Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Bec - what quote?
Rev.. something along those lines would be right and you can heap a whole lot of other isms in there
as to what i argue.. well thats my choice and i can discriminate at my own descretion
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
forget it i got the quote thingy
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
2 Timothy 4
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
(Where we are today I think, and the next day, and the………
For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
(Where I/we would like to be?)
Cheers
MN
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
bec, re 116 - no individual is beyond redemption but I dont think the concept applies to cultures? Jesus saves people not cultures, the cultures change when the people change.
I had never thought about PM being a culture that people strongly identify with. Mainly because I dont look at my own identity framed within the categories of modern, pre-modern or post-modern. I see elements of each influencing my own thought and the culture around me.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
good point Warren (hope you don’t mind it when i call you wazza?)
btw David
have you read that article yet??
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
no worries absey
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Warren - fair point. I’d have to think about that more though…
People don’t always strongly identify with a culture, but that doesn’t mean they’re not profoundly influenced by it. In the contexts in which I work in the Pacific, kastom is everything, people are hyper-aware of it, they staunchly defend it, and it’s a very powerful term to mobilise. It wasn’t until I came across the subject of Whiteness that I began to be aware of how ‘invisible’ my own culture is…ie when people in Australia talk about “culture” and “ethnicity”, they basically mean anything that’s not Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic in origin.
Just because you haven’t consciously identified with something doesn’t mean it hasn’t shaped you. When I say that I’m PM, I’m just being honest about who I am. I’m also a consumer, and I’m a Westerner. Those things are big terms that refer to many things, and not all of them reflect what I understand the gospel to be. However that doesn’t mean that I’d dismiss any of those cultures wholesale, and say that God is not present within them, or that they do not have aspects which might reflect the Good News.
I’m also aware that I’m influenced by modernist culture. I don’t think I value modernist approaches anywhere near as highly as abtruth does (I don’t, for example, entirely agree with his take on how we should discuss “truth” in communities of faith - see the thread on god and homosexuality). However I can both some good and some bad in modernism…for example, my research is influenced by both modernist and postmodernist approach - I’m pomo in the sense that I draw a lot from postcolonial and postmodern approaches to understanding law, but at the end of the day I’m also profoundly pragmatic, and I want to be able to make recommendations as to law reform, and at that point modernism often kicks in. I’m not sure if that makes much sense, but I’ve often had this discussion about the clash between law and anthropology, and postmodern and modernist approaches, with my supervisors!!
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I don’t think I value modernist approaches anywhere near as highly as abtruth does
valuing truth and defining it through coherent and correspondant theories reality isn’t modernist Bec
August 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am
abtruth….you’re just relentless. You’re mean and hateful, actually.
Not at all a very good representation of Jesus Christ.
Humm…..if someone is not a representation of Christ, does that make them an Anti-Christ?????
Please be an agreeable mate and stop being so shitty towards Bec!
– peace
August 4th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
OK I am late into this thread and I haven’t digested every comment yet, but I think David you might be off a bit. Before I respond, I need to check with you about some of the bold and perhaps misguided assertions in #40:
David, do you know what is meant by ancilla theologia? Are you familiar with the patristic debates over this issue (you know Tertullian’s “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem”) which crops up throughout Christian history (eg Alcuin’s “What has Ingeld to do with Christ?” etc).
Do you know the difference between using philosophy or some other discipline as ancilla theologia and allowing it to become the domina?
August 4th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Please be an agreeable mate
no
August 4th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
SilencedByTheLambs…he won’t be, and it’s cool. I’ve copped far worse from saint *grins cheekily at saint*
abtruth..when I said you were modernist, I didn’t mean it to be an insult. I actually think the way you approach arguments is very modernist…and you also argue in a manner that a lot of theorists would say is a typically western, male way of arguing. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, and it’s the dominant mode of communication in our society. I think the fact that it’s the dominant mode of communication and can exclude some other forms of communication can be pretty problematic…it’s a mode of communication favoured in our parliaments and court rooms, and you’d argue that it’s the appropriate mode of communication in church sometimes. There’s plenty of reasons why this is problematic, not least of which is the fact that modes of giving “evidence” and forms of “evidence” which don’t fit this mould mean that some arguments are devalued (there’s been plenty of PhDs written on this issue and the Hindmarsh Island case!!)
