What's in a word?
This entry deals with the power of words and
concepts in language, and particularly how they impact upon our
theology.
Words can be so powerful. I have been moved to
tears by the words of poets, brought to laughter by a skilled comedian, and of
course grown in faith through gifted
preachers!
However, ask yourself the
question, is it the words themselves that achieve this effect? Honestly, we
would have to admit that it is not the words, but a person's interpretation of
the words, that gives them meaning and effect. I have often preached in
situations were certain people have found what I have said to be so meaningful,
whilst to others the words have meant very little. When words truly connect
with who we are, they are able to effect powerful responses of
emotion.
I grew up as a child of the
70's and 80's. Remember the days of "Punk's not dead"!? I was one of those
guys, Dr Martin boots, ripped Union Jack T-Shirts, Bondage pants, shaved and
colored hair, too many ear rings to
mention...
Punk sub-culture was
characterized by nihilism and anarchism. It certainly was not only hedonistic
excess with no underlying message. Sure, there were those who fell pray to the
temptations of sex, drugs and rock and roll. Today I watched a documentary on
the Sex Pistols. For those who are too young to remember, or those who are too
afraid to admit remembering, the Sex Pistols were one of the early Punk bands,
emerging in the late 1970's. Artistically they were a reaction to the highly
polished 'glam rock' bands that were emerging from sectors of the European and
American music giants. Socially, they were a response to the British
conservatism, seeking to break free from the chains of societal repression.
Born out of working class English homes they sought to break free from the
increasingly structured and normative values that pervaded British society in
the late 1970's and 1980's. Not surprisingly, they were misunderstood, and even
hated, by the British public for songs such as "God save the Queen". They were
deliberately irreverand and sought to break all the rules in both art and life.
Of course, it was just such an attitude that eventually lead to the tragic death
of the band's bass player, Sid Vicious, from a Heroin overdose.
All that aside for the moment, it is
the Sex Pistols' album title that interested me, and sparked me to write this
entry. The album is entitled "Never mind the bollocks, here's the Sex Pistols".
A title as brazen as that is sure to illicit some negative response. The Sex
Pistols were signed with the Virgin record label at the time (after being paid
off by EMI for shocking behavior on British Television program). The band, and
their management, spent some considerable time in court with Virgin records
trying to get the record released under that name. As an aside, isn't it
interesting that someone who is as progressive as Richard Branson, would seek to
repress the creativity and freedom of expression of this young group of
hooligans? I guess at the end of the day it does all come down to
business!
This was counter culture! It
was an attempt to subvert, to change, to make a statement. I recently read a
quote from the American Theologian and Ethicist, Stanley Hauerwas, who commented
in a 1991 interview "If you ask one of the crucial theological questions - why
was Jesus killed? - the answer isn't 'because God wants us to love one
another'. Why in the hell would anyone kill Jesus for that? That's stupid.
It's not even interesting. Why did he get killed? Because he challenged the
powers that be. The Church is a political institution calling people to an
alternative to the world. That's what the cross is about." Wow, that is
challenging. I wonder what Jesus would have said to the title of the Sex
Pistols album?
You see it's not about
the words, it about what they mean to people. Johnny Rotten, the lead singer of
the Sex Pistols, speaks about how they finally managed to get the album released
under the above-mentioned title. He says that they managed to find a lawyer who
made the case that the word 'bollocks' is a word that is a part of the English
language. How on earth could one ever stop a person from using a word that is
commonly accepted as part of a language? After all, they argued, it is not the
word that is offensive, but people's interpretation of the word. So, they
argued, it is not the band that should be sensored, but the people who are
offended by the word! (Do you temember the form of heresy in the middle ages
that regarded certain things as heretical because they are 'offensive to pious
eyes' pious auribus offensiva?) Thus the person who finds the word
offensive makes some offensive connection within him or herself, they are the
ones who are offensive, the word in itself has no value or meaning other than
that attached to it by people who hear and understand
it.
