The Problem with Words: Deconstruction

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 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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Your point that deconstruction is “not interested in replacing an old system with a better one and ….not interested in constructing a more adequate worldview” is helpful.

It can be a healthy thing to strip away facades in order to reveal the “bare-bones” and it is a mature thing to test all things through the filters of “Scripture, Christian tradition, reason, sciences, and a variety of experiences”.

Instead of nothingness, and disillusion, ours is a call to speak positively in a world view representative of the gospel of love and grace.

A christian worldview, what ever that means, in the context, culture and perspective in which it is offered, is still a valid part of the difference and diversity upheld.

I wish I read this essay earlier in the week.  I find the topic of language very interesting and find Dr. Oord’s explanation of the limitations of language play in well to the value of deconstruction theology.  I am not in any lines to jump on the deconstruction bandwagon, but I think it is very useful to learn more about God, and if we need to learn how we limit Him and what we do not know about God to help our growth, then so be it.  What struck me the most in this essay was that we need to say, “yes, but…”  I think this can be true for many things, and especially true with our spiritual formation.  Do we want to find conclusions and never grow? I don’t suspect so.  We want to move beyond the ambiguity of words and our understanding of words (even “God”) truly engage in spiritual formation

I can see where deconstructionism can offer us thoughts on how to frame Christianity by not sounding rigid and militant in the faith.  The worry that I have is that a long as we teach people to question God, we can be stuck in the questions and feel inadequate in our faith.  Inadequacy with who God is is not something I feel that is God’s purpose in this world.  I don’t feel inadequate with with my.  Why?  Because I know who she is.  I know her nature and her desire to be my wife.  God’s word shows us that God desires to be in relationship with us.  Questioning God constantly never opens a relationship for us.  It keeps us at a distance.  Deconstruction keeps us at a distance from God.  This, in essence, is not worthy of being accepted in Christian theology.

The week’s plunge into deconstructive theology has been enlightening. I appreciate the challenge it brings to our study of God; to not rest on assumptions and tired descriptors that have lost their meaning and their impact in the ongoing conversation about God. It is a healthy reminder that there is no final word to be had in humanity’s understanding of God and of God’s interaction with humanity.

I have reached one conclusion this week. God gifted humanity with language, to be able to give expression. As inadequate as it may be, as short as it may fall, as with all gifts I believe God expects that we use it to bring God glory and honor and that we use it to draw people into relationship with him. One of the ways that wecontinue to honor God is to be dissatisfied with being satisfied, to continue to dive deeper.

Enjoyed reading this blog.  I feel that, as a Christian, we should gain our view of God from the context we live in and scripture.  I believe that a deconstructionist theology alone would leave us with a whole lot to explain.  Although I do not deny the fact that the deconstructionist theology needs to be left out, I believe that it should be understood correctly and applied as an additional piece of our thought process.  Like you stated at the end of your blog, we should take a “yes, but”  approach.  I think that, as we address contextual issues of the reader, we must not neglect what scripture is saying.  In fact we should start with scripture and then address the contextual battles that exists.  Our context may change but scripture does not.  Yes there are differences in each one of us, but none of those have the right to over take the call of God through scripture.  The distance from us to God seems further when we apply more barriers that are unnecessary.  I understand deconstructionism as one of those barriers.  Helpful in function, but really detrimental if we let it stand in our way of fully knowing God.

I appreciate deconstruction for its power to remind us that we do not know everything and to appreciate differences and different points of view.

However, I find that it definitely goes too far in asserting that we can say nothing constructive about God.  The fact that it only tells us we need to deconstruct and allows for no reconstruction is far beyond what I find useful and helpful to Christian life and spiritual formation.

We need to remember that not all our opinions are correct and as such we should listen and hear other points of view.  We grow by doing so.  How do we grow by throwing everything out the window and saying we can know nothing so we should not say anything?

Deconstructive postmodernism’s most positive influence is in bringing humility back into theology and ultimately the church.  It is much like the sifting process where the chaff is separated from the wheat.  It causes us to question what walls and barriers have been built up that subdues or excludes.  What words do we use that have lost their meaning or cause more harm than good?  It causes us to choose carefully the words we use and how we convey the truth we believe.

Deconstruction causes us to look for our foundation even though it decries the ability to have one.  Ultimately like anything that breaks down or deconstructs if taken too far it becomes destructive and so we must take what is good from this theology and use it in moderation else we lose what is beautiful and useful about our faith.

