The Emotions of Deconstruction

Jonathan,

You voiced my recent journeys well!

Thank you

Great post Jonathon! I feel like I’m going through some of that “deconstruction” now too. It’s not comfortable or safe, but I think in the end, if I let it, it will be good for me… and others.

Hi Jonathan,
Lovely piece. I like your comments regarding deconstruction of human understandings of Scripture, versus deconstruction of scripture itself, and learning to place our selves in God’s hands. Those are threatening concepts for people who, like me, have for too long knelt in reverence before the altar of self-sufficiency and independence erected to the idol of theological constructs rather than the God Who Is. God’s hands are always a much better place to be than our own, but that does not mean letting go is easy, just that it is necessary if we want to experience God’s work in our lives rather than doing it all on our own.
Thanks again for your words.

Is there really such a thing as “Scripture itself?”

Joel/Alan/Henry, thank you for your kind words. And Henry, thank you for your honesty.

Thank you for sharing your journey in deconstruction. I love that you are embracing the mystery of Christ and the Cross. I recently attended a church conference that was fairly “anti-emergent” and was struck by peoples’ unwillingness to admit that their interpretation of scripture was colored by their own perspective, biases, cultural context, and history. To approach the word with humility and understanding that we, as humans, cannot grasp the full complexity of God or truth or God’s word is a great and exciting journey, and one that I am personally glad to be on. Thanks again for your words.

I’m serious about my question – what is the difference between deconstructing Scripture and deconstructing humans’ attempts to understand Scripture? That reads to me like you are making a distinction between Scripture as such and people’s interpretations of Scripture. Your use of the word “unfiltered” also leads me to believe that this is the distinction you are making. If that is indeed the distinction you are making, then I would suggest to you that you re-read your Derrida.

Brad, yes I am making a distinction between Scripture and people’s understanding of it. Much of what I have been working to deconstruct is there very interpretation of what has been historically given to me. And some of it just doesn’t work.

I’m not sure what your concern is.

Well, my concern is that if you are going to take deconstruction seriously (and I hope you are) and not just use it as jargon (which I hope you aren’t), then you have to confront Derrida’s deconstruction of the “metaphysics of presence.” And much of that project involved the idea that there is no such thing as a non-interpretted text (and therefore no such thing as a text itself). Essentially, Derrida has shown that one of the things that “has been historically given” to you is that as an unmediated, uninterpretted text.

The distinction that you should be making is between different understandings of Scripture.

What I am looking for is one that the Holy Spirit gives me. This is for me wisdom.

I pray that all Christians are looking for that. But a Holy Spirit filtered knowledge is much different than an unfiltered knowledge.

Brad, to a certain extent I think you might have missed what this post is about. It’s not about Derrida, but about the emotion of tearing down what was once held as true.

My comment about Scripture was specifically there because people are very weary of what exactly we are deconstructing. You may have a deep knowledge of Derrida and his thoughts. Well done. But understand the concept goes beyond Derrida. It’s not just jargon. It’s people putting into language what they are experiencing.

Jonathon,

I admire your search and your questions. In your quest for truth, always ask questions that have answers.

If you’re a parent, you know that any 3 year old can ask questions that no adult can answer. Also, the Bible does not attempt to provide answers to every question – for instance, what was going on before creation? The Bible is fairly quiet on the question.

However, on the important questions of man’s duty and the question of, “what must I do to be saved,” the Bible sounds a clarion call.

It must be. How could God create moral beings with intellect, and give them a duty and responsibiily. A duty that if they fail to fulfill, they do so at penalty of eternal death in hell.

Certainly God must be crystal clear to men about their duty – otherwise, he would not be just. How could God possibly comdemn one soul to perdition, who was not fully aware of his duty? The answer is, he couldn’t and wouldn’t. We could find no approbation in such an unjust Being.

But thanks be to God, that even though there has been a lot of misinfomation throughout the ages, we know that somehow God has clearly communicated his will to every man. So that no man will be able to claim ignorance at the Judgment.

Jonathan-

I wonder if you have an example of the difference between not deconstructing Scripture while deconstructing a received understanding of Scripture?

And maybe you could relate that to the Scripture, Jude 3, “I…appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”

No desire to be contentious, just understanding of the position.

Jonathan,

I thought I replied a couple days ago, but I guess my comment was eaten.

I think I understand the main point of your post – in fact, I believe that what I was saying is directly related to the point of your post.

Let me explain more fully what I was trying to say. When we think there is such a thing as Scripture itself or a non-interpretted Scripture, then 1 of 2 things is going to happen. The first possibility is that we are going to become frustrated that we can’t get to Scripture itself – we question and question and question but never arrive at what we are seeking. This path ultimately leads to loss of faith. The second possibility is that we will believe that we have already found Scripture itself. And we will become rigid and sectarian and very much like the people you describe in your second paragraph. As you say, this path ends conversations.

Essentially what I’m saying is deconstruction can help you with the “dissonance” that you feel. I think you fall in the first group, the one that is searching for (as you say) “unfiltered knowledge.” But, as I said in a previous comment, much of Derrida’s work “involved the idea that there is no such thing as a non-interpretted text” or “unfiltered knowledge” or Scripture itself. And once we reject the idea that there is such a beast, then it frees us up to view interpretation as a created good. And once we view interpretation in that way, then we should no longer feel a dissonance in not being able to “arrive” at our destination of “unfiltered knowledge” since we will realize that such a destination doesn’t even exist.