Of course the father of
Post-modernism, Derrida would have been happy with such an understanding of
words since his emphasis was to deconstruct meaning. He wanted to show that the
modernist ideal of absolute truth and meaning was flawed since it did not pay
enough attention to the impact of context and situation on the person who sees,
hears, or reads, the words.
If you
follow the link below marked 'Read More' you can read a paper that I wrote on
the relationship between the Biblical text and post-modernism.
It will give some insight into one of
the more contemporary approaches to scripture that results from such an
understanding of the power of words in relation to people's lives.
INTRODUCTION.
Spirituality
is a lived discipline. It takes place within a particular socio-historical
context and as such there is a close link between spirituality, the elements
that compose it and the context within which it is formed. Within this context
Kristo notes that spirituality
...is part of a story, and it should be considered
as such if one wants to get to the bottom of the nature of mystical
experience.... It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that the mystical journey
is a response to a definite, specific horizon. (Kristo in Eire
1990:59).
Culture, tradition, sacred
sources, social and political surrounding, as well as technology are all factors
that influence the development and practice of spirituality. By the same token
spirituality also acts on culture, tradition, the use of sacred sources and the
experience and participation of individuals and groups in society. As such one
could conclude that spirituality and culture are mutually transformative in
nature. Each acting upon the other in order to bring about change and growth.
If one accepts such a notion, it would be necessary to investigate dominant
social and religious trends, as well as the way in which they relate to and act
upon each, in order to begin to understand contemporary
spirituality.
This supposition
underlies the thoughts that follow. In the sections below an attempt will be
made to define postmodernism, characterise spirituality by listing some of its
constitutive elements, as well as investigate the way in which postmodernism and
spirituality relate to one another within the context of scripture. This paper
will also list some benefits and pitfalls that arise from a biblical
spirituality that operates within the postmodernist paradigm. Finally this
paper will discuss some examples of postmodernist hermeneutics that are able to
inform and enrich contemporary
spirituality.
TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF
SPIRITUALITY.
An essential component
in understanding the relationship between spirituality, postmodernism and
scripture, necessitates a grasp of the constituent elements. Whilst there are
no exacting definitions for spirituality, one is able to indicate, in a broad
sense at least, some characteristic elements within the study and practice of
spirituality (Eire 1990:53). In the section that follows three aspects will be
mentioned that are common to most contemporary definitions of spirituality (cf.
Schneiders 1989:687-692; Cousins
1990:41).
Many have expressed a great
deal of frustration over their inability to ‘pin down’ that
“nebulous phenomenon known as spirituality...”(Eire 1990:53). What
makes a definition of spirituality so difficult is the fact that it seems to
cover everything from mystical devotion to social life and a myriad of
disciplines in-between. It would seem that the subject has no boundaries (a
characteristic element of the post-modern paradigm). This section will attempt
to define a few necessary elements in the study and practice of spirituality.
Please take note that these are not conclusive, but merely serve to facilitate
the purpose of this essay; which is to discuss the relationship between
spirituality the bible and postmodernism. Sheldrake notes that if one is
completely unable to define, articulate, and to some extent at least, objectify
spirituality, then it would mean that it is completely incomprehensible. Hence
he concludes that if spirituality has “no conceptual limits, effectively
it means nothing” (Sheldrake 1991:40). Thus, I have set some
‘conceptual’ limits within which I believe spirituality functions
and is articulated using words and
concepts.
Firstly, I have set a
boundary by affirming that spirituality at some level has to do with experience.
By this I mean that there needs to be a locus within which spirituality takes
place, and that locus is the human person. As such spirituality is mediated
through the person’s very existence; his or her senses, emotions and
needs. In most cases these experiences are experiences of transcendence, that
is, contact with a God who transcends, or the shifting of one’s
boundaries, through challenges which affect one’s world view, relationship
with God, self and others.
Secondly, I would like to affirm
that spiritual experiences are experiences that have a cognitive element to
them. Eire asks the question:
If, as Cousins and many others assert, there is an
ultimate reality to be experienced, how do human beings perceive and describe
this reality? (1990:58).
