Just as with chapter 1, there is a great deal of detail in Smith's description and analysis of Derrida's critique of modernity. Reading the chapter prompted another 3 full pages of notes, so I'm going to try to highlight some of the insights Smith finds in Derrida's critique that can be applied to the Christian faith. The end of this chapter is a challenge to me because some of the descriptions of a deconstructive church are in conflict with experiences I've had. But on the other hand, after reading the supporting evidence, I can certainly understand them. I just don't know how it would look if this church were actually occuring. Here are some of my notes from the chapter:

p.38 – According to Derrida, interpretation is not a series of hoops we jump through to eventually reach a realm of unmediated experience where we don’t have to interpret anymore. Rather interpretation is an inescapable part of being human and experiencing the world.

“All our experience is always an interpretation.”

p.42 – Can Derrida’s claim make Christians nervous? … we could loosely translate “there is nothing outside the text” simply with the axiom “Everything is interpretation.” … many Christians become nervous and assume the claim that “everything is interpretation” is antithetical to Christian faith…. If everything is interpretation, then even the gospel is only an interpretation and not objectively true.

p.43 – A Christian criticism of this antithesis is that if everything is interpretation, then the gospel would be only an interpretation. And if the gospel is only an interpretation then that means there might be other interpretations. And if there could be other interpretations, then we can know what of the gospel is true. Smith cites D.A. Carson’s version of this criticism from Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. Smith argues that Carson defines truth with objectivity, one can only be said to know “truly” if one knows “objectively.” If a truth is objective, then it is not a matter of interpretation. Carson claims there is a biblical requirement that what is true be objective.

p.44 - Smith says on one hand this is correct that the gospel is an interpretation and that we can know the gospel is true, if by knowledge we mean unmediated objectivity. On the other hand, it is wrong to conclude that this is antithetical to orthodox Christian faith.

The fact that something is a matter of interpretation does not mean that an interpretation cannot be true or a good interpretation.

p.48 - Christians who are skittish about the claim that everything is interpretation are usually hanging on to a very modern notion of knowledge, one that claims something is true only insofar as it is objective – insofar as it can be universally known by all people at all times, in all places.

Texts in Community

p.51-52 - There is nothing outside the text = there are only contexts. But contexts are not completely free to be interpreted, there is still a limit of good and true interpretations, important and legitimate determinations of context, which can be fixed and defined by community. This role of community is central to interpreting the Scriptures.

Derrida Summary

p.54 – There is nothing outside the text which means that everything is interpretation; interpretation is governed by context and the role of interpretive community. This entails abandoning the modern notion of objectivity and embracing a central theme of postmodernism: interpretation goes “all the way down.”

p.55 – So if all the world is a text to be interpreted, then for the church the narrative of the Scriptures is what should govern our very perception of the world. We should see the world through the Word. In this sense, Derrida’s claim resonates with the Reformer’s claim of sola scriptura.

p.56 – Modernity is characterized by a deep individualism that isolates us from one another. If we believe and confess the Apostles Creed (believe in both the holy, catholic church and the communion of saints) then Derrida’s critique on modernity, his emphasis on community can help us appreciate how postmodernity pushes us to recapture the central role of community in biblical interpretation and how to make our way in the world through the view of the Word.

Therefore the deconstructive church would look like this:

Affirms there is nothing outside the text

The Word (Text) is central for shaping our interpretation of the world

Take totality of Text seriously and employs revered tradition of the lectionary, which over a few years guides us through the entire Biblical narrative rather than private canons or favorite texts of the pastor.

Tradition is valued

Reciting of ecumenical and historic creeds, as they are a witness of our community past

Pastor’s preaching engages early father and Reformers as co-interpreters

Voices of community are global as they are ancient; singing and prayers drawn from Christian communities in places like Southern France, South Korea, Scotland, Zimbabwe, etc, etc.

Embraces tradition but not the traditionalism of the status quo

Focuses on proclamation and witness of revelation

It does not focus on an apologetics of demonstration or on a “culture wars” agenda that uses logic as a weapon to say that all Americans should simply see that Christianity is true.

Embraces Word, sacrament, prayer, and singing to equip and empower the saints to see through the interpretations of the world and the human prospect offered by the cultural forces of capitalism, consumerism, and hedonism.

