<Theofragen>

I’m slowly reading John Caputo’s book of essays, More Radical Hermeneutics.
Caputo writes:

The [text], accordingly is marked by an irreducible “undecidability,” the written word being, as Plato wrote, an orphan whose father/author is no longer on hand to resolve whatever difficulties the written word may get itself into. As orphans, texts do not interpret themselves. (198)

Again, he notes:

Founding intentions are never unambiguous and cannot be kept absolutely safe. As soon as something is entrusted to the safety of language, is committed to words, an argument breaks out about the right interpretation—about the syntax, the etymology of the words, the usage, the context, the intention of the author, what the original audience would have been assuming, what the common presuppositions of everyone involved were, etc. As soon as something is said or written down, the play of traces is engaged and there is no dodging the difficulties one has bought for oneself… A deconstructive analysis forces a textual tradition back to its founding or originary acts but invariably in such a way as to bring us to see that an absolutely originary act eludes it, that it always recedes behind the trace it leaves behind, and necessitates constant interpretation and reinterpretation. Put more polemically, there never was an absolute Origin. (198)

What does that mean for “people of the Book?”

Caputo avers:

The point, however, is that the deferral and undecidability surround the Origin does not have the effect of destroying or undermining the tradition or the traditional faith, of proving that it is a fraud or sleight of hand. Rather, it produces it, by necessitating a constant rereading and reinterpretation of the founders and their founding acts, which never were quite foundational, never quite what they are made out to be by those who invoke the authority of the Origin, usually for their own ends. Deferral and undecidability do not destroy the tradition or the common faith but make us responsible for them in a way that is not otherwise possible. (198-9)

Thoughts? Implications? Rants? Peace.

posted by Jake at 3/30/2006 02:34:00 PM

Emergent Seminarians

God is dead. The Church has failed. Denominations suck. If this is true, why the hell are you in seminary? You may have asked yourself this very question. What are you going to do with an MDiv anyway? Let me tell you a secret, which is kind of weird since this is a public blog. If you are in seminary you must become a part of the emergent conversation!

Thats not very postmodern, Jake, you might be thinking.

I know. But most of you who identify with postmodern sensibilities are already a part of the emergent conversation, so youll agree with me prima facie. And the rest of you are still clinging to the sticky residue of modernity, and you continue to think in absolutes, so Im giving you one. Be Emergent!

Dont worry, I speak modernity fluently, and if this post pisses you off it's a good indication that Im talking to you. Please follow my logic.

Thesis: It is essential that seminarians become a part of the emergent conversation.
Continue reading...

Point 1: The elements of postmodernity that threaten institutional Christianity will become more prominent once you begin your ministry.

Rationale:
A) Globalization will continue to eat away at the plausibility structures your seminary professors are teaching you to use in defense of your faith and this will put other worldviews into conflict with yours if you let them. This will cause you to react with fundamentalism or withdraw into isolationism.
B) Secularization will lead less and less people to come to your church, meaning that you will be criticized by your congregants/parishioners for being ineffective. This will lead you to overwork yourself to make your people happy or they will just fire you.
C) Consumerism will continue to erode the fabric of your church to the point that you will need to whore yourself to the masses to market Jesus better or you will stand your ground and they will go somewhere else.

Sub-conclusion: You need to put yourself into conversation with people who have already been dealing with the implications of postmodernity for the life of the church

Point 2: Seminaries are very, very good at training ministers for a church that is becoming extinct.

Rationale:
A) You are reading works in Biblical Studies, Church History, Theology, and Practical Theology that are written largely by other seminary professors who are no longer, or have never been, pastors. Ergo, you will need to draw out the implications with people who are a part of the rhythms of the church today.
B) Most of you are still learning from people who follow Rogerian psychology in pastoral care, andro/hetero/Euro-centric hermeneutics in biblical studies, CEO-leadership practices in practical theology, and foundationalist epistemologies in theology.
C) You are learning how to preach better sermons, teach with greater authority and acumen, and pastor with greater leadership and caring skills but this is all predicated on your ability to draw a crowd. What happens when the people stop coming?

Sub-conclusion: You cant go back in time to pastor in the 1950s, so you need to be in conversation with people who are asking questions about what it means to minister in a new kind of church today and tomorrow.

