"Post-..." Jargon.

Ordinarily I am not in favor of compound adjectives although there are times when such adjectives are almost inescapable without using either a concise but obscure adjective or many words which mean the same as a shorter compound adjective. My writing is already too convoluted to make me feels easy using the latter option (though it is a preference - being simpler). Of the compound adjectives the ones which I feel are the most annoying are those formed by adding the prefix post- to another adjective.

There are many terms which have some use and so are acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Post-natal and post meridian are so much a part of the language we hardly notice them and, besides, medical terms are also well accepted. It is the rash of jargon "post-..." adjectives which seem to have sprouted like Topsy of which I speak. We do live in a post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment era. The "post" means after and the rest of the adjective defines what has passed. We could also use post-Apostolic and post-Nicene (though to be honest post-Chalcedon might be more useful. The last two terms mean we interpret doctrine with the understanding and insights which were defined in the creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon.

That being said we should no longer expect to find lack of clarity over the Trinity or the person of Christ (his divinity and humanity). Being post-Reformation should mean we interpret soteriology, ecclesiology and several other theological disciplines with the insights gained from the 16th Century debates (whether continental or British - Catholic or Protestant). And post-Enlightenment allows us to acknowledge some insights gained by recent archeological excavations and of some literary criticism - such as the role of suzereignity treaties of the ancient Hittites in understanding aspects of Biblical interpretation.

There are, however, two terms I am less happy about. The first "post-modern" implies we are no longer living in the modern era. It is too general to make any real sense and should be replaced by some other "post-..." term like post-ArtDeco or post-BigBand, if you will, where it is clear the fashion concerned has actually past. Modern means present day so post-modern implies the present day has past - obviously incorrect. If you are wanting to say future-oriented don't use a "post-..." term.

The other term I am opposed for the same sort of reason. It is the term "post-Christian." In the first place it implies that there was a time which we could call the Christian era - where the whole world was Christian. Such has never been the case so to imply that such an era has past is ludicrous.
In the second place our calendars have not changed if we are to say that we are past the "Christian Era" (assuming that it is possible to think of a way the term is appropriate). We are (so I am assured) still in the year AD2010. AD means Anno Domini ("the year of our Lord") and is a reference to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, unless our calendar has changed we are obviously still in the era in which Christ is Lord.
Thirdly, as a Christian, I object to Christians using this term because the Bible teaches that Jesus has ascended on high where he lives and reigns forever ... theologically speaking, then, it is impossible for us ever to get to a post-Christian era unless it is possible to throw him off his throne. Since we are talking about the one "... through whom all things were made and by whom was everything made which was made," such an event is so unlikely as to be impossible.
And finally, can you imagine trying to convince a post-modern, post-Christian inhabitant of one of our larger post-colonial cities that his post-educational interpretation of the universe was (being post-Edenic and post-diluvian sinful) that he needed to be saved so that he could, post-regeneration, become more Christlike? If he didn't get swamped by the adjectives he would certainly wonder why we were stuck in a former era.