Deeply prophetic, reflecting the voice of Amos much more than Derrida.

I read chapter 11 of Searching for God Knows What, which is entitled "The Circus of Redemption". I wrote some quotes and notes down Friday night as I was reading it in bed. But as I'm looking over them now along with the notes I took at a church we visited this past Sunday, I can see a connection. Here are some quotations, out of order from page 175 of the book, but in the order in which they hit me:

One writer said that what we commonly this of as love is really the desire to be loved. I know this is true for me, and it has been true for years, that often when I want somebody to like me, I am really wanting them to say that I am redeemed, that I am not a loser, that I can stay in the [life]boat, stay in the curcus, that my act redeems me.

[The Apostle] (Paul) said he didn't write with big and fancy to try to impress people; rather he just told the truth, God's truth, and let that be what it was, powerful and honest, making sense of life.

In this sense, as harsh as some of Jesus' words are, they are also beautiful and comforting. No worrying about what an audience thinks, no more trying to elbow our way to the top. We have Him instead, a God who redeems our identity for us, giving us His righteousness.

The first quote still defines me much of the time. I notice now that even in my conversations on this and other blogs, there is still evident in me a desire to be accepted, that I have given the right answer, made the convincing statement, won the respect of others. And while conversation is good, very good even, it should be done out of love for others as I receive that love from JEsus. It should be in confidence that my redemption is complete, my identity clear: that I belong to Jesus.

Here is a an excerpt from pages 176-177 that matches my desire to be confidence in that identity above:

Imagine how much a man's life would be changed if he trusted he was loved by God? He could interact with the poor and not show partiality, he could love his wife easily and not expect her to redeem him, he would be slow to answer because redemption was no longer at stake, he could be wise and giving with his money because money no longer represented points, he could give up on a formulaic religion, knowing that checking stuff off a spiritual to-do list was a worthless pursuit, he would have confidence and the ability to laugh at himself, and he could love people without expecting anything in return. It would be quite beautiful really.

I can't describe just how much I desire to be that man. And as I listened on Sunday morning during the sermon, it is clear that God desires that for us all - to really trust that we are loved by Him. The pastor spoke about seeing clearly - seeing ourselves as God sees us. He spoke on how God has a series of crimson-filled lenses in which He sees us, for our sins keep us separated from Him without the blood of Jesus. He cautioned over and over again that we need to recognize, understand, and look at ourselves through ALL of the "lenses" God does. Here is the progression of "lenses" that the pastor presented:

1. we are clay, He is the potter - God molds us, cuts us, trims us, shapes us carefully and specifically for His purpose
2. we are sheep, He is the shepherd - God herds us, pushes us, prods us down the path He wants us on. He goes after us when we stray.
3. we are His servant, He is the master - we are indeed called to serve both God and others in love. Jesus calls us to be the last, to lift others us, to wash each other's feet.
4. we are a child, He is our father - There is honor we receive here, unlike being clay, a sheep, or a servant. We are heirs to God, promised God's glory as our inheritance of being his children.
5. we are His friend, He is our friend - Jesus says that we are His friends if we obey Him, because a master doesn't confide in his servants, and Jesus has told us everything the Father told him.
6. we are His bride, He is our groom - God rejoices over us to claim us as His own to be in an intimate relationship of trust and love.
   

How often do I stop at one of the "lenses" before being believing that I am indeed rejoices over by God. As the pastor asked, "Do we go to bed or wake up thinking: 'God delights in me!'?" I know that I do not often think that at all. I know that I don't trust completely, in that I mean I don't live out, that God looks at me with delight, his bride. I'm not sure I even trust I am the friend of God. I often stop at being the child, never believing there is a maturity that Jesus has given to me as one of His redeemed. I pray that the desire of God's heart for me to see myself as He sees me will fill me, shine out from me, and cause me to love, fully trusting in God's love for me.

Today is "Freshman Move-In Day" at Lehigh. As in years past, I volunteered to move luggage for these first-year students from their cars to their dorm rooms. This year, I was placed at the M&M house, which is where I spent my sophomore year as a Gryphon (Lehigh's name for RA). It was weird for me to walk the halls. It was 10 years ago that I started my sophomore year, which also makes the time that I really met A* for the first time. And now, 10 years later, we are about to have a baby!!!

