More New Stuff
Peter Ould
which can be found at
http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/postmodern.htm
See, all this creativity explains why you never hear from me these days.
--
Peter Ould
http://www.peter-ould.net
http://pould.livejournal.com
"A God who can't suffer is poorer than any human.
He cannot weep, for he has no tears.
The one who cannot suffer cannot love."
Watchman Nee
Steve S
news:aqrb5k$ck2sh$1...@ID-87143.news.dfncis.de...
> As well as the sermon on submission, there's also an essay on
postmodernism,
> which can be found at
> http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/postmodern.htm
>
> See, all this creativity explains why you never hear from me these days.
>
> --
> Peter Ould
Hi Peter, an interesting article. Two things strike me...
1) You're argument is based upon an extremely limited view of a post modern
world-view. eg, all those with a post-modern/late-modern view identify only
themselves as truth, and are unable to see an objective truth. Post-modern
though, rather like modernistic thought has many ways of thinking, and there
are many people following Jesus, who while questioning a lot of what the
traditional church holds as true, believe in an absolute truth in Jesus.
2) This stems form a belief that the current theology of conservative
churchmanship, is in itself an unashamedly modernistic theology, rather than
as you seem to imply?, an endless truth untouched by the culture of the last
few hundred years. I would suggest that our theology today has been greatly
touched by modernistic ideas, and quite rightly so. In each age isn't it
right that we express our ideas of God, and his work in our lives in a way
which we can understand.
If we look at Christian belief over the ages, we find that each generation
and culture had vastly differing ideas of what it means/meant to be a
Christian. I greatly wonder whether many of the figures we look to in ages
past, would recognize any of the sections of our church as 'true followers'.
Yet God worked through them all.
Many proponents of a post-modern faith would suggest that each culture has
taken much of it's understanding of God from that culture, that our
understanding is based to varying degrees on our own position in time and
space.
Many 19th centaury missionaries exported not only faith, but a white,
English, middle class world view. In the same way that we now recognize that
Christians in say Africa or Lebanon will not be carbon copies of us, can we
not accept that the same will be true, for different cultures and times.
When we insist that the church must sit of in its own ghettoized culture, in
one corner of society, making occasional forays into the world to make
disciples, (yet curiously still working in it to make a living), we do the
same as these missionaries. Church conservative culture is not timeless,
nor is it imo superior to other cultures. What it does contain is a number
of people who loves Jesus and seek after him - as do all other cultures.
Someone wrote, 'Traditionalists inherit truth, rationalists discover and
prove truth, mystics experience truth, post-modernists construct truth. Of
course a post-modernist would say that we all construct truth, based upon
our own place in space and time. So is their absolute truth, yes, his name
is Jesus." Whilst this a little strong for my current taste (level of
bravery!), it makes the point well.
For me the effect of this is firstly to make me more aware of God great
grace in our many different understandings of him. Secondly to make me take
myself a little less seriously, and engage more with others, and to continue
to recognize the good in our world, rather than focusing on the bad so much.
Finally..... (I really must learn to be concise) I think the point most
people attempting to think about faith in a postmodern world come to, is
that we need to continue to have engaged conversations about Jesus, about
what it means to be a Christian, with no holds barred, and no unaskable
questions. I'm aware that this may seem like nothing new to those of a less
conservative understanding, there is nothing new under the sun and all that,
but then we all have to make our own journey.I started with a mainly
evangelical theology, and am still there, but am changing along the way what
I understand to be evangelical, I think that is true for this whole process
for me, changing understanding rather than facts.
Sorry again for the long, (no doubt full of typos) post.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 10/31/2002
Debbie
wrote:
>As well as the sermon on submission, there's also an essay on postmodernism,
>which can be found at
>http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/postmodern.htm
>
>See, all this creativity explains why you never hear from me these days.
Two books you might find offer additional perspectives to your work on
PoMo are Ward, Graham (Ed) 1997 *The Postmodern God* Oxford:
Blackwell; and Heelas, Paul 1998 *religion, modernity and
postmodernity* (sic) Oxford: Blackwell. Also Brueggemann, Walter
1993 *The Bible and Postmodern Imagination" London: SCM, although imo,
Brueggemann never quite gets to grips with pomo.
Wrt the sermon, I was rather surprised to see you quote my much loved
PhD supervisor with approval!