August 4th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Now now, Bec. I thought you said it was all forgotten. But I forget: PMT is a regular occurrence.
*grin*
August 4th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
In other words abtruth, there is something wrong with being and thinking and arguing like a Western male, and even if it the dominant mode of communication, you have to put aside your sensibilities, and make sure no-ones sensitivities are hurt.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
saint - smart alec.
re: 134…no, that’s not what I’m saying at all, and I think you’re probably smart enough to know that.
abtruth: I am saying that your posts seem - to ME - to have some of the characteristics which are often identified as “male” and “Western”. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. The “problem” arises when we think that there is only one way to communicate, or that some forms of communication are more valid than others. To take an extreme example, many people would argue that our emphasis on these forms of communication (in our parliaments, in our courts, and in our churches) has excluded other voices, and the stereotype that is often put up is that of the Australian indigenous woman, or a rural woman in the developing world. Now I think that a lot of these theories rest on a whole lot of stereotypes to which exceptions can be found, but that doesn’t mean I dismiss their arguments all together.
I’ve tried to raise this before on signposts before in relation to some of the discourse in the emerging church. It’d be nice if you two - abtruth and saint - were a bit more prepared to engage than some other people have been.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
What other types of communication are you talking about Bec?
August 5th, 2007 at 12:33 am
I actually found it quite funny to see SBL ride into battle to defend your honour Bec… I think he had somewhat of a culture shock seeing the ferocity of the debates… he would probably be just as shocked to see us arguing side by side on another string or talking civilly now!
logic is a contentious issue and although there may be different ways of arguing I would maintain that logic is more akin to math than culturally dependant…
August 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Can God talk to us through the bible if one is a post-modernist?
August 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Homer, I’ll respond to you first: no, most definitely not. I don’t ever read the Bible. Why would I?
MN…I’m trying to think of some examples…our culture is a very text-based, verbal one. Some cultures are based far more on action - things like facial expressions, and just learning by watching. I’ve seen this in the Solomon Islands, for example - so much is said by behaviour and facial expressions. Solomon Islanders themselves have often said to be “Rebecca, we don’t learn with words, we learn by watching”. The Hindmarsh Island bridge example is a classic one that has been the subject of many journal articles, PhD theses etc - I’m not sure whether you remember this, but some women claimed that the island had cultural significance, but they refused to give evidence on this point because it was “secret women’s business” - there were therefore allegations that the cultural significance of the place was fabricated. Similar issues arise in, say, hearings regarding immigration applications - our legal system looks for documentary evidence (ie birth certificates, death certificates) that simply don’t exist in many countries. It also comes up in native title cases, where anthropological evidence has to be led.
I’m trying to think of some examples that are specifically about modes of reasoning/arguing rather than evidence, but I can’t right now - I’ll keep thinking and get back to you.
abtruth…you might have a point there (re maths and logic), but I’d have to think it through some more. I still think that my argument stands. Our communities of faith are built around culturally-biased modes of communication, ie we tend to use verbal argument rather than argument based on doing…I remember a friend (who’s Murri) telling me one time about how the people of the Central Desert (I think) talk about how they “do” or “live” Easter - they literally “live” Easter every year. Us white people have a different view of time, and we “remember” Easter - we don’t “live” it every year.
I was thinking about this a bit last night…one of the things that often seems to be forgotten in LAY (not academic) discussions about the inerrancy of scripture is the fact that those stories started out as oral stories, not as text. They would have been far more fluid then than they are now. NOTE, I’m not suggesting that this means they are NOT “inerrant”, any more than I would suggest that (oral) customary law is more easily manipulated than (written) formal/Western law…but the point is that once you write something down, it takes on a different form, it’s used differently…I often think that us Western, formally-educated Christians need to rediscover the power of story-telling, especially oral story-telling.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Do you know the difference between using philosophy or some other discipline as ancilla theologia and allowing it to become the domina?
I must confess that I do not, but I could take a guess. But rather than do that, perhaps you could explain the concept to me?
August 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I can prove conclusively that PM is evil. But unfortunately, I cant give you the information on this blog. In my culture it is sacred information that can only be transmitted verbally from Father to son.
