I decided sometime earlier this year that I'd like to preach a series on the women listed in Jesus' genealogy.  Partly this came out of leading a "ladies' meeting" where we'd looked at 'good' and 'bad' women in the Bible and discovered that it isn't as simple to delineate as first appears; we then focussed our thoughts on Tamar.  Why Tamar?  Because there are (at least) three Tamars in the Bible and most people don't know their stories.

Anyway, I was looking forward to making up as I went along my sermon series when I visted the online shop that can sometimes lead to adventures (Amazon) where, as if by magic, the following title appeared in 'your recommendations'...

'Mother Roots' by Helen Bruch Pearson is a carefully researched approach to the stories of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and finally Mary.  For each she uses both history and 'her-story', Biblical shcolarship and some sort of Midrash-ish work (I'm never entirely sure I understand what Midrash technically is) and relates the stories to contemporary human rights issues.  I guess it is kind of gently feminist in style, but not misanthropic.  A fairly easy and interesting read, suitable for personal or group devotional use too.

Once more my original idea has been pre-empted by someone who can do it so much better than I can!  But at least I have some literary support for my assertions whern the sermons happen!

I have just finished reading - some parts more rigorously than others - Theolgical Reflection: Methods by Elaine Graham et al.  What struck me about the book was not the methods it presented - largely these were familiar - but the apparent method, or at least structure, employed by the writers.  Indeed, it was their approach, rather than their content, that struck me as being relevant to my own work with its use of Biblical, historical and recent case studies to illustrate the strands or streams being explored.

For me there were some useful confirmations for things I've instinctively noted...

Methodologically - or other 21st century over extended words for 'how you do it' - it was encouraging to see that the embryonic method I have been hoping to use has already got some credence, albeit open to critique.

Beyond the specific of my own work, is the fascinating idea of the method one might adopt to think about methods!!  I think the writers have quite cunningly selected an approach which should appeal across the theological spectrum and to practitioners with different past approachces to theology.  By using Biblical examples, historical examples (old and new) and then relating this to current practice they are using an approach I have seen evidence of in C17 Baptist writing on topics as diverse as hymn-singing and marriage.  So the method used is not actually new, but is of itself a realisation (the authors' word) of an older approach.

Not quite sure how I eventually work this into my literature reiew, but hey, at least I have my own thoughts on it!

Today I have, creep like, read all the set reading for my course 'weekend' in Manchester.  It was pretty basic stuff, though as the one on how to do literature reviews said, I have to read with an open mind and not prejudge things.  And if I don't like or rate something I am to ask myself why. 

One of the papers was on journalling and was, in part, well, just bizarre to my linear, scientific mind - recording and evaluating my dreams...?!  There was also a suggestion about using images/metphors to help the reflective process, so in a spirit of blatant mischief I offer the following image/metpahor for theological reflection and journalling (actually, I can work with it, but that's just a demonstration I've been doing this stuff too long!).  Here goes....

The London Tube Map - a circle line for those who want to use a cyclic approach, various linear routes through from one place to another and any number of combinations and permutations, and many places to join or leave the process.  Oh yes, it also bears a passing resemblance to a spider's web, if that's your prefered model.

I guess I am half ridiculing, half embracing the ideas of metaphors and images, and my apologies to the writer of the paper, but the real question is, do they actually help my researching and learning?  Maybe I need to get out more!

Today my little Rover finally left for pastures new (sigh!), going back to Longbridge, whence she originated to be repaired and re-sold by a small scale dealer (either that or he'll break her to fix up the other four metros he recently bought on Ebay!).  In so doing she has raised £111 from her second forray into Ebay which will go to the BMS relief fund - an appropriate sum for a Rover 111.  The sane among you will be glad that the story of my Rovers now ends (Philistines!) but I am glad that my little car has been able to put something back after all the miles she carried me.

Farewell Annie, good and faithful servant.  Rust in peace.

I read something this week that said 'theology follows practice' and to an extent that is true, but it seems to be oversimplified since it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to discern which actually came first.

At a macrosopic level, it is quite easy to find examples that show how a theology was developed to support a practice - such as the practice of "confirmation" employed by many infant baptising traditons.  The practice began as a pastoral response to a perceived need for more baptisms than a bishop could possibly do; allowing his vicars to do all but the last bit, which he'd then do next time he passed that way.  Centuries later, clever theologies have been developed to justify the practice on other grounds.  But it isn't quite that simple, is it?  There was a whole underlying theology of baptism, and of the fate of unbaptised infants, that prompted the pastoral response.  So which came first?

Many practical theologians talk about 'starting with experience' as if somehow we have no pre-existing theological framework - conscious or otherwise - to shape our practice or thinking.  While any active reflection has to start somewhere, there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, and my practice and my worldview are inextricably linked.

Back when I was studying contextual theology as an undergrad. one of my breakthrough moments was when I grasped that the essential difference between different approaches to theology was where they chose to start the reflection process.  Some choose to start from 'theory' - dogmatic or systematic theology - and then apply this to real life, reflecting and refining as they go.  Others choose to start from 'experience' - contextual, various '-ation ' and '-ist' methods, practical theology - and then reflect on this in the light of scripture and tradition.  Whilst the two process are not identical, they do achieve pretty much the same ends.  Of course since my 'eureka' moment about 4 years ago, I have seen this written more eloquently by some writers, but am still struck by the prevelence of 'either/or' views.

The theology I unconsciously acquired as a child and the unreflected-upon experiences of my past both shape my thinking now.  I cannot say that one inevitably precedes the other.  In my version of the 'pastoral cycle' I envisage both a spiral and multiple entry points for considering any specific thing, and the whole somehow entwined with both conscious and unconscious influences...  Chickens?  Eggs?  Omelettes? - Or just some sort of scramble?

The more I know, the more I know I don't know and, without a totally literalist reading of Genesis 1, we'll never answer the question about chickens and eggs.