FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2126452404> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2126452404 endingPage "74" @default.
• W2126452404 startingPage "35" @default.
• W2126452404 abstract "Nowadays the theological education stands in the midst of critique and rebuke. It is said that the theologies, which are taught and learned in theological seminaries, cannot serve the church through critical reflections on its praxis and ministry. It is also said that they cannot contribute to formation of personal, spiritual and professional competencies of the future ministers. In one word, the theological education cannot mediate theory and praxis for a ministerial formation with each other. In order to overcome such crises I start from the conviction that a proper theological education should be guided by its fine-designed mission and method, which a theological faculty should have in common. In the first part of the article I would like to analyze some problems of the curriculum designs which the theological seminary of the Hanshin University has developed for the M. Div. degree program from 1987 until now. In spite of a series of small- and great scaled revisions there have been some confusions and irritations in the curriculum designs, which came from an insufficient concept of the theological education. Of course, the classic curricu lum, which had been settled down in 1987, was oriented to the basic theological education in the framework of seven special areas of theology (Old Testament, New Testament, Church History, Systematic Theology, Christian Ethics, Practical Theology and Christian Education) as well as to preparation for further theological research. But in the classic curriculum there could have been a danger of fragmentation and compartmentalization of theology without a comprehensive and integrative perspective of theological formation. In the process of curriculum revision since 1997 such a danger has become stronger because all the members of the faculty have adhered to that their own special studies should be included in the core curriculum of theological education. In the current curriculum ten special study areas (the seven traditional study areas plus missiology, pastoral counseling and feminist theology) are categorized into three special fields (Bible study, theoretical study and practical study field). Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that a certain form of professionalism and specialism has prevailed in the curriculum design of the theological seminary. In the second part of the article I would suggest some reform proposals regarding a curriculum design for a fine-defined theological formation. For such a work I refer mainly to the discourse products which E. Parley, J. B. Cobb Jr., J. C. Hough, M. L. Stackhouse, D. H. Kelsey, B. G. Wheeler, J. W. Fowler and other scholars have issued for reforming the theological education in the USA. I have been concentrated on formulating the mission and method of the theological formation. Only when a theological fac ulty make clear its own perspective for the theological formation, it can integrate hermeneutic mediations of the Bible and theological traditions for a Christian identity, human- and social-scientific analyses of reality and efforts to prepare for personal, spiritual and professional competences into formation of the ministerial leadership for the praxis of the church in the world. It is very difficult to reform the established pattern of the theological education. Without an open discourse in the faculty it would be impossible to overcome the fragmentation and compartmentalization effects of the theological professionalism. It could be helpful, so I think, if the faculty could promote an open ecumenical dialogue for articulating the mission and method of a proper theological formation." @default.
• W2126452404 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2126452404 creator A5018587169 @default.
• W2126452404 date "2009-06-01" @default.
• W2126452404 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2126452404 title "한신대학교 신학대학원 목사후보생 신학교육의 교과운영 현황과 교과개발을 위한 제안" @default.
• W2126452404 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2126452404 type Work @default.
• W2126452404 sameAs 2126452404 @default.
• W2126452404 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2126452404 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2126452404 hasAuthorship W2126452404A5018587169 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C2777122596 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C2777278149 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C557305775 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConcept C62485664 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C111472728 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C138885662 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C144024400 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C17744445 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C19417346 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C199539241 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C27206212 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C2777122596 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C2777278149 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C47177190 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C557305775 @default.
• W2126452404 hasConceptScore W2126452404C62485664 @default.
• W2126452404 hasLocation W21264524041 @default.
• W2126452404 hasOpenAccess W2126452404 @default.
• W2126452404 hasPrimaryLocation W21264524041 @default.
• W2126452404 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W2126452404 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2126452404 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2126452404 magId "2126452404" @default.
• W2126452404 workType "article" @default.