tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7838707657180568843.post-28141065990609347422008-05-06T14:24:00.000-04:002008-05-06T14:24:00.000-04:00Thanks for your comments and feedback Peter!<BR/><BR/>There are just couple, very brief things I might say as a follow-up. First, many of your distinctions are obviously finely nuanced, and I think I need to keep reading and think more about what you have said here. <BR/><BR/>One comment I might add is simply to say that I do not understand the distinction you make when you separate uses of 'eschatological' in terms of history, on the one hand, and theology and phenomonology on the other. I don't know that you are suggesting this, but it seems that the distinction implies a divorce between history and theology. Perhaps you might be able to explain that a bit further.<BR/><BR/>I was also wondering if you might explain your description of postmodern thought as phenomenology.<BR/><BR/>I really appreciated the comment from Rollins cited below,<BR/><BR/>"The less we know about the theories which guide us the more we are enslaved by them and the more we impose them. When one understands ones theoretical positioning one can be more self-consciously careful about how one employs it and thus be less likely to just see it as ‘the way things are’." <BR/><BR/>I think this is a key point for theological discussion. I think this idea explains why many of us are not able to get to the point of dialogue, but simply talk past each other. Unfortunately, our lack of self-awareness often leads to name-calling and rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>Finally, in some sense, I think the next chapter in Dr. Rollins' book anticiaptes some of my questions. I have not finished chapter 4 yet, but he does offer some interesting analysis regarding the academy in the Western world in terms of how we approach and give priority to certain questions regarding truth.<BR/><BR/>It will be interesting to see where the discussion takes us.Norman Jeune IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16722346793608425114noreply@blogger.com