--
Debbie
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
David Anderson
[snip all]
To say that we need a Christian 'epistemology' is a very modernist thing to
say: Aquinas, Augustine et al were interested in how people got to know
things, as they were interested in everything, but they hardly thought that
it was essential for us to know how we knew, nor even how what we knew
about. They wanted to find out what we knew was. To worry about how we
know - and to assume that that is essential - is a concern that is
specifically seventeenth century and after.
To worry about how we know about God presupposes that there is first of all
us, and then we have to construct a theory that will justify believing in
God. In short, epistemology supposes that we are independent of God. A
Christian epistemology is almost a contradiction in terms.
David Anderson
Gareth McCaughan
> As well as the sermon on submission, there's also an essay on postmodernism,
> which can be found at
> http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/postmodern.htm
(Some of the other pages (e.g., from the sermon about submission,
which btw was good) are lacking links to that.)
A few comments:
(Added later: Well, OK, it's more than a few. As usual,
you need to bear in mind the Gareth's A Whingeing Git
factor when reading; I *always* focus on negative things
when doing this kind of thing because that's what I think
is useful. I'll say here that I thought the essay was
clearly written and made some useful points. Now, onto
the whingeing.)
I'm not so sure that Nazi Germany was such a Modern society
as you suggest. Nazism was somewhat inspired by Nietzsche
and others like him who stressed Will over Reason: not a
typical Modern emphasis at all. I suppose Nazi Germany
was nearer to Modern than to Postmodern, but really it
doesn't seem to me to fit very well in either category.
I'm not so sure about the Soviet Union, but there too
I have my doubts...
You give, as your example of a "shared epistemology",
a dictum of Kant on the subject of beauty. It might be
worth noting that some bits of epistemology are more
shared than others :-); for instance, the logical positivists
(whom no one could call postmodern, though their work
helped sow the seeds of postmodernism) regarded statements
about beauty as purely subjective even though they were,
unless I'm misremembering, on the whole decidedly realist
about empirically observable things.
For this reason, I'm slightly unconvinced -- though I'm
absolutely no expert on postmodernism, so you should feel
free to refute me brutally -- when you say that it was
failure to produce a common *morality* that led to
postmodernism. Nonrealism about ethics and aesthetics
is much older than postmodernism. Wasn't it the rise
of nonrealism about *everything* that provided the
conditions for postmodernism to grow?
It might also be worth mentioning that the roots of
postmodernism are, to some extent, the *same* as the
roots of modernism. Although modernism assumed some
shared understanding of reality, it also emphasized
the primacy of individual experience. Again, look at
the logical positivists, for whom the meaning of all
statements other than those of pure logic was supposed
to be defined in terms of (the possibility of) personal
observation. Or, in other words, experience. Now
fast-forward a bit, and see what happens as people
begin to realise that if you take this seriously
you don't have any way to tie different people's
experiences together. Bingo: postmodernism. I remark
that if this is right, the opposition you draw later on
between postmodernism and autonomy as the political
basis for modernity becomes a little dubious: autonomy
is the basis (I'm not sure I'd call it the *political*
basis) for both.
I think the phrase "confirm itself to postmodernity"
is meant to be "conform itself [etc]", though I'm
not sure how much sense it makes to think of postmodernity
as something one can "conform oneself to" anyway :-).
Does Darren Hayes claim that "Affirmation" is about,
or expressing, postmodernism? If not, it doesn't seem
fair to complain that he doesn't understand postmodernism
just because what he expresses isn't postmodern.
In any case, is it really true that authentic postmodernism
always claims that we have every conceivable freedom
(such as, e.g., the freedom to choose our sexuality,
though frankly I'm bored of that example :-) )? Freedom
of choice in *behaviour*, yes. In *character*, I'm not
so sure.
Why do you say that there's a contradiction between
"the modernistic epistemology of individual freedom
and the postmodern rejection of absolute epistemology"?
If there's a contradiction, it's between the pomo
rejection of [etc] and *insistence upon* the modernistic
[etc]. The two aren't quite the same: for instance,
there's no particular difficulty about living in a
society where individual freedom is emphasized and
being a postmodernist.
I think it's a bit early to be saying what the most
significant attributes of "the Western individual in
the 21st century" are.
