Subversive Syntax

"Why is the Emerging Church drawn to deconstructive theology?"
by Tony Jones, National Coordinator of Emergent Village, author of several books, and blogs at theoblogy.

O, how I wish St. Jacques would have chosen another word for his hermenuetic than decontruction.  When speaking, I prefer to pronounce it with a French accent, and then go on to tell people that it really means something different in French.  Unfortunately, that's not really accurate (as it is for, say, "difference" and différance).  Honestly, I spend some time almost every week explaining that Derridaian decontruction does not mean "to tear down" but "to break through."  As Jack Caputo writes in Deconstruction in a Nutshell, anyone with half-an-ear for the Jewish or Christian scriptures will recognize that "decontruction has a very messianic ring to it."

This connection between deconstruction and the Bible is especially meaningful, methinks.  I am quite convinced that the Bible is a subversive text, that it constantly undermines our assumptions, transgresses our boundaries, and subverts our comforts.  This may sound like academic mumbo-jumbo, but I really mean it. I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book (pardon my French, but that's the only way I know how to convey how strongly I feel about this).  And I think that deconstruction is the only hermeneutical avenue that comes close to expressing the transgressive nature of our sacred text.

Deconstruction is bent on showing the limits of all hermeneutic frameworks, including its own.  It doesn't so much tear them down as burst through them, pushing them beyond their limits, showing their inevitable weaknesses.

Why? Because postmoderns don't believe in anything, of course.  At least, that's what the critics will say.  But, in fact, to read Derrida and Caputo and Kearney makes clear that the raison d'être for deconstruction is always justice.  When other hermeneutics stagnate, deconstruction shouts, "There's more here, there's a perfect justice to be had, and we can't rest until wer get there!"

And I also like deconstruction because, in it's own, self-reflexive deconstructing, it is deeply ironic.  And I like irony.  Indeed, I think that Jesus liked irony, too (particularly the Johnanine Jesus).  Derrida was playful, he avoided answering questions, he liked soap operas, and he knew perfectly well that he was stepping into the very traps that he had laid for others.  In other words, he didn't take himself too seriously, and deconstruction is appropriately playful as a result.  Play and irony -- two pills that I think more theologians should swallow.

I'm well aware of the many and vigorous critiques of Derrida and deconstruction, and I appreaciate them.  But I'm not looking for a foolproof hermeneutic -- no such hermeneutic exists.  I'm looking for a hermeneutic that roughly parallels the syntax of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and, IMHO, deconstruction does that.

Comments

[adrian walker]

Dear Tony,

Thanks for your lively and funny post. F***** cool.

The question I would like to raise, though is this: what is so great about subversion? Subvert the things that need subverting, I say, but don't make Subversion Per Se an end in itself.

To put it another way: is the purpose of the Bible mainly to undermine our certainties?

Obviously, the Bible does that. But I couldn't help wondering whether you weren't sliding in the direction of saying that the Bible is mainly about undermining our certainties.

Which seems to me to have two problems: first, it seemingly accords a priority to the confrontational and the negative---or, if not that, then to some kind of existentialist-type "authenticity" reached when our certainties are broken through. Second, I thought the Bible was mainly about revealing God. . .

Granted, the price of knowing God is often an overturning of OUR certainties, but God is much more than the overturning of our certainties. He is no more defined by our UN-certainity than he is by our certainty.

Anyway, just thought I would throw in some provocative comments at the outset to get things going.

Cordially,
Adrian

[TR]

One of my biggest problems with the emerging movement is that they are so slippery. They can't seem to stand still long enough for me to figure out what they are emerging from, much less emerging to. But, boy, they know how to fill cyberspace. Gotta give them credit for that.

[Zach Nielsen]

I agree that perhaps we need to be more light hearted, but when I read the gospels it seems like the ministry that Jesus has commissioned for believers is anything but that. (Or "playful" to use your word). I seems that if one believes in hell (which I don't know if you do or not, so this is not some side jab) that has to set somewhat of a tone for how we view God's mission for us. Not that we can't laugh or whatever, I am not saying that at all and I agree that many Reformed people need to unpucker the lips quite a bit, but in terms of an overall view or tone, I don't think "playful" is a word that I can square with the Bible.

[michael o'neill]

Great post Tony.

I have spent the past week in a "blog-war" (oh how nerdy we christians have become) with my pastor over this subject.

It seems that before many are even willing to critically engage the oppourtunities that deconstruction offers theology and biblical interpretation, we must first fight the war of convincing them decontruction doesn't mean "decontructing truth to prove that all things are relative and there is no objectivity".

Hopefully those Christians daring enough to embrace what Jacques has to say to the Church can help show the rest of the body that this approach is much less heretical and anti-truth than many think.

Keep up the good work.