“God is bigger than our language.” I think it is difficult to adequately describe God. We as humans, finite beings, try to do so in order to find meaning and understanding. There is danger in this as often we place boundaries on God where God does not have boundaries. Language does not allow us to fully explain God. It is faulty in that words are limited or have multiple meanings.

Deconstruction causes one to think outside of the box, outside of the expected and known. It aims at finding meaning and purpose, but I think it goes astray in its arguments and findings. Deconstruction’s God becomes a different one than the God of the Bible.

As a Christian born under this shift toward more postmodern resources for our spiritual development, I find deconstruction incredibly freeing. It motivates me to pull out various stones from the foundation of my faith and to examine them one by one, asking myself, “Why is this here? Do I need it? Are we speaking about this tenet correctly?” The freedom to do so is the only way for a religious belief system to mature and grow.

My departure from deconstruction can be described in similar language. I love the freedom to pull stones out for examination, but I also need the freedom to put them back when necessary, while deconstruction would seem to encourage me to toss aside every stone I pull. Thanks for a great post and summary!

I see that Derrida tried to see that God cannot be explained; therefore, we can’t be downsized by our language. It seems as though it is taken offensively if we think that God can be described or be seen us to the limitation of humanity.

The beauty of this whole concept of deconstructive, negative theology, it brings to light the goodness of God. We are just humans with such limitations of words, knowledge, thinking, views, yet God decided to reveal a portion of himself through Jesus. We received a glimpse of who God is through the actions and the life of Christ. Even the people that lived during the times of Jesus said that there wouldn’t be enough libraries to fill up the ministry of Jesus. There are a lot of stories that we are missing about our Savior, but the little that we know it gives us enough drive to belief.

Even with our limitations, God selected humanity to reveal himself at the tabernacle, holy of holies, burning bush, furnace, etc. All those accounts were like mysterious miracle that with our minds we provide a limited description of God’s might.

Yes, deconstructive may signal our limitation, “but it doesn’t provide a framework for addressing well the call that Christians hear from their Creator.”

You made a couple of points that I think really fit well together.  You mentioned “deconstructive postmodernism implies that each individual determines truth entirely for him or herself”.  Later, you mention that after deconstruction takes place, there needs to be a time of reconstruction hat draws from various sources.
  I agree with your process, but there is one point that I have been wondering about.  If I deconstruct everything and then reconstruct a new worldview based on various sources, how do I deal with subjectivity?  How do I know that what I reconstruct is truth, and not just a new framework to justify the biases I had before I began to deconstruct?  I think that community would be an important factor here, but is that something that many postmodern thinkers can lean on?

deconstruction is more or less a trap. just like most books you find in the lie-briar-ies of the world, it is a fake concept that while being very attractive and glittery proves to be no-thing but smoke and mirrors in the end. i would rather have the hearth and home environment of past times no matter how traditional or conventional to the unnatural deconstructions of to-day. they reek of false values and don’t do anything to help. like the novels of hemingway (you get nothing out of them) deconstruction is an empty vessel that unfortunately remains empty. while it has some use in worldly matters that is all. in more serious matters art and science and religion rule. they are the reason behind the continual functioning of the global scene. also the family and females are the ruling spirits of our homes. when you place doubts and contradictions in their midst you are just asking for it. without a proper environment conducive to healthy human development people will end up as psychopaths and incomplete human beings. and for that they need not only the mother and father but an extended family. religion always wants you to be a good person who follows what is true and just. but when the practitioners of religion start questioning everything they end up by killing the spirit of the word. they should re-member that we ought to question the questions as well.

In our struggle to find God I wonder if we make it way too difficult. It seems that it would be much easier to look right in front of us. When we neglect to give proper time to the man called Jesus we will not be able to find the true identity of God.
I am not clear though how we are to respond to those who do believe that they need to find Jesus before they meet God. How many times have we all walked right by Jesus and not found God because we looked right past him?

The deconstructionist position is a difficult position to take, for the very reasons that you state. If you have a position of deconstruction, how can you know what the meaning of deconstructionism, because the definition of that word is fleeting, fluid and undefinable. According to it’s own ‘rules of engagement,’ that which can be stated cannot be trusted to provide any consistent meaning to different people. And reading about deconstruction in the patterns of circular negative theological thought make it hard to discern the original thoughts and premise of this way of thinking.