You say that the lack of "identity" that's prevalent
at the moment indicates that evangelism should focus
on "identity in Christ", offering people meaning and
purpose. On the whole I agree, but ... (1) if what's
gone before is supposed to support this, then I think
you need to say more. Your description of the plight
of the late-modern/post-modern individual hasn't
said anything about feeling an unsatisfied need for
meaning and purpose; only about believing in some
things (like freedom and democracy, say) that their
espoused philosophical framework, postmodernism,
doesn't support well. And (2) you should be aware
that not everyone is in the dilemma you describe,
and not everyone will be best helped by the emphasis
you prescribe. Anyone who perceives that you're treating
the whole of 21st-century Western humanity as a mass
with the same needs and dissatisfactions, in order
to market Christianity to them more effectively, is
going to react badly, whether they lean more towards
modernism or postmodernism. :-)
If, as you say, modern culture is not truly postmodern
but is in a sort of limbo between late modernism and
postmodernism, still trying to come to terms with the
mismatch, why are the options "Postmodern Christians"
and "Christians in a Postmodern environment" anyway?
I mean, you've just said that the environment isn't
truly postmodern at all!
When you split Christians into "those who *become*
Postmodern Christians and those who *are* Christians
in a Postmodern environment" (emphasis mine), I think
you prejudge the issue between them a bit. Not that
anyone who's read anything else you've written would
have much difficulty guessing which option you prefer,
I suppose. :-)
You diagnose postmodernism in Dave Tomlinson on the
basis that he says "I simply marvel that anyone should
think it plausible or necessary to believe in" Biblical
inerrancy. I don't understand why that indicates
postmodernism or even "accommodation with postmodernism".
I am, at least some of the time, inclined to agree with
him, and I assure you that I am *very* Modern.
I think the essay would be better without the attack
on Rowan Williams (and, yes, it's obvious that it's
an attack, even though you've chosen to use someone
else's words and have avoided saying that you agree
with them). Or, alternatively, with the attack *and*
some supporting evidence from what Williams has
actually written and said.
In general, the section on "Postmodern Christians"
doesn't really do much other than say "There are
some. Boo." Some real engagement would make a big
improvement in the essay, even if -- as I'm sure you
would -- you end up concluding that combining
Christianity and postmodernism isn't workable.
Isn't your objection to the attempts at "postmodern
Christianity" precisely that it amounts to much more
than just "a restatement of the faith in postmodern
terms" -- that it involves *compromising* the faith
in ways you regard as unacceptable? Certainly that's
the impression I get from the section on "Postmodern
Christians"; in which case, the opening of the following
section could do with a bit of tweaking.
In describing Middleton-&-Walsh's programme, I think
it would be helpful to have a bit more about why it
should be expected to work well. For instance, what
is it about seeing the Bible as a drama that's specially
attractive to postmoderns? Why should Christian lives
that "tell the truth of Scripture" be particularly
appealing to people who "see individuals as embodying
their own truth"?
Your concluding section seems to imply (e.g., by the
word "then" in the first sentence) that what's gone
before has *established* that producing a "postmodern
theology" isn't the right answer and that "portraying
the old message in a new way" is. I don't think you've
come close to establishing either part of that. For
instance, let's suppose that everything you and Gary
Williams have said about Dave Tomlinson and Rowan Williams
is true; you've still presented no reason to think that
a "postmodern Christianity" is impossible, rather than
that those two people have failed to deliver it. Indeed,
that whole section rather *assumes* than *shows* that
"postmodern Christianity" is a contradiction in terms.
As to "portraying the old message in a new way", it
seems to me that there's another approach you've missed:
to distinguish between the *substance* of Christianity
and the *message* appropriate to each generation. After
all, what Christianity is ultimately about is Christ
himself; a "message" is successful if and only if it
brings people to him. Different generations, and indeed,
different people, will need to hear different things;
not because the truth of Christianity changes (I said
I was very Modern, and I meant it; I'm *not* proposing
any sort of postmodern Christianity here) but because
what you need to hear depends on what, and how, you
already think and live.
I liked the ending, though I have some quibbles which
are obvious enough that I'll omit them :-).
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Robert Marshall
> Peter Ould wrote:
>
>> As well as the sermon on submission, there's also an essay on
>> postmodernism, which can be found at
>> http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/postmodern.htm
>
> (Some of the other pages (e.g., from the sermon about submission,
> which btw was good) are lacking links to that.)
