Issues in Theology is a 4th-year Moore College seminar subject, where students present a paper in seminar form, ideally in an accessible format as the result of theological research. Each hour of the class entails a student presentation, with feedback and question time from the rest of the class.

A few friends and I put our heads together, and came up with a set of bingo scoresheets to make the presentation schedule a mite more interactive, and potentially entertaining, than it would otherwise have been (h/t Ars and PhD Comics).

Part of the game is working out when certain criteria are fulfilled. It takes skill to spot hobby horses, both in presenters and in questions from the floor. Then again, sometimes it doesn’t. Deciding when a text is a proof text is something born of practice and habit. How long is an awkward silence? How many repetitions constitute repeated use? Such judgement calls will no doubt be fruit for long and heated discussion over coffee after the first “Bingo” is called.

Without further ado, I present to you the Unofficial 2009 Issues in Theology Bingo Scoresheet. To mix things up somewhat, randomised arrangements can be substituted. Explanations of categories are below.

[click image for high res version]

[Variants: v1 (low | high), v2 (low | high), v3 (low | high), v4 (low | high), v5 (low | high)]
[low res: 800x572; high res: 1280x915]

Question on Trinity: Any question that refers to the persons of the Trinity, a scholar noted for work on the Trinity, or any talk of relationships being the foundation and pattern of life. Bonus marks for mention of perichoresis.

Speaker just reads text: Lack of eye contact, or any other signs of life.

Comic Sans or Marker Felt: Use of these fonts in presentations is grounds for a fine.

Bashes Christian Thinker: Either orthodox or liberal. Must not be sustained engagement, but a short hatchet job.

Repeated use of “um…”: Any variant, such as “er…”, “ah…”, “like, you know…”, etc., is acceptable.

Blatant gimmick: Use of lollies, games, videos, or anything else employed solely to gain audience approval.

Powerpoint malfunction: This square covers laptop, software, projector, or audio maladies. Ugly slides are a line-ball here, but you can try to argue the point.

Mobile goes off: This square is free the week after Anglican candidates start looking for jobs.

No idea what’s going on: Either you or the presenter.

Awkward Silence: How long is a piece of string? Don’t worry, you’ll feel it.

Hobby horse: Easier to spot in a presentation, although instances implicit in a question also count.

Blatant typo: Extra credit if it’s a name or technical term. Apostrophes count.

Runs out of time: Free.

Buzzword: Any term that is used semi-technically in Christian contexts (think Anglican equivalents of ‘synergy’ or ‘leverage’).

Proof text: “A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext.”

Lecturer falls asleep: The 8am class has a distinct advantage here.

Not a “theological” issue: Any paper that is primarily ethical, pastoral, or in the realm of biblical studies.

Starts with apology: Sorry, you’ll have to forgive me for this one.

No mention of Jesus: Bummer.

Use of Greek/Hebrew/German/Latin/etc.: These presentations are meant for a lay audience. They don’t understand Greek or Hebrew, the speaker probably doesn’t understand German or Latin.

Spoonerism: Don’t pitch your tent round the wrong way.

Speaker dressed for occasion: Any marked change in the quality of the student’s attire on the day of their presentation (either up or down).

No pastoral application: Another bummer.

Outline has alliteration: The classic – a 3 point outline, each entry beginning with the same letter. Acronyms also count. Extra credit if the last item is mangled to make it fit (Powerful, Persuasive, imPressive).

Mentions church-planting: This is fast becoming the standard application to theological students:“read your Bible more, pray, and go plant a church”. A passing reference to Mark Driscoll will get you over the line here.

One example was a quote that went something along the lines of “No naturalistic theory is able to explain information-rich systems [such as DNA, cell structures, complex organisms, etc.]“. Two things are worth mentioning in response. First, this is exactly what Natural Selection seeks to explain. Writing it off without reference is crazy. Second, a subtle shift occurred just moments before in the narrative, where a logical connection was forged wherein ‘information’ (i.e. phenomena that conform to a recognisable, external, pattern) necessarily implies intelligence. This is simply bogus. Plenty of information signals are recognisable patterns, but do not originate from any discernible intelligence. Some do, like radio signals. Other streams of information, such as a dog’s bark – a readily identifiable pattern – do not come from what we would term ‘intelligence’. To take that further, the sound of a river, or a rock falling – these are by no means indicators of intelligent beings producing such information. Yet they are patterns.

Why is any of this important?

It’s not about Jesus. This is a problem, as the end-point of intelligent design is Theism, an idea of God a long way from the God of the Bible, who is personally and intimately involved in the world through Jesus Christ. And it paints the Christian community (or at least a vocal sub-set) as idiots in the public eye, for reasons other than the gospel. I’m more than happy to be considered dumb for my belief in the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 1:18-2:5). But for the sake of pretty average science, based on a thoroughly divergent philosophy of science, mixed with (at least in the US) a good dose of politics – no thanks.

Evolution does not preclude Christian belief, despite what the intelligent design people say.