It is very appealing to see the value of deconstruction. I love honest and unreserved inquiry. Especially about topics that have been left unexamined, the beauty of deconstructionism is that it pervasively searches across the spectrum of thought without reserve or favoritism. Everything becomes subject to questioning.

But the premise of deconstructionism backs us off of every cliff, leaving us no place on which to stand. As you wisely said, “we must say something constructive about God and the nature of reality” to have a meaningful theology. Undoubtedly and not surprisingly, the deconstructionist in the room would ask ‘Why?’

In all this deconstructive reading in which we’ve been invited to participate this week, a crowning remark remains at the forefront of my thinking and at the end of the day, I find myself content to live in the mystery—embracing these words as truth.“God is bigger than our language”
When this is not truth, it seems we find ourselves at a “throw in the towel” place in the journey that beckons us to give up the search.
I’m learning that I simply could not thrive for long in deconstruction mode.

Deconstruction theology plays an important role in modern theology.  Though I agree with Dr. Oord that deconstruction theology contains in it items I cannot agree with, like their view on language, I do enjoy the challenges deconstruction offers to modern theology.  One area in particular is how deconstruction theology challenges every believer in Christ that though they know some of who God is and whom they are in God through Christ, what we know is only partial.  Deconstruction theology points to the areas of what we do not know of God or self so that we continue to be humble in our wisdom and driven to continue to seek God.

I appreciate the value that deconstruction has provided to me, though I have not known the label before this week. I have long been one to ask questions and not simply accept “because” as an answer. 

I am inclined to agree with you and with other responses that deconstruction alone is not helpful, but it clears the way for new, reconstructive opportunities.  A return to more Eastern thought, with a sense of balance and duality of two forces might be more helpful and instructive when considering deconstruction as philosophy or theology.  Without its opposite, apophatic theology has no power bring spiritual growth or change to the Church.

As one who sits at the nexus between African and Western theology, It occurs to me that both traditions wear “glasses” through which they view reality. The role of culture as related to the construction of our theology is a topic that fascinates me. Are you aware, Tom, of any African theologians or thinkers who place as high a value on the role of deconstruction as some Westerners seem to do? I’m wondering if it is a function of an individualistic vs. a communal outlook on life. Could René Descartes have arisen just as easily in South Africa as in Europe?

Great post very helpful thank you

Our words can and do get taken out of context. A context is a scheme of relations that alters the way we understand things. I feel that people want to hear what they want. Taking people out of context is a typical trick of someone who is trying to defeat someone else. Many times have I heard from Non Christians and Christians the bible being taken out of context in order for it to suit their needs and wants. This is very selfish.

Secondly, God is bigger than we can ever imagine. God is bigger than our language. I am amazed at the thought that God spoke life into this world in just a few days and looking around at his creation is just truly breathtaking.

The image of language and deconstruction as webs without anchors is instructive, and is not sufficient as “a primary framework for contemporary Christian theologians.” Language and theology are, indeed, a web of interconnected meaning. If you begin at any one point within the web you are lead logically to others. Sans anchor you reach a point at which you are ensnared in the web or you conclude, at least in rhetoric, that there is no web at all.

To be adequate, the image of the web must contain anchors, as does the web of the spider in nature. Those anchors include the death, burial, and resurrection, the transcendence of God, and the immanence of God. The spider’s web is useless, and falls to the ground without anchors. So, too, is the web of theology and language.

I agree that deconstruction provides useful insights, and that those insights include the ones described in Dr. Oord’s article. Deconstruction teaches appreciation for diversity, brings a focus to social justice, and emphasizes the expansiveness and greatness of God. It also, however, leaves its proponent without anchors, subject to the whims of opinion, bias, and perhaps even less savory influences.

