(Ir)religiosity

theology | philosophy | culture

Allowing ourselves to be deconstructed

Comments

There is a lot of talk in the emergent/ing church — and postmodernism at large — about the project of deconstruction, mainly as a critique of modern models of “doing” church and theology, but also, though often not as popular, as offering a constructive response to those systems.  In even narrower conversations, there is talk of what can and cannot be deconstructed.  So for Derrida, “justice” is the undeconstructible nucleus (though he would surely object to that word) of the “law,” which seeks to be justice, but can always be deconstructed.  Likewise, Caputo speaks of the church as the deconstructable sign pointing toward the kingdom, which is undeconstructable.

I think these sort of conversations are very helpful.  We can’t stop deconstruction our own systems and ideas.  Sometimes I think part of my personality is naturally deconstructive.  Which is good…and bad.

What do I mean?

I’m wondering if sometimes, in our efforts to deconstruct “something else,” we miss the opportunity to let ourselves be deconstructed.

For example, for a long time now I have categorically rejected Augustine and his writings.  Original sin, latent — or not so latent — misogyny, sex as utility only, I could go on.  For all these reasons I simply wrote Augustine off completely.  Not that those aren’t good reasons.  I believe they are.  And I still disagree with Augustine about them.

But recently I’ve rediscovered Augustine’s mysticism and his ascent into himself in search of God who is beyond his comprehension.  And in doing so, I’ve been deconstructed.  I’ve allowed myself to be worked over by a tradition I had previously dismissed.

All this has to be done in moderation of course. Because we can just import Augustine uncritically into 2009.  But I wonder if sometimes we are too critical and miss the opportunity to have ourselves criticized?  I wonder if sometimes, under the auspices of deconstruction, I undermine the very heart of the deconstructive project.

That is not to say that I reject the deconstructing of historical figures or systems of thought.  Not at all.  I’m only suggesting that perhaps there is a tension between our deconstruction and our being deconstructed.  The key is learning to live and embody that tension well.

What to do you think?  Have you had similar experiences? Or am I just blowin’ smoke?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Written by Blake Huggins

March 25th, 2009 at 6:30 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , ,

«
»
  • RLH
    Aahh yes original sin. I hope to see more deconstruction (interest) in original righteousness.
  • i see deconstruction/reconstruction as a continual and simultaneous process that in order to be holistic must include decontructing myself/my belief systems. It goes along with Pete Rollins' idea of furthering along my own conversion.

    Thanks for the thiughtful post! People must realize deconstruction is NOT a one time event to move on from but an always continual, life-long process!

    EP
  • Thanks for the comments. You're exactly right. (De)construction is life. It never occurs once, but is always already unfolding. There is never stasis!
  • I share the sentiment of ExistentialPunk and of course your gut feeling about this issue. If we don't allow ourselves to be (de)constructed we run the risk of a mere intellectual exercise that can at best produce mental orgasm.
  • Florin,

    There are those in the emerging conversation who see continual deconstruction as an intellectual exercise that must now move on to praxis. i disagree and talk about this here: http://www.existentialpunk.com/existential_punk/2...

    i call intellectual discussions that go over the heads of others who are not super intellectual, intellectual masturbation! :) When others are shut out of the conversation because of the use of terms and concepts only the academic, those in seminary, and intellectuals get. That is when it's a problem to me. i think they are needed in the conversation but they need to come down out of their ivory towers and talk in language the everyday people can grasp, like Blake and Pete Rollins.

    Thanks!

    EP
  • You really shouldn't publicly diss Pete by mentioning him and I in the same sentence like that. And...it might go straight to my head. ;)

    I like what you're saying. I really enjoy intellectual conversation. But if it does affect my mode of being in the world, then what good is it?
  • Gee... I always thought that when you accept the gift of salvation, your sins were forgiven and you have a clean slate. What's to deconstruct? We build upon the foundation that is Christ Jesus. If it is false doctrine and teaching that is built upon that foundation, that must be removed -- not deconstructed. I believe you are striving after something that is not supported scripturally.

    Christianity is not deconstructionist or postmodern. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. His message is eternal, no deconstruction required.

    The postmodern model is to tear down a thing, examine its parts and then remove the things that you don't like or that don't work for you, to then rebuild with new parts integrated in to that which remains to form a "new" model. This is not compatible with Christianity for the reasons stated in the previous paragraphs.

    We are to be conformed to the likeness of Jesus. He gave us the information to make that possible. We conform ourselves, which is not a deconstructionist activity. To become more fully a servant of Christ is to surrender the self and allow God through His Holy Spirit to transform us into His image and likeness. No amount of postmodernity or deconstructionism will ever accomplish that because it is too focused on what WE can do, what WE bring to the table in the process.

    Remember, our righteousness is as filthy rags to God. We can do nothing of our own, on our own, by our strength, knowledge or wisdom that will change that. We surrender to God's will or we flounder in our own morass and works-based faithlessness.
  • Hi Geoff. Thanks for stopping by.

    I think you may have a bit of an inaccurate understanding of deconstruction. Unfortunately, the popular definition of both postmodernism and deconstruction relegates them both to a sort of relativistic nihilism that isn't helpful nor profitable. Deconstruction is not simply about dismantling something out there -- though that can indeed be helpful and I would never want to give that up (neither did Jesus by the way) -- but also about opening oneself up to the in-coming of God's very Spirit, an entity that always breaks through our various finite systems, be they theological or philosophical. It is something that is always already at work, not at all unlike the work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, that might be a good way of thinking about it apropos to theology.

    So, if anything, deconstruction is less a theory of critique and more a style of thinking -- a new Augustinian way of being with a restless heart. John Caputo speaks to this in his works. Particularly on deconstruction I would recommend Deconstruction in a Nutshell. Another good one is On Religion. Both touch on this and attempt to demonstrate that the more popular and critical definition of the phenomena is wanting.

    I would agree with you when you say that Christianity is not deconstructionist or postmodern. But I would go a step further. Christian is not nor will it ever be completely bound up in any particular worldview, philosophy, or cultural trend be it pre-modern, modern, or postmodern. That is it particularity. It doesn't fit in our categories because it cannot be domesticated or tamed. It can be modern or postmodern -- you might be interested to know that I hold both to be equally valid -- to be sure, but it cannot be modern or postmodern unequivocally. It resists the hegemony of any ideology and the domination of any particular theology system. That is it's unique character.

    Thanks again for stopping by. Peace be with you.
blog comments powered by Disqus