[Jason Hesiak]

To Zach:

http://jasonhesiak.blogspot.com/2006/05/newsflash-god-has-sense-of-humor.html

:)

[Ron Wright]

You provide a helpful correction to the typical way deconstruction is understood, particularly in the evangelical subculture that I live in. I am reading Moltmann's "A Theology of Hope" right now and your thoughts about deconstruction made me think of this quote which I have been reflecting on:

"It might well be that existing bounds of reality, which the moving historic horizon of the promise reaches in eschatology, are not regarded as fixed and predetermined things, but are themselves found to be in motion." (p. 136)

Would it be fair to say that Moltmann's notion of the "promise" of God that the Church centers her eschatological hopes upon is deconstructive, in that this promise continues to break through categories of exclusion, the negation of death, and stretches out beyond what we can imagine?

Is this similar to what you were meaning in drawing out the parallels between deconstruction and the Bible?

[Matt Wilcoxen]

Can anyone give me an example of how a deconstructive hermeneutic "breaks through." I know that Tony's space for writing is limited, but I want to see a couple examples of the theory in praxis. ;)

[Jason Hesiak]

To Matt:

1. "My friends, there is no friend."

2. http://theosproject.blogspot.com/2007/03/derrida-deconstructs-forgiveness.html

:)

[Keith Krepcho]

Deconstruction in action (Parables):
The parables of Jesus were culturally relevant and their meaning was varied. Jesus utilized story and narrative to share truth and the parables are a prime example of story and narrative ("breaking through" a "stagnant" orthodox rendering of the parables) reinforcing the idea that Jesus' teaching was inclusive and culturally applicable.

Biblical understanding:
Mark 4:10-13. The meaning of the parables were obscure and difficult for even the disciples to decifer without the help of Jesus, and parables were meant to sift believers from unbelievers. It is impossible to critique the Bible from a human or cultural position, but the Bible informs the view of culture. Matthew 10:34-39

[Geoff Holsclaw]

everyone knows that authors have no control over the titles put on their works, so in the interest of full disclosure, the title is mine not Tony's.

But to Adrian's questions, "Is the purpose of the Bible mainly to undermine our certainties?" I would answer with Yes and No.

I agree with Tony that Scripture is constantly undermining what we 'expect' to happen, or think we know of this world, replacing it with glimpses and hopes for a world to come, Heaven come down to Earth as it were.

But the problem that I see (although I'm not accusing Tony of this, I'm speaking generally), is that act of subversive if extended continually in all directions seems to cancel out any understanding of this coming reality, of the coming kingdom. It seems that the 'subversive' tendency lead some conclude that we can know nothing (or next to nothing) of God's purposes in the world, or even of God himself (except the vagaries of LOVE).

I would say with Lacan (and others) that there is a categorical difference between 'knowledge' of the ordinary world of common sense and the 'Truth' that unexpectedly "break through" (to use Tony's gloss on Derrida) and reorders all we thought we knew.

But I am unwilling to say that only indeterminate and subversive Truth leads to peace while determinate/particular truth leads to violence (which Caputo claims again and again).

So what is the limit of subversion? Is it subversive enough to say that Christ is the Truth, or is that a violent particularity needing subversion?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

related to this discussion of the limits of 'subversion' check out "beyond beyondims" over at First Things.  Many times what goes under the rubric of 'subversion' is really just the 'promotion' of some other idea. 

and just to be provocative, sometimes it sounds like for all Caputo's deconstrutive subversion, that it amounts to a good old liberalism of LOVE and TOLERANCE coupled with an openness to religion (w/o religion). 

[Acer]

Jones writes, "But I'm not looking for a foolproof hermeneutic -- no such hermeneutic exists."

How does one know this? By what hermeneutic does one come to learn that no hermeneutic exists? I think what you've written here is good, it's nice, I agree with it. But untill so-called 'deconstructionsits' or 'postmoderns' engage in some serious epistemology, all of these asinine criticism you get will continue to haunt you. Peace
-Ace Gerry

[Gigi]

This is my first (and last) encounter with this blog. I find it deplorable, if not tragic, that anyone would deem it necessary to use foul language to accentuate or express their opinion/awe/feeling/disdain/or-whatever they want to convey about the Scriptures. But then again, that's what fills the heart.

The Book was here long before you arrived and will be here long after you leave.

What a losing lifestyle to devote so much time and energy (and all those megs)poking holes into God's monolithic foundation with a noodle-thin philosophy. For all the talk about con/deconstruction, you don't know much about architecture. Semantic or otherwise. It's all at the end of Matthew 7.

[adrian Walker]

Dear Geoff,

I think we are mostly in agreement. Pure subversion---all subversion, all the time---is neither possible nor desirable.

True, the Bible does often subvert, but that is not all it does. Think of the theme of God's faithfulness that runs throughout it.

I also don't think that the Truth's way of relating to the world is only to "break through"---that's a too one-sidedly confrontational picture of the God-creature relation. Yes, there is sin, but sin doesn't do away with the goodness of creation.

If we care about being able to confess Jesus as Son and Savior, then we have to use Derrida and co. discerningly. It's one thing to say that they help us overcome fundamentalism, that they help us see the Bible in new ways, that they are a permanent provocation that helps us grow. No problem there. But it's another thing to make Derrida and co. the hermeneutical key to the Bible---that changes Christianity into something else altogether.