Perception
is essential. Since Descartes noted cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am),
cognition has become an essential element of affirming our experience of
reality. Thus, I would suggest that spirituality is that state, emotion or
experience where the individual or group comes to know and understand something
of the truth of their existence. That is why questions such as this one by St
Francis of Assisi are so important “My God! My God! What are you? Who
am I?”. They seem to express the notion of the importance of the
cognitive element of spirituality. However, it needs to be said that cognition
should not be rigidly equated with reason. I would assert that one is able have
experiences which are inexplicable, yet cognitive. Such a distinction is
clearly discernible in the spirituality expressed through the continental
mystics and autotheists, most notable amongst them being Meister
Eckhard.
Thirdly, I would suggest
that spirituality falls within the domain of history and the sciences as much as
it falls into the domain of theology and religion. The reasons for this will
become clearer throughout this paper as an understanding of the post-modern
paradigm is developed. What is essential to note at this point is that if one
accepts this thesis, then spirituality is not a complete mystery. There are
aspects of it that are explainable and able to be shared with others. This does
not mean that everyone will have the same spiritual experiences, or even
articulate common experiences in the same manner and form. Rather it asserts
that spirituality is able to be articulated, shared and developed by making use
of the tools of language and philosophy. In this sense then spirituality is
both a single discipline and mutli-disciplinary. As Eire
notes,
[b]ecause the study of spirituality is focussed on
experiences... it continually needs to be refreshed by contact with that
environment.... [along with this] established academic disciplines and the study
of spirituality will best coexist and promote each other’s well being when
their investigations share a common sense of order and direction.
(1990:61).
In conclusion then,
spirituality is “a fundamental dimension of human being, the lived
experience which actualises that dimension, and the academic discipline which
studies that experience” (Schneiders 1989:678). As such one could quite
safely assume that spirituality is not a prescriptive, but rather a descriptive
discipline. Seeking not so much to prescribe, although some have tried to do
this, but rather to describe existential reality in relation to God, others,
self and the world. Hence as a discipline it would draw on any means available
to express, articulate and understand these lived
experiences.
NOSTALGIA AND THE
UNKNOWN: MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM
DISCUSSED.
From the start
‘postmodernism’ has been a somewhat elastic and nomadic term. On
the one hand it has been used to describe particular artists, styles and
buildings, on the other hand it has claimed to describe the whole contemporary
period of advanced consumer society “by naming either its dominant
socio-economic trends or its prevailing sensibility” (Brooker and Brooker
1997:1).
This section of the paper
will discuss the terms modernism and postmodernism, seeking to extrapolate and
investigate the meaning that has become attached to each of these terms within
contemporary society and the
academy.
Nostalgia.
We
begin by investigating the etymological and historical precursor to
post-modernism, that is, modernism. Hunter suggests that modernism “has
always been used to set one period in time apart from another in terms of old an
new” (1996:13). As such modernism is quite simply a term that is used to
differentiate two historical periods from each other: modernism and the period
that followed it, namely ‘post’
modernism.
Modernism has its roots
back in the 17th century with the increasing confidence in reason,
science and technology that was associated with such great thinkers as Rene
Descartes and Isaac Newton. However, as a historical period it only becomes
entrenched through westernised culture in the first five or six decades of the
20th century (Lundin 1993:3) with it’s extreme confidence in
reason, human and scientific ability as well as social and political
developments in the West. It was the age of flight, the motor car,
telecommunications, the atomic bomb, television, relativity theory and
microbiology.
Hunter (1996:13-14)
suggests a number of characteristic elements to the modernist world view. He
notes that modernity places a great deal of confidence and emphasis on the human
person as the subjective controller of knowledge. In this regard reason is
exalted as the primary conceptual tool through which all things are sought out,
investigated and categorised. The goal or “teleos" of knowledge is to
master the positive to find what is useful, efficient, and true and make use of
it. As the great modernist television series, Star Trek, stated “to
boldly go where no man has gone before”. Thus Bell suggests that in
simpler terms ‘modern’ persons “concentrated on reaching for
all because it is human. Man [sic] concentrates on demystifying what is though
to be within his or her realm... to know it all, to achieve immediate knowledge
of everything” (in Hunter 1996:14). For the modernist, knowledge reigns
supreme.