When I stepped onto campus as an 18 year-old, I couldn't even fathom turning 30, and here I am closing in on that mark. Time has really flown by in ways that I just don't understand. But I have few regrets, and I am just as excited now about the blessings of my life as I was right before A* and I got married. And while we are still struggling to find our place in a Christian community, we do trust that God is leading us now still with the bits of community we do have.

In that, I received two support emails from two different college campus ministries. Both stated at the beginning of the email about how the first six weeks of college are vitally important for a new college student, as they will make important decisions about study, friends, and potentially God, and how crucial it was for the ministries to show Jesus to them. As A* and I were walking yesterday (before I got these emails) we were talking about our notions and ideas coming into freshman year. I thought she knew the stories of my first 5 days on campus, let alone the first 6 weeks, which I'm afraid shocked her. It's crazy to look back and how I started college, how it ended, and everything else in between. I have to praise Jesus for sticking with me because I'm certain it could have all turned out very differently.

Part of one of the support emails discussed Urbana 06, the largest college missions conference in the world. I went in 1996, and it was one of the most spiritually overwhelming experiences I have ever had, but one that I will never, ever forget. I can say that I witnessed a miracle (along with the other 20,000+ people there), was humbled by God physically and spiritually so that I could have eyes to see and ears to hear, and got a small glimpse of what heaven has to be like in the worship of the Son. Despite that, it has taken 10 more years for me to accept God's world vision. This past year so far has been one of the most challenging in my spiritual formation, but I wouldn't trade it in because I know that He has so much more to show me, teach me, and lead me.

God, I pray that you keep my heart, mind, and soul open to Your leading. Show me how to love others as Jesus loves me, how to invest in your kingdom, and move me to act for your sake.

With much excitement and motivation, I started Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? by James K.A. Smith last night. My excitement was evident in the 7 notepad pages of notes, which translates in nearly 3 pages in MS Word. I'll share bits of pieces of my notes, specifically those in which stirred questions or reactions in me. But I have to say that so far this book is very rich, and while I admitted in previous posts and comments that I knew little of postmodernism other than from other conversations and little snippets of readings, I discovered that there are a great deal of myths that even I bought into about postmodernism. Some of those myths will be cleared up in later chapters, but the preface and introductory chapter piqued an even greater excitement in me to embrace much of postmodernism and steal from it to continue the fire in my journey of my following Jesus.

A quick note before I begin. I unabashedly steal exact phrases and words from Smith here. Excerpts or summary notes from the book will always be in blockquote format.

In the preface to the reader about what to expect from the book, the following really made me stop:

To [spiritual seekers trying to navigate the postmodern terrain while searching for meaning], I want to suggest that, quite unlike the anti-institutional mentality of postmodern "spirituality", it is actually a robust, vibrant, liturgical church that speaks meaning in and to a postmodern world.

I wrote a few questions and notes down before I began into chapter 1:

• am I anti-institutional?
• I don't believe that Donald Miller is anti-institutional despite his focus on Christian spirituality because he is firmly rooted in a church (Imago Dei).
• What are the evidences of a robust, vibrant, liturgical church?
• why does the term liturgical scare me?

I don't think I'm anti-institutional or I wouldn't be seeking to find a church or place of worship at all. I definitely believe that DM isn't anti-institutional, but I don't have answers to the last two questions. I'm sure I could spit out some terms or short answers to the second question, but I would be they are more rooted in my biases than scripture.

A quick snapshot of Chapter 1 introduces the three main philosophers were postmodernism finds its origins and influences:

• "There is nothing outside the text" from Jacques Derrida
• Post modernity is "incredulity toward metanarratives" from Jean-Francois Lyotard
• "Power is knowledge" from Michel Foucault

Each of these has been erroneously taken out of context and placed on bumper stickers, per se, in an attack on postmodernity. Smith's thesis is that once these statements are put back into context, we'll see the real meaning of these claims and that they have a deep affinity with central Christian claims.

