OK, so you need to understand the language games to make sense of this question (post modern) but I think it is a fair question to ask.

Having (finally) found a real attempt by a serious writer to explain what they understand by both Modernism and Post-modernism, I am left with the question of whether the latter is really an example of the former.  If modernity sought absolutes and was the product of a white, male-dominated, Euro-centric context, then Postmodernism is actually thoroughly modern, isn't it?  Its overarching absolute is that there is no absolute and most of its thinkers, seemingly, are French men.

OK, so this is over simplistic but the slide from modernity to post-modernity, like that from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment is exactly that - a slide not a sudden paradigm shift.  As a child of modernity, post modernity carries with it the taint of its forebears and expresses itself through the very structures and norms it resents.  The way it is described and critiqued (is that subtly different from problematised, a, seemingly, Postmodern word?) in the book I'm reading leaves me thinking that it is as yet in a kind of 'adolesence' where it is more concerned at kicking against its forebears than becoming a self-reflective 'adult.'  Again, I'm sure this is over simplified and next week I'll read something that answers my questions - we'll see.

A definition:

'In those days Israel had no king: everyone did as they saw fit' (Judges 21:25)

A comment:

'What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun' (Ecclesiastes 1: 9)

On Deconstruction and langauge games

'In the begining was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God' (John 1:1)

I wish I could claim originality for any/all of this but I can't!  The first quote emerges from flicking through chapter titles in a book on the quest for objectivity in historiography and then thinking, hmm, I wonder how many readers will know that is from the Bible, let alone where.  The other two are my own connections - but given that almost every time I get a new insight I read about it soon afterwards I'm sure that Ecclesiastes 1:9 holds here too.

In Spirutality and Theology on page 67 the author refers to the work of a Canadian philosophical theologian called Bernard Lonergan and says this: -

'Lonergan's language frequently sounds empirical.  This may be explained by Lonergan's mathematical and scientific background - unusual in a theologian'

People often make this assertion about a perceived 'unusualness' that a person trained (and in my case also an experienced practitioner) in maths/science/engineering would have an interest in theology and/or be called to ordained ministry.  But is it true?  My college principle was trained as a theoretical physicist before stuying theology, other college principles I know of include at least three others with backgrounds in physical sciences and several fellow students had qualifications in scientific fields.  Maybe the overall proportion is small, or maybe the assertion is flawed. 

Given that both the 'history of history' and the 'history of theology' stuff I've read in the last couple days refers to a 'scientific approach' within both fields, I'd have thought it entirely feasible that people with a scientific background could/would also make reasonable theologians (not that Sheldrake says they can't, merely that they are unusual) or historians - or even both.

Today I saw this sign in the window of a nearby church

MAKE THE BEST RESOLUTION THIS NEW YEAR

Come and Find Jesus

Here in 2007

I know what they mean, I really do, but it isn't what it says.  So where was he last year?  And where will he go next?  Is he hiding in the church or is he there to sign books/photos?  Sorry, I am very naughty.

At its least awful, it reminds me of the orignal 'Spot the Dog' book Where's Spot?  So, where's Jesus?  Well depending on your theology you could come up with a lot of answers but here're a few...

Intra-ecclesial

• Is he in the pulpit?
• Is he in the baptistry/font?
• Is he under the communion table/behind the altar?
• Is he in the flower-ladies' cupboard?
• Is he in the boiler room?
• Is he in the vestry?
• Is he under the pews/chairs?
• Is he with the hymnbooks/data-projector/OHP slides?
• Is he in the Bible rack?  No, but you're getting warmer!
• No! here he is...

Inter-ecclesial

• Is he at the parish church?
• Is he at tte Baptist church?
• Is he at the Methodist church
• Is he at the etc etc church?
• No!  Here he is at our church

Churchified

• Is he in the supermarket?
• Is he in the pub?
• Is he dancing in the street?
• Is he dancing on suspicion's graveyard?
• No, no, no.  Here he is at 10 a.m. every Sunday.

Naughty theologian, daring to mess with people's posters.

Look out for thunder bolts hitting my PC/desk/head - or yours if having read this far you are adding your own ideas.

I have a new regime in Dibley Manse.  How long it will last, who knows, but the intention is there!

Basically the back end of last year degenerated into muddle - literally after a manse ceiling collapsed and metaphorically as order disappeared from life.  For someone who likes their herbs arranged alphabetically and matching clothes pegs on their washing line this was not good!

So, the new regime sees the first hour of working days (not days off!) loosely titled 'devotional' to include prayer and the reading of 'improving books' (for those who are checking, (almost) daily personal devotional Bible reading remains in its 30 year old bed-time slot!) followed by an hour titled 'study' when I do my PhD reading/thinking/writing (so far just reading).

My 'improving book' of the moment is Spirituality and Theology by Philip Sheldrake, which has sat on my 'to read' heap for three and half years since I was given it as a gift by fellow students at the end of my year as senior student at NBC.  In chosing to read this book, I wondered if it was justified under a 'devotional' banner but, hurrah, it rapidly told me it was!  Theology and Spirituality, it asserts, are intimately related, with theology being lived not done (apologies to Laurie Green et al).  Amazingly, in one sitting, it linked in with the reading I'm doing on the development of historical method in my 'study' slots and it gave me a new insight into my understanding of, and hence relationship with, God.

Ok, so I am pretty dense sometimes, but I always read Genesis 1:26 'God said, 'let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness' (NIVi) and the more poetic Genesis 1:27 in a very individualistic way, and as a way of affirming all people as of equal worth. I other words, I am made in God's likeness and so is everyone else, but that is something we experience individually, separately.

Today as I read my improving book, I suddenly grasped that this is about Trinity and relationship (OK, you all worked that out years ago).  It is God first person plural (i.e. Trinity, relational) who makes human beings in their image (i.e. distinct but relational).  Gosh, I thought, how thick I have been all these years, trying to understand the plural pronoun in an individualistic way.  It is 'human beings' plural who bear the likeness, not merely each 'human being' singular.  I don't think this is an either/or but a both/and.

So there you have it!  Two lightbulb moments in a day.  Nothing earth shattering, just a confirmation that I can read theology 'devotionally' and a better understanding of two verses of the OT.

The new regime might mean less posting and more private, paper-based stuff and more time spent on my formal studying (which, as it costs me 10% of my gross income, needs some serious attention!).  Hopefully though I'll still find time to post news of adventures in Dibley, occasional insights and some fun stuff.