It was out of this paradigm
that the historical critical method of biblical criticism gained popular acclaim
in the early part of this century. This is a method that seeks to break the
text into pieces so that in examining and understanding the constituent parts,
the whole may be understood. Such a method is restrictive, prescriptive, and
according to Hunter not consistent. Since “those parts of the text that
are viewed as not fitting the general interpretative trend or translation of the
author are easily amended or seen as secondary”
(1996:19).
Within the modernist
paradigm everything was explicable. People, cultures, behaviour and religion
were all confined to strict rational categories. It was assumed that there were
very few grey areas. Many today long for the security of such a world view, as
can be seen in the resurgence of literalist and fundamentalist movements within
the world’s living
faiths.
B) The
unknown.
Postmodernism is more an
evolution than a revolution. It not something completely new (if there is such
a thing as ‘completely new’). Rather, postmodernism, as its name
suggest, is the period and associated world view that follows
modernism.
Lundin suggests that
postmodernism is a response to the metanarratives of rigour, characterisation,
progress and development in all spheres of life, that were so characteristic of
the modernist era (1993:4). The most obvious examples of this reaction, or
evolution, are to be found in playful and allusive architecture and literature
as well as music, the visual media and growing information technologies.
Historically, it seems that the post-modern reaction began in France. In
literature, it is the author Derrida who coined the phrase la difference.
Hunter suggests three meanings to this term. Firstly “’to
differ’- to be unlike or dissimilar in nature, quality or form”.
Secondly, the Latin word differe – meaning “to scatter,
disperse”. And finally, “’to defer’- to delay,
postpone” (1996:25). Derrida’s phrase and the meanings that come
from it sum up to a large extent the ethos of the post-modern paradigm. To be
different, to disperse and delay.
Postmodernism, as is the case with
spirituality, is somewhat elusive, defying definition (cf. Hunter 1996:15).
Definitions by nature tend to draw objects, thoughts and groups together.
Postmodernism by its very nature seeks to allow for a plurality of meanings,
breaking down monist and restrictive characterisations. It encourages
relativism and rejects the notion of one underlying, all encompassing
truth.
[P]ostmodernism does not wish to be the thread
that binds a number of elements of our era together. It does not want to be the
underlying philosophy.... This would undermine the character of postmodernism
as pluralistic, allowing for all possible meanings, opinions and trends.
(Hunter 1996:15).
One of the
characteristic trends of postmodernism that is of particular interest to this
paper is its particular suspicion of the modern person. In particular the
picture of humanity that was given in modernity, as all powerful, capable of
knowing all things, objectively able to observe and reason. In the post-modern
paradigm the human person is understood in relation to circumstances, whether
social, economic, political or psychological (Hunter 1996:16). The person no
longer determines the facts, rather, he or she is determined by them, no longer
shaping meaning, but a result of the shaping process. “As such man [sic]
has no critical self but for the self given him by his circumstances”
(Hunter 1996:16). In relation to biblical studies, the reader now enters into
the hermeneutic process. There is far greater suspicion of what the reader
brings to the text. No longer is there such a strong subject object dichotomy
between reader and text, both are engaged with each other in a process of mutual
transformation. Hence, what was once taken for granted is now regarded with
great suspicion.
POSTMODERNISM AND
SPIRITUALITY.
At the start of this
paper the assertion was made that culture and context affect spirituality. It
has already been argued that authentic spirituality takes place within the locus
of the human person, and as such is expressed and experienced through the social
and cultural trappings which surround him or her. In this regard it is vital
that one gain an understanding of how spirituality and postmodernism act upon
each other and function together, and how this in turn affects the reading of
scripture.
