I met with a friend last night and we were discussing the difficulty at times of accepting the grace we know to be truely ours in Christ, and the difference between conviction and self-acusation. Combined with this discussion was a consideration of how conviction of the gospel message cannot be separated from the desire to bear witness of Christ, to be intentional about sharing our faith.

I was reminded of a little book by C.H. Spurgeon (right), entitled All of Grace. I had mentioned, in a brief note in 2006, how this evangelistic book had moved me when I brought it along to my short term missions trip to Moldova. Well I pulled it of the shelf this morning,

Following the recent death of Jacques Derrida, JamesJ asked me this question: How does deconstruction relate to postmodernism?

This is a complicated question, mostly because most critics (literary critics, who don’t really criticize, but that's semantics) can’t talked about deconstruction without talking about postmodernism; understandably so, because deconstruction by its own definition cannot be defined.

Let’s understand what the two have in common. Boiled down to their basics, both methodologies question the relationship between the signifier and the signified. The basic argument is, meaning cannot be known because language is a collection of symbols, that are not always agreed upon; that is, the aporia of our language ( or any language for that matter) makes it impossible to determine absolute meaning. This function of language is responsible for puns, political humor, actually all sorts of humor, and questioning previously established truths.