of heat in the issue of 'hell' (sorry!). But it simply is not the case that the 'conscious eternal torment' position is self-evidently the right one. Annihilationists have made a case for their side from Scripture. And if you want to argue for c.e.t. you have to counter their claims. You can't just shout louder than them, or suggest that they are all soft and deniers of the gospel. That might be true (or not), but they have made a case from the texts that requires serious consideration and careful response (whether to agree or disagree with them).

And that means getting all your bib studs skills out and weilding them. Greek and Hebrew - the works. Look up commentaries. Take into account the genre, the context, and so on. Then bring the text to the table and offer it as evidence for your theological case.

Neither should you indulge in word studies. A word study is a method whereby you take a word that appears in the Bible, and you analyse how it is used there. A valid exercise up to a point of course - although it is worth pointing out that the Bible is an ancient book that uses everyday words, and non-Biblical evidence is necessary to grasp the full range of meanings possible.

But a word study is not theology. Theology deals with concepts. Words of course are component parts of concepts. But just analysing the Biblical words for love, or the instances that you Bible software tells you that agape is used, will not give you a Biblical theology of love. Quite apart from that, it is bad linguistics, because context is always the trump card over the dictionary when it comes to the meaning of words. Next time you hear a skateboarder call something 'sick' or 'wicked' you'll see what I mean.

(interlude) Writing theology exam essays 2

5. In the exam room, think before you write. Exams take different formats, I know: some stress your ability to think on your feet, some test your recall of material. Most are a combination. The temptation is to settle your nerves by engaging in some frantic writing. Don't. What you need to do right now is put all the info in your head down on paper. There's two strategies here. 1) do all your plans for all the exam essays first. Allow five minutes per question. 2) do your plan for each question as you go. Notice how there isn't a non-planning option? You'll write more if you spend five minutes of your time planning what you'll write. Just go with me hear. Shut out the sounds of scribbling all around you.

Actually, you should have planned your time in the exam before hand. Carefully and accurately divide up the time available between the questions. And plan to stick to the time for each essay pretty rigidly. That's your best mathematical chance for a good result: better three strong essays than one outstanding one and two sketches that score a pass. And use ALL the time you have. It never ceases to amaze me to see students walk out of exams early - I just don't get that at all. I guarantee that the answers those students give aren't as good as they could be because they haven't planned carefully their answers. I don't think they are doing the best that they can do!

As you plan do three things: 1) just put everything you can remember that is relevant down on the paper. Then you won't be anxious about recalling it. Quotes, references, points, whatever.

2) write a thesis statement in response to the question. You are being asked to analyse, synthesis and criticise - not to describe or regurgitate. If the question isn't in the form of an argument MAKE IT INTO ONE. The best answers will always show the capacity for these high order intellectual processes - so find an excuse to show that you can do them. And make sure you are actually answering the question, not simply regurgitating the answer you prepared earlier. It is so obvious when people do that, and try to squash their prepared answer into a question that doesn't quite fit.

3) make a list of points. These points are going to form the body of your essay. Think in this way: 'I am going to argue XYZ. XYZ is true for the these reasons'. List them.

6. Get writing. Yup, start writing. A couple of things about writing: it is a bit of lost skill, because we type now more ofte than not. Write legibly in large letters. If you have a problem in this area, leave a clear line in between each written line. Messy writing is often completely readable, but not if it is really really tiny. As a marker, I can't give you credit for what I can't read. Don't be obsessed about neatness, though: some of the worst exam answers are perfectly neat. There's no time for that! If you make a mistake, don't scribble it out: just make a quick, tidy line through the mistake and move on. Don't waste your time with liquid paper. Like I said: no place for perfectionists here! Also, we aren't looking for a novelist's prose. Just write directly and efficiently. Say what you mean.

7. Write a great introduction. The marker wants to see from the outset that your essay is going to be a) an argument b) an analysis c) well informed. Your intro is your chance to put it all in a nutshell. YOUR FIRST SENTENCE MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION - preferably in the terms of the question. That's not to say you automatically get downgraded for not doing this: I am naming this as a tactic that produces a fine result in clear communication. Then give a potted summary of the things you will talk about. It should be three sentences or perhaps four - not too much detail.

8. Use numbers to help frame your essay. It is a good idea to use a numbering system in your paragraphs - it helps you see what you are doing and it makes for very clear communication. One tip though: don't start by nominating a number of points you will make. You may want to add one later on as you think about it.