Derrida’s “nothing outside the text” can be considered a radical translation of Reformation Principle sola scriptura. It should push us to recover:
a.)centrality of Scripture
b.)role of community in interpretation of Scripture

Lyotard assertion of postmodernity is “incredulity toward metanarratives” should be affirmed by the church to recover:
a.)narrative character of Christian faith, rather than as a collection of ideas
b.)confessional nature of our narrative – the way we find ourselves in a world of competing narratives

Foucault “power is knowledge,” which is very similar to Nietzsche, should push us to realize, like MTV knows:
a.)cultural power of formation and discipline
b.)necessity of the church to enact counterformation by counterdisciplines
Foucault has something to tell us about what is means to be a discipline.

Each of the above will be discussed in the upcoming chapters. However, here is a good post about sola scriptura from Puritan's Sword.

While this introduction maintains my excitement for the book, I was particularly gripped by presentation of the modern church and why postmodernism can be seen as a positive catalyst for the church. These confirmed for me a great deal of why I dislike much in the present church.

The modernism construction of the Christian faith is a “system of truth”. Modernism fails to appreciate the effects of sin on reason. When ignored, it adopts an Enlightenment optimism about the role of a supposed neutral reason in the recognition of truth, which ends up using committed “Constantinian” strategies, such as seeking to build a “Christian America”.

As I had written previously about being uncomfortable with this issue of trying to build (or force?) a "Christian America" so I won't take up more space here rehashing it out.

Postmodernism can be a catalyst for the church to reclaim its faith not as a system of truth dictated by neutral reason, but rather a story that requires “eyes to see and ears to hear.”

The new apologetic, based on “presuppositions” in both what counts as truth and what is recognized as true, is one that is proclaimed by a community’s way of life. The church doesn’t have an apologetic, it is an apologetic.

This completely rings true for me that following Jesus is relational, communal, and active, not just a philosophy or system to which I live my life.

Smith concludes chapter 1 by listing the attributes of Modern Christianity:

• Base ingredient: the “individual”
• The church then is a collection of individuals
• Christian faith is a private affair between individual and God
• a matter of “asking Jesus to come into my heart”
• Modern evangelism finds it difficult to articulate just how or why the church has any role to play other than providing a place of fellowship with other individuals who have a private relationship with God.
• Christianity is a system of truth or ideas, not the church as a living community embodying its head (Jesus).
• Thinks the church is a place for individuals to find answers to their questions
• Because intellectualized rather than incarnate; a commodity rather than genuine community.

All of these attributes can be seen in many, many churches. I would agree that about 90% of the churches in which I have attended regularly exhibit these attributes, all of them reasons I would not return regularly. But the response to this list is how the author concludes the chapter which encourages me, not only to continue reading, but that maybe that churches will respond and return to being relational, communal, and active. Smith wants to advocate:

• Moving from modern Christianity to a postmodern church – from modern individualism to the notion of the holy catholic church
• Moving from a place of intellectual mastery or emotional satisfaction to a place where God renews and transforms us – where the practices of being the body of Christ forms us in to the image of the Son.
• The church is a place to learn patience by practice, in which the fruit of the Spirit emerges from the seeds planted by the practices of being the church. When fruit is evident it becomes a witness to the postmodern world.

Nothing is more countercultural than a community serving the Suffering Servant in a world devoted to consumption and violence. But the church will have to shed its own modernity to have this witness. Postmodernism, in this way, can be a catalyst for the church to be the church.

I cannot agree more with this last paragraph. Reading Blue Like Jazz started a re-investigation of what I believed and how I followed Jesus actively, re-thinking what does being pro-life mean in the context of war, and how should I care for God's creation, and how should I invest the wealth with which God has blessed us to care for the poor and suffering, such as Blood:Water Mission or Compassion and World Vision, as well as local ministries. I'm still in the midst of that re-investigation, and understanding postmodernism is part in this leg of the journey. And I'm energized that God is renewing and transforming my heart to be more like Jesus. And as part of that, I am praying that I find more community that is also seeking God in that way.

We had the last gathering of a group that met in a barn every other week as a community of followers of Jesus who needed a respite from church and to discuss our faith and spirituality outside of the walls of the church that restricted us in one way or the other. It was a small group of three couples and one of the couples is moving out of the immediate area. I am teetering between two thoughts and emotions about the ending:

1. It's a an opportunity to make a fresh start in a church or community
2. The list is getting shorter and shorter in finding some permanence in a church or community.