>
And the links in the writing section of
http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/index.htm
have too much writing in them
(e.g. http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/writing/articles/sermon-submit.htm)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Otherwise impressed
Robert
--
"The Church of England has nothing to do with Christianity. It is the
English Shinto." David Starkey
Peter Ould
No, not at all. I think in the age that we live in, epistemology is under
such attack that it necessitates a deeper comprehension of the knowledge of
truth. What's also important to bear in mind is that it is our epistemology
that is a chief driver in the foundation of doctrine. When we move away from
Scripture as an epistemological base we open ourselves up to a drift from
orthodoxy. The problem with the postmodern christians is that today they
believe "neo-orthodoxy" but tomorrow there is nothing epistemologically
which can stop them denying the incarnation.
Malcolm Jenner
news:ko03tu4fmgqullqbn...@4ax.com...
To get a deeper consideration of a contemporary presentation of mystical
theology you should look at the writings of Jean-Luc Marion.
Archimandrite Kyril Jenner
Tim Rowe
wrote:
>No, not at all. I think in the age that we live in, epistemology is under
>such attack that it necessitates a deeper comprehension of the knowledge of
>truth. What's also important to bear in mind is that it is our epistemology
>that is a chief driver in the foundation of doctrine. When we move away from
>Scripture as an epistemological base we open ourselves up to a drift from
>orthodoxy.
I don't want to reopen the debate about the meaning of orthodoxy, but
your use of the term orthodoxy does seem to gloss over the issue of
whether what is at present considered "orthodox" is indeed true and
beneficial (it also takes a particular Evangelical view of how
orthodoxy is determined). Pomo that I am, I wouldn't automatically
/assume/ that a drift from what is perceived to be orthodoxy is a Bad
Thing. And if you use orthodoxy to mean "what is true" (as I know
some on this group do) then I wonder how you would distinguish a drift
from /perceived/ orthodoxy from a drift from /actual/ orthodoxy.
>The problem with the postmodern christians is that today they
>believe "neo-orthodoxy" but tomorrow there is nothing epistemologically
>which can stop them denying the incarnation.
I would have thought that a personal relationship was
epistemiologically valid, and in my case that stops me denying the
incarnation. What the post-modern approach does do is it denies me any
authority to impose /my/ view of orthodoxy on /you/; I can describe it
to you, but you have to experience it for yourself. In this it
represents a shift from a Christianity based on assent to doctrines
("orthodoxy") or particular observances ("orthopraxy") to a religion
based on a personal encounter with a living God. I seem to recall
that some of the modernists thought that to be a good idea, too.
Angela Rayner
> David Anderson wrote:
>
>>"Peter Ould" <ma...@peter-ould.net> wrote
>>[snip all]
>>To say that we need a Christian 'epistemology' is a very modernist
>>thing to say: Aquinas, Augustine et al were interested in how people
>>got to know things, as they were interested in everything, but they
>>hardly thought that it was essential for us to know how we knew, nor
>>even how what we knew about. They wanted to find out what we knew
>>was. To worry about how we know - and to assume that that is
>>essential - is a concern that is specifically seventeenth century and
>>after. To worry about how we know about God presupposes that there is
>>first of all us, and then we have to construct a theory that will
>>justify believing in God. In short, epistemology supposes that we
>>are independent of God. A Christian epistemology is almost a
>>contradiction in terms.
>
>
> such attack that it necessitates a deeper comprehension of the knowledge of
> truth. What's also important to bear in mind is that it is our epistemology
> that is a chief driver in the foundation of doctrine. When we move away from
> Scripture as an epistemological base we open ourselves up to a drift from
> orthodoxy. The problem with the postmodern christians is that today they
> believe "neo-orthodoxy" but tomorrow there is nothing epistemologically
> which can stop them denying the incarnation.
I thought it was faith that would stop one denying the incarnation
rather than epistemology.
ciao for now
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"One who receives this Word, and by it salvation, receives along with
it the duty of passing this Word on... Where there is no mission,
there is no Church, and where there is neither Church nor mission,
there is no faith."
Emil Brunner
Debbie at work
<M.S.J...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
>To get a deeper consideration of a contemporary presentation of mystical
>theology you should look at the writings of Jean-Luc Marion.
Especially, in this context, God Without Being, I'd venture to
suggest.
Peter Ould
> On 13 Nov 2002, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> Peter Ould wrote:
>>
>>> As well as the sermon on submission, there's also an essay on
>>> postmodernism, which can be found at
>>> http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/postmodern.htm
>>
>> (Some of the other pages (e.g., from the sermon about submission,
>> which btw was good) are lacking links to that.)
>>
>
> And the links in the writing section of
> http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/index.htm
> have too much writing in them
> (e.g. http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/writing/articles/sermon-
> submit.htm) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ooppps, yes.
Corrected.
Thanks.
Peter Ould
> Peter Ould wrote:
>
>> As well as the sermon on submission, there's also an essay on
>> postmodernism, which can be found at
>> http://www.peter-ould.net/writing/articles/postmodern.htm
>
> (Some of the other pages (e.g., from the sermon about submission,
> which btw was good) are lacking links to that.)
>
> A few comments:
Gareth,
Thanks for your comments. Obviously, I'm not able to expand on everything in
my essay and it is written to serve a specific purpose, but I do take on
board some of the things you wrote.
Pam Seeker
> No, not at all. I think in the age that we live in, epistemology is
> under such attack that it necessitates a deeper comprehension of the
> knowledge of truth.
Have you read Alister McGrath's "Knowing Christ" yet? I found it highly
inspirational, but I think he does a good job of basically doing an
aplogetic for why we need an experiential faith as well as an understood
faith.
I find the idea that there is only one right way of perceiving truth
seriously worrying. Are those of us who are INFPs now going to have the
ESTJs coming down on us like a tonne of bricks telling us we have to
perceive things the way they do in order to be real Christians? I'm *not*
being facetious. I think this is exactly what happens in a lot of cases.
Blessings,
Pam
Gareth McCaughan
> Thanks for your comments. Obviously, I'm not able to expand on everything in
> my essay and it is written to serve a specific purpose, but I do take on
> board some of the things you wrote.
Understood.
Richard Emblem
<seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering today whether
we could perhaps divide christians in a different way into left-brain and
right-brain christians. What do others think?
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Richard Dudley
>
> An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering
> today whether we could perhaps divide christians in a different
> way into left-brain and right-brain christians. What do others think?
Now that *is* an interesting idea ! I'm going to venture that the
right-brained ones are experiential/practical and the left-brainers
are theoretical/doctrinal, which leads to liberals being to the
right and conservatives to the left...
Richard
David Anderson
> What the post-modern approach does do is it denies me any
> authority to impose /my/ view of orthodoxy on /you/; I can describe it
> to you, but you have to experience it for yourself. In this it
> represents a shift from a Christianity based on assent to doctrines
> ("orthodoxy") or particular observances ("orthopraxy") to a religion
> based on a personal encounter with a living God. I seem to recall
> that some of the modernists thought that to be a good idea, too.
That's very modernist. A post-modernist denies the distinction between
'orthopraxy/orthodoxy' and 'personal encounter'. Our relationship with
orthopraxy is based upon our personal engagement with it; the personal
encounters that we have are constituted by the belief and practice of our
culture.
David Anderson
David Anderson
> An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering today
whether
> we could perhaps divide christians in a different way into left-brain and
> right-brain christians. What do others think?
Only if you make the division correctly. Left brainers are motivated by
reason and imagination (NT); right brainers are motivated by feeling and the
sense of reality/ what is plausible (SF). You need the rational left brain
to understand metaphor, and the emotional right brain to understand irony.
I was just on a teacher training course which did learning styles. The
underlying theory was that while we learn we go through a cycle: engagement,
reflection, theorisation, and experimentation/application.
engagement>reflection
/\ \/
experiment<theorisation
People are divided up by which two functions they prefer (i.e. they fall
into the NESW positions as I've drawn it).
People who are most comfortable going from engagement with experience to
reflection are observers; from reflection to abstract theory are analyzers;
from theory to application decision-makers, and from application to
experiential engagement doers.
We were also told that at a very rough generalisation, philosophy and
english students tend to be observers, scientists and mathematicians tend to
be analyzers, lawyers and engineers tend to be decision-makers, and I can't
remember which groups tend to be doers.
I suggest that conservative evangelicals tend to be decision-makers, and
those who disagree with them tend towards being observers. Of course, I
suggest taking all this with a largish salt cellar.
David Anderson
David Anderson
> David Anderson wrote:
> > In short, epistemology supposes that we
> > are independent of God. A Christian epistemology is almost a
> > contradiction in terms.
> No, not at all. I think in the age that we live in, epistemology is under
> such attack that it necessitates a deeper comprehension of the knowledge
of
> truth. What's also important to bear in mind is that it is our
epistemology
> that is a chief driver in the foundation of doctrine. When we move away
from
> Scripture as an epistemological base we open ourselves up to a drift from
> orthodoxy. The problem with the postmodern christians is that today they
> believe "neo-orthodoxy" but tomorrow there is nothing epistemologically
> which can stop them denying the incarnation.
Well, that may be the risk of not having an epistemology. The problem with
having an epistemology is that you have already, whether you acknowledge it
or not, cut yourself loose from God. Pascal spotted the problem as soon as
it started, when he noted that Descartes only proved the God of the
philosophers. If you don't have an epistemology you may end up non-orthodox
(though since we aren't trusting our epistemology, we are open to trusting
the Holy Spirit); if you take epistemology seriously, you are already opting
for atheism and nihilism
To reiterate: epistemology supposes that I know myself as individual on my
own, and then try to prove the existence of God. The only God that an
epistemologist can know is the one that he(sic) can generate from his (sic)
own resources.
David Anderson
David Ould
>
>
> An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering today
> whether we could perhaps divide christians in a different way into
> left-brain and right-brain christians. What do others think?
sadly not. Peter and I are both what you miht describe as "left-brainers" in
regard to theology
And yet I am left-handed and he is right-handed.
David
--
David Ould
www.livejournal.com/users/davidould
Tony Gillam
news:aquvil$dd1ed$1...@ID-72064.news.dfncis.de
> Richard Emblem wrote:
>>
>>
>> An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering today
>> whether we could perhaps divide christians in a different way into
>> left-brain and right-brain christians. What do others think?
>
> sadly not. Peter and I are both what you miht describe as "left-
> brainers" in regard to theology
> And yet I am left-handed and he is right-handed.
>
common to twins
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk
A site for sore I's
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
I don't think it's as simple as that. From my experience and
observation, I'd say that there is a "doctrinal/theoretical" and
"experiential/practical" element at both ends of the theological
spectrum. At the liberal end, there's a distinct difference between
the "rationalists" such as Spong, Cupitt, etc, and those who prefer a
more "mystical" approach (our own Patrick, for example), while at the
evangelical end you've got the conservative, fundamentalist types as
well as the charismatic/Pentecostal groups. I suspect that there's a
similar differentiation among Catholics as well, if you look closely
enough.
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"
David Ould
>>>
>>>
>>> An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering
>>> today whether we could perhaps divide christians in a different way
>>> into left-brain and right-brain christians. What do others think?
>>
>> sadly not. Peter and I are both what you miht describe as "left-
>> brainers" in regard to theology
>> And yet I am left-handed and he is right-handed.
>>
> Interesting. My brother is right handed and I left. I wonder if this
> is common to twins
I had long thought that we were the only ones. It's certainly not common
amongst the twins that I know.
Debbie at work
>An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering today whether
>we could perhaps divide christians in a different way into left-brain and
>right-brain christians. What do others think?
I can think of a few people I'd happily divide that way - preferably
with a chainsaw...
Pam
> I suggest that conservative evangelicals tend to be decision-makers, and
> those who disagree with them tend towards being observers. Of course, I
> suggest taking all this with a largish salt cellar.
David:
Taking it with a large salt cellar and being aware of the fact that
one would probably have to add quite a few caveats, this seems to me
to be going in the right direction. As someone who studied both
theology and economics (how much more abstract can you get), who
interviews people for a living (how much more "observer-like" can you
get?) and who has grown up in conservative evangelical churches
feeling like a mammal under water.
Blessings,
Pam
Tony Gillam
> Tony Gillam wrote:
>>> And yet I am left-handed and he is right-handed.
>>>
>> Interesting. My brother is right handed and I left. I wonder if this
>> is common to twins
>
> I had long thought that we were the only ones. It's certainly not
> common amongst the twins that I know.
>
Tony Gillam
news:4cf6dbc8.02111...@posting.google.com
> Taking it with a large salt cellar and being aware of the fact that
> one would probably have to add quite a few caveats, this seems to me
> to be going in the right direction. As someone who studied both
> theology and economics (how much more abstract can you get), who
> interviews people for a living (how much more "observer-like" can you
> get?) and who has grown up in conservative evangelical churches
> feeling like a mammal under water.