If modernism asserts
absolute individualism, the subject over against an objective reality, then
postmodernism asserts relations and interdependence, a lack of distinction
between subject and object. Contemporary spirituality shares these elements
with the post-modern paradigm. The clearest expressions of such views come from
recent discoveries in the areas of the natural and human sciences. Sharpe, the
quantum-physicist wrote:
No human act, no element of life or the
environment, no human activity is an island, any more than the individual is an
island. (Sharpe 1990:114).
As in
postmodernism, contemporary spirituality affirms that a person’s context,
family, geographical and social location are constitutive of a person’s
identity. In this regard, there is always a certain amount of suspicion of the
‘baggage’ that a person brings along with him or her when
articulating and interpreting experiences and reality. This is particularly so
when it comes to the biblical
text.
Secondly, there is in
contemporary spirituality and postmodernism a notion of interconnected
wholeness. In its most basic form this belief maintains that there is some form
of interconnectivity, solidarity and mutual interdependence between all human
persons and the created order (some would go so far as to include God in the
relational dependence). In this regard the quantum physicist Schrödinger
said,
Inconceivable as it seems to ordinary reason, you
- and all other conscious beings as such - are all in all. Hence this life of
yours you are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but it is in
a certain sense the whole.... Thus you can throw yourself flat on the ground,
stretched out upon Mother Earth, with the certain conviction that you are one
with her and she with you. (Schrödinger in Wilber
1975:108).
Such understandings have
become increasingly popular in the West. The modernist’s desire to
overcome, to control and to possess is replaced by a desire for peaceful
co-existence, a realisation of the fragility of our planet’s ecosystem and
the need to live in mutual interdependence. Perhaps the most famous scientist
of our time summed this feeling up as follows: “A human [may
experience]... himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from
the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a
kind of prison for us.... Our task must be to free ourselves from this
prison.” (Einstein in Wilber 1991:18).
In a very real sense, contemporary
spirituality has developed out of contemporary culture. It is the developments
and discoveries of modern society that, to a large extent, have shaped
contemporary spirituality. However, the movement is not only in one direction.
Spirituality is pervading modern society with more and more persons striving for
transcendence beyond the material. In this regard spirituality serves as an
important corrective to certain dangerous elements of the postmodernist
paradigm, e.g. relativism. Post-modern spirituality refocuses the power to make
decisions, to govern and to guide within the hands of communities. Truth is no
longer the weapon of the individual, rather it is the riches of the community.
De Villiers comments on truth saying that it “is an agreement reaching
within a community of believers as to what forms the basis of their
understanding”
(1991:150).
TEXT AND CONTEXT:
CONTEMPORARY SPIRITUALITY AND
HERMENEUTICS.
Having discussed
postmodernism and spirituality, some of their characteristic elements as well as
their influences, this paper will now move on to discuss the effect that
postmodernism has on the interpretation of the
scripture.
One of the most vividly
evident aspects of postmodernism in contemporary interpretative methods, is
postmodernism’s desire to challenge traditional interpretations of text.
Whereas the modern period placed a great deal of emphasis on textual criticism,
the post-modern period moves beyond such a strict dichotomy between the text and
the reader. Hence in a post-modern reading of scripture, interpretation is
dependant upon both textual and self criticism, that is, text and
context.
De Villiers expressed this
thought clearly in saying that the ‘reader response’ method of
biblical interpretation (which is itself a thoroughgoing postmodernist method)
“rejects the naïve realist position of interpretation and accepts
that the reader is actively involved in the creation of meaning in Biblical
scholarship”. Furthermore, he notes that this shows clearly “how
close many scholars are to some basic tenets of postmodernism”
(1991:149).
Such a method has a
tremendously positive effect on both scholarship and the development of
spirituality. It serves as an important corrective to the modernist methods of
interpretation that, although they were rigorous and precise in attempting to
draw meaning out of the text, failed to recognise the tremendous part that the
interpreter plays in the hermeneutic process. The interpreter, in a modernist
sense, was assumed to be completely objective. The reality is that the
interpreter always influences the reading of the text. His or her theology,
life’s experience, previous contact with the text all feed into what
ultimately arises from the
text.