Point 3: Unless you develop a network of support for this changing climate, you will not be able to sustain yourself in ministry (i.e. you will burn out).

Rationale:
A) You cannot expect people in your church to understand what you are going through. You will need conversation partners who know what you are talking about.
B) You will need a network of people with whom you dont need to visit in person or pay exorbitant conference fees to converse with. Via blogs, websites, gatherings, cohorts and podcasts emergent folks are able to talk about issues that relate to ministry in our postmodern world.
C) Many of us learned in our theological education to be one thing as pastors, and another when we are away from our churches. This bifurcation not only makes you less able to minister to postmoderns who value authenticity, it also will lead you to hate yourself as you try to be the person your church expects you to be.

Sub-conclusion: Relationships and conversations are paramount to sustainability in ministry. Emergent provides an umbrella under which you can have such conversations and relationships.

Conclusion: With shifting social structures, theological landscapes and ministry practices seminaries are not able to keep pace with these changes. That does not mean that all seminaries are irrelevant. They serve a purpose. But unless you amalgamate your theological training with something more, you will find yourself with a degree in hand and a looming frustration that said degree is worthless. Becoming a part of the emergent conversation in seminary, or undergrad for that matter, puts you ahead of the curve. You wont need to get fired, quit, have an affair, or go insane once you enter into the wild and wooly world of church work. Hopefully;)

Peace.

posted by Jake at 3/30/2006 10:48:00 AM

Critical Contextualization (part two)

This is the second post on Frost and Hirsch's chapter, "The Contextualized Church." Following missiologist Paul Hiebert’s critical contextualization model, they contend:

[A clear commitment to biblical authority] is crucial, for if the people do not clearly grasp the biblical message as originally intended, they will have a distorted view of the gospel. This is where the pastor or missionary . . . has the most to offer in an understanding of biblical truth in making it known in other cultures. While the people must be involved in the study of Scripture so that they grow in their abilities to discern truth, the leader must have the meta-cultural grids that enable him or her to move between cultures. (89; italics added displaying my incredulity)

In other words, they are advocating that “critical contextualization” means that the missionary/church-planter/evangelist first tells the people the “correct” interpretation of the Bible and then lets them talk about it from their cultural context. How is this any different from the horrid colonialist missionary practices of the 18th and 19th Centuries?

Frost and Hirsch continue, “After emphasizing the importance of the expertise of the evangelist/missionary in the second step, [Hiebert] now turns the process back to the people. This is an important feature of his model; it is congregationally based. It is not reliant on ‘experts’” (89). Bull shit! Tell me how the “critical” part of contextualization is congregationally based or not reliant on experts. What would happen if the missionary/church-planter/evangelist encouraged the community to engage the Bible from their own cultural context and only secondarily entered into the conversation, not as an expert, but as a partner in the dialogue? In my mind, that is what is so critical about contextualization. Even stronger, if we do not invert Hiebert’s model we do not have contextualization at all! Instead, what we will have is some kind of a colonial democracy akin to Who’s Line is it Anyway?—“where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter.”

Allow me to illustrate. Earlier this month my wife, Abby, flew to Baltimore to celebrate my nephew’s fourth birthday. While she was there my nephew, Skyler, insisted that Abby play make-believe with him. She obediently followed him to his room and they situated themselves on his bedroom floor before an army of micromachines, Batman action figures and robots. Skyler’s imagination engaged almost immediately. He developed an elaborate scenario that constituted reality in this made-up world and pressed Abby to join in the fun. However, when she would subject her own imagination into the mix, Skyler grew agitated. “No, Batman doesn’t do that. He goes over to the town!” After several corrections by our autocratic nephew, Abby soon realized that he was less and less concerned with her contributions to the game. In frustration he finally said, “You take this toy and go play in the corner.” Apparently he had decided that it was better to play alone than have to alter his imagination in order to accommodate Abby’s contributions.

When missionaries/church-planters/evangelists insist on holding the reigns of biblical interpretation we are behaving just like four-year-old Skyler. To try and pass off this scenario as “critical contextualization” is absurd. This model is an attempt of Frost and Hirsch to “minimize the risk and limit the possibility of syncretism or a betrayal of the gospel” (89; italics added). Notice that these fears are built upon cognitive foundtionalist assumptions. For Frost and Hirsch, it seems to me, orthodoxy trumps orthopraxy.

