Pp 1-Sy

1

A Quick Guide to Writing

Paper 1: Experience in Theology

The Basics

The point of this paper is to help you develop several skills that you will use in the later writing

assignment—namely synthesis and evaluation. Where ATCSs are designed to help you learn to

read and begin to analyze texts, this paper is going to help you develop evaluative skills in

technical reading and to reinforce the idea that all evaluation takes place from a particular

perspective. These papers will force you to look at the way each author independently views a

topic at a content level but then push deeper by comparing and contrasting what the authors say

from the evaluative perspective of a particular author. There’s an old saying among jazz

musicians: imitate, assimilate, innovate. This exercise will cause you to imitate (by stating the

position of each author), then assimilate as you have to go beyond mere imitation to try and think

like one of the authors. This will help prepare you for the future of your ministry where new

challenges will cause you to innovate. The first part of the paper will be descriptive, and the

second part will be evaluative. Keep in mind this is not a research paper. You should have all

you need to write the assignment based on reading the assigned texts.

Elements

Description: For the first part of the paper you will give a description of how each of our authors

(Olson, Grenz, Vondey, and McGrath) view the role of experience in theology. Each author must

be treated separately but the total word count for the description should be between 1000 –1500

words in total. You must label each author—either with stand-alone subheadings (like Elements

above) or inline headings (like Description above). Do not make me guess who you are

describing! A few additional things to note: (1) McGrath’s section on experience (read only

pages 71-88) is the author you will be trying to assimilate; therefore, it is most likely that you

will have the most to say in describing McGrath’s understanding of experience in theology. (2)

Vondey’s position is the most philosophical and spread out of the authors but try not to get too

bogged down in the deep weeds of his position. (3) Grenz’s position is the one most likely to trip

you up—be very careful in understanding what he is and is not saying, especially how and where

he is using the term experience. (4) All these authors are evangelical of one flavor or another so

there will be overlap in their positions, but also possibly some differences you might not see at

first. Don’t be too quick to assume that they are all in perfect agreement with each other or that

they all fundamentally disagree. (5) Remember to provide citations, even when not directly

quoting, so the reader can see where you are drawing your ideas from. Use intext author-date

citations, e.g., (Olson 2016, 25), not footnotes. If you do not have a copy of Turabian here is the

official website which is quite helpful:

https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/turabian/turabian-author-date-citation-quick-guide.html

Evaluation: This is where you are going to do your best to channel your inner McGrath. Trying

to think like McGrath, how would McGrath evaluate each author’s understanding of experience

in theology. What would he endorse and what would he be cautious of? How strongly would he

endorse or how much caution would he show? How important would McGrath think the

particular point would be? This section should be 500 –1000 words in length. It may be

organized by author or by topics. Regardless of which organizational path you take, please

provide subheadings. If you are organizing by author, then use the author’s name as the

subheading. If by topic, then the topic—but if you do this you need to be very clear in your

2

writing who you are talking about at any given point. And, again, use intext citations to leave

breadcrumbs for the reader to see where you are drawing from in our readings.

Bibliography/Reference List: For this paper you may use either a bibliography or a reference list.

Everything you cite, not just quote, in your paper must be found in the bibliography or reference

list. See Turabian for further information about preparing a bibliography or a reference list.

Bibliography: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/turabian/turabian-notes-and-bibliography-citation-quick-guide.html

Reference List: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/turabian/turabian-author-date-citation-quick-guide.html

Length

This paper has a wordcount of between 1250 –2750 words This wordcount requirement includes

the entire assignments: description, evaluation, and bibliography. Papers which do not meet the

minimum wordcount will receive a maximum score of 50%. Papers which exceed the maximum

will receive a maximum grade of 75%.

Formatting

The only hard and fast requirements regarding formatting of the assignment are to facilitate ease

of grading: double-spaced with margins of at least one inch, so I can easily enter comments;

clear indications of separate paragraph (either indented or extra lines between blocks); 12-point

Times New Roman or similar serif font, so my tired, old eyes can easily read it on the screen.

Otherwise, I ask that you just be consistent with your formatting.

Submitting the Paper

Please upload your paper in MS Word format (.doc or .docx) as a single document on Discovery.

Almost all word processing programs have the ability to save a document in MS Word format; if

you are having difficulties contact IT or the professor. Remember, your uploaded paper will go

through Turnitin to check for issues of plagiarism and AI usage. See course schedule for the

deadline and the syllabus for details of the policy regarding late assignments.

Revised: 25 January 2025