1.17.2007

Theoblogy

When you're jonesing for some good theological conversation, head over to any of the blogs on this list.

And for Doug, Rustin and others who are interested, check out AKMA's short essay on postmodern biblical interpretation. I don't fall in line with everything he says; however, the essay does speak to our earlier exchange.

powered by performancing firefox

4 comments:

Igford said...

So, the one thing postmodern biblical evaluations have in common is that they are "deliberate departures from the presuppositions of modern biblical criticism."

It goes on to conclude "one can not set boundaries for postmodern interpretations. For just this reason, postmodern biblical criticsm [sic] will probably not constitute itself at distinct interpretive practice so much as it will influence the ways that particular interpreters approach their work."

The way I am reading this is that "postmodern" describes any approach that is different from conventional approaches. It does not describe any particular approach specifically. Though many different approaches can be described as postmodern.

So it is safe to say "the culture of this church is postmodern" but not safe to say "Postmodern is the culture of this church." It safe to say "this book is postmodern" but not safe to say "postmodern is the contents of this book." Because "postmodern biblical criticism includes a disparate array of interpretive strategies" and therefore can't be used to refer to any one of them. It is most definitely an adjective, not a noun.

Does that sound about right? It makes sense to me.

How very modern of me.

Chris Spinks said...

That sounds about right to me, Igford. I like to think of postmodernism (the noun) as a sensibility and not a particular method. To say something is postmodern is to say that it possesses or promotes or characterizes a certain sensibility. Now, what exactly that sensibility is is up for grabs. AKMA offers a definition that more than anything tries to describe what is going on in the world of biblical interpretation. It does not, however, prescribe, what biblical interpretation must look like to be postmodern. Personally, I think there are sensibilities that run awry of conventional approaches and could therefore be considered postmodern, and yet at the same time they are thoroughly theological/biblical/Christian. Postmodern approaches to reading Scripture are not, by definition, atheistic or anti-Christian. To be sure, though, there are postmodern approaches to biblical interpretation that are just these things. I want to discourage, however, a "guilt by association" response to reading practices that are characterized as postmodern. I think the revitalized discussion regarding theological interpretation (see several posts at dcspinks.com) is thoroughly postmodern and also theologically more fruitful. I think the same can be said for some streams of missional and emerging churches. I went on longer than I intended.

Rustin S said...

I can live with this. Well said. I especially want to emphasize Chris' discouragement of this idea of "guilt by association" that seems to be gaining steam in some areas (or is this just me being over-sensitive?). I personally have found a wealth of life in post- and otherthan- modern ways of approaching the Bible, church, community, etc...

Thanks for the thoughts.

Rustin S said...

I can live with this. Well said. I especially want to emphasize Chris' discouragement of this idea of "guilt by association" that seems to be gaining steam in some areas (or is this just me being over-sensitive?). I personally have found a wealth of life in post- and otherthan- modern ways of approaching the Bible, church, community, etc...

Thanks for the thoughts.