Deconstruction

One of my Facebook friends shared something written by Geoff Warder.  I'll copy it below: 

**************** 

"Is the doctrine that slavery is ok still part of mainstream Christian theology?

No? Thank deconstructionists

Is the doctrine of indulgences still part of mainstream Christian theology?

No? Thank deconstructionists.

Is the practice of murdering those who disagree with you still part of mainstream Christian theology?

No? Thank deconstructionists.

Every advancement in Christian theology and practice is because there were followers of Jesus willing to suffer rejection, be dismissed as heretics, and (and in some cases risk their life) to deconstruct the beliefs and practices of the status quo in order to bring us to a place where we resembled Jesus more.

Now we are deconstructing toxic beliefs and practices, (anti gay, pro torment, abuse, power grabbing, etc) in mainstream Western Christianity. Trust the process - we are all going to end up more like Jesus."

****************

My Facebook friend had posted a meme in connection with this.  The meme is copied below:  

**************

I'm sure that you can tell by now that deconstruction is being presented as a good thing.  Some of my other FB friends raised questions about what deconstruction is and expressed some doubts about whether it's fair to associate it with Jesus' and the apostle Paul's example and to present it as a good thing. 

Deconstruction is a buzzword in Christian circles (and former Christian circles).  The writer of the original post clarified in the comment thread that she wants people to see deconstruction as a good thing--not to be feared, because it leads people to better places.  It involves burning wood, hay, and stubble to recover the essence of Christian faith. 

************* 

Here's my comment:

I have often wondered why it's not called "reconstruction" instead of "deconstruction." I've heard some explanations of the term deconstruction, but they do not completely satisfy me, for some of the same reasons that [J. W.] mentioned. Basically, I think the goal in examining matters of faith should always be to orient oneself around a better construction (or perhaps simply to edit and add elements judiciously to an already-standing structure)--not merely to dismantle and create wreckage of what is already present. I'm sure that some who call it deconstruction would basically agree with me on this, but if this is what they mean, I wish they'd chose a better word to describe it.

I believe also that it's healthy to invite those in our church fellowship--to whom we are already committed--to share in the process of examining matters of faith. I didn't think of it in these terms, but just yesterday, I asked my SS class to pray for me as I wrestled with a basic element of faith: What does it mean to be saved? Praying the sinner's prayer? Knowing Scripture and giving assent to the basic elements of it that almost all churches teach? Loving others? Confession of sin? Honoring Jesus as Lord? Producing the fruits of the Spirit? A combination? If a combination, in what proportions or sequence or priority? Does it matter--as long as we're responding to the Lord's invitation and doing the best that we know to do?

I'd like to think that in a healthy brotherhood it's safe to "reconstruct" without being destructive. If honesty, kindness, humility and surrender to God are in evidence, any radical shaking up of existing structures (re: the examples in the OP) will result in people looking back on the results and seeing a clear turning from darkness to light. Otherwise, I believe that the action will be perceived primarily as "slashing and burning"--producing a sudden destructive flare that soon dies, leaving nothing valuable in its wake.

***************

The wood, hay, and stubble reference actually followed my first comment.  In response to that, I wrote this:

 I think I understand your perspective, and I agree to some extent. Still, I believe that the "burning down" is often undertaken too lightly and carelessly, with too little understanding of the fact that what we're calling wood, hay, and stubble, may in fact be more substantive than that--which our impatience keeps us from perceiving.

**************

I saw just now that someone I don't know addressed me directly with this comment:

Miriam, I've been considering the term a lot, because to me the word has felt off from the first. However, I think it boils down to what you are deconstructing. Church culture and indoctrination? These need to be deconstructed.

Many who I know and love that have embraced the term have taken it to the level of deconstructing their Faith, and I see this as a separate matter entirely.

To be clear, I take no offense at this comment and agree with all of it--except that I have a quibble with sentences three & four:  "Church culture and indoctrination?  These need to be deconstructed." I think saying this is too much like saying "Classroom rules and instruction?  These need to be eliminated."

In my opinion, when we're thinking about church culture and doctrine, a lot more nuance is called for than simply saying "these need to be deconstructed."  I believe, in fact, that most of the culture and the teachings (indoctrination, if you please) that I have received as part of my church life have been a big help in keeping me on track in every area of life--spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and even physically.  Along with the essence of a living faith that grows out of a relationship with Jesus, church culture and doctrine have had a part in making thriving possible. I think I would be foolish to set out to "deconstruct" them.  They're just "mechanics," but even those pedestrian and utilitarian customs, methods, and values have oiled the gears that make the whole "life together" thing work, as well as making it possible to offer a hand to those outside our group.  

Certainly some religious institutions, rituals, and dogmas are not much help to a life of faith.  They may even complicate a wholehearted commitment to following Jesus at times. I suspect though that almost always a life of deep faith can be pursued within any given church structure, and when people feel the need to escape the structure, something besides a relentless pursuit of pure and undefiled religion is often involved. 

The fact that the deconstruction process does sometimes lead to a complete loss of faith (as the last FB comment refers to) is real cause for concern.  The writer says that this is a completely different thing than doing away with church culture and doctrine.  I'm not so sure.  I think all the things she mentions can actually be found on one continuum--sometimes, at least.  I'm not a fan of looking at every tiny detail of every issue and obsessing unduly over questions like this:  If I made this choice in this situation now, where will it lead?"  Yet, the trajectory set at the beginning of a journey determines the destination, unless the course changes along the way.  This is sobering.

Perhaps the most sobering aspect of deconstruction for me is the notion that I as an individual can take charge of deciding what is right and wrong and what I will give assent to and embrace.  My dad often said "It's not our job to decide what is true;  our job is to discover it."  I don't think I can improve on that sentiment as it related to deconstruction.