Obviously, the commonality in this is the church or community. I'm starting to wonder how crucial it is for us to find a church to formally settle into or if a mix and match community and worship will be better suited for us and more rewarding. I really like going to LCBC. Even though it is a huge church, there is only one other worship setting that I have found the worship and message to be as good and fulfilling to my soul, but that setting sunk like a canoe with a big hole. I wonder often if we could go to LCBC every two or three weeks and meet regularly with people in our Christian community in between. Would that be enough? But once the baby arrives, 90 minutes to LCBC will be a challenge. Maybe after the baby is 3 or 4 months old and we can use the nursery, but I expect 5 hours of not being at home will be too much.

So that really makes me desire a more local setting. We've looked a lot of places. We've been to a number of denominations or non-denominations. Good, solid contemporary worship has been slower to catch on around here. In that, I mean that churches are trying it, but many are not getting it. Some are still more entertaining and leading worship. Some think that the volume has to be as loud as a rock concert, which drowns out any motivation of the congregation to sing. Others use contemporary songs but have the same lack of enthusiasm as say that doxology of a staunchy Presbyterian church.

But just as important are the teaching from the pastor and the small groups. I'm fairly moderate in my theology. I believe that women are gifted by God to be leaders in our churches, yet still also believe that God designed the roles we find in Ephesians in our marriage. The best written explanation of this can be found here (scroll down a bit when you get there). I believe that the gospel and following Jesus is actively relational and experiential over intellectual and philosophical. This makes community fellowship and worship just as important as a good teaching sermon.

I also don't feel obligated to go to church every Sunday, and I am so glad that I have lost the obligation guilt. I am now motivated by my relationship with Jesus, desire to worship, and love for other believers and the community that is lived out from that. And those motivations don't always drive me to a church service, which can be passive or can suck the passion of Christ right out of me. This makes it very unlikely that I'll ever formally join a church again. I have found that the business of church to be a near-deadly spirtual virus to my soul.

But I really desire to find some solution to this dilemma, and hopefully soon. In the meantime, I'm keeping my eyes, ears, and especially my heart open to Jesus' leading.

I realized today that I haven't written (or even read) Searching for God Knows What recently, so I figured I should review the last chapter I read (Chapter 10 - The Gospel of Jesus) and see what pops out at me. And I just love how God works through this. My friend Bill comments often to me that God has us put down books or scripture and come back to them later for the sole reason of timing of its application He has for us to read and hear when we pick it back up. This is one of those times.

Of all the discussions that are around about post-modernism and the Emergent church and such, I've really want to read more about it all so I had more to chew on than just experience and bits of pieces here and there. A new site I posted in my list to the right is about church and post-modernism and they are discussing the book Who's Afraid of Post-modernism?. So I decided to request it through interlibrary loan to read it, which is available at a local catholic university. But as I was refreshing my mind on Searching for God Knows What, I re-discovered some very key elements I've heard a number of times about the postmodern movement as it applies to the Christian faith and spirituality. Take this exerpt, from pages 160-161:

When the church began to doubt its own integrity after the Darwinian attack on Genesis 1 and 2, we began to answer science, not by appealing to something greater, the realm of beauty and art and spirituality, but by attempting to translate spirtual realities through scientific equations, thus justifying ourselves to culture, as if culture had some kind of authority to redeem us in the first place. Terms such as "absolute truth" and "inherency" (a term used only to descripture Scripture in the last one hundred years or so) because a bettle cry, even though the laws of absolute truth must, by their nature, exclude ideas such as Jesus is the Word, He is both God and Man, the Trinity is both three and One, we are united with Him in His death, because these are mysterious ideas, not scientific ideas.

In fact, much of biblical truth must go out the window when you approach it through the scientific method. God does not live within the philosophical science He made, any more than He is bound by the natural realities of gravity. There is moreal law, to be sure, but moral law is not our path to heaven; our duty involves knowing and being known by Christ. Positive morality, then, the stuff of natural law, is but an offering, a sweet-tasting fruit in the mouth of God. It is obedience and an imitation of our pure and holy Maker; and immorality - the act of ignoring the conscience and the precepts of goodness - is a dagger in God's heart.

