Doctoral Colloquium – Monday, September 2nd

Go back to overview page Doctoral Colloquium 2024

Go to Tuesday, September 3rd >

Abstracts

Student Presentations

K. Patring (RM): 1 John’s contribution to modern research on organisational resilience

In my research on Faith Based Organisations’ (FBOs) risk awareness and mitigation against state instrumentialisation organisational resilience is a key concept. However, a literary review reveals a surprising lack of theological reflection on organisational resilience despite the broad usage of the concept in social sciences as well as by churches and Christian FBOs engaged in building community and environmental resilience as part of integral mission and their identification of a need to include spiritual capital in resilience theory and practice. Without claiming to be a New Testament scholar, I aim to theologize about the potential contributions of a New Testament Theology based on 1 John when placed in dialogue with the results of 21st-century research on organisational resilience. 1 John includes themes that link well with characteristics contributing to organisational resilience. By likening the Johannine community to a faith-permeated FBO, I suggest that the epistle in a specific way deals with the Johannine community’s internal capacity for organisational resilience. I further argue that 1 John’s aim to protect spiritual and physical life as a core community purpose provides potential vaccines against the identified risks coming along with being a resilient organisation.

J. Sherrill (OT): Hebrew Diachrony and the Doctrine of Scripture – Status Quaestionis

In the early twentieth century, scholars of biblical archaeology and epigraphy began to recognize what they deemed an archaic phase of the Hebrew language that plausibly evinced an earlier dating of many biblical texts than the dates assigned to them by critical scholars. Debate intensified in the 1990s alongside the “minimalist-maximalist” controversy, but while the latter faded, debate has persisted for the last two decades over the appropriate application of historical linguistics to biblical Hebrew and the dating of texts. While a now-standard periodization has prevailed in major publications, many challenges have also seriously qualified the confidence with which such a model should be assumed and applied, and others have brought to light alternative and/or complementary models for interpreting the data. The fact that some diachronic change obtained in Hebrew during the biblical period is beyond dispute. Yet, whether or not the prevailing model is accurate, integration of the fact of linguistic diachrony with the biblical self-witness is wanting, as is integration with the doctrine of Scripture within Reformed and evangelical scholarship. The latter especially regards inspiration, canonization, authenticity, historicity, and authority.

This paper will overview the various issues in Hebrew diachrony, its relevance for the doctrine of Scripture, and a path forward for research at the intersection of the two subjects.

C.  Tulp (ST): Phenomenology as Interlocutor for an Ethics of Responsibility? Report on a Journey.

This paper is a reflection on my journey from exploring the theological tones within phenomenology to a project that turns to phenomenology for help in developing an ethics of responsibility for engaging with technological developments. One of the most influential thinkers on this topic, Hans Jonas, argues that the increasing development of technology places ethics in a position of enormous challenges. The impact a person can have in time and place has increased tremendously, urging the need for a renewed ethics With the decline in the West of religion as a source of morality, Jonas seeks to find a common principle namely responsibility for life, including the lives of future generations.

In my paper, I will briefly examine the argument of Hans Jonas and an explicit Christian theological elaboration of it by William Schweiker. I will show that the key concept in this view, life, is poorly described and in need of deeper understanding. I will then visit the critique of earlier phenomenological engagement with technology and show that the more recent contribution to phenomenology by Michel Henry is a good interlocutor for an ethics of responsibility. I will outline how Michel Henry’s phenomenology might enrich the understanding of what life is in order to gain a fuller understanding of our responsibility for life

A. Melika (OT): 

This presentation briefly examines the cultural reality of suffering in ancient Israelite wisdom texts. In developing this research, I draw upon theological and socio-historical perspectives to shed light on the social patterns of suffering as expressed in the biblical worldview. This study views suffering as more than a literary category or genre but, more importantly, as a cultural expression found in texts that are an integral part of the webs of significations within the broader cultural context. When analyzing the communicative forms and actions of the signs of suffering in biblical wisdom literature, particular focus will be given to the linguistic, historical, social, moral, and theological contexts. Moreover, a comparative analysis of ancient Near Eastern wisdom texts (primarily Egyptian) will highlight what is distinct and common between Israelite and ancient Near Eastern cultures in their experience of the existential meaning of suffering.

R. Tkachenko (HT): Bonaventure, Aquinas, and the “mechanics” of God’s mind: revisiting my dissertation project

Since the outset, my dissertation project has been titled “God’s Interior Mystery: God’s Knowledge and God’s Will according to Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, Especially as Presented in Their Scripta.” It aims to examine the perceptions of the nature of God’s knowledge and God’s will and the relationship between the two divine attributes that the two medieval thinkers—Bonaventure (c.1217–1274) and Thomas Aquinas (c.1225–1274)—had at the early stage of their careers (1250s) when they wrote their Commentaries on the Book of Sentences (Scripta).

However, the whole project had to be stalled for a few years as I took a leave of absence to cope with some health issues and adverse circumstances. Now, after a long four-year break, I am revisiting my doctoral project’s aim, methodology, and outline. While the overall objective remains the same, the structure envisaged and perspectives used have been updated. The paper intends to present and discuss this updated design of my research project.

Faculty presentations

P. Lin (RM): Opportunities and challenges of women leadership in Evangelical organizations 

Women are the majority of the world’s 2.5 billion Christians today, yet the leaders of this movement are often male. This paper begins with reviewing key moments of this movement to provide some reasons why. It continues thereafter with discussing the opportunities and challenges of increasing women leadership. Offering observations that she has encountered in her own experience, Dr Lin hopes to increase conversation on this topic in the hopes of co-leading and co-working with men for the sake of the gospel.

J. Otten (NT): Encounter by the Sea: Fishing for Fishers, People, and OT Intertextual Referents in Mark 1:16

Jesus’s words of invitation to his first disciples (Mark 1:16) present the exegete with numerous interesting exegetical questions touching on modern translation theory, metaphor theory, and, most notoriously, intertextuality. While the majority of modern commentators assume an allusion to Jer 16:16, which speaks of Yahweh sending “fishers” to catch his scattered people, it is also generally recognized that in its immediate context in Jeremiah, the image is negative, alluding to the exile, thus raising questions as to what the Markan Jesus intends with the metaphor. This paper will argue that, while Jer 16:16 is indeed one of the intended OT references, it is meant to be understood through the lens of another “fisher” text, namely Ezk 47:10. This will be supported based on intertextual links between the two OT passages, links between both passages and the calling narrative in Mark, the use of Ezekiel 47 elsewhere in NT thought, observations on the LXX translation of Ezekiel 47, and, finally, Mark’s tendency to interpret OT passages through composite allusions, seen most prominently just a few verses earlier in Mark 1:2–3.