Description:
Write a 1,000 Word response to ONE of the Books set for review listed below: (Do not write how nice or great the book was- answer all the 5 critical scholarly questions about the book of your choice)
Doing Theology:
Barth, Karl. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Reprint edition, 1992)
The Perfections of God:
Gunton, Colin, E. Act and Being: Towards a Theology of the Divine Attributes (London: SCM Press, 2003)
OR
Webster, John. Holiness (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003)
God and human suffering:
Hall, Douglas John. God and Human Suffering (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Reprint edition,, 1987)
God and creation:
Edwards, Denis. How God Acts: Creation, Redemption, and Special Divine Action (Theology and the Sciences) (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010)
In your review address the following questions (each count for equal value i.e. 20% each for the overall grade for this assignment)
1. What are the main theological tenets of this text?
2. What is the theological method that the author employs?
3. What are the primary sources that the author draws on for theological reflection?
4. What practical implications does this text have for (a) Christian living and/or (b) the articulating of the Christian message in your contemporary context?
5. Can you recommend this text as an important contribution to theological discussion? Please give your reasons.
Each of the five questions you are to address will carry an equal weighting. This assignment provides you with the opportunity to read more widely and deeply to (1) broaden your theological knowledge, (2) assess the theological contribution of an important theologian, and (3) reflect on the relevance of the author’s theology and/or theological method in your particular context.
Make sure that you CRITICALLY EVALUATE your sources!!! REFERENCING STYLE: SBL REFERENCING. Chicago Style is similar to SBL → first reference has a long format in footnotes → 2nd reference of the same source has a short format in footnotes → Bibliography of the same source has a different format in reference of the same source → so there’s 3 formats for each source repeated