Because we have approached faith through the lens of science, the rich legacy of art that once flowed out of the Christian community has dried up. The poetry of Scripture, especially in the case of Moses, began to be interpreted literally and mathematically, and whole books such as Song of Songs were completely and totally ignored. They weren't scientific. You couldn't break them down into bullet points. Morality became a code, rather than a manifestation of a love for Christ, the way a woman is faithful to her husband, the way a man is faithful to his wife. These relational ideas were replaced with wrong and right, good and bad, with only hinted suggestions as to where wrong and right and good and bad actually came from. Old Testament stories because formulas for personal growth rather rather than stories to help us understand the character and nature of the God with who interact.

This rings very true to me, and especially in the light of my previous post about being equipped with the four spiritual laws and the romans road. The scientific method of evangelism that I experience seems so foreign to me now. Even illogical, based on the experiences I've had in my faith. But I have to admit the ironies of my life in the midst of my faith in Jesus, and my desire to worship Him, and learning more about the Christian spirituality, namely with the fact that I now hold a masters degree in engineering, doing scientific research which is bent on finding objective answers to problems. In a nutshell, I'm a trained musician who loves Jesus, has a specific place in my heart for worship, but also depends on science and engineering for my job.

It all works, but I have to admit it's a bit weird for me sometimes. And I think it works specifically because I long for a faith community that is not looking at Jesus and scripture through a scientific lens. And this is how I am starting to see, from what I know of it so far, that post-modernism can be a good thing for the Church. The art of faith and scripture can thrive in community where we are motivated by loving God and others as Jesus showed us because we are free from proving the truth because He is the truth, the Word, and our life.

A pictorical example of my science and artistic side is this picture to the right. It is of the a marvelous engineering project of the 20 mile Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel on US Rt. 13 in Virginia. A picture of a marvelous engineering feat that also captures the art of nature.

The picture below is the feet of my lovely A*. Just for fun.

I was gone for a week on vacation recharging my batteries while A* and I prepare for the home stretch of her pregnancy. We are now inside the final 7 weeks, give or take some, and it is very exciting! A little scary, too, because despite all the preparation, I know we will still feel overwhelmed. But my expectations of holding this baby for the first time ease any fears I have away. In the meantime at work, I am very busy trying to complete a few major tasks and projects before I take some extended time off to help care for our newborn.

On the topics of babies, A* and I went back to a former church to witness the baptism of our friends' new arrival. I was a little worried that I might feel awkward back there, but I actually did not. Having grown up in a conservative baptist tradition where babies are dedicated only and only adults and children "old enough" are baptized by immersion, I often wonder about the differences and what is biblical. So the words of the pastor in discussing this divisive issue was helpful and enlightening. He made some good points in scripture that actually show both ways of baptism are biblical. A* and I have briefly discussed this issue for our baby, which gets more confusing since we don't have a home church at the moment.

The sermon on Sunday was particularly interesting to me because I learned things that I've never ever heard before ever! This shouldn't really be surprising to me because I really don't know everything, but coming from the aforementioned baptist tradition, I figured that any sermons using a text from Romans would be old hat for me. Not true. In fact, I now realize that I have never, ever heard a sermon on Romans 15 before. And as the sermon went on, I realized why, and so I took some notes.

As a good baptist kid, I was quickly equipped with the 4 Spiritual Laws and how to present The Roman Road. And with respect to those methods, even as an excited teenager for Jesus, neither method made sense in the context of my friends at school. The result of such a presentation on my part was either an intellectual argument over the Bible (especially with Jewish friends) or a difference in religions (with my Hindu or Muslim friends). Those experiences sowed the seeds of the relational need of the gospel and living out and experiencing the love of Jesus in my relationships over the intellectual conversion that I am now discovering through my readings of Donald Miller, Reggie McNeal, and most importantly the Bible.

So when the pastor starting talking about Romans 15, I was initially skeptical, as he started about how he was going to present his view of world missions as he finds it. There were two keys that piqued my interest in his talk: his experience from a very recent missions trip to Cuba and the scripture itself. He highlighted some things from their trip, and I knew about some of it from a letter we had received before they left. They were taking supplies with them to give to the poor and needy, so it was not just evangelism in word only. That is in agreement with my convictions that Jesus has been putting on my heart.