Thus, context is of the utmost
importance. However, it is not only the context of the reader that is
important, but also that of the author, the audience and any redactors of the
text (cf. Lundin, Thiselton and Walhout’s discussion of Baird 1985:90
ff.). De Villiers uses the example of Breech to show how modernist readings of
scripture often fell into the trap of removing the text from it’s context
and transposing it into the context of the interpreter (cf. De Villiers
1991:153-154).
Questions that need
to be considered in a post-modern reading of the text include, amongst others,
the following. Who was the author? What is the author’s context? Who is
the audience? What is the purpose of the text? In what situation do the
audience find themselves? What is the author trying to convey to the audience
from his or her context to that of the audience?
Some of these questions may look
familiar, since they correspond quite closely to the historical critical method.
However, where a postmodernist reading of scripture goes further is that it
attempts to investigate two further histories within the interpretative process.
These are the history and context of the redactor as well as the history and
context of the reader.
It is commonly
accepted that many biblical texts were edited and changed, for whatever reasons,
before being put together into the form that we find them today. An
investigation of what was left out and why, is just as important as the
investigation of what is retained and for what reasons it was retained. Within
the study of history a similar revolution has taken place, in what Sheldrake
calls a study of the study of the underside of history (cf. 1995:31 ff.).
Hence, if one is able to gain some understanding of the redactor, his or her
history, as well as his or her intent in including certain sections of the text
whilst omitting others, one would gain a clearer picture of the meaning and
intent of a text. Nonetheless, even questions such as these are nothing new,
since they fit into the ambit of form
criticism.
As mentioned above,
postmodernism has its most pronounced affect on hermeneutics by focussing on the
role of the reader within the interpretative process. Thus, one is not only
critical of the text, its history and form, one is also critical of one’s
self.
It is in this regard that the
most radical outcomes of a postmodernist reading of scripture can be seen. If
one asserts that the history of the reader affects the meaning of the text, then
one needs to accept that the text itself does not contain all the inherent value
to constitute ‘absolute truth’. Stated more simply, such a reading
of scripture would imply that there is no one absolutely truthful interpretation
of the text. Each text can have more than one reading. It is in this area that
deconstructionist readings of the text have made a great
contribution.
The deconstructionist
method of biblical studies examines the link between words and what they refer
to (i.e. the signifier and the signified) (cf. Adam 1995:28). The West has
become captive to what Derrida calls “logocentrism” (Lundin,
Thiselton & Walhout 1985:34). By ‘logocentrism’ he infers that
the West has become caught up in a mistaken metaphysics, understanding notions
such as reality, truth and virtue in terms of the accepted meaning we attach to
the words used to describe such concepts. For Derrida, reality takes shape for
us through our words (Lundin, Thiselton & Walhout 1985:34). For him,
language is not grounded in metaphysical certainty, words are creative, they do
not contain absolute intrinsic meaning, such meaning is created through context
and association. Thus, the question posed by deconstructionists is: how do we
know? How do I know what a person intends me to understand when they refer to a
‘Mercedes’, this could be a make of car, it could just as well be
the name of a person. The word only takes on meaning within it’s context.
So Adam suggests that by “posing the how-do-we-know question,
deconstruction displaces the logos from its position of authority”
(1995:28). Thus, a text is no longer bound to one absolute meaning.
Derrida’s la difference denotes that there can never be one
absolute meaning for a text that will overarch all others, just as there could
never be one absolute piece of music to end all symphonies. Meaning will change
as text and context interact with each
other.
Such an understanding of
scripture is of great value, particularly in a pastoral setting, since it
denotes that no one view of scripture is necessarily of greater truth than any
other. Within the modernist paradigm great divisions arose between the highly
skilled and educated elite, and a less skilled and less educated mass.