Contrast this with Gibbs and Bolger, who contend:

Those with an interest in ministering cross-culturally, be it in club culture or with other faiths, need to learn the art of critical contextualization. Otherwise, their witness will be compromised, and they will simply mirror the mood and mantras of contemporary culture rather than the light of the gospel. The light of the gospel will affirm elements of culture, fulfill aspirations that cannot be realized by any other means, as well as pass judgments on aspects that are narcissistic, addictive, and destructive. In the process, Christian witnesses will find themselves challenged. They will see ways in which they have skewed and narrowed their understanding as a result of their own cultural blinders. Those who witness in cross-cultural situations will find themselves changed in the process. (133)

posted by Jake at 3/20/2006 11:24:00 AM

Critical Contextualization

Frost and Hirsch write:

Hold fast to [1] the core but experiment like wild with [2] the expression. The missional-incarnational church is entirely open to innovation, experimentation, and creativity...As a missional community it is careful not to abandon [3] the truth of the gospel nor to water down its [4] implications. This is called the process of critical contextualization... (81; numbers in brackets added)

Let's unpack this for a while.

First, what do Frost and Hirsch mean by "contextualization?"

"Contextualization can then be defined as the dynamic process whereby the constant message of the gospel interacts with specific, relative human situations. It involves an examination of the gospel in the light of the respondent's worldview and then adapting the message, encoding it in such a way that it can become meaningful to the respondent." (83)

This is a good definition of contextualization. Hans Frei's work is a contextualization of the gospel for his (post)liberal audience, and he differentiates between meaning, on the one hand, and meaningfulness, on the other. This distinction is important. But Frost and Hirsch do little to contribute to a contextualization of the gospel.

1. What is the "core of the gospel?" Who gets to decide what is inside and outside of the core? I'm assuming that they follow Jonathan Campbell's paradigm (80) whereby, the "core" is constituted by Christ's commands. Interesting, we are back to a rule-based system. Hmmm. Are "commands" good news?

2. What do they mean "experiment like wild with the expression?" How can Frost and Hirsch bifurcate "the core" from "the expression" if, as they contend elsewhere, "the medium is the message" (69)? Is this a bait and switch? Or is it another genuflection to consumer Christianity, whereby the same old product is packaged in a new, shiny box so that people feel that they are getting something new?

3. What is the "truth of the gospel?" Is truth the same thing as meaning for Frost and Hirsch? Can we locate any gospel truth apart from the language we use to conceptualize it or from the culture that shapes a) the original dispensation of said "truth" in culture; b) the transmittal from oral to textual delineation of said "truth"; c) the 2000-year tradition of reforming and reshaping the "truth"; and d) our appropriation of the meaning of "truth" for our own contemporary contexts?

4. How might we "waterdown its implications?" I assume that by implications Frost and Hirsch are thinking of meaningfulness. The very notion of "wateringdown" smacks of the same colonial hegemony that Frost and Hirsch pooh on earlier in this chapter (p. 81-2). In other words, it seems to me that Frost and Hirsch don't really want to advocate a "critical contextuality" at all. Rather, they want to co-opt indigenous cultures to form their "incarnational-missional communities" that perpetuate oppressive, hermeneutical imperialism.

If the kind of critical contextualization that Frost and Hirsch advocate prospers, the gospel will never be contextualized at all. It will retain the evangelical, colonial dominance that has perpetuated the fall of authentic Christianity in the first place. To rework a line from a very thought-provoking movie:

"Missionaries shouldn't be afraid of their hermeneuts, hermeneuts should be afraid of their missionaries."

posted by Jake at 3/17/2006 02:41:00 PM

Who's Feeding the Fishdog?

The eminent naturalist, Charles Darwin, once wrote, "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment." A few years later Herbert Spencer, one of Darwin's colleagues, in his Principles of Biology (1864) coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a simplification of this observation. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant for the discussion at hand. I would like to accept this statement as true for the time being in order to elucidate a problem I notice in some church & culture literature.