9. Use Scripture. In theology it is simple: no Bible, no pass. Now: don't get hung up on trying to remember lists of proof texts. Scriptural evidence can be used in a number of ways (just look at the NT writers!). You can speak generally of the argument of a book: 'In Romans, Paul argues that the gospel is the basis for the justification of the ungodly'. You can name a theme within a book. Or you can pick up a fragment of verse to quote. If you can't remember chapter and verse, don't worry. Still put it in.

You should also remember to think in terms of the whole canon of Scripture. 1) that means, that you need to consider the Bible as a narrative whole, with Christ at the centre. No Christ = inadequate Christian theology. Where does Jesus/ the gospel fit in? 2) use the whole array of Scripture in your answer. Don't simply answer from Paul - use John, George and Ringo as well. Um, oops - I mean: ask - what is the Johannine take on this? What do the Gospels say? Deuteronomy? the Wisdom literature? Psalms? 1 Peter?

TIP: bone up on John 14-17 and 1 Peter and Hebrews in preparation for your exam. Students tend to know Pauline theology pretty well. But a fully Scriptural answer ought to include these perspectives, and these three texts provide some of the richest theological material in the New Testament. From the OT, Isaiah, Deuteronomy and Genesis will be your great helps. And Wisdom literature. Show you know more than one set of texts and you can synthesise their teaching theologically.

10. Refer to theologians. Ice your cake by showing that you know that these issues have been discussed down the last two millennia by people with bigger brains than yours. Irenaeus, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and so on. Now: you don't need to quote them, though quotation is nice. Knowing what they said in your own words is just as good. On the whole, memorising quotes produces stress in your preparation for little value in the exam room. If you do use quotes, make them SHORT. Even three words is fine. 'This man is man' K. Barth. There's a great quote to use - but know what the author is trying to say by it.

The theologian might be a friend who helps deepen your thoughts and adds authority to your argument, or an enemy against whom you are sparring. Be careful in either case. Your ability to discern shades of grey is more vital here than your rhetorical power in black or white.

11. Write a simple, one sentence conclusion. Your conclusion shouldn't waste your time. It is just good form to write a closing sentence that ties everything together. If you have thought of new material on the way through, you could mention it here. If you haven't quite finished your essay and your time for that essay runs out, make a quick list of the extra points your were intending to cover and move on. We can't mark what you don't put down on the paper.

12. Have a quick re-read. Don't waste too much time here, but if you can correct some errors, or make some slight additions, you might improve the impression your essay creates.

13. Emergency measures. If you are completely thrown by an essay that you haven't prepared for, never mind. You aren't being marked on what you don't know, but only on what you do. So get down on paper as much as you possibly can about the topic. Most theology students have a good bible knowledge from which they can work anyhow. You'll surprise yourself what your memory and adrenaline can produce. NEVER EVER LEAVE A QUESTION UNANSWERED.

God bless for the exams!

(interlude) Writing theology exam essays

Since that time is upon us, at least in the southern hemisphere (somehow we didn't want the end of the year to be dominated by Christmas, so we put exams on as well), I have been requested to tap something out about writing theology essays under exam conditions.

1. This is no place for perfectionists. This is the frustration of the exam format for many people, but why I was quite good at them - me with my 'near-enough-is-good-enough' attitude. What you aren't going to write under exam conditions is theology for the ages. So have a cry and a cup of tea, and get down to work. The point of the exam is usually to test a) the breadth of your knowledge and b) your ability to marshall theological evidence to answer a question

2. Prepare long term. Weeks before your exam, refine your notes. Determine what will be on the exam - and do remember to cover your butt against the exam by preparing enough material to make sure you have an essay to write on each question. If you want to gamble, go put your pocket money through the pokies. But as I say, refine your notes and other material so that for each topic area you have a single A4 sheet. On that sheet you should have: basic data; Scriptural passages that are relevant; a couple of short quotes from great theologians or brief descriptions of their opinions. Make it neat! Use colours. Mind map if that floats your boat. Then: put everything else away. Just use the single A4 sheet from then on. Except:

3. Two days before the exam. Your short term memory is amazing, so make the most of it by doing a bit of cram-reading just before. Because you have your A4 sheet, you shouldn't have to stress here about memorising anything absolutely vital. You are just giving your mind the chance to pick up some interesting things that will spice up your exam answers. If you want to prove that you've absorbed something, explain it verbally to a poor relative or friend or spouse.

