It's been around for ages and most bloggers I know have done it, so I gave it a go!  You can try it here if you haven't already done so.  So here are my results - with which I am fairly happy I think!  The decider between being neo-orthodox or emergent/postmodern was a choice between the importance of Barth's theology and the intelligbility of older churches!  Barth won. I have never read any P T Forsyth by the way, not being an URC.

You scored as Neo orthodox.

You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God's most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.

Tis the season to be silly, and the old favourite typos to be trotted out again...

Like the church who were serving 'mice pies' after their carol service

And the 'Christmas with the Salvation Army' CD I bought some friends many years ago which according to the sleeve notes featured 'Away in a Manager.'  I know that office Christmas does have a reputation but surely...

Any others?

Tonight I am leading a carol service for one of the residential homes near Dibley.  The link is tenuous - via Penties and the next Anglican Parish but I am the only available 'Rev' person it seems.  I am looking forward to it, not least because the residents have chosen the carols which means I don't get to feel guilty over choosing the ones I like or obliged to have the ones I cannot abide - although of course both feature in this service!

I am happy, though, because someone called John has chosen my all time favourite, and this is going to be the centrepeice for my 'talk.'

'In The Bleak Midwinter' gets a lot of stick for being Victorian pietist mush, which is a real shame because I think it has immense depth as well as plenty of 'nostalgia appeal'

Verse 1 - is in part a Christmas card image - deep snow, rosy cheeked children etc, but also a reality that even in Victorian times for many winters were pretty bleak unless you were wealthy.  It does not say that Jesus was born in an English winter, though I guess you can imply that if you so choose, it just says that winters were pretty similar 'long ago' to what they experienced 'today'.

Verse 2 - this is God's omni-everythingness, it is eschatological, it is powerful stuff: the God who cannot be contained by heaven, whose reign will see the end of all things that currently are.  And this God is the same God who, in Jesus, way back then, was satisified with a stable for shelter.

Verse 3 - being rediscovered, and seen by some as 'too much information' with Mary breastfeeding Jesus, is utterly incarnational and speaks volumes on kenosis; the basics of life are sufficient for God incarnate.

Verse 4 - mystery, which writers such as Mr Kendrick try to express in 'Meekness and Majesty' etc.  Never mind angels singing their socks off (if angels have socks of course) the true beauty and worship is seen in the kiss of a mother for her new-born son.  Wow!

Verse 5 - forget the Sunday School nativity play and the layers of tradition and glitter, this verse is about a response.  OK, so now we've heard the story (again) what are we going to do?  Not as blatant as a Billy Graham altar call or Catriona banging on about mission but 'what are you going to do?'

If I wanted to write a carol that said all that needs to be said, then this might be it.  It affirms the place of Christmas card nostalgia within a deep understanding of the nature of God, the coming of Christ and the demand for a response.

Tonight I will endure 'O Come all ye Faithful' and 'Away in a Manger' but I will enjoy Christina Rossetti's finest! 

Today was Baptist Head Count Sunday, that great festival of the first Sunday each December where we generate the statistics that the Baptist Union will use for some purpose or other in determining our health.

I handed my treasurer a piece of paper on which I'd drawn a grid for him to record our demographics, omitting the boxes we definitely would not need.  I was not too optimisitic - at 2:59 there were no more people there than on a normal Sunday despite the fact that D+1 were joining us and one YFC volunteer had returned for a second visit.  At 3:02 we were listening to the notices as late comers ambled in and had to sit at the front.  At 3:05 I noticed two noses pressed up against the French windows and asked someone to let in the two lads looking in at us.

All went well, but I had to smile when it got to the Communion and the two deacon-servers (is that tautology, it probably is) returned with trays each holding only one wine glass; I was glad I insist that they put some in the chalice (I have a thing about picking up empty chalices!).  Enough for all to share but none left over - that felt good.

In conversation, it emerged that the lads had seen our banner on the school fence and come to investigate.  They were very polite and courteous only giggling quietly during the more wierd bits of our rituals, and I was glad that one of our members sat with them and explained things as we went along.  I was glad that they felt comfortable enough not to stand to sing just becuase most of us do and delighted when they stayed for a cuppa and several biscuits before they left.

So, my head count data now reads

Under 14    Males 2     Females 0

14 - 21       Males 1     Females 0

22 - 50       Males 1     Females 4

51 - 65       Males 4     Females 6

65+           Males 6     Females 17

 

With a total of 41 attending rather than the usual ~30 it is artificially high, with three under 40's it is miraculous.

The BU collects the data, Catriona preaches on 'my strength is made perfect in weakness' ... and in heaven is heard the hearty chuckle of divine laughter.

Now I have my nice long list of books to read, and now they have started to land with a reassuring 'thud' on my doormat, I have also started reading them - from the sublime to the ridiculous in as many days, first reading a fairly complex journal article on the writing of histories of religions and then starting an undergraduate text on historical method.  As is the way of things, a lot of what they say is much the same, just the length of words varies!  And, as is also often the way when I read such things, it is sort of stuff I already intuitively felt anyway but had never got round to expressing - and would have needed six times as many words to do half as good a job.

Anyway, apart from the need to be good and reflect on why I think it is OK for me to read 'level 1' history whilst being miffed at being offered what feels like 'Level 1' theology (my aim with this reading on history being to have a DIY crash course from zero to competent in about 4 weeks!) I have discovered one person's working defintion of history which, with a bit of tweaking could fit almost any discipline I know of, but then the author admits a similarity to a defintion for literature.

So, Keith Jenkins in Re-Thinking History, identified as an A-level/1st year undergraduate text says

History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically postitioned and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and absues that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases that exist at any given moment and which strucutre and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal sprectrum.

 

Could this be minimally altered to say

Theology is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world [or maybe, human experience], faith, that is produced by a group of present-minded workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried theologians) who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically postitioned and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and absues that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases that exist at any given moment and which strucutre and distribute the meanings of theologies along a dominant-marginal sprectrum.

 

I think it could.  Indeed, notwithstanding the claim of pure science to stand outside ethical judgements and solely be concerned with facts, it could pretty well be applied to them, and certainly to applied sciences, too. 

The next question is, of course, while it is good to have a working defintion - even if it's a sub-university level one at this stage, what do I then do with it?  I can critique it, I can accept it, in theory I could reject it, but actually I have to find a way of working out how I relate it back to using history within theology.  That should keep me quiet for a bit!!