Extrapolating the pith from Darwin's theory, let us imagine that dogs-humanity's best friend-evolved millions of years ago from some primordial, fish-like creature. As the ice age folded into the Mesozoic era and the temperatures in the seas increased, the larger animals of the early Mesozoic gradually began to disappear while smaller animals of all kinds, including lizards, snakes, and perhaps the ancestor mammals to primates, evolved. If Darwin and his intellectual progeny are correct, there would have been a lengthy transition period between the primordial fish and our friendly Canis familiaris. A mommy fish and daddy fish didn't just hook up one night and out popped a school/pack of dogs. There must have been some period of transition as minor genetic adaptations enabled this evolving species to adjust to its host environment. At some point, there must have been a fishdog.
Continue reading...

My question then, as the title of this post indicates, is, "who's feeding the fishdog?" Frost and Hirsch's work is helpful though presumptuous. They seem to assume that static church structures, which have been enjoying the posh-position of Christendom for 1600+ years, will suddenly pivot and become postmodern, indigenous, incarnational communities. It's as if traditional, attractional churches are fish that are noticing their environment is changing and futurists, like Frost and Hirsch, are trying to help those fish become dogs. This ignores the proven fact that church structures change very slowly.

I know that Frost and Hirsch, and Gibbs and Bolger for that matter, have a different audience in mind than the church I currently serve. They are writing for people like me. In keeping with our metaphor, many in my congregation have just begun to notice that the environment is changing. Others have noticed that they are able to breath air, bark and scratch behind their ears in the "world" but are able to swim back into the confines of our hallowed church walls and breath through gills with relative ease. For these fishdogs, I am trying to feed them healthy doses of Bosch, Guder, Newbigin and McLaren in order to sustain them through their evolutionary transition.

Many in my church are just now beginning to take note of "contemporary worship." This is not a criticism; rather, it's an indicator of how patient church leaders need to be with their congregations through this transition. Becoming conversant with postmodern ministry approaches is still to come.

Another thing we need to bear in mind is this. Just like with Darwin and later, Spencer's notion of the survival of the fittest, only those species who are able to adapt to their changing environment pass on the genetic material necessary to enable future generations to survive. True, some species will fail to adapt and will become extinct, but not for many years. As those called to serve in this epochal transition, we must bear this in mind. We do more harm than good when we rush in with a text like Frost and Hirsch's. This is a text for dogs, not fishdogs. Moreover, the rise of postmoderninity and post-Christendom will not mean that one day we will have no more institutional, attractional churches. We still have fish, don't we? Peace.

posted by Jake at 3/17/2006 11:47:00 AM

Hmmmm...

I don't know what the hell Sarah's talking about.

March 15

posted by Jake at 3/15/2006 09:25:00 AM

Being and Bearing Witness not Witnessing

In my last post I fleshed out a few implications of a program-focused approach to congregational life in light of a people-focused one. That was largely descriptive, although it was not difficult to ascertain which method I prefer. I would now like to move beyond description and maybe even deconstruction, to a prescriptive mode.

Growing up in conservative evangelicalism, I heard a great deal of lip-service being paid to a programitized aberration of being/bearing witness to God's goodness, called "witnessing." In youth group we were told to "witness" to our friends. This consisted of telling other people about what God had done for us in the person of Jesus Christ and offering them an opportunity to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. I followed this program rather strictly and "shared my faith" with anyone who would listen. The premise behind my verbal displays of persuasion was laudable, albeit misdirected. My method, however, was lamentable.

In high school I read every word of Josh McDowell's two-volume apologetic treatise, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Somehow, being and bearing witness was supplanted by witnessing which was then supplanted by argumentation which was finally supplanted by antagonism. Before I knew it, my witnessing was reduced to verbal confrontations, judgmental critiques on the life-choices of my peers and religious elitism. For me, this program of witnessing became an end in itself. It was no longer about bearing witness to what God had done in my life. I had turned into a spiritual shylock, demanding remittance for God as payment from my victims for their 'wayward lifestyles.' Is that was Jesus had in mind when he commissioned his disciples (learners) to be apostles (those sent with a message)? Were the apostles collectors of delinquent debts? Does that make God some kind of a pimp?

Keep Reading...

