There is no doubt that the intellect plays a role in understanding and more fully comprehending the mysterious Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus of Nazareth came to announce some 2000 years ago. Throughout the history of the Christian Church various skilled, highly intelligent and faithfully thoughtful theologians/philosophers have come along to more fully define the infrastructure of the Church and the implications of the Faith. Whether it be one of the early church fathers like Origin or Clement, middle figures like St. Augustine, or later figures like Martin Luther, these individuals were paramount in helping Christians to define what it was they believed- and why.

This grappling with the nature of the universe in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ is an important task for us to take on- both as a Church, and as individual Christians. Today, many (including each and every writer at this magazine) are fully immersed in the process of re-imagining the expression and meaning of the Gospel in a contemporary, postmodern worldview. Again, this task is a very significant one. Expressing the meaning of the Gospel in a postmodern context allows us to navigate through the world- as it exists today, for the vast majority of people- living outside of the Christian cultural "fishbowl".

However, as important as this task is (and again- I'm one of the first to say that it is indeed important) I think it's vital that we be honest about what the stakes are here- and just as particularly- what they are not. First off, let's answer the question in the positive. If we do not imagine the Gospel in a postmodern milieu then we risk sounding irrelevant to an entire generation (or more) of people who have been raised to see the world with this particular form of spectacles.

Clearly then this is an important endeavor. After all, as has been proclaimed from literally hundreds of thousands of altars, and equal numbers of home church couches and coffee shop comfy chairs, we do want (and in many ways- need) to be relevant. And when it comes down to it, finding a Gospel expression that is meaningful within a particular society's overarching meta-narrative, is simply the act of responding to the Apostle Paul's admonition to "always be ready to give a defense of the Faith in which we believe".

However, while this endeavor to be culturally-sensitive is seen as significant and therefore worthwhile by the majority of the western Protestant Church (to greater and lesser degrees obviously), and though the task is also clearly biblically mandated- when it all boils down, it really is not all that influential in actually convincing people that all should be forsaken in order to follow this hallowed ghost figure of 2000 years past. This conclusion might seem counter-intuitive at first. But the evidence does bear this out- over and over again.

Okay, so if it isn't a brilliantly relevant, compelling and heartfelt contemporary expression of the Gospel of the Kingdom that wins people over- then what is it? Well, put simply, it is the inbreaking movement of the Holy Spirit. For all our helpful and hopeful models (constructed and then de-constructed), it is the mysterious event or process by which the Spirit of God speaks "from deep unto deep" that serves as the trigger point in a person's decision to follow Jesus and to enter into His Church; nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, for those of us with a postmodern sensitivity, this knowledge is somewhat intuitive. Postmoderns tend to feel/know that it is an experience of truth, rather than a description of it, that ultimately proves meaningful. And this is not a new thing found only amongst the "flighty X'ers and Next'ers " of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Actually, this has been the norm throughout the history of the Church. The reality is that, for two millennia now, people's subjective experience of Christ has proven much more significant (in terms of real life conversion) than has "objective underpinnings" - no matter how well and craftily stated.

When you think back on the life of various "turning point" Christian figures throughout history, you find this is a part of each of their own personal testimonies; beginning with Paul and his mystical experiences with the risen Christ, and testified to later on by people such as Augustine- with his prophetically inspired decision to "pick up and read" the Gospel account.

The same is true for more contemporary Christian figures. John Wimber (the founder of the Vineyard movement) for instance, came to faith through a series of ecstatic experiences and "Holy Ghost encounters". In fact, if anything, what seemed strange to Wimber as he became more acquainted with the Church, was that the Church seemed unwilling to teach on and practice, the very Holy Spirit experiences that he found testified about in the Book of Acts, and in his own personal conversion experience. In the end, Wimber (and surely he is only one example of thousands upon thousands) came into the Kingdom of God, despite the Church, not because of it.

So- if this is the case- that it is spiritual experiences more than anything else that produces real faith in people (the kind of faith that goes beyond mere intellectual ascent), then what are we to do with this knowledge? Whether or not you like the evidence as it stands (some I'm sure are comforted and some disturbed- still others may be confused), it seems prudent for us to align ourselves with the testimony of history- and act accordingly.

So what does "act accordingly" mean? Well, for what it's worth, I think that we need to be actively pursuing the activity of the Holy Spirit in our lives and in our churches. The truth is, God is always moving. Being the sustaining Creator that He is, He continually moves on people's hearts. And I'm not talking only about the hearts of believers. God is moving in the hearts of unbelievers as well. What we can do to follow His lead, is to posture ourselves in such a way as to extend an open invitation to the movement of the Spirit in our midst, and open "spiritual antennas" to partner with him in His Kingdom advancements.

I firmly believe that while the language and symbols that we choose to use in communicating the Gospel of the Kingdom (and by the Gospel of the Kingdom I mean not just individual salvation, but more fully, the revolution that leads to God's holistic redemption of the Cosmos) are important, I think that there really is nothing that compares with a Divine encounter. And let's not just be hyper-individualistic westerners here, I mean corporate divine encounters as well as personal ones.

I remember coming across an article in which a pastor in the UK claimed that all the Emerging Church movement was trying to produce was a slick, trendily packaged presentation of the Gospel. This same pastor went on to question whether or not the Emerging movement was "retreating to a Christianity devoid of the manifest presence and power of God?" I think that is an unfair, and uninformed perspective on the motivation of the Emerging Church conversation.

To some extent, I think the Emerging conversation currently deals with issues unrelated to the manifest movement of God. That being said, it would really be an argument from silence to suggest that the Emerging conversation is "retreating" on the issue of the "presence and power of God". And no one likes to have words put into one's mouth.

But knowing that the conversation has largely avoided this particular issue, maybe it is time to move on it. I think there are several reasons why this would be "prudent at this juncture". For one, as has been mentioned already, history suggests that it is the unction of the Holy Spirit, above all else, that leads to real conversion for individuals- and in some historical situations, whole groups. Secondly, the very nature of our experientially driven postmodern context suggests that there never has been a more opportune time for people to become acquainted with the Spirit of the Lord- who moves and breathes upon us in language beyond human construction.

Many non-Christians today are more interested in a spiritual experience that feels real, than in coming to Church (no matter how decked out in relevant paraphernalia and syntactical approach it may be). Rather than belabor this point, why not help make these people's next spiritual experience one that will truly blow their minds? After all, what can compare to the experience of communing with the very author of truth, beauty and love? In such an encounter, the expressions "subjective" and "objective" seem antiquated and practically irrelevant.

And while that fits well with a postmodern perspective on reality, in this case, this experience is one that has always been available- in every meta-narrative context since the gift of the Spirit was first granted at Pentecost. If our contemporary context gives us a helpful grid to understand and more easily communicate the manifest presence of the Spirit of God, then- all the better. But, as true Postmoderns, let's gauge the real value of this truth by our experience of it- and not just by our thinking about it. To do anything less would be decidedly "modern" of us- don't you think?