The dogmatic and liturgical tradition of the undivided Church is actually a much better hermeneutic for reading Scripture in all its complexity---again, Scripture is not just about subversion---than Derrida and co. (which is not to say that we can't learn from Derrida and co.).

One last point: Paradoxically, by exaggerating the compatibility of Derrida and co. with Christianity, we end up neutering the post-moderns as philosophy. And so we run the risk of using Derrida and co. to create something like Christian rock---a tame, derivative product that ends up being a badge of our supposed coolness, which is actually NOt cool.

Cordially,
Adrian

[adrian Walker]

Dear Geoff,

Let me add a footnote for purposes of clarification.

There’re two dangers facing Christians in relation to Derrida and co. The first one is the “fundamentalist” danger of simply dismissing them---usually a caricature of them---as heralds of Antichrist. The other danger, though, is a bit more subtle: it consists in trying to avoid fundamentalism’s blanket condemnation by means of a more or less blanket approval.

The fact is that there are aspects of Derrida and co.’s thought that just aren’t compatible with Christianity---not just with fundamentalist Christianity, but with with-it creedal Christianity, too.

But the problem I see isn’t just that, in caving in to the second danger, we’ll lose Christianity. There is another problem: by caving into the second temptation, we won’t be fair to Derrida and co. as philosophers, either---and so we won’t really have escaped fundamentalism. Let me explain.

It would be wrong to try to co-opt Derrida and co. for theological purposes that they wouldn’t have approved of. It’s much more respectful of their “otherness” to let them be what they are. What they are is surely not the Antichrist monsters fundamentalism portrays them as. But neither are they closet Christians, either. Unless we completely change the meaning of Christianity.

In other words: we need to beware of naively co-opting Derrida and co. in order to deal with our own traumas as recovering fundamentalists.This DOES NOT mean that we should dismiss Derrida and co. The point is that there is a third way beyond blanker rejection and blanket co-opting approval.

The third way is to read Derrida and co. as they want to be read---as philosophers. Which means: being interested in what they have to say, learning from them even, but without the all-or nothing attitude that says we have to choose between demonizing and deifying them.

Disagreement does not equal disrespect or stupid dismissal. Perhaps the best way of thinking of Derrida and co. from a Christian point of view is as “our best foe,” to cite Nietzsche.

The way to really get beyond fundamentalism is not to fall into the trap of doing the opposite to win street cred, but to learn how to read Derrida and co. philosophically. (Just like the way to get beyond fundamentalism in music is not to use music as a tool to proove how cool we are, but to enjoy music for its own sake---and so to learn to approve and to criticize with freedom unconstrained by fear of appearing to be some kind of fundie nut case).

Cordially,
Adrian

[Jonathan Erdman]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding that is running through this thread, particularly in the dissenting comments: Deconstruction is not a "thing" that one controls or chooses to use. If one uses deconstruction as a tool (hermeneutical or otherwise) then one misses the point of it all. Deconstruction happens as an event whether we are aware of it or not, or whether we like it or not. We are all potential objects for deconstruction - and that's a good and necessary thing, as I see it.

That being said I recently did some research suggesting that the hebel of Ecclesiastes (translated in the NIV as "meaningless") was actually a deconstructive devise that Qohelet saw running through the world of human experience. That at every turn when we seek to fix meaning - BAM! - the possibility existed for disruption and destabilization. I argued that this view would actually solve problems that have caused riffs amongst commentators and interpreters for quite some time. As such, I agree with the suggestion made here that deconstruction is ever and already present in the Scripture. That was my conclusion in my research on Ecclesiastes.**

So, if you are posting here denying that Christians should ever "use" deconstruction then I would suggest you don't understand it. In many ways it is not a choice. If you posting here and advocating that Christians should "use" deconstruction in hermeneutics then I would again suggest that you don't understand it because it is less an object under our control, and more of an observation about the fundamental elements that are at work in the world and within ideas and the human process. Here's the point: Often times the very things that allow us to fix ideas and develop certainty can also be the very things that threaten to undermine such certainty and destabilize the very thing that we have fixed.

I suppose that to some degree we can "submit" or "subject" ourselves to deconstruction by developing openness, but I've always thought that those who are the most closed are the prime candidates for deconstruction!

** Here is a link to the referenced research as recently posted on my blog:
Qohelet and Deconstruction

[adrian walker]

Dear Jonathan,

I partly agree with you. You present deconstruction (the event) as deconstruction (the philosophy) understands it. In doing that, you show how, as deconstruction (the philosophy) understands it, deconstruction (the event) is not a neutral tool to be used or discarded. In saying this, you help show that deconstruction (the philosophy) is not so easy to tame or co-opt as some people think. Hence my agreement.

But I only partly agree with you, for, in saying how deconstruction (the philosophy) understands deconstruction (the event), you also present deconstruction (the event) as somehow always operating, or potentially operating, whenever we try to pin anything down. In other words: you are making a claim about reality. My disagreement is this: you present this claim as if it were obvious and absolute---but is it?

