Speaking of postmodern Christianity, Alex Arnold has a series of posts on just that topic.

(And a side note: when you write “postmodern” as its hip abbreviation, “PoMo,” be sure to capitalize that “M.” With some fonts, “pomo” looks just a bit too much like another word.)

Garver demonstrates intertextual relations via Scripture viewed through the lens of modern allusion. I’m not a big fan of “postmodern” Christianity with its insistence on over-sacramentalizing popular culture, but the illustrated intertextualization is an excellent demonstration of Scripture working similarly within its original context: referencing culturally relevant motifs of the day to present a familiar picture of God to his people.

To make a tenuous connection, I’ve been reading Josh Stiffdrink’s (PG-13!) ruminations on creationism lately, and he has a case for reading Genesis 1 as an inspired adaptation of Egyptian creation mythology for the sake of the Israelites, who had just been recently Exodusized from slavery under Pharaoh. Now, I myself am a fencesitter on the issue, constantly vaccilating between young-earth creationism, theistic evolution, and everything in between; but if we are to make the argument that Scripture must be read in context (e.g. that we draw upon popular apocalyptic symbolism of the early First Century rather than today’s Middle East headlines in our interpretations of John’s Revelation) shouldn’t we apply a similar filter to our readings of the Genesis creation story? Would such a filter necessarily lead us to an old-earth view of creation?

Followup: I could have phrased that last question a whole lot better; Josh’s comment hits the mark: “I think if you followed the interpretation I put forth, you wouln’t try to use Genesis to figure out how old the earth is. Period.”