>
Pam Seeker
> "Pam" <seek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4cf6dbc8.02111...@posting.google.com
>> Taking it with a large salt cellar and being aware of the fact that
>> one would probably have to add quite a few caveats, this seems to me
>> to be going in the right direction. As someone who studied both
>> theology and economics (how much more abstract can you get), who
>> interviews people for a living (how much more "observer-like" can you
>> get?) and who has grown up in conservative evangelical churches
>> feeling like a mammal under water.
>>
> Having a whale of a time then?
As they say......Not!
"Fish out of water" was the wrong analogy. I'll leave it at that or someone
will say my statement about my experiences are illegitimate or offensive.
Nick Milton
>An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering today whether
>we could perhaps divide christians in a different way into left-brain and
>right-brain christians. What do others think?
How about left-brain, right-brain and no-brain? I would put myself in
the latter class
Nick
Chris Mitchell
Milton) wrote: in message ID <3dd37199...@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>How about left-brain, right-brain and no-brain? I would put myself in
>the latter class
>
>Nick
Moderator! More personal self-abuse! ;-)
--
Chris Mitchell,
Bristol, England.
http://www.zaalberg.freeserve.co.uk
Michael J Davis
<chrism...@zaalberg.freeserve.nospam> writes
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:56:39 GMT, nick_...@hotmail.com (Nick
>Milton) wrote: in message ID <3dd37199...@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>>
>>How about left-brain, right-brain and no-brain? I would put myself in
>>the latter class
>>
>>Nick
>
>Moderator! More personal self-abuse! ;-)
>
moderated?
:-)
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
We arrive at the Truth not by agreement
but by open minded disagreement,
while to close our mind is to be disagreeable.
<><
Chris Mitchell
<mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote: in message ID
<G4y8TdIM...@trustsof.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>Moderator! More personal self-abuse! ;-)
>>
>You're getting the hang of this group very quickly, Chris. Are pagans
>moderated?
>
;-)
I don't know, though I've never had a post rejected so far. I suspect
Debbie and Patrick believe in moderation in all things - especially
moderation!
Chris.
Tim Rowe
>An interesting observation. On a parallel track I was wondering today whether
>we could perhaps divide christians in a different way into left-brain and
>right-brain christians. What do others think?
Best not to postulate no-brain Christians, I suppose :-)
Tim Rowe
<dand...@pleasenospam.fish.co.uk> wrote:
>That's very modernist. A post-modernist denies the distinction between
>'orthopraxy/orthodoxy' and 'personal encounter'.
I think that broadly follows from what I wrote. If orthodoxy and
orthopraxy are not -- cannot be -- imposed then they only apply by
personal engagement. But although orthodoxy and orthopraxy emerge
from personal encounter, the individual may engage in different
encounters, and so will be able to identify orthodoxy and orthopraxy
to which they do not subscribe and which don't derive from /their/
personal encounters..
Richard Emblem
tim@remove_if_not_spam.digitig.cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe) writes:
True! However I am awaiting a serious reply to what was a serious suggestion.
Pam Seeker
news:20021115131841...@mb-fq.aol.com...
> True! However I am awaiting a serious reply to what was a serious
suggestion.
Richard:
I'm absolutely on board with the general concept although I'm not entirely
certain which model of cognitive perception I want to use. Left-brain,
right-brain might be useful, but I'm vague on what that might mean exactly.
Blessings,
Pam
David Anderson
I didn't mean that orthodoxy and orthopraxy arise out of a personal
encounter. That would suggest that there was some original encounter upon
which an edifice of theory was built. Postmodernism would say that any
encounter is always already part of the structure of some orthodoxy or
orthopraxy. If you have an orthodoxy that doesn't derive from your personal
encounters, what that means is that your personal encounters derived from
some other orthodoxy.
Of course, the other thing that postmodernists would do is to question
whether the idea of an orthodoxy or orthopraxy as a single coherent system
works. All heresies are alternative orthodoxies, and all orthodoxies
contain divisions, conflicts, and incoherencies.
David Anderson
David Aldred
<nick_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>How about left-brain, right-brain and no-brain? I would put myself in
>the latter class
Is that a clever self-referential joke, or a grammatical error?