To put it another way: Maybe some of the people who are "closed" to deconstruction (the philosophy) have reasons, however poorly articulated, for thinking that its account of reality isn't completely satisfying. If that is so, then the case isn't closed as to whether deconstruction (the event) is somehow always operating whenever we try to have certainty.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Jonathan Erdman]

Adrian,

My understanding of deconstruction is not that it is an "account of reality." But rather that it is an account of potentiality. Deconstruction strikes me more as a description of processes that have been at work and potentially will be at work in the future that destabilize our situations (and our texts). In terms of being something descriptive, then, it seems to me that you can only legitimately describe deconstruction as it has happened, and not as it will happen or even as it has happened.

For example, I am going to lead a discussion group in a Sunday morning class at church entitled "Deconstructing Church." So, one of the things we will be doing is looking at some of the things that are important to the church in accomplishing her mission and simultaneously questioning whether or not these are the very same things that can sometimes undermine the mission. But all of this will be past tense. We will be looking at what our church has done and where we have come from.

So, as I see it, we can look back to see the deconstructive forces as work and we can look forward only to the potential for deconstruction in the future, but we can't control or predict it. If we tried to predict it then that very prediction would be subject to deconstruction. If we tried to control it then our controlling mechanisms would be subject to deconstructive forces.

[adrian walker]

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for the clarification. I think my original point remains, though: whatever deconstruction (the philosophy) is an account of---reality, potentiality, whatever---it's still an account.

In other words: it's one thing for someone to claim "deconstruction (the event)has happened and may happen again, albeit in unpredictable ways" and another thing for that statement to be true.

So, if we want those who are closed to "open," we can't just say "watch out, deconstruction has happened and may happen again at any second"---because that is just repeating our claim. Assuming that the "closed" are not just wicked and.or stupid, we have to give them reasons as to why the claim "watch out, deconstruction has happened" makes sense.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Jonathan Erdman]

And I would again have to disagree. I don't think deconstruction is really an account as you describe it. Furthermore, I'm not going to be one who says that those who are "closed" should be more "open." Why should I? If deconstruction happens (as I claim) regardless of whether or not a person realizes it or not, then more than likely their closedness will be opened by virtue of the deconstructive forces of life. If they go through their whole life "closed" then that is the choice of the individual.

We are all a mixture of "closed" and "open." It is part of life to close things: institutions, doctrines, creeds, praxis, ethics, political opinions, relationships, emotions, judgments, meetings, conversations, tax forms, cooking pots, etc., etc. But as soon as we close something the potentiality that it could be opened up again exists - even that it might just explode into openness!

The Reformation might be viewed as a deconstruction of the prior existing institutions that came to dominate Christianity. But as soon as the Reformation opened up new possibilities the Reformers were also busy closing things up as well. And now I would suggest that many who claim the Reformation as their heritage could stand a little deconstruction of their own church settings/praxis/doctrine. Why? Because life moves on and culture changes. But if they want to remain closed what is that to me?

[adrian walker]

OK---but we agree about the main point: we disagree.

The really interesting question is: what is the nature of this disagreement?

Here is how I see it: you have made some claims about what deconstruction is or isn't. But those claims are not the event of deconstruction itself, but claims about it. Why should I buy those claims?

You may say: what is it to me if you buy my claims or not? Deconstruction happens whether you think so or not.

OK, but the problem is that I don't buy your account of deconstruction, so that, from my point of view, it looks as though you are just repeating your claims without what I take to be the necessary arguments.

We are at an impasse and should probably stop. All I wanted to do is register the fact that the issue between those who hold deconstruction (the philosophy) and those who don't can't be reduced to saying that the former are "open" and the latter are "closed"---because from the point of view of the latter, that sounds like question-begging.

Cordially,
Adrian

[adrian walker]

There is a distinction between deconstruction the philosophy and deconstruction the event this philosophy says happens, can happen, whatever. The former is an account, the latter---on this account---is supposed not to be. As long as this distinction remains, open, though, the possibility of good-willed, intelligent skepticism regarding the claims of deconstruction the philosophy remains open too. (This does not mean that the skeptic has to reject what he thinks is true in the account---that he thinks there is no phenomenon that somehow corresponds to what deconstruction the philosophy talks about.)
Cordially,
Adrian

[kbartha]

Curious what kind of work has been done on the historical geo-political ramifications of deconstruction. We tend to separate a writer from their times and geography as we sometimes misinterpret ourselves in our own time and space. For example, we English readers typically read translated French!

A very present and timely incubator of a case study on deconstruction for a PhD would be getting one's head around the history and expulsion of the Acadians and the present political structures of Canada, France and Belgian/French Congo.

All of this emerging dialogue is so "politically" charged I'm glad I've read Ellul alongside Derrida. Anarchy and revolution are very appealing answers. But com-passion (friends suffering together) seems like the only way. As long as we are all emerging sufferer's I'm cool with being a white and narrowly well-read.

