The Will to Action: Deconstruction and Reconstruction in Church
Why is the Emerging Church drawn to de-constructive theology?
I am at the early stages of my Ph.D research and my thoughts are those of the theological/philosophical neophyte, trying to see the ‘wood for the trees’, so please excuse my crude conclusion and suggestions. I’ll approach this topic from two perspectives, in terms of ‘best’ and ‘worst’.
If deconstructive theology teaches us anything it’s that our new theologies, and concomitant ecclesiologies will embody some wonderful new things, as well as drifting into some dire productions (which in any event locates the emerging church in the continuing nature of the historical church).
‘At it’s Best’
De-constructive theology enables us to be open to the ‘other’, and to take a position of epistemic humility. Whilst deconstructive philosophy has enabled us to unmask the a priori commitments of the church to modernity, theologians like John Milbank (in a non nihilistic and non Heideggerian/Nietzschean way) have so ably shown and unmasked the a priori commitments of secularism to liberal protestant ideals.
Christians are called to search for others not like us, not in aggression (as that destroys our openness and theirs to us) but so that we might hear and assess ourselves in light of others and they may in turn learn from us. This is so unlike pluralism, where consensus is the goal, or as in exclusivism with the crushing of the other into submission.
Within all this openness to the other, and epistemic humility, many of us have been discovering that the church is not the embodiment of truth (as Jesus is the truth and not a possession) but that it is the unique place that embodies the seeking of truth, of Jesus, by the Spirit.
Alongside Lyotard’s diagnosis of suspicion towards meta-narratives, we realise there has never been a pure Christian meta-narrative, Christians have always borrowed from the culture around them and constructed a meta-narrative from the things at hand, the knowing of Jesus in the particular (at least that is my conviction). Yet it is this claim which highlights a problem of deconstruction.
At it’s worst
Deconstruction has a major flaw, inherent in it’s makeup. Whilst Christians confess the particular of following the historical Jesus within changing historical contexts/horizons and traditions, the post-modern philosophers, or maybe more specifically within the neo-Nietzschean of deconstructive hermeneutics, there is little to no possibility that anyone can make any truth claims as a person, institution and organisation.
In the process of deconstruction debate often ends (and the need for ongoing discussion) once the false construction of what we are examining is revealed.There is no ‘will to act; at all, with a ‘surface consumption’ of what we have deconstructed, that Baudrillard mapped out so ably in his writing. (I posted some thoughts on this here)
The deconstructive view seems to have no room for conflict and debate between claims. Yet whilst using their tools, it’s discourse can help theologians remember that we cannot rely too heavily on our systems of thought. With an awareness that our theological constructions are inherent with sin, maybe deconstruction enables us to tread with caution with our assertions.
But the power of sin is not just in the systems that are deconstructed but in the people who try to deconstruct!Deconstructive theology can help us see the ‘other’, but is often so sceptical that it ends up having no responsibility to act to others, and can appear at best as the playful behaviours of the indulgent middle class, or something far more sinister at worst.
The deconstructive theology can become more about the ’subject’ showing off their skills at subversion of the ‘object’, and their right to do so, than any desire to close of discussion and take action, as agents of the Kingdom for the mission of Jesus.
There is a responsibility to deconstruct, of openness to the other, but also of closing off, to be able to act. Whilst the emerging church finds an openness to the other, and humility in it’s beliefs, it must also learn the process of ‘closing off’, of moving from abstraction to the concrete, of the nature of action from within this new deconstructive freedom it has found.
And in trying to find a way to do that we might turn to some French philosophers, from the meaningful agency of Bourdieu with his notion of ‘tatics’ (compared to the nihilism of Baudrillard), and the strengthening of this agency through the actions of ‘bricolage’ outlined by de Certeau, but that’s a topic for another post.
6 comments
8.40 am on 7.5.2007
[…] Culture blog. I’ve posted the text below, but comments are closed here, but open at the Deep Church blog here. […]
4.06 pm on 7.6.2007
I think you have hit on something very important here, Jason. Deconstructionism has allowed us to stand back from our own truth claims and re-evaluate them outside of our modernist grid. In humility we are confronted with the reality that we always have some grid–modern, postmodern, whatever–through which we view reality. But the arrogant certainty of the modernist project is to be justly criticized.
In that humility we can see our fellow humans as “others” made in the image of God. We can seek to move from forcing our truth claims upon others and, instead, be willing to look and listen for what God is already doing in their lives.
But we can also buy into the suspicion of metanarratives and end up believing that our story of faith is just another story that has seen its day. While we may need an overhaul of the frame within which we paint the picture of faith, we may do damage to our call as God’s people if we do not live and proclaim a better story, a life-giving economy, an alternative reality that we would identify as the kingdom of God.
It might be true that we live in a broad western culture that has become numbed to our revivalist models of evangelism. But it is not true that there is no large story within to live. We might need to deconstruct our certainties, but perhaps we can learn to reconstruct them in the context of demonstrating the life we claim has come to us in Jesus.
10.38 am on 7.12.2007
Indeed Mike! And we need to recover a confidence in the Gospel, and it’s power and meaning for the whole world, and ways of proclaiming and inviting people to the story.
Got any ideas how we do that? :-)
1.14 pm on 7.10.2007
I too struggle with the post-modern will to argue for it’s own sake, just to win, rather than to come to solid conclusions/changes. The problem is one it seems of most philosophical thought (and it drives me mad), be it with the inclusion of Christianity or not. But again, it’s easier to win an argument, than come to any conclusions that will cause me to change anything about me.
10.39 am on 7.12.2007
There is a loss of confidence to act, and we must recover a willingness and ability to follow through on our reflection with actions.
8.05 am on 7.20.2007
Hi Jason and Mike…(its Dave from Zimbabwe)
After using my dictionary for the second time in my life to actually figure out what you were saying…or more like I think I know what you are saying. :) I feel that the problem with the whole categories and boxes the world, particularily the western world, has put God into is that He no longer looks like God. Th simlicity of the gospel has been lost to a soulish, intellectual assent. We no longer discern by the Spirit but by our own world view and knowledge. The is no inner witness but rather a mental witness.
The result is we are thrown by every wind of teaching.
The truth is is that we are saved into the Kingdom and we are called to bring the ‘reality’ of the kingdom to the world…
1 Cor 4:20
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.
When we get out of our books (and I do enjoy reading and study of the Word) and our churches (class rooms) and walk in the simplicity of Christ, the rest will fall into place.
What am I saying? Well we are so busy trying to analyse and work out ‘the new church’ when we haven’t even begun to walk in the basics. We need to go more to the morgue and say to bodies ‘get up and walk,’ than sit in lounges and pray lengthy meaningless prayer.
Rollan & Heidi Baker in Mozambique have planter thousands of churches…how? The walk into a village, they know nothing of Christ or the Word. She calls for all the deaf…when they come she makes a statement…’today all your deaf will be healed.’ She then prays and they are all healed. Instant church.
That is the difference between 2 churches in five years and 2500+ churches in two years.
Excuse any shortness or abruptness in my post. I am not a literary genius or eloquent on the keys by any stretch…:)
Alas, comments are now closed.