Semminary Studies

Link to assignments [Google Drive]

2017

Spirituality [Practical]

This course was very first year, everybody brushed up on their confirmation course.

Bible Intro [exegetical]

Beginning to look at exegiesis of the Old Testement

Early Church [Historical]

what did Christianity look like before they had an old or new testament?

2018

Lutheran Confessions [Theological]

using our book of concord

Ass1 is about monastic vows.
Summative comment
You covered the bases quite well in the end. Some of your historical introductory material was
not that clear or accurate in its details.
Also, you need to pay more attention to being precise in your writing and avoiding
generalisations that can be misleading.

Ass2 The key of Justification for unlocking Lutheran Doctrine
Summative Comment
Ben your mode of expression is of ten hard to follow, and you have some trouble with writing
clear English.
Nevertheless you managed show a very good understanding of justif cation and used a variety
of interesting and helpf ul sources to illustrate your points.
That said, you did not always harvest the great material that you could have from these
sources in order to make your conclusions.
I a handf ul of places you really said somehelpf ul and cogent things that got right to the core of
justif cation.
Your catechetical questions were mostly very usef ul. The answers you gave were sometimes
less so.
Over all, quiet a reasonable job. You could improve your marks by writing better English, and
thinking cvaref ully about how to unpack your points in a logical order.

Foundations [Practical]

Ass1 Book review Albrecht Peters Baptism and the Lords Supper
Instructor
You were aware of all three assessment criteria
which was pleasing to see and you gave a response
in all areas. Conf ession and absolution seemed to
become more signif icant to you af ter this reading,
especially as a means bringing God's f orgiveness to
your lif e. Your ref lections on your own catechetical
journey highlighted the signif icance of good
modelling and you can thank God f or that. In the
f inal section it was probably appropriate to ref lect
on your own journey with Brianna but I was also
expecting to see more about your learnings as f ar
as they impact your work in f ield ed congregation,
Sunday school, conf irmation, bible study groups and
so on. That is, you as a trainee pastor and a trainee
catechist. Nevertheless good work, and it was good
to see the wider ref erencing to the Kleinig reading.

Ass2 personal reflection
Instructor
I didn't see any reflection here on the main readings
in Oden, Kraus/Mueller and Peterson. This was a
signif icant oversight and it had an impact on your
paper. It meant there seemed to be a lack of
attention sometimes to your key learnings about the
role of the pastor. In places there were general
statements about how your view had changed but
there needed to be some more detail about that. For
example, what does a pastor do and why? And what
doesn't he do and why not? And as f ar as your
previous understandings were concerned, what was
conf irmed? What was challenged or how were some
of your initial thoughts reshaped? You make a start
on this in places but ref erence to those three key
readings would helped you along the way I think.

Ass3 create a catechetical lesson
Instructor
The f ocus was really to grow your vocational we
have been learning in class and teach it into a parish
context. This resource is at the edge of that task. It
does include some ideas, choice of texts, questions
that will be usef ul in other contexts.

2019

Liturgics [practical]

Ass1 planning a liturgical service
Mostly quiet reasonable choices, although it is always good to anchor these in the context of the
liturgy's functions rather than in assumptions about peoples' impressions and experiences.
Prayer of the church was okay - but a little light on I would suggest. Be careful not to reiterate other
parts of the liturgy in it, taking over other functions. It has its own job to do - to pray for the church
and world.

Ass2 presentation on liturgical music
Heading up your assignment with the topic and title might be helpful to the reader.
You have, I think partially thought through the important issues here, but have not arrived at clear
and cogent insights. Your written materials show the same challenges you face in presentation:
clarity and follow-ability.
I think this is partly due to your not having the issues really clearly in mind to start with, and partly
due to your challenges in then communicating what you mean. I have a highlighted a couple of
examples in your notes. Precise language in theology is necessary because it hinges so often
precise distinctions rather than generalised comparisons and comments.

Ass3 Vatican 2 influences on our holy communion service
You did a good job of tracing the threads through, Ben.
Probably the real place where you see the Vatican II reforms flow into the LCA is in the introduction
of the SAF p.58., which enacts a lot of RC emphases (in Lutheranised form). The Eucharistic prayer,
the epiclesis and the doxologies all came back to the Lutheran service.
It was a significant ecumenical reaching out from both sides, seeking common liturgical roots and
practices.

Matthew Mark [exegetical]

Ass1 Exegesis of Mark 1:21-28
Well done. You have obviously worked through the Greek text with some care. Your "smooth
translation," however, strays a bit too far from the literal wording of the text.
Your discussion of context, form, and theology is very good.
I have a couple of small critiques in sections on textual variants and context.
Be careful with capitalization.
Your work seems to have improved since last year. You should take encouragement from that.

Ass2  Exegesis of Mark 16:1-8

You need to keep your discussion of topics on topic. For example, in the sections on context
and form you mostly discuss other things (Augustine's harmonization attempts, Theophylact).

You need to discuss Mark's text, rather than trying to harmoinze it with Matthew.

You need to consult more actual, recent commentaries.

I have marked many formal errors (incomplete sentences, misspelling etc.).

Ass3 Exegesis of Matthew 8:18-27

I noted many errors in the translation.

Your discussion of form and structure needs to focus on the type of traditions we have here
(pronouncement stories, etc.).

Ass4 Better Exegesis of Mark 16:1-8

You have made some good improvements and additions over against the mini-exegesis.

You made some good corrections in the translation, although a number of errors or omissions
remain.

The discussion of form is not bad, but the discussion of structure needs improvement (see comments
on pp. 2, 6). In the discussion of context, you have identified the key contextual links, which is good.
The discussion of the alternative endings needs more. In the discussion of redaction, you need to
identify what is particularly Markan (esp. v. 8).

The verse-by-verse commentary contains a number of good observations, but there are inexact
statements and missing details in the commentary on verses 3-6. You miss the central points in vs.
6-8. Pay attention to how one verse connects to another, which helps us to see better what is central
in each verse.

The comparison between Matthew and Mark lacks discussion of how Matthew's version manifests
distinctive Matthean literary and theological concerns, themes, or interests.

In theological appropriation, I question whether your final reflection really captures what is most
important theologically for Mark. What does his empty tomb story mean for our understanding of
resurrection?

I have marked numerous errors in spelling (see esp. angle consistently for angel), sentence structure
(incomplete sentences, run-on sentences). Note inconsistency on p. 3.

Preparing the Sermon [exegetical]

Ass1 Sermon before being taught

since you received comprehensive f eedback at the time in class, I wont go over all that in detail
in my comment here.
You put in good ef f ort on the text and getting your thoughts together.
However there are serious unity and continuity issues with this sermon, a lack o f ocus, clear
purpose and direction.
This goes back partly to the f act that you over-reached in trying to preach more than one text -
and that your texts seem to have been randomly chosen because you liked them.
There is no hook or image to help the reader f ind their way through the sermon.
Anyway - you gave it a good shot, and took up the learning opportunities to be had here.

Ass2 Book review on Law and Gospel

Apart from the f irst paragraph which was not asked f or in the task, the rest of the response
was very pleasing, showing a deep understanding of what Pless is saying.
As you say, definitely worth rereading.

Ass3 Sermon having been taught

Ben, your first section has been tidied up somewhat which is good. There is still quite a bit of
essential material missing from your exegetical summary.
This is hard text and requires a lot of careful thinking through - moving from the OT to
Christology. I can see that you began to get the pieces joining together by the outline stage.
Your outline and sermon show signs that you are beginning to get to an understand of how to
do this.
You tend still to write from inside your own mind instead of writing for the hearer, and so
make assumptions which do not help the hearer follow your material.
You need to be much more precise and careful in your use of language, so that you make
your meaning clear to people, who are outside your own head. This is not easy, but it is
necessary in preaching.

Prolegomena [Theological]

Ass1 reading response
Thank you f or your report on Luther's Theology of
the Cross. It is obvious that you have benef ited
from your study of this important theological
concept. I encourage you to keep exploring the
meaning and signif icance of the Theology of the
Cross in your ongoing studies and in your f uture
pastoral ministry.
Please see my comments throughout your report.
Your report would have been improved if you had:
(1) Explained how the Theology of the Cross
shapes our theological methodology as Lutherans -
that we see all things from the perspective of the
cross (the lens as per your f irst f ootnote). The
Theology of the Cross as a theological concept is
not limited to the cross - it is about the cross, of
course, but the concept is much more than that.
(2) Defined your terms more precisely.
(3) Discussed the hiddenness aspect of the
Theology of the Cross. You also needed to make
the critical point that this hiddenness is hidden
except to the eyes of f aith. In other words, they are
not hidden absolutely, it's just that people without
f aith can't see them and those of us who do believe
in Christ can only "see" this through our f aith -
trusting in God's promises. [The SUO clearly asks
you to discuss the hiddenness aspect of the
Theology of the Cross but you f ailed to do so. In
f uture make sure you answer the question as put in
the SUO.]
In f uture assignments, please make use of the new
ALC cover sheet f or assignments.
Also, please set out your Bibliography as per Write
On.

Ass2 Critical essay on many things
Thank you f or your essay. Please see my comments
and f eedback throughout your paper.
Your essay would have been improved by the
f ollowing:
(1) If you had less personal ref lection and more
research, with you actively wrestling with the
theological concepts involved inf ormed by this
research;
(2) If you has included in your research more recent
Lutheran theologians;
(3) If you has identif ied and discussed/critiqued the
various/dif f erent views on each of the three terms
rather than simply describing your own personal
views/conclusions;
(4) If you had argued your case rather then simply
asserting your views;
(5) If you had explored how the three elements are
connected. You discussed each element in isolation.
This was a major oversight on your behalf because
the f ull Lutheran understanding of Scripture is
conveyed through the connections between and
combination of all three elements;
(6) Finally, discussing the Formal and Material
principles of Scripture would have enhanced your
discussion on the authority of Scripture.
I look f orward to you making appropriate changes
along these lines in your next essay on the Trinity.

Ass3 critical essay on the trinity
Thank you for your essay. Please see my comments
and feedback throughout your paper.
I appreciated how you attempted to anchor your
analysis historically. However, your chart got a little off
topic.
Your paper would have been improved if you had:
(1) Been more clear. Your argument was a little difficult
to follow at times;
(2) Paid more attention to your spelling and grammar;
(3) Most of all - improved your referencing throughout
your paper. Apart from your chart on page 2, you only
had one other reference in your entire essay! You were
asked to write a "critical" essay. This means doing
more than merely stating your opinion. You need to
demonstrate that you have an "informed" opinion and
the only way you can do that its to directly engage with
the theological literature - referencing and critiquing
this. This shortcoming is the primary reason for your
low grade. I look forward to you improving on this basic
essay writing skill in any future papers.