Aside to Wilberforce: the Apostle Peter was a great deconstructionist when he spoke about the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53 in the context of slaves obeying their msaters. Then there is John in Revelation... It's like they saw the deconstruction coming amidst the subversive tapping of crumbling structures all around the empire, and their focus was upon the Lamb.

Canadians grapple with American, British and French "questions"... Not that we are innocent bistanders, we just know we have no "answers" which is why we are mute at the table half the time. We smile when we read Derrida and cry during films about abolition.

Lately my reading has me back in the Crusades and specifically what was going on in the religious and geo-political frameworks of the early French.

[Nathan]

Tony

Thanks for putting into words and making accessible something that is hard for people to wade into.

And thanks for putting yourself in this article in a way that makes the strange world of deconstruction a little more human.

I've already passed this along to some friends and some other "friends".

[Zach Roberts]

The most helpful articulation I encountered in Caputo's book "Deconstruction In a Nutshell" is in the roundtable where Derrida says himself that deconstruction is not an external process that is applied to certain disciplines and systems. It is instead inherent in every discipline and system. This takes deconstruction out of the realm of "tool" by which the, "evil relativist postmoderns", are destroying the church.

Deconstruction is simply there...in the systems and institutions we live and breath in. One helpful way I have tried to grasp its presence in spiritual formation is that it serves as the dynamic by which none of us can say we have arrived in our journey to be conformed to the image of Christ. In this way, the deconstruction inherent in spiritual formation is a blessing. We all have seen what happens when people of faith assume that they have arrived.

[Jason Hesiak]

Adrian and Johnathan (and Zach, I suppose?)...

How did you guys just manage to have an entire conversation about open and closed, event and account, and not even mention essences or the elemental as a hinging point of your conversation? I am not satisfied. Please continue your disagreement on the grounds, or lack thereof, of essences and elements - upon which your positions stand.

I mean, here we are talking about deconstruction - and by extension (backwards, awkwardly) - construction. Or are we NOT talking about construction, and that's the whole point? If that's the case...well, I can't handle that. Death is the actual end of something, but death works from behind as well, and can be easily identified with "potential." The ability to build something and expect, or even hope that it to stands - a church, a relationship, a society, an institution, whatever - hinges on the thing's essence and elements.

That one can deconstruct the past "works" of the church, and talk about hopes for the future in such a light, implies a God-rock that is PRESENT.

“’Meaningless! Meaningless!’ says the Teacher. ‘Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.’ What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? Generations come and generations go, BUT THE EARTH REMAINS FOREVER. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course….He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end….I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him. Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and GOD HIMSELF KEEPS SEEKING THAT WHICH IS PURSUED.”

Jason

[Jonathan Erdman]

Jason, I would assert that I did not take a position.....or if I did it was an unpositioned position.

[adrian walker]

Jason---

This is what I am trying to say---certainty, having a rock to build on, is a good thing. Yes, there is fundamentalism, etc., but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Discernment, discernment.

Zach---

You are making a CLAIM about deconstruction, and a claim is different from what the claim is about. So there is plenty of room for disagreement with you.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Jason Hesiak]

Johnathan,

So you are throwing out the elemental, and giving up on the pursuit of construction...for things to stand up and have life? "The earth [DOES NOT] remain forever"? Leaving ONLY an open fronteir between your spiritual self and a spiritual God? Is this life or death? I don't think they can be joined in the realm of the potential (nor in the realm of the simulacrum), because there they might just as well be one and the same. They can only come together and be reconciled in any way, after considering their obvious tension, in the actual and present.

No one needs to break through to his or her potential death. Its quite readily available, both in our sinful will and in the choice to die to self. The choice to die to self, however, can only be available to us through action in relation to a body (politic). Neither a dead man nor a god (gods also neither have nor require positions...in essence) can offer himself as a living sacrafice to a god or God. Despite its essential potentiality, it is not possible.

Jason

[Jonathan Erdman]

Don't we all have to die in Christ to be raised again? Shouldn't we put to death the flesh?...From my experiences we Christians want to put ourselves to death without actually having to die. We want resurrection without resignation.

[Jason Hesiak]

Johnathan,

Although I strongly identify with your observation that most folks, including myself most of my selfish and self-absorbed time, want to put aside watching TV for an hour while we go to church - without acutally dying to self and living to Christ.

As per your favorite philosophy, however..."flesh" is both to be put to "death", but it is also, "Dear Lord, turn my heart of stone to a heart of flesh." Which has implications not only in the meaning of the word flesh, but in our ideas of living and dying. If you mean what it sounds like you mean by "die to the flesh", then let me know how it goes next time you take communion, next time to take in the elements. "My God is the God of the living, not the dead."

Jason

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Wow, quite the conversation.  I've just barely had time to read up on all the comments. 

jonathan says "Deconstruction is not a "thing" that one controls or chooses to use.  Deconstruction happens as an event whether we are aware of it or not'" and that deconstruction is "an account of potentiality. Deconstruction strikes me more as a description of processes that have been at work and potentially will be at work in the future that destabilize our situations." 

both of these comments set up will richard kearney's riff on desconstruction in the god who may be. 

