Why Deconstruction?

By Peter Schuurman, the bi-national coordinator for campus ministry in the Christian Reformed
Church.

This selection is part of a larger presentation which you can download called “deconstructing_institutions: derrida and the emerging church

---

So why is the emerging church drawn to deconstruction, and Derrida as their prophet of choice?

1.  Interpretation 

If texts are chaotic events of flickering meaning, you can never be absolutely certain of your reading.  There are always multiple readings that are possible.  This challenges the idea that faith is certainty, without doubts or misreadings, and opens up room for questioning the church and theology in emergent conversations.  It also resists the idea that literal, objective interpretations of Biblical texts are possible.  Finally, it negates the claim of Christianity to be “The Absolute Truth” in some sort of pristine and pure way. 
    If we agree that everything is interpreted, and there are multiple interpretations possible, there is now freedom for emergent congregations to play and experiment with Biblical texts and theology.  Doctrines like hell, the exclusivity of Christ, various legalisms and literalism are open for re-interpretation.  Then friendly relationships with other churches and denominations with “a different interpretation” is also admissible.   Even relationships with other religions becomes more acceptable, or at least less “black and white.”
    Finally, the mission of the emergent church can proceed to “read” the faith for other generations and cultures, and specifically the postmodern world, in different ways, ways that are more suitable and perhaps seductive for that people group.

2.  Love and Justice

Deconstruction, according to Derrida, is ethics.  Singular readings of things are always violent, in so far as it is always exclusive of other readings.  To find other readings, then, becomes an act of justice and love in so far as it gives room for other voices to be heard.
    In this instance, a shift takes place:  now its not as important (or even possible) to “get the right reading” as it is to “read in a just and loving way”—which means allowing other readings to exist alongside our own.  When this comes to institutions, this means emergent people recognize that Christendom, the American Empire, capitalism, patriotism and our own churches can be interpreted in other ways.  In fact, in so far as they do not allow for the worlds of others to exist and flourish, they become violent and oppressive institutions.  This concern for “the other” drives much of emergent politics and ecclesiology. 

3. Messianism

Deconstruction holds that no reading does justice to all, and no reading ever will.  The perfect interpretation, the “right reading”, the truly hospitable cultural construction is always “to come” – just like the Hebrew messiah.
    This sounds like the word “emergence” in other terms.  There is concern in the emergent crowd to remain open, tentative, evolving, and not name themselves as “this” or “that.”  They are emerging, a work in process, a church that is not a church but is rather a church “to come.”

4. Liberation from the Determinate

Deconstruction declares that every particular reading is in a way, “false” and even violent in its exclusiveness.  It seeks to live in the dynamic between the readings rather than in any determinate reading.  If all interpretations and institutions are oppressive in this way, we can never rest, never think we have arrived.  We are free only when we are beyond our particularities.
    Although I have quibbles with some of the other connections named above, I want to elaborate a little on a subtle but I believe significant issue with regards to this similarity between deconstruction and the emerging church.  Some of this critique comes via Jamie Smith’s writings, specifically, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?
    In so far as some emerging churches (lets call this the “discontinuous emergent” church) show little regard for creeds and confessions and posit a radical discontinuity between themselves and the church that has gone on before, they share with Derrida a modern, negative view of freedom.  Freedom, in this sense is a freedom from, freedom from restraint, particularity, tradition.  This is freedom as autonomy, and can come with the non- or anti-denominational label or some sort of primitivist ecclesiology.  This can be viewed as quintessentially modern, in so far as Immanuel Kant heralded the modern age by calling for a break from the “tutelage” of tradition.

    I don’t want to “read” too much into these trends, but these are the hard philosophical questions that we can ask.  At root, this approach may assume that to be unapologetically particular (ie. connected to the catholic tradition of the faith) in any way is to be necessarily besmirched beyond repair.  An emerging church is one that has taken the courage (Kant’s term) to free itself from history, from tradition, and from all the baggage that comes with it.
    Smith explains in The Fall of Interpretation that this view, at a deep philosophical level, conflates creation and fall.  If to be human is to be finite and an interpreting being, and all interpretive traditions are violent, than our humanness is inescapably violent.  But if word can become flesh, as it did in the “logic of incarnation” seen in Christ, interpretations can be incarnate in words and institutions that are not inherently violent.  In fact, they may bring life.  In effect, to unabashedly claim your historic Christian faith is to name your humanity, not to oppress others.  We were created as interpretative beings, and while the fall does twist them in violent ways, in Christ our traditions need not be inescapably malevolent.

I recognize there are other emerging churches that describe themselves as a return to the ancient Christian tradition (lets called these the “ancient-future” emergents).  While many of these churches are engaged in a desperately necessary retrieval project, there is potential for these churches to be co-opted by the dark side of postmodern life.