Darrell Guder, notes:

By defining the character of the call to witness in this way, we emphasize that in the strictest sense, the commission to be witness is granted by God independently of any causes or motivations in our human existence. We present no abilities or needs or desires that would justify the granting of this commission; there is no form of human creativity or virtue that is a necessary prerequisite for this calling. It comes from outside ourselves and is, in fact, a constant surprise for us. It is the result of God's initiation of God's mission. (60)

It seems to me that witness is something we are commissioned by God to do and to be. Being/bearing witness is intrinsically people-oriented. Witnessing, on the other hand, is a program, it's task-oriented. Maybe I misheard my youth pastor and I'm way off base here, but I understood witnessing to be convincing other people that they should be Christians. It was like a theological debate club.

Guder rightly stresses the ambiguity of the word "witness" as referring both to the person as witness and to the activity of witness, testimony (p. 56, fn. 24). This is a central facet of the New Testament. The English word "martyr," which we usually reserve for those who died for their faith, is the same word in Greek that we translate elsewhere as "witness." Were the early Christian martyr's more likely killed for their words or their lifestyle? Think about it.

Within the emerging conversation, which is still dominated by recovering evangelicals, many have rejected the conservative program called 'witnessing.' I'm worried, however, that we have also placed a kind of moratorium on bearing witness. Again, Guder writes, "The life of the community is the primary form of its witness, and it is also the equipper and supporter of each individual Christian in the practice of his or her vocation as witnessing for Christ" (68). In many of the conversations I have had with unchurched folks in my area, they share with me that their biggest grievance against Christians is that, to put it colloquially, they talk-the-talk but do not walk-the-walk. In other words, Christians are hypocrites. It seems to me that bearing witness can often supplant being witness.

As Christ-followers, we are commissioned by God to bear the image of Christ in whatever culture we find ourselves in. We need to lead with an ontology of witness. Being a Christ-follower is to pervade who we are in culture. Only after members of our community have experienced us as individuals and communities bearing witness to the Missio Dei, ought we follow the Spirit's leading to give voice to the hope that subsumes us. Once we programatize being/bearing witness under the rubric of witnessing, we only bear witness to ourselves, not God. Peace.

posted by Jake at 3/10/2006 01:48:00 PM

People and Programs

If you have been a part of Church-culture for any significant length of time you have heard the lament, “20% of the people do 80% of the work.” For a mathematical dilettante such as myself, I have often thought, “Oh, 80 + 20 = 100. We’re fine.” Yet, upon closer scrutiny, it suddenly donned on me that if such a depiction is true, then only 80% of the work is actually getting accomplished and the proverbial remainder perpetually slips through our corporate fingers. If this is indeed the case, then the “faithful,” the 20%, are like mariners frantically heaving buckets of water over the sides of a sinking nave while the other bemused seafarers look-on as the waters rise. Is that an apt description of the modern church? Do you feel like a bucket-hurler or a perplexed on-looker?

Programs constitute our good intentions to minister to the needs of many people at the same time and are an important part of the Church. Nevertheless, programs often result with a few folks (maybe 20%; hint, hint, wink, wink) compensating for those who will shirk their ‘responsibility’ of fueling the program. Eventually this group will get burned-out because they are carrying an inordinate percentage of the burden (say, oh I don’t know 80%). Many well-intentioned programs are eventually scrapped in lieu of another.

Missional communities tend to place a greater degree of emphasis on people than they do on programs. They contend that programs should serve the people, rather than people serving the programs. This lends itself to a theory I have about the 20/80 scenario. I believe that we have so narrowly defined what constitutes “ministry” and have become so dependent upon programs that the Church is fated to frustration from the word, “Go!” Furthermore, I submit that we only have 20% involvement because only 20% of a church’s constituency is passionate about providing the resources needed to fuel ecclesial programs and structures. Being a missional church means that every Christ-follower is called to engage in the mission of God in her community. Can programs alone do this?

Bo Prosser, the CBF Coordinator for Congregational Life, puts it well when he says that a missional church is about “empowering people to share their passions on purpose in order to be the presence of Christ to others, whether anyone joins our church or not.” I encourage all of you who are reading this to ask yourself, “What am I passionate about?” What stokes your fire? If you could do anything with your free time, what would you do? As a case in point, consider Tabitha from Acts 9. She used her passion and talents to make clothes for those in need. Might you follow in her footsteps in some novel way?

A missional church is like an elementary school playground. Children seem to know instinctively what makes them happy. Some kids will play on the swings. Others will play kickball. Yet others will gather with their friends to talk. As adults, we must be intentional about doing things that we enjoy amidst all of life’s complexities. We must think ‘outside the box’ if we are to use our passions in ministry. God is already at work in the world among people who share your passions. What we need are incarnational manifestations of your passions to serve our communities and bless our world.

