tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7838707657180568843.post-62488592324671604952008-05-06T04:45:00.000-04:002008-05-06T04:45:00.000-04:00Thank you for another very careful reading of my work. As Matthew mentioned I am indeed flattered. I think I will limit my comments to one area of your analysis, namely that of eschatology. In relation to this Matthew in his comment mentioned three possibilities in relation to our differing approach to eschatology,<BR/><BR/>1) you're wrong and he's right, 2) he's right about the concept being Scriptural, but these particular passages don't establish it, or 3) it'll become apparent that Rollins' "biblical parallax" concept is taken from somewhere else (postmodern philosophy?) and imposed upon the text.<BR/><BR/>However I think that there is another. Before mentioning it I will make a quick comment on number 3. I would say that I have been influenced by postmodern thought (or what I would prefer to call phenomenology) although I try not to impose that on the text, but rather bring it into dialogue with the text (for my theoretical position is not a closed whole that I bring to life but an ever expanding and changing network of ideas which are developed as I engage in life). 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’. Interestingly I came to phenomenology late academically speaking (doing my primary degree in a department that had mixed feelings about it) and long after I had immersed myself in the bible. I advocate the idea of a fusion of horizons in which I encounter the living, dynamic text (which I, like Matthew, affirm) as I am – here in the intersubjective relationship meaning is located.<BR/><BR/>Anyway this is merely a side-point. To return to the main point I would say that my use of the term ‘eschatological’ is not in opposition to certain positions within the historical-critical debate you mention (say between realised eschatology and inaugurated eschatology) but rather seeks to penetrate deeper than the historical-critical debates. Hence I would broadly agree with your overview of eschatology as understood at the time of Jesus. However I want to put the term to different/deeper work. Perhaps I could speak of eschatology (historical) and Eschatology (theological/phenomenological). My claim is that the term ‘Eschatology’ can be employed/expanded in order to help us appreciate a phenomenological unity between John and Jesus (not a disparity) as well as tie together certain readings of the kingdom as both here now and to come. By employing a visual metaphor we could say, T-H-E-K-I-N-G-D-O-M-I-S-N-O-W-H-E-R-E (i.e. both ‘now here’ and ‘nowhere’ at one and the same time). By putting the term Eschatology to work in this way I am attempting to show that it can open up a deep understanding of the kingdom which does not require unity in terms of the Christian communities understanding of Jesus’, John’s or the author of revelation’s understanding of the temporal culmination of history. <BR/><BR/>My claim is that if eschatology is the study of the ‘to come’ in theology then it must deepen its appreciation of the ‘to come’, not merely in terms of temporal culmination, but in terms of its structural depth. Hence we can talk not only about the kingdom that is to come, but also of the kingdom that is the ‘to come’.<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/><BR/>PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com