<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The 2009 Bibfeldt Lecture:  Protean Denial and Consideration in Bibfeldt Studies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brenthouse.org/2009/04/08/the-2009-bibfeldt-lecture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brenthouse.org/2009/04/08/the-2009-bibfeldt-lecture/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:43:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Kolden</title>
		<link>http://brenthouse.org/2009/04/08/the-2009-bibfeldt-lecture/comment-page-1/#comment-119</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Kolden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brenthouse.org/?p=348#comment-119</guid>
		<description>When I took my exams prior to writing a doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago Divinity School in the late 1960s, the historical theologians on the faculty required that for the Modern Theology exam I had to write not only on Schleiermacher but also on Bibfeldt.  I am pleased that this all took place prior to Michael Mols&#039;s presentation (above) so that I was able to avoid the depth, scope, and conclusions he has presented.
     I should add, however, that I am pleased to note that Bibfeldt is still being studied and continues to influence theology in the twenty-first century (whenever it began).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I took my exams prior to writing a doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago Divinity School in the late 1960s, the historical theologians on the faculty required that for the Modern Theology exam I had to write not only on Schleiermacher but also on Bibfeldt.  I am pleased that this all took place prior to Michael Mols&#8217;s presentation (above) so that I was able to avoid the depth, scope, and conclusions he has presented.<br />
     I should add, however, that I am pleased to note that Bibfeldt is still being studied and continues to influence theology in the twenty-first century (whenever it began).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