Interpretation and truth were weapons of the elite. Now there is a realisation
that academic, pastoral and devotional applications of the text are of equal
value and importance, each serving a valuable function within its own
context.
The final aspect of a
postmodernism and contemporary spirituality and their approach to scripture that
I would like to raise is the notion of intertextuality. As mentioned above
interconnectedness and mutual dependence are clear traits in both postmodernism
and contemporary spirituality. As such they have had an influence on biblical
scholarship. Intertextuality affirms that each portion of the overall text
forms an integral part of the whole. It is now widely accepted that most
biblical writers made use of portions of the scriptures that were available to
them when writing their books. Hunter notes that intertextuality did not only
influence the creation of the text, but it also influences its reading (Hunter
1996:27) affirming once again that the context and theology of the reader form
part of the suppositions with which he or she approaches the text. Thus,
intertextuality has effects beyond the studied text, reaching into the context
of the reader; what he or she has read and how it has shaped and moulded the
reader’s
life.
CONCLUSION.
Whilst
postmodernism has had many negative effects on western society and culture, it
has also been a positive influence. It has given rise to what Sheldrake has
called ‘postmaterialism’ (1995:4). There has been a rediscovery of
notions such a spirituality and community. Such positive advances in popular
culture have a tremendous effect upon the spiritual climate of the world’s
nations, filtering into all spheres of life, and as such they have affected some
radical changes in biblical studies as
well.
Whilst I recognise that not all
of these changes have been positive, I have noted above some of the promising
aspects that a post-modern reading of scripture is able to bring. The world is
increasingly striving to rediscover its spiritual roots. No doubt, such
positive changes in biblical studies will be of great value in aiding the
discovery of these truths.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Adam, AKM 1995. What is post-modern biblical
criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress press.
Brooker, P
Brooker, W (edd.) 1997. Post-modern after
– images: A reader in film television and video. New York:
Arnold.
Cousins, EH 1990. What is Christian spirituality?
Modern Christian spirituality. (Ed. Hanson, B) pp.39-44. Atlanta: Scholars
press.
De Villiers, PGR 1991. The end of hermeneutics?
One New Testament studies and postmodernism. Neotestamentica 25 (1),
145-156.
Eire, CMN 1990. Major problems in the definition
of spirituality as an academic discipline. Modern Christian spirituality. (Ed.
Hanson, B) pp.53-64. Atalanta: Scholars press.
Glenna, E 1992. Postmodernism, reason and
religion. New York: Routledge.
Griffin, DR 1988. Post-modern spirituality and
society. DR Griffin (ed.) Spirituality and society. New York: State
University of New York.
Hanson, BC 1990. Spirituality as spiritual
theology. Modern Christian spirituality. (Ed. Hanson, B) pp.45-52. Atalanta:
Scholars press.
Hanson, BC (ed.) 1990. Modern Christian
spirituality. Atlanta. Scholars press.
Hunter, J 1996. Faces of a lamenting city.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Lundin, R 1993. The culture of interpretation:
Christian faith and the post-modern world. Michigan: William B Eerdmans
Publishing.
Lundin,
R
Thiselton, AC
Walhout, C (edd.) 1985. The responsibility of
hermeneutics. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans publishing.
McKnight, EV 1988. Post-modern use of the Bible.
Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Schneiders, SM 1990. Spirituality in the academy.
Modern Christian spirituality. (Ed. Hanson, B) pp.15-38. Atlanta: Scholars
press.
Sharpe, K 1990. Relating the physics and
religion of David Bohm. Zygon 25.1, 105-122.
Sheldrake, P 1995. Spirituality and history.
London: SPCK.
Sheldrake, R 1996. Mysticism and the new
science. The other half of my soul. Bruteau, B (ed.). Wheaton: Quest
Books.
Wilber, K 1975. Psychologia perennis: The
spectrum of consciousness. Journal of transpersonal psychology 7.2,
105-131.
Posted: Mon - August 23, 2004 at 09:07 PM