Kurt Willems :
also, I should have mentioned that this article does not represent the whole of my understanding of “Biblical Authority.” Rather it reflects only an angle of my view which is dealing with the issues raised from a postmodern perspective. If you want to know what the totality of my understanding of biblical authority is, read: N.T. Wright — “The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God–Getting Beyond the Bible Wars”. http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Scripture-Authority-God-Getting/dp/0060872616/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247106646&sr=8–3

I believe that’s all the typos fixed… At least those concerning your last name. I’ll have to order the book the next time I get the chance. I would have to say that my major concern when approaching scripture with the presuppositions of postmodernity is the perspectivism and ambiguity regarding the text that seems almost necessarily required. Taking fundamental biblical truths (sin, hell, deity of Christ, virgin birth, homosexuality, etc.) and questioning or getting rid of them. I’m quite for ‘doing’ church differently, not as excited about revising the essentials of the Christian faith. That said, I’m not saying this is the direction you’re taking and I’ll be sure to read N.T. Wright’s book (as I quite like his scholarship, especially this ‘dispute’ between him and Piper).

Kurt Willems :
I am grateful that you took the time to analyze my article. I understand that we may see things from a different perspective, but I appreciate your work and your obvious passion for God. Although I would disagree with your critique, I see that you are well read and wrestling with some big issues on your blog. PS — you messed up my last name a few times

Gah! I apologize, I had not noticed I messed up your name ;( Wrestling is, I think, exactly the right word to use

Eric :
I think you are wrong about Smith’s views on metanarrative. His description is closer to what Lyotard meant by the term than your definition. D.A. Carson says as much in Christ and Culture Revisited. I think where you go wrong is that in the quote you gave from Lyotard (”Simplifying to the extreme …”), he is giving his definition of “postmodern”, not his definition of “metanarrative.” He actually doesn’t give such a neat definition of metanarrative anywhere in The Postmodern Condition. But if you read the book it becomes pretty clear that when he talks about “metanarratives,” Lyotard is talking about big stories that are legitimized by universal reason.

With respect to Lyotard giving his definition of “postmodern,” as opposed to his definition of “metanarrative,” I agree, I see what you’re pointing out. Where Smith is concerned in his analysis of Lyotard, it’s his (Smith’s) equating “scientific knowledge” with “universal reason” and suggesting this to be part of the foundation of Lyotardian metanarratives that doesn’t sit quite right with me. On this, however, I’m perfectly willing to “admit” I don’t understand Smith or Lyotard as well as I could or should.