tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7838707657180568843.post-51340008376451016452008-05-07T04:48:00.000-04:002008-05-07T04:48:00.000-04:00Hi<BR/><BR/>I can understand why the distinction I made between two types of eschatology is confusing. In the post I labeled, for shorthand, one as historical and the other as theological/phenomenological. However, as you noted, the way I said this made it seem that only the latter was theological. Instead of saying theological/phenomenological I should have said phenomenological theology. There are different ways I could name these two approaches, for instance I would say that the first includes a mix of historical research (want did the people of Jesus’ day think of the end of history), biblical exegesis (what did the biblical writers think of this end) and metaphysical theology (what does God think). While the latter could be said to be phenomenological eschatology in so much as it employs the term as a way of describing an experience of the kingdom that believers have. In this way phenomenological eschatology is about ones experience of the kingdom as still to come. <BR/><BR/>Note that this is not a lack of experience of that which is still to arrive, but rather a positive experience of a lack that is felt. In the book I use the analogy of ones beloved – his or her presence opens up and testifies to an absence. Like the Tardis in Doctor Who the fragile physical frame of my beloved belies an interior world of infinite proportions that I have yet to explore. Each person is thus a rupture in the world of mute being similar to those cartoon holes that make space appear on the side of a cliff.<BR/><BR/>In terms of your second question I will just make a quick comment that the term post-modern is too popular now to be rigorous. In philosophy it is rarely used because it is so wide a term (referring to everything from an architectural style to a type of youth culture) and instead people talk about different types of phenomenology and post-structuralism. These are more technical terms that communicate a more specific theoretical positioning. While I have a number of influences, if someone wanted to name my approach it could be broadly seen as phenomenological (though in a specific way). Phenomenology, briefly, is the study of that which appears to us in the mode that it appears. Ironically I am interested in the religious category of felt non-appearance so my phenomenology is not strictly phenomenological!<BR/><BR/>Hope that clarifies rather than muddies the water.<BR/><BR/>PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com