That’s the rub I do understand, But I can see past it. Where you find an explanation, a end, I see a poor attempt, a unsatisfactory beginning. That's my view on religion. This piece however is about Christianity, and I say go back and read the posts. The God described within the Bible is a physical chap as well as a spiritual one. The bible makes some specific demands on this Christian God. When we look at these he is found wanting. Christians are then forced down two paths either f-mental one i.e. Bible can't be wrong idea, means if we find evidence against the reality painted in the bible then it is us that is wrong not the "word". Or you can go down the author path were all that stuff in the bible is just window dressing don't think release yourself of the bonds of reality and embrace your faith in the lord it's the concept that's important not the technicalities.
Peter’s method may seem more acceptable to many compared to the lunacy of the other path but you soon find it’s just as silly in the end. You how can you hang onto the idea of a Christian God if you give up on most or all of the stories about him. It’s belief for it’s own sake then if we used this approach to the rest of our lives when would be in dire straights. There are only two reasonable rational world views suitable for a reality based world view and that is agnostic or atheist

The point about postmodernism in a theological context is that it disables the metanarrative of modernism. The modernist metanarrative is, as Peter describes, about a literalist and scientistic approach to knowledge. It is also about the 'inevitable' triumph of secularism and the death of God. Hence all the rather simple minded critiques of Peter are locked into a modernist view of the world. To be postmodernist is to be post secular, in which the idea of the 'secular' is up for re-examination. This should come as no surprise as 'secularism' has clearly failed to conquer the world. We live in a religious age in case those observing the Islamic world haven't noticed. My one worry about postmodern theology is that in restating the Christian story as a story as worthy of respect as any other story (this is my understanding of the Milbank argument)it may also imply that the Christian story is as false as any other story. Or is that just me being a modernist?

GregM
Great comment! You are right to worry that postmodernism easily tips over into a yet more radical skepticism which denies all metanarratives. This is my concern with how it is taught in schools, the students know how to demolish everything, leaving them with nothing. Although we may examine the gospels in terms of their intended audience and the theology of the evangelist and come to some useful understanding, it seems to me that the figure of Christ is un-deconstructable. Christ is not a construction but an event in history. While we may examine the leanings of the witnesses to him (the writers of the NT) we do catch a glimpse of the event of Him nevertheless. We can excuse Paul his polemic against women speaking in church and Matthew’s concern for unbelievers being thrown into outer darkness and John’s realized eschatology. In short we can examine all of the different points of view but still see Him “as in a glass darkly”.

I am flying a bit blind in this because I do not know enough about the various kinds of postmodernism. Can anyone help?

Peter,
Christ is easily deconstructable. A Postmodern Christ starts looking looks like a Jewish-Pagan god. I repeat myself, I know, but Paul never mentions an historical Jesus. He receives revelation from a "Jesus" but this is after the crucifiction and resurrection. Paul's ideas come first, the Gospels follow. The ones that don't fit Paul's view are turfed.
Paul had a low opinion of women so Jesus is portrayed as a kind of asexual type in keeping with Paul's views.
You are right that Christ is an event. He is an event in Paul's mind.
You are also right in saying we see him "through a glass darkly". We can't possibly see him clearly like we see Paul. Can't you see what Paul was doing here? You mention Matthew..who was Matthew? as for John of the Revelation then, yes, he did have eschalological views and here we have a real person like we have a real Paul. Jesus was part Jew, part Hellenistic Pagan .. so was Paul. Jesus preached Pharasaic teachings. Paul was steeped in this stuff. Everything Jesus was is what Paul was familiar with.
Deconstruct Jesus... you bet you can and when you do you get everything our Jewish-Pagan friend Paul beleived in.

Priscillian,
The gospels were composed from scripts written by eyewitnesses to the events, that included Mary mother of Jesus, James brother of Jesus, Peter and John the disciples of Jesus, Matthew a converted tax collector and Roman official who did not speak highly of the Pharisees. James had great influence in the Jerusalem church, and his practical expositions reflect in similar style to the sayings of Jesus. They shared the same upbringing and heritage.

If you note Paul is addressing Gentile believers and so reflects much of the culture and language familiar to Gentiles. Your claim that the gospel accounts that: "The ones that don't fit Paul's view are turfed." Absolute nonsense!

The relationship of Jesus with his mother and to his women supporters indicates Jesus places women in higher esteem than was practised in his contemporary society.

It is sloven on your part that you cannot be honest about the NT text. To claim Jesus preached Pharasaic teachings indicates you have not intelligently understood Jesus relationship to the Pharisees and their anomosity toward him. Christianity is not a rehash of Pharisee doctrine, they taught salvation by observing the law. Jesus taught law breakers could be saved by repentance of sin.

Quote, "Jesus preached Pharasaic teachings. Paul was steeped in this stuff. Everything Jesus was is what Paul was familiar with."

The big test of any teaching is: does it enhance personal dynamic, human life and community? Flourishing stable, secure and caring societies; what do they believe that has enhanced their life?

Dear Peter,
Our newspeak is always renewing itself, by all and sundry. New is old and vice versa, when we talk about a book which is so revered, yet the history of, for profit, greed and man's inhumanity, never alters.
Lets face it, the human is very flawed and the revered book is not going to change this.
The revered book is about the human's superstitions, beliefs without fact, and fears. It is true today as it ever was in history.
The facination with efficient tools for killing others, and exploitation of others whether it be for profit or cheap labour, continues ad infinitem.
In the modern world of today, those hanging on to the revered book, are the slayers, exploiters, punishers, predators and male as usual.
It is my thinking that the word "paranoia" is the sum of superstition,
fear and delusional beliefs.