Please note, if you are already passionate about a church program then by all means please continue to do what you love. Your work is vital to our church. For those of you who feel like a frenzied sailor, trying to keep the ship afloat or a like a befuddled onlooker, trying to figure out what is going on, please hand your bucket to someone else and find something that makes you feel alive in Christ. We all have a part to play, let’s dream together about what part you are to play. Peace.

posted by Jake at 3/08/2006 08:52:00 AM

Happy Birthday Abby!

View Abby's unusual birthday card here, if you dare.

posted by Jake at 3/06/2006 12:42:00 PM

Bilinguality

My dear friend Eric is originally from Puerto Rico, though he has lived in the US most of his life. Given our common interest in hermeneutics, we have talked at length about postcolonial interpretations of texts, marginilization and semiotics. As a New Testament Scholar, Eric occupies two-worlds simultaneously. On one level, he is able to discuss the intricacies of the Synoptic Problem with redaction and text-criticism scholars. On another, Eric is able to give voice to the socio-linguistic aspects germane to a critique of the Euro/Andro-centric hegemony of biblical interpretation. Living 'in the margins,' as Eric confesses he does, he is able to bring a valuable criticism to his academic disciple. Moreover, his Latino heritage often brings an added perspective to the table of discourse. Eric has mastered bilinguality. He doesn't only know the words needed to construct sentences in English/Spanish or "classic" New Testament criticism/marginality criticism. Rather, he understands the nuances and philosophies that undergird both cultural worlds. Postevangelicals could learn a lot from Eric.

I just finished reading something interesting in Gibbs and Bolger's book, Emerging Churches: Creating Community in Postmodern Cultures. They write:

From a postmodern perspective, the ultimate question is, Why is it important to label oneself as evangelical? Aren't labels simply artificial divisions that make us feel safe or help us exert control? Why not mine the riches of many traditions? What is obvious is that the ecclesiastical or theological label one decides to wear is of far less concern to emerging churches than how one relates to the gospel and culture. (39)

I agree with the spirit of this statement, but I think the basic assumption is flawed. The reality of my own ecclesial existence, and this holds true for many of my peers, is that I cannot resign myself exclusively to a "postmodern perspective." We are in a paradigm shift, to use Kuhn's term. To pretend that we have arrived, that we can now operate from an a priori postmodern position, ignores the cultural reality we find ourselves in. Take me for example. In one part of my life I work for a large, institutional CBF church trying to empower them to live missionally in a super-affluent neighborhood in Atlanta. In another, I am an emerging church planter in an area of the city that is largely antagonistic towards Christianity. One community is still inured in a modern worldview. Another has adopted postmodernity, carte blance. It is imperative that I speak both languages fluently.

Again, quoting Kester Brewin and Paul Roberts respectively, Gibbs and Bolger contend:

Emerging church leaders believe that to define oneself against something is not helpful either. "When people describe themselves as post-X, they are defining themselves as (in mathematical notation) everything that X isn't." Paul Roberts also has reservations about the designation postevangelical. He declares, "I've always been a bit skeptical of the usefulness of Dave's [Tomlinson] postevangelical concept, as it tends, despite his protestations, to fall into the trap of defining yourself against something, which is an old game and seldom a fruitful one." (37)

I disagree with this assertion. First, I think that Brewin's notion of "post" is flawed. The way I understand "post" means "beyond." For Brewin's notion to be accurate, he should use "anti" rather than "post." In other words, "postmodern" does not mean "against modernity" it means "beyond the foundationalism, assumptions, and programatization germane to modernity." Postmoderns have emerged beyond the scope of modernity. We have lived it and found it wanting; hence the title, postmodern. I.e., a postgraduate degree is not against an undergraduate degree. It presupposes baccalaureate work, and moves beyond it.

In my ecclesiastical, 'marginalized' context, postevangelical is extremely helpful. It helps me to acknowledge my roots, my heritage (alla evangelical). However, I have moved beyond my evangelical background. I have found it insufficient to address my existential, postmodern situation. I am not married to Tomlinson's vocabulary, but I do find it helpful. Thought? Peace.

Irreducible “undecidability”