The second blew me away, and it actually has put all of Romans in an entirely different light. In fact, it is making me more motivated to get back into my reading of the Bible straight through so I can get to Romans to read it from this new point of view. But maybe I should jump straight over there now. I'll have to think about that some. But before Sunday, I had been avoiding Romans a little bit because I remember just how much heavy evangelistic-doctrine sermons on Romans I had to sit through in church. I just didn't want to relive that. But as the pastor went through Romans 15:14-24, he pointed out some very clear facts in the context. In this part of the text, Paul is discussing his plans for a new mission journey to Spain (!) and how those plans include coming to Rome and staying for awhile. Delving deeper into the text, the pastor presents Romans as essentially a missional support letter to the church at Rome. Paul spends a great deal of time (11-12 chapters) detailing his doctrinal reasons for this mission, and the remainder seeking relational partners and support for this trip. First off, I don't ever remember reading or hearing of Spain in the Bible! That is a minor revelation, though.

The most important revelation is Romans is a lot more relationally-driven than I have ever heard it preached. Of all of the sermons on Romans I've ever heard, including the Romans Road training ones, no preacher has ever bothered to present it in any relational context whatsoever. It was always about the facts and figures of sin vs. salvation. I think that this new context, true context really, is exactly what God wanted me to hear and react to. It is consistent with how He has been convicting and changing me through my faith, and as I look back consistent with elements and themes I've read in Donald Miller, Reggie McNeal, and CS Lewis.

Some questions I took from the sermon are:

• How do we support missions that are built on the relational gospel vs. the four- or five-point gospel only?
• Evangelism has different meanings within the various denominations and traditions, so what is the balance of evangelism in word with loving others in the name of Jesus, a la St. Francis of Assisi?
• What is the balance between supporting world missions and investing in community building locally?

I pray that God will reveal Himself and these answers through scripture and meditation of His word.

In a blog I've started to read, called Puritan's Sword, a video of John Piper explaining the effects of postmodernism on spirituality was linked. I watched the video, along with some of the other videos by JP, which you can see by following the link below. I figured I'd reprint my comment to the post as my blog for the day. I'm completely open and interested in feedback.

COMMENT:
I like John Piper, I think he's got some great wisdom to share from God. But I'm not sure that he (and I guess David Wells, too) is presenting postmodernism quite accurately, in my humble opinion. The privatized journey and values of autonomy are really modern aspects and values. Not only does postmodernism shed the rationalization or science-knows-all point-of-view, but postmodernism also recognizes the importance of relationships and communities.

Postmoderns are walking out of churches because they are rejecting the typical "I'm preaching to your personal faith" sermons. They are walking out because churches are individualizing commitments to faith and the church. They are walking about because they feel even more isolated inside the church than outside.

Postmoderns want to walk into a church of communities and relationships. We (and I'll finally identify with them) want to walk into a place that "walks as much as talks", by inviting us to experience the gospel as much as it is preached. The spirituality is experiential and communal. It is a small group living out Jesus in each others lives. It is relational accountability. With Jesus as the core, it is real, not some watered-down Christianity and part something secular.

In short, it is living life with other people, motivated and centered by our love of Jesus. It is not dependent on knowledge, it is dependent on action. It is not intellectual, it is our hands and feet getting dirty in love, prayer, and praise with our community of Jesus-followers.

If the DG conference is going to help churches mold to this motivation, then I'd love to be there. If it's just a way to firm up same old, same old, then I'll prayer for the Spirit to move in a new and marvelous way.

A* and I briefly visiting a former church of ours on Sunday to check out the changes since the new worship leader was hired. There were lots of feelings for us when we were there, a lot of "wow - this is weird to be back here" and "there aren't as many people as I expected" kind of things. But there came a point early on in the service when the new leader starting being more of a cheerleader or entertainer than a worship leader.

I was turned off pretty much right at that moment. As A* and I were discussing it later, we both said that we want to be in a church that has people who are worshiping while they lead, not entertaining us, or egging us on into worship, or being a cheerleader rather than genuinely worshiping. I tire of the call-response stuff like "God is good... all the time" just so the person leading can hear something back. I was ready to say "If you want to hear us, turn down the volume of the speakers!"

This is another tick against going to a formal church.