Let me explain it this way.  If some ancient-future emergents do not see some sort of continuity with an authentic Christian tradition nor configure their ecclesiology in accountable relationships to a broader body but they selectively appropriate parts of the tradition that they find preferable, they may be assuming another kind of autonomy--one that picks and chooses “from above” as it were.  This may operate as much in a consumer framework as otherwise, and as many have said, one common way to be post-modern is to be a consumer self (eg. David Lyon’s introduction entitled Postmodernity). 

This is why Smith charges the emerging church with not being postmodern enough.  He keeps positing a more persistent or proper postmodernism that takes us beyond the desire for autonomy and into a community of thought and practice that stretches through time and space, in other words, a particular embodied tradition and its institutions.  This is, in fact, the “catholic” Christian faith of creeds and confessional Trinitarian dogma, the sacraments, and even hierarchy.  This is a call beyond both a spiritual nomadic life and the spiritual fortress of fundamentalism, and towards a sojourning with the Spirit in catholic association, en route to the City of God.  We might call this third kind of emergent “catholic emergent churches.” (small “c”!)  Its not just “the same old church” but “the same old church in a new context,” which is genuinely ancient-future.

The more particular you are, it has been said, the more universal you become—in so far as to be human is to be particular.  There are no generic, universal human beings, any more than there is generic universal reason.  I would say to students on university campus: the more you respectfully and unapolegetically express your particularity rather than sliding into a generic cultural codes, the more you free others to be their deep particular self.  It is permission giving.  For we are all much more deep than we reveal in North American cultural life.  The mass cultural amnesia that Jane Jacobs talked about in her last book Dark Age Ahead is what threatens us the most, not the scandal of our particularities (although, of course, particularities are not sacrosanct or salvific in themselves).  The fear of particularity, as Smith says, is a negation of our finiteness, and therefore a negation of our humanity, and becomes a continuation of the disenchanted dehumanizing aspects of modernity.
    We would do better to embrace as well a freedom to and with.  There is also a freedom that comes when one is empowered by deep commitments and covenants, by submission to authority and accountability.  This freedom is not historically a part of the American Way, but it may be the secret to its healing.

Lure of Obscurity

I want to end by mentioning a great little paper entitled “The Leisure of Worship and the Worship of Leisure” by Jack Miles, the author of Biography of God.  In it he says that museums, or what he calls secular cathedrals, (and I would include universities in this, too) are contending with the same forces as religion today—that is, the forces of commodification, or “The Great American Hustle,” or to parallel Smith’s terms, the logic of the market.  In museums, giant video screens replace text, and garish advertising campaigns fill the entire outside walls of buildings.  The question ironically is asked: “Is nothing sacred?”

In so far as the emerging church constructs itself not as a unapologetic incarnational presence of the body of Christ but as a spirituality that markets a religious identity suitable to the preferences of a postmodern consumer culture, it does little to challenge the consumerist status quo, and as much as it eschews modern conceptual idolatries, it flirts with a new one, the logic of the market. 

This is what I see as the vulnerable edge of the emerging movement, but it is a weakness I name as a partner in the conversation.  This is the hard question for me:  what if the customer is not always right, and there is a greatness that commands an allegiance beyond choice and autonomy?  How can we nurture a commitment and authenticity that is not an extension of the rule of taste nor a retrenchment in embattled fundamentalist certainty?

Miles points to the community of Taize, France, which, incidentally is a community with Reformed Christian roots shaped by catholic liturgical practice.  The scripture-based music, the times of silence, and the use of icons attracts thousands of young people every year.  This, like many emerging Christian campus ministry groups on universities across the country that are tied and true to historical denominational commitments, would be a truly post-modern alternative.

Miles quotes Wired magazine:  “There’s a huge lure to obscurity.  That’s one of the keys—giving people something to discover, which is the antithesis of the way most advertising works.”  Religious institutions, he says, “even making the most active use of showbiz techniques, cannot possibly compete in that game.  But mystery is there own game, and perhaps they need to return to it.”

The postmodern shift can be described as a shift from mastery to mystery.  Mastery puts an autonomous agent in control, manipulating things towards desired ends.  It is an instrumental approach to life.  Mystery, on the other hand, in the Biblical tradition, is not so much a puzzle to be solved, or a great cloud of unknowing, as it is a dogma and a sacrament revealed and received within a historically continuous community of faith.

Comments

[daniel anderson]

I would love to see the emerging church as a place of disillusionment with the "hypermodern" (a companion word to postmodern, perhaps—"it's not really new, just more of it and faster") consumeristic society. Right on with how communities who sign up to the consumeristic mindset can easily become trapped by it. I would offer that that may be a feature of typical churches, though (probably more on the Protestant side)—the service can have a very consumeristic ring sometimes (that's coming from my past experiences, probably). I would hope that the emergent folks would try to propose something contrary to it, rather than "go with the flow". I bet that the average consumer will quickly get disillusioned with the consumeristic pitch entirely and be seeking for something more filling and less illusory. Youth, music-based subcultures (like punk, for example) are searching for this all the time, but do not always find it. It seems like the relationship with consumerism on the general scale isn't necessarily total, but more of a push-pull, an acceptance and then a violent rejection. But indeed, the whole push of spirituality (and perhaps one reason why vague self-help spirituality is so popular) is because it seems to provide something greater than the capitalist dissillusionment. Does it always? And will we, as new-kinds-of-Christians, be able to provide something better?

[Matt Wiebe]

Some terrific thoughts here. I appreciated the comparison of "universal generic" with "particular" especially. Oh, and the master-mystery comparison was a nice turn-of-phrase as well. Much to ponder.

[Cynthia R. Nielsen]

An excellent post, Peter. I particularly liked what you highlighted (via Smith's observations) concerning the conflation of creation and fall (and the negating of our finitude and humanity) that comes with rejecting Christian tradition (historic Creeds, liturgical context etc.). You have also done an great job in bringing to our attention a number of modernist themes at work in certain expressions of postmodernism (autonomous subject, dehumanizing tendencies, a-historical orientations etc.).

Thanks again for sharing your insights.

Cynthia R. Nielsen

[Jaosn Hesiak]

I really like this post. I feel, however, like I must be missing something. In the post, the author said: "If to be human is to be finite and an interpreting being, and all interpretive traditions are violent, than our humanness is inescapably violent. But if word can become flesh, as it did in the 'logic of incarnation' seen in Christ, interpretations can be incarnate in words and institutions that are not inherently violent. In fact, they may bring life. In effect, to unabashedly claim your historic Christian faith is to name your humanity, not to oppress others." I very much jive with these thoughts, but I'm not entirely sure how this is Smith's charging "emerging church with not being postmodern enough."

I mean, the above, along with Smith's wonderful thoughts about being unapologetically particular, pretty much directly contradict the lessons from Derrida, particularly numbers 2 and 4 in the post. From number 2: "In fact, in so far as they do not allow for the worlds of others to exist and flourish, they become violent and oppressive institutions." From number 4: "Deconstruction declares that every particular reading is in a way, 'false' and even violent in its exclusiveness."

I'm having a hard time distinguishing where this post is meant to mirror Smith's critique of the emerging church (by saying that it is "not postmodern enough" by not being unabashedly particular), where Smith is critiquing Derrida from a particularly Christian position, and where Derrida might have been saying something other than what I think he's saying based on the thoughts expressed in number 2 and 4 in the above post. This possibility that Derrida might have been saying something else...that I am misunderstanding numbers 2 and 4 in the above post...is where I fall into a hole; because I haven't read Derrida directly. I could see how Derrida's rememberance and acceptance of language as a medium could lead to the thoughts in this post on particularity not being violent (which may or may not directly contradict Derrida's thoughts, as expressed or explained in numbers 2 and 4 in the above post), but from my reading of this post I am having a hard time sorting out exactly what is coming from who.

Can someone help? Thanks,

Jason

[Peter Schuurman]

Dear Jason:

I did pack a load into a small space. Jamie Smith wrote a couple of books to explain it all.

In short, I have only read Derrida through Smith (eg. his intro book "Live Theory") so I am not an expert on Derrida. My understanding is that Smith sees Derrida as one haunted by the ghost of Descartes and still measuring life and reading by the standard of absolute certainty. So he critiques Derrida on this score, suggesting that readings can be imperfect and finite and still not be inherently violent.

So my points I believe reflect something close to Derrida (again via Smith) but my critique is a critique that Smith has of Derrida, and which he extends to some emergent types in his book "Whose Afraid of Postmodernism?"

Some may claim Derrida was saying something else. But this is the Smithian Derrida.

peace
Peter

[Jaosn Hesiak]

Thanks Peter!

But WAIT, was this Smith's CRITIQUE of Derrida, or Smith's VERSION of Derrida! Or is that supposed to be a deconstructivist joke (which I am on the verge of laughing at even now, except I don't know if it was supposed to be such)? Or should I just read Smith...and Derrida.

Jason

[Peter Schuurman]

Dear Jason:

Aha! Are not all versions critiques (for good or ill?) Smith does say in _Live Theory_ that "this book is an invitation into a corpus and a project, not an exhaustive, critical account." He does his best to relay the basic ideas without much superfluous comment.

But if you read his other books and papers, he doesn't hold back much. He has an essay in the book _The Future of Hope_ that makes the claim that Derrida has no hope. Quite a bold statement. Apparently he presented the paper at a conference in which Derrida was in the audience...

Is Derrida haunted by the ghost of Descartes as Smith claims? I suppose Jack Cupido (and Derrida, as he listens in from the intermediate state) would disagree, as that would associate him with his own nemesis, which he wanted to leave behind.

Anyways, you gotta read Smith. (J.K.A. Smith)

peace
Peter

[Jaosn Hesiak]

Thanks Peter...leave MIMESIS behind...HAH! No wonder Smith says Derrida has no hope! The more I hear about Derrida, the more he's intriguing and wierd. A return to the medium - via the idea of there being no unmediated regard of singulars - and yet an avoidance of mimesis! No wonder people misread the guy!! I think you're right that I should read Smith. He just went higher up on my list, for sure.