Jonathan also says "you can only legitimately describe deconstruction as it has happened."   This sound much like what Lacan calls the future anterior, or "it will have happened" of the Id/It.  While our conscious Ego are merely illusionary images in the present, sometimes the Id slips through such that we can say "it will have been there."

But John, along with your discussion of hebel, it seems that your emphasis that"deconstruction happens..." could just as easily be exchanged  for "God is soveriegnty" or the "Spirit's work" coming and going like the wind.  it reminds me of the hymn God Works in a Mysterious Way:

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs
And works His sovereign will.

What then is deconstruction? is it the blind force of the universe? is it the will of God, the fates, the chaos? (of course deconstructionist would squirm at this 'essentialist' type of question, but I still pose it)

I could even go back to my roots and ask with Schaefer and Lewis, is the universe blind and impersonal deconstructive impulses, or is it seeing and personal? Caputo, while saying that he must wrestle with former tragic frame, indeed opts for the latter (well, not quite Personal, but at least religious).

So if deconstruction happens, is it the hand of chaos or the hand of grace?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Zack says, "Deconstruction is simply there...in the systems and institutions we live and breath in."

Now while in once sense I would not disagree with this, but I also say that this is not saying much.  If we are on a quest for certainty and foundations, for perfection truth and transparent knowledge, then deconstruction comes along as just that...DEconstruction. 

But it is only an already anemic theology and faith which functions this way forgetting the fundamental divide between both our finite situation within space and time and our finite abilities of comprehension and knowledge.  But if we theology and faith took finitude, not as a limitation or as the Fall, but our a God given creatureliness, and therefore something to be celebrated, then to say 'deconstruction is everything' is a mundane statement.  I think most good theology (which many in their haste to deconstruct read superficially) already function within this realization. 

What if instead of saying "deconstruction is simply there" we said "all FINITE systems and institutions are compelled by and drawn to the INFINITE within and beyond."  In a sense this is what Caputo is attempting to do with his distinction between the Possible as the reality we know, and the Impossible of the reality breaking in among us. 

For me personally, the scandal of the Incarnation, of the in/finite and im/possible relation between God and man, that is what it seems deconstructive philosophers can't/don't want to grapple with, but with which Christians must. 

[Ken Archer]

Jonathan's plea that deconstruction happens whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, and that recognizing deconstruction is thus more an issue of intellectual honesty and openness, is one that appeals to Adrian and I, for we would both agree with Jonathan that one's "epistemology" or "hermeneutic" should not be so much a methodological choice as a recognition of how reality presents itself (whether in a text or a conscious thought). The critical question for each person, then, is not so much a technical decision as to method for overcoming some body-mind divide, as it is a basic question of intellectual honesty when one reflects on one's cognition and language. Jonathan's sincere plea on behalf of deconstruction, then, is more appropriate in response to modern epistemologists than those, like Adrian and I, who from premodern and phenomenological influences agree that epistemology follows from metaphysics or ontology.

So, if folks like Jonathan and folks like myself agree that the fundamental question is one of basic intellectual honesty when reflecting upon the world's moves of presence and absence in our thoughts and our language, and we claim to honestly observe different revelations of reality, then we seem to be at an impasse, but at a pretty interesting and respectful impasse. Would you all agree?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Ken, I very much agree with how you posed the question. Premodern (and its phenomenological recovery/augmentation) sustain the creator/creature (infinite/finite) distinction while modern thought attempted to disregard it. Holding on to the distiniction is in a sense the very 'space' of deconstruction.

[adrian walker]

Dear Jason,

Well said. There are so many, many examples from daily life that show that we are happy to be able to count on stability. What bothers me is not the critique of stability, but the inability to distinguish between real stability and false stability---which seems to me to be much more nuanced and much more in accord with the complexity of our lives in which there is both flux and stability, but not just one or the other.

Dear Geoff,

Well said. The thing that bothers me, in addition, is the tendency to present the claim "deconstruction just happens anyway" as if that settled the discussion and made further questions or objections superfluous.

The problem with that move is that it erases the disinction between that claim and the phenomena that claim is supposed to do justice to. And, once that distinction is erased, then there is no more room for interpreting the phenomena differently---there is no room for intelligent disagreement that sees the same phenomena but has reasons for describing them differently. So we're right back with an unphilosophical fundamentalism.

Dear Ken,

The last observation brings me to what you said . . . thanks for that. That is exactly the point---the way to get beyond fundamentalist hostility to Derrida and co. is not to become Derridean fundamentalists, but to engage in philosophical discussion about the theses of deconstruction the philosophy. But the only way to get to such a discussion is for all parties to realize that there is---at least from the point of view of the other party---a distinction between our claims about the phenomena and the phenomena themselves. It is the recognition of that difference that spurs each side to explain what they mean, present arguments, make corrections, etc.