--
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@familyaldred.org.uk \ Nottingham, England
|/ --------------------------------
Richard Emblem
<seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>I'm absolutely on board with the general concept although I'm not entirely
>certain which model of cognitive perception I want to use. Left-brain,
>right-brain might be useful, but I'm vague on what that might mean exactly.
"vague" - that's got you classified then :-)
Pam Seeker
> In article <ar3ql6$4t4$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, "Pam Seeker"
> <seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I'm absolutely on board with the general concept although I'm not
>> entirely certain which model of cognitive perception I want to use.
>> Left-brain, right-brain might be useful, but I'm vague on what that
>> might mean exactly.
>
> "vague" - that's got you classified then :-)
<g> Indeed. <g>
Kevin Donnelly
<deb...@utusheffield.fsnet.co.uk> writes
A new kind of dichotomy?
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Kevin Donnelly
<seek...@hotmail.com> writes
By happy coincidence I heard Malcolm Brown the other night speaking at
the Manchester Theological Society on the issue of Hearing Other Voices.
He was at the William Temple Foundation here in Manchester until two
years ago, and is now at the Cambridge Theological Foundation involved
in part in ministerial training. It was wide-ranging yet beatific, so
much so I thought I would remember every word, but an hour at that
altitude followed by tea break and discussion has meant only bits
surfacing occasionally.
I suppose in my own words it was a call to stay with our own
traditions, welcoming the new world without being overwhelmed by it. In
other words, beware of dichotomies that may be false or temporary. Yes
to Alpha (currently being exported overseas) and HTB, but not if that
means a market-driven attempt to impose them on small rural parishes of
mostly elderly people. Caution is needed too about go-go expensive
American-style evangelism that ignores Britain, England and
Anglicanism's ancient European links, something that Will Hutton is
talking about at an economic and cultural level, where European
religion, economics and politics retains a sense of social solidarity
not obvious in the USA.
One of the Cambridge groups has a slogan "roots down, walls
down" which sums up an important aspect of the lecture. Closing rural
churches simply on economic grounds, creating huge parishes for reasons
of ruthless managerialism is to misunderstand what being Anglican (or
Christian) means. Nor should a noisy affluent part of any tradition
dismiss another part in order to impose its own world-view, then defend
it by erecting walls. In politics, economics and religion, trends come
and go, as the Church, more than anyone else, should know.
It's midnight in Manchester. I've just re-read what I've
written. It does have some echoes of what Malcolm Brown said, but the
best I can hope for is for readers to hear him for themselves. In
present form he is offering a feast for the hungry, especially for those
like me, who seem to have spent their lives in places where most Sundays
only two or three gather together. He emphasised that what matters is
the saying of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, that we have not chosen him,
but he has chosen us.
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Kevin Donnelly
<tim@remove_if_not_spam.digitig.cix.co.uk> writes
Sorry to intrude on a serious discussion, but this recalls a poem from
schooldays, half-remembered and not understood, with a refrain that
sounded like Chimborazo, orthopraxis. Or am I confusing this with
entertainers Orthur Askis, Chimmy Young or Chimmy Savile?
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Nick Milton
When I was but thirteen or so
I went into a golden land,
Chimborazo, Cotopaxi
Took me by the hand.
My father died, my brother too,
They passed like fleeting dreams,
I stood where Popocatapetl
In the sunlight gleams.
I dimly heard the master's voice
And boys far-off at play, ---
Chimborazo, Cotopaxi
Had stolen me away.
I walked in a great golden dream
To and fro from school ---
Shining Popocatapetl
The dusty streets did rule.
I walked home with a gold dark boy
And never a word I'd say,
Chimborazo, Cotopaxi
Had taken my speech away.
I gazed entranced upon his face
Fairer than any flower ---
O shining Popocatapetl
It was thy magic hour:
The houses, people, traffic seemed
Thin fading dreams by day;
Chimborazo, Cotopaxi,
They had stolen my soul away!
-- W. J. Turner
Kevin Donnelly
<nick_...@hotmail.com> writes
Many thanks, indeed. This poem was still in the anthology when my
brother in law, sixteen years younger than me, was at school. The 6th
form pantomime included a final rousing chorus, something like:
We're off to Popocatapetl,
Altogether in a row,
We're off to Popocatapetl,
Where the blue bananas grow,
So we'll pawn the old green settle,
And we'll pop the family kettle,
We're off to Popocatapetl,
Whoops-a-daisy, here we go!
Must have been the school dinners!
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly