6b. Analysing the question

Another way of analyzing the question is to find the ‘question’ word – is it a ‘why’, a ‘how’, ‘what’, ‘when’ or even ‘who’? The first three deserve some reflection. Why questions are asking you to locate a cause or purpose. Thus the classic essay question -

Why did God become man?

asks you to trace both the causes and the purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God (and you need to talk to Athanasias and Anselm by the way!).

What questions appear to be asking you to describe something:

What is the impact of Arianism for Christian teaching about salvation?

The danger here is that you will just tell me something and not show it to me. Remember, you are being asked to display the higher level skills on Dr Bloom’s chart. Summary and description aren’t enough.

How questions are asking you to talk about the way in which something is done – to examine the inner workings of an event or an argument. The event or argument is often a ‘given’ of the question. Take this for example:

How is it that all human beings may be said to share in the sin of Adam?

You are encouraged to assume that all humans do share in Adam’s sin, and to explain how this is. You could challenge the presupposition of the question of course, but that’s a high-risk strategy.

The next thing you need to figure out is the reference point or context against which you are supposed to make your evaluation. Once again, this can be quite explicitly stated, or it may be that you have to infer it from the question yourself. Either way, you need a yardstick against which you are going to judge the issue. What are your criteria, in other words?

Take our first sample question:

Evaluate the arguments for and against universalism, with special reference to the work of Jurgen Moltmann.

Forget Jurgen Moltmann for a moment. You have been asked to evaluate two opposing sides to a question – that of universalism. But according to… what criteria? The question doesn’t say, so you are going to have to supply the criteria. But you can assume that, in theology, the usual criteria is faithfulness to Scripture and to the norms of good theological thinking that your institution or college have set forward. Is it Biblical? Is it orthodox? Is it coherent? These would be important reference points to keep in mind. But also, it is a comparative question, asking for you to lay two alternatives side by side.

Here’s another question:

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

In this instance there are given reference points against which you are to evaluate the particular position – the Bible, and ‘theology’. Note that in this instance, you aren’t being asked to come with a new argument as much as to evaluate a pre-existing one.

Now what about this one:

To what extent did the Eternal Son ‘empty himself’ of his divine nature when he came to earth?

‘To what extent’ gives you a evaluative action to do: how far does this proposal run, as you see it? But what’s the reference point here? By what standard are you going to measure the ‘extent’? It may be that you are going to have to articulate the reference point in your answer.

One thing’s worth adding here. It’s a theology essay in the context of a course called ‘Doctrine’ or ‘Theology’. The questions make sense when seen in the history and practice of this discipline. For example the scare quotes in the ‘conscious eternal torment’ question are there because this is language that has been used in a debate going back some centuries. You are being invited to join this debate. Likewise, when mention is made of ‘the doctrine of justification’, the assumption is that there is such a thing available to analyse and debate. And there is – in the history of Christian thought. Or, a specific thinker might be named – such as ‘Jurgen Moltmann’. That’s a pretty obvious way of reminding you that you are engaging in a conversation that has been going on a long while already. So what you need to do is to locate your question in the context of the theological conversation that is already there. (I’ll talk a bit more about joining the conversation later on.)

Having asked yourself what you are being asked to do, it is now time to look at the specific content of the question. You’ll quickly observe that essay questions take all kinds of forms:

a) Evaluate Calvin’s claim that “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.”

b) Is there any sense in which can say that ‘the world is charg’d with the grandeur of God?’ (G.M. Hopkins). Answer with regard to the doctrine of revelation.

c) With regard to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and in the light of the effect of sin on human understanding, in what sense (if any) can it be said that Scripture is clear?

The questions are padded out in a variety of ways. Often a quotation is added to the question. You have to decide whether the quotation is an integral part of the question or whether it is just there for aesthetic purposes. In question a) above, the quote from Calvin is the very thing you are supposed to be evaluating. Note, too, that it is specifically labeled as Calvin’s claim: that is, you are being invited not only to engage with the proposition on its own terms but as a claim made by the theologian John Calvin, as part of his thought. You’d be right to try and locate the quotation in context and to engage with Calvin’s thought more broadly (though the question is not asking for a history lesson, but an analysis don’t forget).

But in question b) uses a quote from the Jesuit poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. And very nice it is too. But the question itself gives you enough indications that you are not supposed to give an analysis of Hopkins’ thought, fascinating though that would be. In fact, you can answer the question without ever having heard of Hopkins.

Question c) offers you a specific frame of reference for your analysis of the proposition ‘Scripture is clear’. The markers want to help you by pointing you to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the effects of sin on human knowing. The question could have stood alone in the form -

In what sense (if any) can it be said that Scripture is clear?

But you have been given specific directives as to the shape of your answer here. You can’t avoid them.

What about this monster:

'The church will stay on mission as it reflects deeply on the sacraments as gospel dramas where the Word is spoken and made visible, and where the blessings of life with the triune God brought to us through the Word made flesh, who died for our sin and rose for our new life, are lived out faithfully in the sacramental community of the Spirit to the glory of God the Father.'

How may we adequately conceive of the nature and role of sacraments in ecclesiology?

These questions, in my experience, drive students absolutely batty. You have a long and complicated – and unnamed – quotation which is placed above a question with no given connection to it. What are you to do with the quotation?

Students will overcomplicate things at this stage and try and locate the quotation and interact specifically with it. But there is no directive in the question that asks you to do anything. The best thing to do is to see the quotation as a piece of stimulus material. The question itself is what should absorb your attention. The quotation (I would make reference to it, or incorporate some mention of it just to be sure) is not the main business.

So to summarise:

Ask yourself:

1. What higher level task am I being asked to do, explicitly or implicitly?

2. Am I being asked to find a cause or a purpose, or trace a connection, or describe something?

3. What is the measure I am being asked to use, explicitly or implicitly?

4. Where is my question located in the context of the ongoing theological conversation?

5. Are there any extra features of the question that I have to take into account?