So the point is not deconstruction or anti-deconstruction. This is not an election, but a conversation. By the same token, the point is not dogged defense of our positions, but a common growth into a better understanding of the world. That is philosophy---only: you cannot embark on it unless you are willing to acknowledge that the OTHER sees the same phenomena as you but perceives your account of the phenomena as just that, an account, which as such is not simply as obvious as the phenomena themselves.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Jonathan Erdman]

Geoff says:
What then is deconstruction? is it the blind force of the universe? is it the will of God, the fates, the chaos? (of course deconstructionist would squirm at this 'essentialist' type of question, but I still pose it)....So if deconstruction happens, is it the hand of chaos or the hand of grace?

To the last question I would answer, "yes." But I answer it only from a quasi-Derridean perspective. My conception of deconstructions is shaped also by my understanding of Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). I have a weird Derrida-Qohelet concoction. So, if I may answer it from Qohelet's perspective there does, indeed, seem to be a fatalistic approach. The world is how it is and there is a great deal that a person cannot escape.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. (1:9)

A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is hebel, a chasing after the wind. (2:24-26)

I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him. (3:14)

Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what he has made crooked? (7:13)

I don't mean to present verses in proof text format, but simply to give a bit of a flavor of the fact that Qohelet puts the hebel of life back in God's lap and under his sovereign control. However, note that even in this context there is the admonition to find meaning and enjoyment. So, in the above passage from chapter 2 there is still a sense in which we can capture meaning.

Qohelet's project seems to be a recognition of the forces that deconstruct the various places in which we find meaning. I don't think that in this case "deconstruction" is the blind forces (God's sovereignty) but rather Qohelet is pointing out how these forces undercut, destabilize and undermine our efforts to find meaning in various aspects of life. Interestingly enough he relys primarily on his own experiences and observations to make his case.

[Jason Hesiak]

Thanks Johnathan,

That sounds to me a bit more like a position. The thing is, though...the resurrection (a few years after Ecclesiastes)! Brennan Manning, admittedly a fairly modern fella', speaks of how the resurrection brings everything - all the meaningless, chaotic, crazy, painful, biting, difficult stuff of life - together to have some sort of coherent meaning, IN God. "...and in him all things hold together..." And I'm sure Manning isn't the only one who's spoken of it in that way; I'm probably missing quite a bit there. But that certainly doesn't remove doubt and uncertainty from OUR picture, nor the value of deconstruction, actually (I don't think); at the same time though, the resurrection is an amazing thing that offers amazing meaning to things that appear not only to have NONE but HORRIFIC meaning.

And adrian and Geoff - good stuff.

[Jonathan Erdman]

Warning: Potentially Controversial Point to Follow

Jason, Qohelet deconstructs the various objects/events/etc. in which we find meaning, but historically speaking he does this pre-Jesus. Could we deconstruct the meaning we find in the resurrection? Sure. To get to the rez we've got to go through the cross. The cross represents humiliation, death, pain, suffering, self-sacrifice, as well as absurdity/foolishness (crf. Paul in 1 Corinthians 1). As such, there is a sense that the meaning we find in the rez rests on uneasy ground. "If anyone would come after me he must take up his cross daily...."

[adrian walker]

Dear Jason,

Beautiful---that is THE point. Christianity---indeed, everything (so our belief as Christians) stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus. Which leads me to this point. . .

Dear Jonathan,

The NT taken as a whole seems to make the resurrection itself the absolute foundation on which everything else rests . . . after going thru the Cross, naturally. That is what it means to say that the risen Jesus is God.

The Christian claim is that he has conquered death ("death hath no more dominion over him") and so hebel, vanity, as well. I don't see how a sort of primacy of deconstruction the event (and so of hebel/vanity) is compatible with this Christian claim.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Jason Hesiak]

I'm with Johnathan in the sense that you have to go through Cross to get to the Resurrection...and you might just as well rip my skin off (uuhh...sort of).

And I'm with Adrian in the sense that - as a Christian - you can't turn the relationship between Cross and Resurrection into primarily a deconstructive one...although the "potential" is there for the relationship to be viewed in a deconstructive light. In other words, the meaning of the resurrection leads to a PRIMACY of the PRESENT RISENNESS of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior! It is futile to "deconstruct" the resurrection through the cross...although it is in fact more related to our human experience in daily living.

Eh?

:)

[Jason Hesiak]

also...I don't remember which post our mini-conversation about God's playfulness was associated with, but here's more proof that God has a sense of humor (may need to cut and splice on browser)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/

?search=1%20Samuel%206;&version=65;

Its really funny in light of the previous chapter.

:)

[adrian walker]

Dear Jason,

Yes, to the Resurrection through the Cross, even in the Cross. But not the Cross versus the Resurrection.

I think we have reached an important point in the conversation. What is at issue is precisely whether we go on believing in the Resurrection as classical Christianity understands it. Only once we have seen that these are the stakes---and that deconstruction the philosophy may not be compatible with belief in the Resurrection---can we talk intelligently about "deconstruction and Christianity."

Here I come back to my earlier point. The fact that there is a tension between the center of Christian faith and deconstruction does not mean that we should dismiss deconstruction as a work of the anti-Christ. All I have been arguing against is a kind of naive anti-fundamentalism that too quickly baptizes deconstruction . . . to the detriment, not only of Christianity, but also of deconstruction as philosophy.

If we want to stay Christians, but without being fundamentalists, we need to distinguish between reading the deconstruction guys in order to learn, in order to wrestle with "our best foes" whom we need to keep us honest---between that and naively claiming Derrida and co. as a kind of paradigm for understanding Christianity, as if that did not entail a redefinition of Christianity into something other than what it has been for the last 2,000 years. (Notice: I reject taking Derrrida and co. as a paradigm for understanding Christianity, not learning from them to understand Christianity better, which I have no problem with.)

In other words, what I am trying to do is recommend self-consciousness about the positions we are taking and the huge stakes involved in them.

Cordially,
Adrian

[Banner Kidd]

While I in no way embrace the unwholesome language by the writer (Scripture commands that we abstain from it)deconstruction is something I embrace. Along with deconstruction must however come construction.

Deconstruction, as I see it biblically, is putting off the old man. Construction is then putting on Messiah. In the professing church (of which I and all of you are a part) our deconstruction falls into the category of seeing our long held traditions that are in opposition to God's Torah (the foundation of all Scripture) and coming out of those practices. The construction part is putting on Messiah (the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world... that takes away the sin of the world... Jah's Passover) and walking as He walked. He did only what His Father said. So we should do likewise. Grace, the causative action of the Holy Spirit, through our faith - believing what He has said, working in our hearts (inner man/woman) making us His workmanship, created in Yahshua Messiah for good works, which Jah prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Set all the prideful arrogance of self imposed religion, haughty intellectualism aside and seek the wisdom from above and the Spiritual discernment of Scripture; Hear the call of the prophets of old and the Son who now speaks the same message to us as they: Repent from man centered religion and return to the Law of YHWH and live! It is really very simple but is complicated by our self seeking flesh. I struggle with it and so do you. That is why Messiah said the gate that leads to life is narrow and difficult and few go in by it, but the gate that leads to destruction is wide and MANY go in by it. So we must choose. We can continue to argue whether my man centered practices are better than yours, or whether your emergent direction is better the traditional churches continuing slide... or better yet hold them all and every thought we have up to the blinding light and scrutiny of Scripture.

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (fleshly-wordly) but mighty in Jah for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of Jah, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Messiah, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfulled." -2 Corinthians 10:4-6

Our belief and obedience to what is written and rejection of every "high thing that exalts itself against" that knowledge is Scripturally accurate deconstruction and construction.

Banner Kidd

[Jason Hesiak]

Banner...good stuff. Rene Girand says the same thing about deconstruction and contruction. And I think he was pointing to the same idea of humility before God, as well. Or rather, allowing himself to be pointed at, called out, responsible for my own actions.

[Andrew Tatum]

Another question (er...deconstruction) that might be interesting is "What do deconstructionists mean when they use the word 'justice?'" Justice in mainstream American culture is a word that gets thrown around synonymously for words like revenge, or payback. Even in scripture, there is no singlularly definitive idea of what justice looks like. If the entire point or "reason for being" of deconstruction is "justice" then it seems that, at least in my opinion, there's got to be some objective measure of what justice is supposed to look like. Some, hmmm, hermeneutic outside of deconstruction itself which at least informs our pursuit of the o so nebulous "justice." It seems that this is where deconstruction ceases to work. What good is the pursuit of justice when "justice" to some means "revenge" or "war for the sake of peace" and for others it means, "love your enemies, care for widows and orphans, welcome the alien." I'm just not seeing it working...

[Alex]

I see how it works now.

The poster wants all the hip "cool points" for being dangerous and using a swear word as a hyperbolic description of a sacred text, yet is too cowardly to actually employ the word directly, so chooses to "star" the word. When someone points out this is cowardice, in the sense that it both wants to do something (use a big scary controversial word) but pulls his punch, and actually uses the actual word in question (which is - of course there in spirit in the first post) the post gets pulled. Rather than do this, why don't you actually swear when you swear? In short, grow up.

I think Derrida might have something to say about how this example "deconstructs" the very paradigm the emergent church operates in: faux radicalism (Derridianism or swearing) that turns out beneath to be neutered (glossily Christianised or starred out). Placed under erasure perhaps?

[michael burns]

amen sir. amen.

also, is there any Christian movement that has ever been as 'faux-academic' as the emerging church? i think not.

[christian book publishers]

If we care about being able to confess Jesus as Son and Savior, then we have to use Derrida and co. discerningly. It's one thing to say that they help us overcome fundamentalism, that they help us see the Bible in new ways, that they are a permanent provocation that helps us grow. No problem there. But it's another thing to make Derrida and co. the hermeneutical key to the Bible--that changes Christianity into something else altogether.