TIP: Don't study from group study papers. Group study papers are fine at one level but they produce two problems. One is: the point of the distilled notes is that you yourself have put your brain through the mill of the much larger body of knowledge that they summarise. If you just have someone else's notes, THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE. It's a shortcut to disaster. Second, the group study paper leads to everyone writing EXACTLY the same thing. As a marker, there is nothing more tiresome than reading the same study paper - often with the same errors in it - 30 or 40 times in the one session of marking. Study paper answers rarely fail, but they rarely excel, and it is kind of disappointing as an educator to read them.

4. The night before and the day of the exam. Return to your a4 sheets. You might have 5 of them. Everything is simple, clear and tidy. Get a good night's sleep - don't pull an all nighter: that's suicidal. Whatever you do at this stage, DON'T TALK TO OTHER STUDENTS. It will only cause you stress and anxiety. For this reason, I recommend arriving at the exam moments before you are due to walk in to the exam room. Your confidence is precious- if you arrive an hour before, every other bozo will be walking around saying 'did you read up on Moltmann's view of impassability' and you won't have and then you'll get frantic and you'll forget the really important stuff. Believe me.

The key to a theology exam is to remember that it isn't like a maths exam. You only have to write what you know; but you do have to write what you know. There are a number of ways to answer any of the questions. Not remembering Moltmann is (in most cases) completely fine, because you will be able to put other things down instead. Unless there is a question explicitly about Moltmann, but then you'd probably have been told that already...

(to be continued)

10. Using the Bible in Theology Essays

Perhaps I have placed the caboose before the train here. While you are plunging into Barth and Horton and Augustine, have you forgotten to read the most vital and authoritative text of all for doing theology - especially as Protestants think about it?

Well, yes. I hoped you had already begun your investigation into what Scripture has to say on your topic in your brianstorming phase. And as you read the theologians, I hope you were keeping in mind that the bar against which you are to be measuring them as successful theologians is the word of God. What's more, their usefulness to you, remember, is not least in the way the great theologians of church history alert you to how to read the Bible well.

But your theology essay is essentially an exercise in reading Scripture as a whole. It's a response to God's revelation of himself in the gospel of Jesus Christ - and we learn about that exclusively in the pages of Scripture. It's 'exegetical reason', as theologian John Webster calls it in his book Holy Scripture - A Dogmatic Sketch.

Notice what this isn't. It isn't the imposition of a system of thought on top of Scripture. It isn't trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes. I know a lot of professional biblical scholars who suspect that that's exactly what theology is on about.

But it can be, sometimes. But it shouldn't be: good theology drawn from Scripture is systematic in the sense that it tries to see the connection between the various teachings of Scripture. That's your task.

And your task is to look at the whole of the canon of Scripture. Pitting one Scripture against another, and then selecting your favourite option is not ultimately a Christian way to read Scripture. Of course, a lot of contemporary biblical scholarship has read the Bible as if it were a cacophony of disagreeing voices. This is not the place to discuss this sort of claim. But while the Scripture is a diverse book, it is also a unified one. And that unity is disclosed in Christ.

This is a way of saying that you should have in your armoury a view of the Scripture as a whole and how you should interpret the parts of Scripture in the light of the whole if you are going to do theology biblically. And the place of Christ in it is going to be central.

And that conviction about what Holy Scripture is drives the way you use it. The habit you need to avoid is the habit of the collecting a series of isolated texts that then form great lists supposedly confirming your theological statements. But that's not a way to use Scripture that conforms to what Scripture actually is. You need to stand back and take a wide view of the grand sweep of the narrative of Scripture and ask: what is this grand story of God's interaction with the world telling me about the question? There will be texts that demand inclusion in your thinking of course - but these need to be read theologically: that is, with an awareness of their place in the narrative of the Bible. You can't read the prophetic writings, for example, without reading them in the light of the Christ they foreshadowed.

