"There is nothing outside the text."
Derrida the prophet whose view of language and meaning as an endless vortex of interpretation brings hope that the Church can challenge existing interpretations which pretend to be absolutes. I confess some surprise that Derrida's thoughts here could be encapsulated in, "There is no meaning outside context" and whilst I think James KA Smith's chapter is still a must-read for Christians who think Derrida is the Devil Incarnate, I'm somewhat wary about whether Smith has done justice to Derrida's thoughts. If indeed "everything is just interpretation" is the key that unlocks Derrida then how come it wasn't used by writers like Thiselton, Grenz, Veith Jr., Megill, etc. (or maybe I'm just jealous because Smith made Derrida so much clearer than I did, *smile*).

"Postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives."
Lyotard's grenade thrown into the heart of autonomous universal reason as some God's-Eye view, counsels us to spend less time seeking to produce apologetical evidence and maybe devote more time to simply sharing the story of Christ and showing how this story trumps the Enlightenment one (or any other). Once again, I was surprised at Smith's contention that Christianity is not a metanarrative - I always thought it was, but given its nature of suffering and self-giving (as per the replication of Calvary I believe Jesus demands of us all), I always felt that this sets the faith apart from other metanarratives.

But I calmed down after reading his/Lyotard's definition of metanarrative as any grand story that legitimizes itself by an appeal to universal reason i.e. a worldview beyond a community, beyond an internal narrative. This made me reflect on the many instances where I and others have justified/explained the faith by exploiting reason, 'natural law', always seeking the base arguments which my challengers or listeners cannot deny. I think about the numerous times I tried to legitimate the Person and work of Christ without acknowledging the community He came to create. Maybe I should be careful about bringing people into a historical community as opposed to converting a person to some abstract disembodied idea.

This doesn't, however, mean that I'm all the way with Smith in his call for a presuppositionalist-ish kind of apologetic which virtually eschews all 'common ground' between believer and non-believer, and seemingly devaluing external evidences for the faith. And whilst Smith's rejection of anything resembling a correlationalist model (whereby theology leans on a secular discipline of intellectual support, so to speak) is worth pondering over, one can't help but wonder if Smith has sufficiently deconstructed the distinction between sacred and secular, between theology and everything else.

"Power is knowledge."
Foucault's insight that society cannot run away from power and domination spurs the Christian to ask the nature of power he/she chooses to submit to. This trains fresh light on spiritual disciplines and the church's institutional power as a means of conformity to Christ, not at all a bad thing.

Foucault/Smith reminds us of the character-forming elements inherent in our media-soaked culture, the goals of the social disciplinary process and extols the recovery of spiritual disciplines and counter-formational action as a revival of serious discipleship. That Foucault - a sexually promiscuous gay atheist - can be used as a reminder that discipleship is about 'living in a certain way' and not just 'thinking a certain way' strikes me as absolutely wicked. The fact that Smith foot-noted Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline augments the value of the book, IMO (smile).

The analysis of the postmodern Unholy Trinity above is followed by a brief introduction and application of Radical Orthodoxy which I read to be more or less a (re)emphasis and (re)turn to: