sweet post.

Thomas,

We met briefly at AAR during some reception or another, and while you were engaging then, I have to say that this post certainly puts it over the top.  It is as if you read an article I just wrote and deftly summarized it in a blog post that cuts out some 24 pages of detail without losing the guts and power.  Great work.  Thanks.

In the event that you’re interested, my pet project (and article) are available here:

http://theimageoffish.com

All good things,

Callid

Tom,

Well written! I appreciate very much you taking the time to write this post. This post brings to the forefront the kind of professor you are at your core, an attribute that I think at times is missed by many!
nate

Tom you said, “Contemporary Christians should take a “yes, but” approach to this postmodern tradition. Yes, deconstructive postmodern can teach us something. But it doesn’t provide a framework for addressing well the call that Christians hear from their Creator.”

I use a simple analogy to explain this.  French philosophers (Derrida,Foucault, leoturd) are like a bag of chips that you might purchase at a convenience store.  They are fun to munch on, but not the main course. A steady diet of deconstructionism will leave you feeling empty and malnourished. We should all be thankful that Jesus is bread of life.

Tom,

Like you said, if words are so untrustworthy, how do they trust their words to convey the ‘true’ meaning of anything?

While I appreciate the thought of ‘deconstructing’ our concepts of God to keep pride bay, it is not at all good for comfort, joy, peace, or hope. It is really depressing.

What is lacking from decontruction is the willingness to workout our meanings. Language is imprecise. It is tedious and often frustrating, but it is necessary to conversation. It is much easier to say that language is imprecise and leave it at that. Well, except for their ability to channel one of the monks from the television show Kung Fu.

Thanks Tom!

I guess Advent is as good a time as any to talk about deconstruction. After all, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.” I would say, especially those with the most theological knowledge, didn’t recognise Him. If any were in need of deconstruction, it were the theologians of 30 AD. Which of course puts the question before us: how certain are we that we would recognise Him?

Now deconstruction can never be a goal in itself, for indeed, that would leave us empty and desperate. But if might be a very useful preparation if we want to prepare to meet the King.

Tom,

Love your thoughts.  I wish I could sit in a few classes and hear you speak.  Slowly, of course, very slowly.  ;0) 

As I am currently in my own personal phase of deconstruction, I find your language helpful.  I believe the ambiguous nature of words is a graceful gift from our Creator, so that each creation is invited to seek his Creator in his own construct.  Perhaps post-modern theology will find some way to acknowledge each person’s paradigm , clarify truth, and accomplish that without trying to control how that “should look”.

Tom, I would like to hear more on your critique. Your, “Yes, but” understanding. I tend to be one with a foot in each mindset. As a postmodern I understand that objectivity can never be captured and yet as a modern I still believe it is what should be sought. I am suspicious of all interpretations but I know some are better than others.

Thanks to all for your comments!  I’ll respond briefly…

Tripp: Thanks!

Callid: Love your website!  Thanks for the compliment on my article.  Which pomo article on your site were you referring to? I’d like to read it.

Nate: Thanks for the kind words.

Bob: Sounds like you and I both find some things to like and some things not to like.

Dave: Great comments. Language is imprecise, but it remains a powerful tool for communicating, even if inexactly.

Hans: I love your advent take!  Thanks!

Doug: Sounds like we share a common quest.  And we agree that some interpretations are preferable to others.  Thanks!

Curtis: I’ve written more on this in other contexts.  In fact, you can probably find a more thorough explanation and critique I’ve written if you google my name and “postmodern.”  That piece I wrote has been used in several dissertations.

Thanks again to all!

On the charge against deconstruction of being relativistic and each individual determining their own truth, I’m a bit confused. I’m not sure exactly where, but I’ve heard John Caputo talk at length about how deconstruction inherently involves an un-deconstructable, and Derria identified it as Justice. Justice, for Derrida (explained by Caputo), is more or less guided by this un-deconstructable principle, and without it deconstruction would be impotent. I could be mis-remembering or misunderstanding, but one of my professors also mentioned something like this. It seems that Derrida was far (OK maybe not THAT far)from a relativistic thinker.

Bo,

Thanks for the comments.  I wrote a reivew of Jack’s book on WWJD.  You might be interested in it:

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/10299/Default.aspx

I agree that Derrida didn’t want to be extremely relativistic.  That’s one reason he wrote passionately about the importance of hospitality near the end of his life. 

My argument is that there are no grounds or bases in Derrida’s deconstructive philosophy to support his desire to promote hospitality.

Thanks again for posting!

Tom

While I recognize the futility of absolute relativism, I see an important distinction between “everything is right” and “everyone creates their own reality”.  The latter statement, representative of Kantian perspectivism, seems both logical and accurate.  Everyone has a unique set of circumstances and, therefore, is bound to see the world in a slightly different way.  This does not mean that whatever a person believes accurately represents reality.  Some beliefs are clearly more accurate than others - as demonstrated by contextual criticism. 

In sum, I don’t believe that deconstructive post-modernism tries to point as much towards relativism as it does towards perspectivism.

Dr. Oord,

I would agree that deconstructive postmodernism ough not be a primary source of inspiration.  Language’s flaws do not negate language’s ability to communicate meaning.  Despite how witty Derrida and other deconstructionists appear when they pull the rug out from beneath everyone (including themselves) they still invest meaning in what they intend to say.  Deconstrucion can only stand as a check on the power of language or logic; it cannot refute clear speaking.

I thinke G.E. Moore was right in his skepticism of skepticism.  I am safe in assuming that Derrida dithered with clear speaking once or twice - the burden of proof then is on those who insist that they do not have to be methodologically rigourous in their interpretation of the world.  There are no deconstructionists in foxholes; and if we are serious about our beliefs we should apply the language we have in an attempt to be truthful.  That of course does not mean we ignore flaws in language; it means we don’t exploit them to make nonsensical claims.  I can’t lambaste ethics and theology for being entirly fanciful, but simply because they are so prone to fancy they should be epistemically compatibile with other fields of knowledge, rather than treat uncertainty as liscence to believe as one wishes and hold that uncertainty as permanent.

deconstruction essentially says that there is no language…only makeshift conventions. no education…only pitchers filling other pitchers which in turn fill other pitchers ad infinitum. and also that there is no truth…only truths which could be a million and one in number and take an infinity of forms and de-signs. life itself is but the veil of illusion - maya - and hence a big fat lie (although i must say a precious resource nevertheless due to its transiency). literature itself as the litter of human nature. the garbage and refuse of human minds in processed consumable sausage form.

I really like what you have said in this posting. I think everyone should take the “yes, but” stand. This gives a new light to what we believe and how we should live our lives.

I agree that deconstruction has some things to offer. It provides for us a humility in which to have real dialog about important issues. Issues that before postmodernism were not on the table for discussion.
It does, as you say, only provide a negative view. We have yet to see what postmodernism will ultimately propose as an alternative to modernism. We only know what it does not like about modernism.
But what an exciting time to live! We can have an impact on how a new age is formed. May God lead us on this all-important mission!

Hi Tom,
Thanks for detailing the deconstruction idea in terms that I can understand.  I know that language is a form of interpretation and our human language can never describe God.  I think your exampling of this concept using the word “cool” fit into this conversation quite well.  An African American female was bitterly angry after I told her “whatever” in a conversation I had with her in Iraq.  Apparently, “whatever” is a word only used to start an argument in her culture.  Language and the use of words to redefine (or undefined!) theology is a poor argument.  For one, there is no alternative to the use of language in theology.  From the readings on this subject, I feel that deconstruction is an attempt to prove theology has flaws or inconsistencies without confronting the actual context of theology.  Deconstruction circumvents determining the truth of theology by simply saying, “We can’t figure it out anyway and our language doesn’t work.”  If God is God than why cannot he form his creation with the ability to talk about him?

Of the four main streams of Postmodern thought, deconstruction is the most circular to me. It has its valid points, like the others, but in the end, there is no “finish line.” It just feeds back into itself, which seems appropriate being that it’s foundations are in a well-known, well-read, and widely respected philosopher. What type of philosopher worth their salt proposes a theory that doesn’t end in an answer?

I’m finding more and more enjoyment in a good polarizing issue/thought. It helps me to crystalize my own theology by coming to grips with its errors.

I do not like “negative” anything.  As you stated, “deconstruction postmodernism is inherently negative.”  I feel as if with being negative and the circles the deconstructionist makes of words, there are very few things to take from this viewpoint, that help my spiritual formation.  I cannot believe the deconstructionist can really grasp what they believe. I appreciate you taking the time to list the pros and the cons of this stream of postmodernism. I understand it a lot better.

This article helped to put words to some of my frustrations I’ve felt this past week as we explored deconstruction.  While I agree words are limiting, they are the key tools used for communication.  You raised a great question, if we can’t trust language to be true, how can we “trust the language used by deconstructive postmodernists to tout their view?”

I appreciate that deconstruction encourages openness and fights against bringing closure to assumptions.  Discussion is helpful…even if we are using words that can’t be trusted.  But were does it end?  God is beyond my limited range of understanding but I do hope that I can be moving in the direction of a better understanding.  It seems deconstruction is against one ever establishing any type of foot hold or hand grip as we climb in an attempt to be near the “wholly other.”

Postmodern Deconstruction offers us some tools that are valuable to gain a better understanding of Christianity within the context of contemporary culture.  But these tools as with any come with a warning.  If we use them in manners that are reckless or as the primary mode of operation we are remiss. 

The negative aspects of this in terms of theology give me reason to pause.  If the negative theological component is used as a fundamental basis for our understanding of God it leaves us wanting.  However it also reminds us that in spite of our honorable attempt we are woefully inadequate in out descriptions of God and for that matter the depth and breadth of Gods Love.  To remain here and accept this as our fate misses the point.  We should then try to better reflect the love of God in our actions relationships and of equal importance in the words we speak.

As for any model we should be suspect as to the motives and the methods reflecting them against the scriptures, tradition, experience and reason.  While this may seem to fly in the face of some who claim the moniker of postmodern balance is necessary.  Deconstructionism left to its own devices is dangerous in that it can leave the linguistic landscape barren and devoid of meaning, it should always be exercised with rebuilding and with a generous heart.

Tom I would agree with this post.  I think it’s very healthy to ask questions.  I do not think we should be afraid of what might be behind what we know. I also think that we should be willing to have fresh views and change what does not line up with the original intent of Jesus. The value of deconstruction is that it holds human traditions and systems accountable.  However at some point and with some things there needs to be a spirit of trust.  The world is becoming more and more skeptical of everything, and in many cases rightfully so because trust has been broken.  The problem is relationships are built on trust.  In order to be the “Christian community” that we discussed last week while looking at narrative theology, we have to trust other people. We believe that God speaks through other people into our lives. Deconstructionist can be so bent on proving everyone and everything wrong that it can cause major rifts in the community and destroy trust.

One of the most important statements from your post is the comment that deconstruction needs to be followed by reconstruction.  The good of deconstructive postmodernism is wasted if it is an end in itself.  Negativity, bitterness, hostility, and resentment can set in leaving nothing constructive in its path.  It is much easier to be critical of something that is already established - to dismantle and find the holes in its structure and reasoning.  Reconstruction is challenging in the wake of deconstruction because it does not start from scratch.  Instead, it calls for creative thinking to takes the remaining pieces and bring forth a new and better result.  Perhaps this is why we most often see deconstruction without reconstruction.

Thanks for your concise picture of the pros and cons of deconstruction.  I have found that the logic of deconstruction does not make sense.  By saying that God can not be known, a deconstructionist is saying that God can not make God’s self known thereby placing limits on God (the very thing a deconstructionist is trying not to do).  I do affirm, however, the need to continue to grow and the challenge to our notions of who/what God is.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of deconstructionism is the emphasis on humility.  Theology and Christian action have long been plagued by cultured arrogance that assumes that “my” way is the best way.  Deconstructionism forces us to acknowledge that we know less than we think we do.

Beyond that, I find myself wondering whether or not deconstructionism and its approach to language is helpful at all.  If we say that our language refers to no concrete reality beyond itself, does that not render concrete reality irrelevant?  Further, would language itself not then take the place of and, in essence, become the very concrete reality it denies?

jB

My favorite aspect of deconstructionism is that it shows us the inadequacy of the words we use when we try to describe or explain God.
I am what my children call a “word nerd”. I love words. I love language. I love them for precisely the reason that deconstructionists say they cannot be trusted - because there are so many variations and nuances! You say, “green” and I say “chartreuse”. Same thing? Maybe/maybe not. But that is the beauty AND the curse of language.
I’m not a big fan of most of deconstructionism (the pictures on this post accurately represent the way I felt when reading Caputo/Derrida). I don’t like the circular negative approach as it leaves me feeling a little depressed and a lot removed from God. I think, though, that I am grateful for those things about deconstructionism that deny us complacency and status quo in our theology.

I have generally been very positive about deconstructionism. I appreciate how you bring to light the difficulties that arise in this system. This insight helps me to better step into the torrents of postmodernism with some sort of clarity.

  I do agree that deconstructionism has a voice to speak into theology. I appreciate the flexible nature of deconstructionism. Though I believe some things in theology must remain solid - there are other things that simply don’t need to take the focus of Christian theologians like they have in the past.

  Thank you for your thought provoking post. I truly do appreciate being able to see this topic in more clarity. It would be a helpful thing for any theologian to study as the waters of modernism shift into postmodernism.

I think you have made many great points Tom. There is much of deconstruction and post-modernism that needs to be questioned and not just swallowed. These ideas do bring about the conversations that force us to discuss the relativity of such in our Christian lives.
I think I am a big fan of deconstruction and the post-modern thought, because it does challenge me to say “is this true, and if so how?” Every time I am stretched in this way, my paradigms shift, and I am a better Christian because of it.
This conversation invigorates, frustrates, and shakes many of our comfortable notions. Without such shaking, we are just Christian people participating in some stagnate and shallow faith.

Something touched on as a criticism of deconstructionist postmodernism in the blog was the self-refuting nature of this theology.  I have often, as we’ve studied through the Caputo material this week, been astonished at the disconnect between the author’s elevated language and his attempt to argue for the inherent relativity and general uselessness of language to communicate anything true or real.  Language is truly limited, and we must realize its limits.  It’s why writers search for images, metaphors, experiences, and analogies in their writing - because words can’t capture it all.  However, language is all we have.  It is of great value for those seeking truth.

The thing that really bothers me about deconstructionism, which is also running rampant in many arenas of our society, is the lack of care and responsibility deconstructionist theologians seem to have for putting a meaningful theology back together once they’ve deconstructed traditional paradigms.

They provide no place to live or do anything meaningful with their theology.  Dismantling the fallacies of theology is an important responsibility in the discipline of theology.  But inherent to this responsibility is the reconstruction of a meaningful, useful, corrective theology that empowers people to live life with dignity and purpose.  Derrida and others are to be credited with the first part of the theological responsibility.  However, they are to be indicted for falling short on the second part.

I am glad to hear you mention that Christian theologies can be preoccupied with uniformity. Affirming differences seems to be paradoxical,  because, after all, if the presumption is that there is only one right and one wrong, someone is wrong where there are differences.

It is so hard to move out of a modern mindset that there can only be “right” and “wrong.” But I am glad to be alive at a time when there seems to be a glimmer of hope that we are going to be able to move past this and come to a place of love and acceptance of diversity in Christian theology. It does take humility, though, doesn’t it?

I am very glad to read your thoughts on deconstructionism.  I have been frustrated at times with the continuous circles that could go forever.  While I do think that a limited deconstructionism can offer a healthy questioning of things that before might have seem established or given, I also must ask, when would deconstructionism ever be finished?  Is there a point when a deconstructionist could be satisfied?  Asking the tough questions is good, but I agree that it should not serve as the primary framework for contemporary theology.

I appreciated what you wrote about how deconstructive postmodernism reminds us that we do not have the market cornered on truth.  I believe there are so many Christians including myself at times, that think their theology is superior to others around them.  In denominational debates, I have sometimes torn down other denominational beliefs as stupid because I think that what I believe is best.  It is important to learn humility from deconstructionism because we do not have all the answers.  God is a mystery and we are never fully going to understand everything about Him.

Deconstruction and the postmodern way of thinking are good for some things and may go too far in other ways.  One area I like about deconstruction is it can make a person think and stretch their current ways of understanding.  If we never asked questions or thought about something in a different light we would stay stagnant in our understanding of God even if it is just reinforcing what we already believe or totally changing it.  On the flip side I believe deconstruction can distort certain truths if we are not careful.  In other words it can go too far.

Is it possible that deconstruction is a part of good theology?  I understand that if it becomes an end unto itself, it can be very damaging. 

Bruce Lee said that when he first started martial arts, a kick was just a kick and a punch was just a punch.  He then learned all of the martial arts; the terms, the different philosophies, and all of the techniques.  As he grew from there, he said that a kick became just a kick and a punch, just a punch all over again.  He said, “It is the half cultivation that leads to ornamentation.”

What if stop at deconstruction?  It seems like a half cultivation.  But what if deconstruction was just a part of the process.  We are just passing through.  Theology might lose its fancy language and talking about God and with God might just be that again.

On one hand, I can side with destruction because it removes personal bias and selfish ideas that are often attributed to God. We live in an age where pastors, theologians, and teachers have manipulated and characterized God according to their own agendas. If deconstruction is accurate in its proposals, the capability of misrepresenting God is removed.

However, I am deeply troubled by a ideology of complete relativism. I’m not sure how Christian theology and absolute relativity can coexist. There are universal beliefs about God (I believe these to be the truths represented in the creeds), that define what it means to be Christian. According to church history and the universal church, these beliefs are not relative.

I agree with your post. I believe deconstruction help us to realize we don’t have the ultimate word or the ultimate truth, but at the same time if we just stay there we would be like in the limbo, in a transitional stage. Scriptures reveals us some attributes of God that he wanted us to know. I believe those attributes are enough for us to love him and follow him.

It is true that as a postmodern theology “Deconstructionism” has brought some new candlelight to the theological table.  Yet as powerful it is… as it does Deconstruction theology brings about it’s own demise as brightly as a flying moth carrying it’s own lit candle. 

There is an unfortunate side effect of “Deconstructionism”:  If some benefits survive it’s own vitriol regardless of what may be perceived positive, it seems much time is wasted more on the hammering of the theological and philosophical anvil instead of producing sharper theological swords with a sharpened sense of spiritual formation would benefit us…

Tom,
This is a very helpful post to show both the pros and cons of deconstructive.  I’m actually in the middle of our weekend faith journey trip with 45 of my students in St. Louis.  today we went to the Cathedral Bascilica, a Hindu Temple, and a Jewish Synogogue.  There is such a resounding theme of “tolerance” and a “we wouldn’t want to tell you what to believe” mentaility.
You said in your post that deconstructration “Levels the playing field…affirms difference and diversity, rather than trying to make genuine differences appear the same.”  It is becoming even more true that Christian theologies have often been very preoccupied with uniformity, acceptance, pluralism.
And yet we have a unique theology.  A real Theology.

This blog has helped me tie up a few loose ends that I had in my mind. I also have to say I agree that we can not just deconstruct our theology we also need to reconstruct it. I also agree that words can have many different meanings and in time those meanings change. It is very important to understand the time of the writing as well as the time of the translation. I have really enjoyed this time of learning about deconstruction theology.

Deconstruction seems to be a very relative concept, and I do not have a problem with that for the most part, yet there needs to be a baseline somewhere or a core set of truths to build from.  That to me is what is missing from deconstructive theology.  For me the core truths are found in the Bible and while we of course do not know everything we can know from the Scriptures it still provides a point from which we can leap to understand truth.

This blog post was really well written and it helped me nail down some of the major points of deconstructionism that was still fuzzy after reading Caputa’s writings on Derrida.  It was difficult reading.  I don’t think Caputa would do well in your class because his writing skills need some work.
In your post you mentioned two of my biggest objections to deconstructionism. 
1.    Radical relativism- When individuals begin believing that truth is relative to interpretation the moral compass of our faith is cast into the sea.  This not only affects morality but also unity in the church. 
2.  Deconstructionism is self-refuting- Deconstructionism argues that language can’t be trusted yet it uses language to make its argument.  I compare it to Al Gore flying all over the world in his private jet given lectures about global warming.  It simply doesn’t have any credibility.

OK - Deconstructive Postmodernism as described in this reading is as follows…

Inherent inconsistencies in the language.
The language cannot be nailed down.
There is no foundational, or fixed interpretation available.
It has its share of opposition.
And, it is vulnerable to the charge of being self refuting, contradictory.

My thoughts on these statements -
A kingdom, or in this case, method of thinking, divided among itself cannot stand.
I am one of its opposition as I think and understand truth.
It does not seem to need any opponents - it seems to be sufficient as its own opposition.  Because of the way that Deconstruction and negative theology seems to be so difficult to understand and at the same time is self destructive in its very nature, I have rendered it as useless to me in real practical Christian ministry.

Dr. Oord I want to thank you for your closing thoughts, “Contemporary Christians should take a “yes, but” approach to this postmodern tradition. Yes, deconstructive postmodern can teach us something. But it doesn’t provide a framework for addressing well the call that Christians hear from their Creator.”

It is the call from the Creator that makes Christianity what it is.  It is the call of the “Creator” that helps us discern with godly wisdom the postmodern teachings that seem to be so prevalent in our society today.  The study of deconstructive postmodernism is valuable so that Christians can have a better understanding of where postmodernists might be coming from.  This study allows me and others to gain a grander Biblical world view.  This much is certain, there is a paradigm shift happening before our very eyes.  Early in this blog, Thomas Kuhn, has described a paradigm shift this way, “A shift occurs when people question and then change core assumptions about reality.”  Deconstructive postmodernism is aiding in this paradigm shift.  Christians are called upon to help those caught in the flow of this paradigm shift to hear the hope and truth of God.

Your last paragraph states my stance on deconstruction. It causes us to understand the fact that we can never fully understand God. Though without any form of description how can we discuss and relate to God? Deconstruction seems to have no community aspect. We do not need to connect and grow together in God, for we are all at a loss for how to describe or relate to God. Deconstruction can teach us something, but I feel it is not to be take as a whole.

Tom,
I appreciate your thoughts concerning the language we employ. “If language cannot be trusted…. we should also not trust the language being used by deconstructive postmodernists to tout their view.” If we can’t trust the language we utilize, then what can we trust? While I value many of the ideas that are offered within the confines of deconstructionism, I still struggle with the paradox of razing biblical language in an effort to augment one’s spiritual growth.
Language will never be a closed sum or entirety contained within that which has been exhausted. It will always be open to the dynamics of something other than itself. The encounters that we have regarding our language reveal something of its essence or character that resists the deconstructionist’s microscope. Language is not a tangible article; it is a mediation that allows us to express ourselves along with the entities that surround us. The trust that we embrace within our discourse augments our communal bonding with one another by overcoming the closure of the unknown. The challenge for any of us, as we dialogue, is to establish meaning by discovering the link or dualism that exists between what is affirmative and the language which has been ruptured. As we begin to explore these dualisms, new and vibrant convictions begin to emerge. These strengths and beliefs are launched from the soul’s living and holding onto that which is concealed and eternal; a hold that is enticed by the insights which arrive from a higher wisdom which allows spiritual formation to flourish.
Thanks Tom!

Deconstructive postmodernism spends most of it’s time in dualities and philosophy.  The postmodern speak through a language that is known and both the transmitter and receiver understand its context.  When thinking of the multiplicity of words and their meanings, most individuals converse with those who have a likened understanding of phraseology and slangs.  It’s not so hard to find a moderate understanding of what a word is “supposed” to mean.  Deconstructive postmodernism seems to vacate that fact and suggest that no word could ever be totally understood and not have an abstract meaning as well.  “Good” is good because it is not great therefore good is finitely understood to be good.

Tom,
  Like many other who have posted on your blog, I appreciate the insight and clarification about this movement.  Your points bring to light the “more than words can say” element of deconstructive theology.  Like you, I think that there are “goods and bads”. 
    As a contemplative, I can appreciate the deconstructionist view that God exists outside of our ability to capture God’s essence, character or existence with mere words. But, at the same time, we need to be able to talk about God in some fashion without tripping over criticism of jargon.  We can dispute, reflect and pontificate about God until we finally meet face to face, but, until then, we, as you included, are called to interact with God and with each other in God’s name. 
  I can absorb the abstractness and philosophical questions of deconstructionism and can appreciate its flurry to help us to gain a different perspective. At the same time, and no matter how “inward” and personal my journey is with God, I must remain cognizant that God provided many answers, many absolutes in the example of Jesus.  If we buy into the “from my perspective/situation” rules of religion, then I’m not certain we even need a God, judgement, salvation or redemption.  We would just need us as our own personal barometers of holiness.
Thank you for the clarification,
Colby

Tom,
Deconstruction does have wonderful attributes and causes us to ask the tough questions about our choice of words, our use of language, our attitude of superiority, just a lot of questions come when you begin to understand that there is always something more than what is being said.  I believe you are right. When we deconstruct something we must reconstruct.  Isn’t that similar to the idea of restoration? We don’t tear something down to leave it down but to instead resurrect it with better strength, power, meaning, etc.
Sharon

When I initially became a Christian (as an adult) one of the first things I struggled with was the idea that language was an inadequate tool for expressing God.  It is a useful tool, certainly—Holy Scripture consists of written language.  However, the best it can ever do is to point in the direction of truth, and as far as I am concerned, can never fully express it objectively.  We cannot simply analyze the Bible (the rendering of the experience of God) and say, “there is God.”  We have to experience God personally and directly ourselves.  So, I am somewhat sympathetic to deconstructionism in regard to language.  However, I share the same concerns Dr. Oord wrote of and many of those who left comments echoed.

Thanks.

“Christian theologies have often been preoccupied with uniformity.”

In reading and reflecting on deconstructive theology, I have focused much on the idea of uniformity.  My religious heritage is broad.  Over the past 35 years, I have worshipped and served in the following faith groups:

(1) Roman Catholic;
(2) Southern Baptist;
(3) Assemblies of God;
(4) Military Chapels (Ecumenical);
(5) Church of the Nazarene;
(6) Episcoplian;
(7) Lutheran;
(8) African Methodist Episcopal;
(9) Church of God (Anderson);
(10) Church of God in Christ;
(11) Disciples of Christ;
(12) Presbyterian.

I have worshipped and served in the United States, in Europe, and in Asia.  In all my travels through all these years, I have observed unity and uniformity.  I am most struck by the “westernization” of our brothers and sisters in Asia.  It saddens me.

Why do western Christians find it necessary to modify the culture of those whom they are evangelizing?  Yes, all people of all races must come to an understanding and belief in the basic tenets of the Christian faith: the diety of Jesus, the atonement, the resurrection.  I see no scriptural requirement, however, that one must conform to a certain culture in order to be saved.

One huge thing I have learned from my study of deconstructive theology is we don’t have to be cookie- cutter Christians.  We don’t have to think the same or act the same in order to find acceptance in the Kingdom of God.