I thought I'd pull out a paragraph from one of my undergraduate essays to illustrate what you are looking for in terms of Scripture:

In the resurrection humanity receives both redemption and transformation. The broad scope of the resurrection is indicated by the analogy in the New Testament between God’s creation ex nihilo and his salvific action (John 1, Rom 4:17). It is not surprising that the two concepts should be so associated, for the resurrection is a demonstration of God’s absolute sovereignty over creation (as proclaimed in the Old Testament) and his appointment of Jesus as its ruler. The testimony of the apostles in Acts is to the Lordship of the resurrected Christ (2:32-36; 17:30-31 et al). The resurrection is, of course, key to Paul’s cosmic eschatology (cf 1 Cor 15:20-8). To confess the resurrection is parallel to a confession of Jesus’ Lordship (Rom 10:9).

Now, I have used Scripture in this paragraph in several ways - but I think consistently. My second sentence makes a rather sweeping claim, but grounds it on two texts - one a reference to a whole chapter, the other to a specific verse. In the third sentence I make statements about the resurrection and about what the Old Testament as a whole teaches. I do not cite a specific text, but I use Scripture certainly to ground my thinking on. The third, fourth and fifth sentences use texts which the quickly explain - so I say what Acts 2:32-36 and 17:30-31 say rather than merely cite them.

(to be continued)

9b How to read for theology essays (and what to read)

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.

(interlude) Words not to use in a theology essay

Normal transmission will be resumed soon. But today - a brief interlude: words not use in a theology essay (or not to use in ANY essay for that matter). And no, I am not going to give you a list of swear words. Don't use them either. But I didn't need to say that.

An essay is an attempt to find some clarity of thought on a subject. The following list of words are obstacles in the way of clarity of thought. When you find yourself using them, catch yourself and ask 'what am I really trying to say here?' - and then say that instead, without the bad word.

Here's the list. It's short.

1. important (in what way? to whom?)
2. helpful (who is being 'helped'? helpful to do what exactly? 'helpful' is a word that preachers should stop using, too)
3. significant (to whom? so what?)
4. useful (how? who cares? useful for what purpose?)
5. interesting (how so? I am not interested at the moment just because you say this is interesting...)

9a. How to read for theology essays (and what to read)

The theology essay is in many respects an exercise in reading. It is measuring how well and how widely you can read in the area of the question.

Because theology is an invitation to engage in a discussion that has been developing for two millennia, it would be arrogant AND daft to ignore the work of people who have gone before you. Now this can sound a little intimidating - there's so much to read! And what can I possibly say that hasn't been said already? Part of me wants to say 'good - be intimidated!' If you haven't grasped this, you are flirting with danger. But I would also want to say that entering this conversation gives you the benefit of all those who have gone before you. You can 'stand on the shoulders of giants' as they say, and see just a little bit further than them perhaps.

The thing here is not to get swamped - especially in your first round of reading. The idea of this first lot of reading is to get into the topic and see what it looks like - to get your bearings.

Visiting a new city is a bit like this. I visited Skopje in Macedonia recently, and I decided to go for a run early in the morning. I was afraid of getting lost amongst the blocks of 1960s flats. But Skopje has very visible orientation points: the river Vardar that courses through the city; a large mountain range on one side, with a 64 metre cross on its crown; and a city centre out from which the main roads radiate. In the end it was fairly simple, once these great landmarks had been located. 'Keep the river on your right and the mountain on your left' I said to myself as I sweated my way home. (I got a few strange looks from the locals, too: I don't think early morning exercise is what Skopjans do.)

That's what you are trying to locate in the question you are attempting: what are the great mountains and rivers in the discussion that will help you find where you are? Who are the great thinkers? What are the great issues that have arisen?

Your focus in the first instance should be broad. You should be reading quickly - for sketch information, not detail. You want to maximise your efforts by reading intensively in the things most worth reading - not getting bogged down on day one in irrelevant material. If you start reading something and it isn't what you need, move on.

Preliminary investigations should take you to one or more of the dictionaries of theology that are available. I use the New Dictionary of Theology (IVP), for example. Inevitably, the articles in these dictionaries have bibliographies which will give you a sense of what is most worth reading in this area. This is an important tip for research as a matter of fact: check the bibliographies of the things you are reading for further items to read.

But I also have in mind that I will check what some of the true greats in the tradition of Christian thought have said on a particular subject - almost no matter what subject that is. Augustine, for example, is such an important figure for all subsequent theology in the West - and he usually has something relevant to say. The Cappadocian Fathers are also worth visiting on many topics. As a Protestant, I am always interested in what Calvin and Luther had to say in the 16th century. In the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas is the mightiest figure. I am also interested in picking up from the seventeenth century the way in which the Protestant tradition systematised their thinking in the work of people like Francois Turretin. Moving forward, it is worth checking Friedrich Schleiermacher, the Father of modern liberalism - even if just to disagree with him. Then in the twentieth century, I always check Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann and more conservative figures like Herman Bavinck and the recent work of Reformed thinkers like say, Michael Horton and Kevin Vanhoozer.

Each of these writers are well indexed - and that's crucial. Use indexes to minimise the amount of irrelevant reading you have to do. Pinpoint exactly the right spot, and quickly get a sense of what is being said. Make short notes, file them carefully and move on.

Oh, and just a point about working on your computer. In these early stages, as you read, it is tempting to cut and past into a word file chunks of material that you are reading - and very easy to forget to attribute it. Then, as you come to write up your essay, you forget that that chunk of writing actually was written by someone else, you and just paste it into your essay unattributed. It's an easy mistake to make, but careful note taking will remedy it as you go.

(to be continued)

8. Brainstorming

I almost wrote 'Brianstorming' on the heading of this post. I do have a friend and colleague call Brian, and I am imagine he has brianstorms sometimes. But unless you are blessed by the moniker 'Brian', I am afraid that you won't be doing any of that.

But if you are in possession of a brain and faced with the task of completing a theology essay, brainstorming is an indispensible activity and you'd better get into it.

Having determined what the question actually means, the aim of your initial brainstorm is to get down on paper everything you can think of in no particular order.

Remember: thinking is a physical activity. At this point I personally need to use pen and paper, or a whiteboard. (If I use a whiteboard, I then take a digital photo and upload it for later). I can't really explain why, but using the old-style messy handwriting just works to unlock the sleepy bits of my brian. Um, no, my brain.

What are you looking for? Well what I end up with isn't pretty. It's a sketch with lots of question marks, and lines going all over the place as I trace out possible connections between thoughts. I haven't read much yet, so I just don't know what I am going to find. I guess I am listing a series of doors to open, without knowing what doors are going to lead into passageways, and further doors, and even whole rooms, and what doors are going lead nowhere.

What I am looking for is possibilities. Ideas to follow and things to read. So: here is a good place to make a preliminary list of Scriptural passages that are going to be obvious touchstones for you. If you know already of any obvious conversation partners in the history of theology, jot them down here too.

Just say the question is this:

What would be lost by denying that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was bodily?

Now, analysing the question I have come up with the sub-question 'lost from what'? - and I have recognised that the question is asking me to make a defence of the traditional understanding of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as bodily. There's a negative in place here - how would a non-bodily resurrection be deficient?

Well I am obviously going to have to hunt around for some thinkers who might argue that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead wasn't a bodily resurrection. Now, I have heard it said that Bishop Spong argues against this so I jot his name down. That doesn't mean he is going to feature in my essay - far from it: he's not a scholarly source - but looking at his books might at least alert me to other places to look. I have also heard something about for Anglican Archbishop of Perth Peter Carnley, so I'll jot his name down.

Clearly this isn't a very long list, so I had better commit to further investigation of the other side of the case. If my portrayal of the case against the bodily resurrection is deficient then my argument in defence of it will also be weak. So I must be careful to find the strongest opponent to argue with. (more of that later).

What could possibly be the opposite case? A resurrection that is spiritual only? No resurrection at all? It is important to consider the alternatives and how someone could possibly argue for them.

Can I think at this stage of any possibilities of things that might be lost? A couple of possibilities come to mind, because I think of the bodily resurrection in terms of the strong affirmation of the body and of the created order in the New Testament. In fact, Romans 8 is a very interesting passage in this regard and says something about the 'redemption of our bodies'. That'll be worth a further look.

Also, the resurrection of Jesus as a body is something that then gets used as an image to talk about the church, which is 'his body'. I don't quite know what to make of that, but - well, it's worth scratching it down for now.

What about the Bible? Romans 8 I've already mentioned. 1 Corinthians 15 is going to be the obvious place to look and I am going to have to do some exegetical work in and around that passage. But where else? The Old Testament? Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12 are the standard resurrection passages. But also, later Isaiah talks alot about the new creation - maybe that's worth a look. Psalm 16? The preaching in Acts? Note it down. We can add to this list later.

Now whatever you do: don't lose this sketch of paper! File carefully! This work will be your reference in the weeks to come.