I still expect you to respect my culture and my truth, however.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
wow…wazza…you, like, totally made me see things differently, ‘cos, like, I’ve never heard/read/come across that response before. It’s like, so unique!
August 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Grow up Lisa Simpson
August 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I never claimed my posts were unique, or that you wouldnt have heard them before. Do you think we havent heard your arguments before?
August 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Definitely not…like I said, there’s numerous journal articles, doctoral dissertations etc out there. The point is that I’m not sarcastic (although I may respond to sarcasm with sarcasm), and I do at least try to engage with people’s posts, rather than dismiss them with a brief, snide post.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
While we’re on the subject of “different voices”, I thought I’d post this…I thought it was fascinating:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/bloggers-are-dumb–except-me/2007/08/02/1185648218142.html
I definitely don’t agree with all the views expressed in here - the first thing I thought of was the importance of sites like this one, and emblazoned’s “Case 4 Change”….
August 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
bec, I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say in 146. You say you definitely dont agree with all the views, does that imply that you agree with some of the views? If so which ones are they? What was the point of referring to that article?
I think there is an elitist tone to a lot of what you say. You’re too scared to spell it out for us, but you are constantly implying that only you have the education to understand these issues. I don’t think elitism is compatible with postmodernist theory, but it is definitely a feature of its practice.
As for the “numerous journal articles, doctoral dissertations” out there which you keep alluding to, everyone knows that you can write a doctoral dissertation on anything. But you have to run a society on some rational basis, which was what my post 142 was trying to say.
There are plenty of papers and journal articles critical of your views, such as the one posted by abtruth - but you dismiss them as “extreme”.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
wazza…
I just thought it was a fascinating article that raised a whole lot of questions about which voices we value, why we value them, whether we include/exclude certain voices…I’m still thinking about it to be honest - I think there’s a lot of crap on the web (especially blogs…if I see one more blog about what’s growing in my garden and what I’m cooking for dinner, and why I’m sad today, I’ll scream!)…that said, I’m not sure I’m as elitist as the the author of the book (I can’t remember his name right now). Oh, and I just thought it was an interesting article and I’d stick it here…thereby contributing to the nonsensical rambles that pervade cyberspace!
I’m sorry if I’m coming across as “elitist” - I certainly don’t think I’m the only one that has the education to understand these issues. I think that abtruth and saint know exactly what I’m referring to, and they’ve read an awful lot more widely than I have.
I’m also going to ask you to show me how I’ve been elitist and implied that only I have the education to understand the issues - if you look at my posts, I am at least trying to explain myself - you instead have thrown out some very short, very sarcastic, very condescending posts. I’ve given a couple of examples and you have not engaged with any of them other than the one which is easiest to engage with.
One of my gripes about pentecostalism has always been the privileging of “experience” and “the miraculous” over logic - but equally, one of my gripes about, say, my Anglican upbringing, has been that it privileges logic over all else. My point is that there are different ways of experiencing and knowing God and different cultures privilege some over others. I’m looking for ways of building community in which we can not only value the logical, rational arguments (epitomised by abtruth’s posts here), but also the stories (akin to Reve’s posts) - instead of playing the two approaches off each other constantly.
As for the comment that “everyone knows that you can write a doctoral dissertation on anything”…ever heard of examination?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Bec
the link wouldn’t work.
Cheers
MN
August 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
bec, I thought 112 was a bit elitist but it is very difficult to say. You dont tend to address the point directly, but in a very indirect way. Usually if you disagree with something, you will say “I dont disagree with you, but” and then you will say something that tends to disagree with the point. But not totally.
Then if I try to figure out what it is exactly that you meant, you will usually back away from the point you’ve made before.
Your approach seems to value everything and is inclusive of everything. If I argue against anything, my argument will be included in your approach. But it will always look like your approach is much broader.
Faced with that, I’ve tried to use non-logical approaches to argument - trying to provoke and dig into the limits of your world-view.
ever heard of examination?
I will answer that by giving the example of the Sokal affair. A professor of physics at NYU, Alan Sokal decided to test the quality of the review process of the prestigious journal “Social Text” by submitting a parody of a PM article quoting Derrida and all the required theorists. The reviewers could not tell the difference between a parody and a serious PM text, and published it. This may seem snide and condescending to you, but it is the only way of criticising a post-modernist.