After a few days of struggling over Derrida’s and Caputo’s words and thoughts on deconstruction, this article feels like a drink of water on a desert experience. However, I am in favor of “desert experiences”, because it is through those that essential truths come to the surface and are questioned, and change is likely to occur.
The most beneficial insight that deconstruction brings to Christian theology and living is that language (including the one of Scripture) is ambiguous. Although one cannot avoid using words, and interpret their meaning in the different contexts, so that we are able to communicate and relate; it is important to be aware of their weakness in grasping reality in its fullness. The result is that one’s discourses cannot resemble any kind of fundamentalism, and the others’ discourses are received with respect. This is key for Christianity in two ways: one, to avoid relying upon assumed theological certainties based solely on language; and two, to live out, particularly as language affects attitudes, humility, as Dr. Oord rightly mentioned.
The emphasis on the “other”, specifically as it refers to God, is also very important. In an age where most Christians relate to God as their “pal”, it is important to keep the balance as one considers that God is beyond anything thought, said or done. Far beyond! That awareness should bring awe to the relationship, and to the worshipper.
As limitedness, differences, biases, and uncertainties are embraced, there is something beyond what one can explain in words or thoughts that holds reality together. That sustaining reality is presented in Scripture as God (Isa. 46:4, NIV), it is held by Christian tradition, it makes reasonable sense and it has been experienced by many. So, yes let us “talk coherently about God, love, and host of other important topics” but let us focus on how we can do it constructively. As a personal note, and paraphrasing the original I sing, “Though my mind is limited, though my words are too much and too little at the same time, though my thinking is deficient, though my efforts are useless, though my faith is weak…” “Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior.” (Hab. 3:17-18)

Like Raquel, I’ve been struggling with both Derrida and Caputo in defining their thoughts on deconstruction.  Derrida’s thoughts and words were bunched together so tight it was difficult to ascertain what he was saying in any way that developed understanding.  The use of Latin, French, or German phrasing wasn’t problematic. It was the turning of his words inside out and back onto themselves that I found beyond convolution.
  As with traverse from Modernism with its absolutes into Post-Modernism with its denial of absolutes with per Dr. Oord’s description: ‘The move entails fundamental changes in our core assumptions about existence.” Linguistic certainty versus linguistic inadequacy.
In providing “insights for contemporary Christian theologians” one such insight regarding Deconstructive Post-Modernism in relation to one’s truth and knowledge, each of us determine our own truth.  This is somewhat reminiscent of what I’ve experienced in Alcoholics Anonymous in defining our Higher Power.  Rather than having a vengeful, jealous, overreaching God one rejects and replaces with a Creator where love and trust is foundational. The knowledge that something magnificent and grand beyond us and our understanding is not diminished or dismissed. It is reinforced.
I would change the approach for contemporary Christians from ‘Yeah, but’ to ‘Yeah; however.’  I find ‘but’ a negator of what comes prior to ‘but.’  However provides a work-around that in itself is far less negative.

Why is it necessary to find a ‘theology’ with which we agree?

Dr. Oord,

The problem with conclusive meaning when using words to claim a particular truth is the fact that the meaning of words is often found within the culture the words are constructed. Given the evolving nature of cultures, language is not finite; however, has fixed elements.  As negative as deconstruction is, this view point negates its own relevance through the use of language. You said it best: 

“If language cannot be trusted and always undermines authorial intent, we should also not trust the language used by deconstructive postmodernists to tout their view.”

Words and meanings maybe time sensitive causing the essence of any shift to have a subjective nature.  This change does not mean that we cannot have our “truths.” As I consider the extreme nature of deconstructive postmodernism I find the insight that deconstruction provides to be questionable especially outside of theological discussions.

I am left with this question: If I am a missionary how will deconstructive postmodernism help me to build the Kingdom of God? Or serve others? —Thank you.

Leslie!

Language is indeed a slippery thing! Deconstructionists do well to remind us that language is not always interpreted in line with authorial intention and that language can, and will, always fall abysmally short when trying to describe the otherness and majesty of the divine. The emphasis on “other” is instructive to Christians. Much of the time, in our personal interaction with God, we become too familiar or can begin to believe that we have it all figured out. It causes us to take pause and to appreciate even more that greatness which is utterly incomprehensible and always beyond our full grasp. It certainly keeps us humble! At the same time, I am in awe of a God that enters into the messiness of language to make the divine nature known, and who enters into the messiness of life longing to be known by us, and who doesn’t relegate the experience to one of just words, but invites us into experience and relationship.

Deconstruction and many other movements from the pull of postmodernism we can gain great insight into God and the Church. In this ever moving world theology, the Church, and our understanding of God also moves with it. As you pointed out in your post there are many things that we can gain from an understanding in deconstructionism, that there is freedom and understanding found within it. Deconstruction gives us firm hand holds into the wall that we scale as Christians in our understanding of who God is. However, with these certainties that it gives us there is also much that we should still be cautious about. I feel that you pointed out great insight into how we as Christians in this postmodern world should look at deconstruction and other movements as we continue to move forward. The proposal of the “yes, but” gives us insight into who God is, but also brings us a better understanding and more well-rounded approach to theology.

Our words carry a great deal of weight. That means that as we use them we need to make them count. When we speak something it is out there forever, you can never take it back if it hurt it will always hurt if it helped it will help for a time. I do not believe I ever read of Jesus speaking to tear down. Even when Jesus was speaking to Satan in the wilderness he spoke the truth and was not rude or condescending. Our words matter and it will prove to be true without even trying, we will use them to bring glory to whomever we really worship!

I am in agreement with the deconstructionists that words more often than not fail us. In fact, every time I attempt a response they seem to fail me. I am also in agreement with the deconstructionists that more often than not words fail to adequately describe God. After all, God is bigger than our language.

Yet, language is the tool that we have. It is the only means that we possess to describe reality, or, in reality, to describe at all (how about that Derrida-esque language construct?), even if words and language are not wholly adequate. So, do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Do we throw away the tool simply because it is imperfect?

I think not. That approach seems to be a bit dramatic, drastic, and over-reactionary. I concede that words and language are not perfect. Language does fail to adequately convey most of reality fully and with complete accuracy. However, what is gained by not using words to describe reality as it is? Most likely the same that is gained by using them – confusion and an incomplete understanding. Just a different sense of the same state.

I have seen sunsets that words could not describe. I have been moved by art and song in ways that language could never communicate. I have felt such deep and sheer intimacy with my spouse that words could not do it justice. I have sensed Reality in ways that it is impossible for me to articulate. The heart has reasons that reason knows nothing about. So too with language. The heart has language that language knows nothing about. Yet, even though words have failed me, it would be failure for me to fail them in return.

Mr. Oord,

After reading this article, I feel as though I have a much better understanding of deconstruction. I understand that our language is never final. Our words or what we may think they mean, can be interpreted in a different way. This in return can make our language very dangerous in the terms that we use. You gave an example of the word “cool”. And while many people may interpret this word as being awesome or amazing as describing someone. It can also be looked at as meaning “friendliness, unemotional, and lack of heat.” While we try to interpret words, we can find that no word interpretation is final. I am finding out that every word can be interpreted over and over again in a different way. Each meaning something different each time.

You had made the statement: “The old belief systems can’t explain new data. Change is required.” This statement reminds me of transformation. I was just curious on what your thoughts were regarding this statement. I am also wondering if the majority of the world looks at things from a modernist view or more deconstructionists. I lean more towards a modernist view. I tend to assume that “words, propositions and sentences capture the truth about reality.”

Deconstructive postmodernism’s claim that language cannot be trusted shakes like an earthquake on the foundation of how we all communicate with one another. Language is our way of expressing to others, all of our intellect and emotion. We claim words of truth that are foundation to our very being.
I was amused by Dr. Oord’s comment that if language “always undermines authorial intent, we should not trust the language used by deconstructive postmodernists tout their view. How can it be true that there is no true?” The obvious answer is that it can’t be true that there is no true. The argument becomes circular because there is no apparent way to prove otherwise. adequate ability to communicate fully with our language.
What can we learn from the voice of the deconstructive modernist? Language is difficult and our use of language can be misunderstood. When my children were young they had a nanny from South Africa. In first weeks of her arrival she had decided that the children were disobedient and they had decided that they didn’t really like her. It was soon uncover that the children could not understand the nanny. Just one example, “boot” really does mean the trunk of the car for someone who speaks “Commonwealth English”. My kids did not understand the instruction to go get the groceries out of the boot. Once time was spent defining new words the relationship was quickly repaired, she fondly became “the best nanny in the world.”
Many examples of definitional misunderstanding can be seen throughout our cultures and on an international scale, even when we are supposedly speaking the same language. The real question is do we take the time with one another and in our reading of Scripture to really understand what is being communicated. Deep understanding and true relationship with another (and God) goes far beyond words themselves. Deconstruction can assist in taking a look at all of the possible alternatives, broadening the thinking and taking the time to truly understand. As for relationship, one must gain understanding of another to be able to communicate at all. How can there be a bridge of relationship from one human to another or between humanity and God if we are unable to understand the words that are being used. How does the context change in a sentence where “boot” means footwear or it means the storage compartment (trunk) of the car. If we can’t speak coherently in the everyday, how are we speak of God, love and a host of topics? It does take language. It also takes, as is suggested, Scripture, experience, science, natural and all of God’s creation. Most of all, it takes a heart to love.

The postmodern tradition of deconstruction has a vital role to play in our understanding of our theology. I working with different cultures all over Africa, Deconstruction Theology is absolutely important. Dr. Oord used the example of the word “cool” but in many cultures, the word “spirit” conjures various unintentional images. Using this analogy though, I cannot see the approach of Deconstruction as the new kid on the block as I see the attempts of Eugene Peterson, and others (in paraphrasing the Bible) as an attempt to not only simplify language but to bring to it relevancy and context. The idea of Deconstruction is to “attack” the way we see and understand core-realities.

The “yes”, “but” approach, as Dr. Oord rightly pointed out, cannot be ignored, as deconstruction cannot be an end to itself, reconstructive theological language should follow. This in itself could become problematic in that that very same reconstruction could be set under the microscope of the Deconstruction Theologians

DR. Oord you asserted that: “I think deconstruction of poor worldviews need to be followed by reconstructive efforts that draw from Scripture, Christian tradition, reason, sciences, and a variety of experiences”
Your assertion here helped me understand the importance of our modern day thinkers and yet at the same time it proved me as a Christian with the necessary perspective on how to exist in this world. The world is changing as you have asserted in another essay and I believe that while the world is changing we also need to be ready as Christians to help people who are willing to reconstruct. The most significant to me is that while are role is to represent and defend our faith we also need to be mature to listen to the views of others and be prepared to provide reconstructive efforts drawing from Scripture and as you have stated above. I do believe that as Christians we have a responsibility to provide our world and particularly the seekers an alternative that represents Christ and not just what the culture finds relative.
Hubert Tiger.

God bless everyone!

Because deconstructive postmodernism identifies inconsistencies in language to describe reality, there will always be problems with words. A person will never understand fully the meaning of something and never be able to rationalize the Truth according to Jacques Derrida. Thank God that words are not the only way to express and describe reality. Even if I wanted to express the love of God with words, words would not be enough. I have to show it, see it, and feel it to really understand what it is and what it can do to humanity. Love cannot be fully described or understood by words. Just like God cannot be fully described or understood by words alone. He is a personal God as we are personal beings. I have seen paintings in which I cannot describe the beauty of its content because there are no words. Even more so, the nature of God just takes my breath away as I experience it with all of my senses. So, describing the nature of God with words would be meaningless. There is nothing more real than experiencing life, nature, and God with your senses. If we allow words to be the only way of describing and experiencing reality we would be short of wisdom and knowledge and come close as Jacques Derrida did in “thinking” that there is no God. Therefore, I agree with Dr. Oord when he says, “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.”
Peace & Grace,
Mirtha

Mirtha, i wold have to say that we need to be careful when we don’t focus on words because there are so many out there who do not see God for who he is, but instead see him as in everything much like pantheism. That is where we need to be careful.

As I read Dr. Oord’s thoughts here, it occurred to me that sometimes the things we want to communicate on the written page are understood just as we intend them to be and sometimes they are not. Oord writes, “Words inevitably contain unintended meanings. Communication is never crystal-clear. Just when we think a word corresponds fully to reality, we find it inadequate” (Oord, NP). No communication is ever perfect and Deconstruction teaches us to approach the written word, even the Scriptures, with a sharp and critical eye, in order that we might find there deeper meanings that may lie beyond the surface. Oord further shares that, “Deconstruction reminds contemporary Christian theologians that we cannot capture fully with words who God is and what God wants. God is bigger than our language” (Oord, NP). There are those who write who never dream that the communication of their thoughts will eventually, in the hands discerning readers, take on profound meaning. Yet, in the hands of God, our language can be the catalyst by which he reveals himself in ever deeper and richer ways.

Ultimately language is just one of the finite, human tools, that God has given us to help us relate with and experience him. The key to using those tools is discernment. I agree with Dr. Oord that as Christians we must understand that while Deconstruction does contain tools that can be helpful to us as thinkers, we must also recognize that its negativity and lack of a center limit its usefulness. Like our language Deconstruction has its limitations, and yet, with God’s help it does have concepts that can help us to expand our minds and hearts as we seek to learn more about the wonder and nature of God.

James, I appreciated your thought that ministers should be to understand the paradigm shifts around us. This week’s discussion reminded me is that sometimes I get so focused on what we are communicating to “the church” that I haven’t been paying as much attention on what is happening in the world around me. If we are not paying attention to the paradigm shifts around us be it a greater acceptance of pantheism, the view that there is just as much value in worshiping at home rather than in a church or name the paradigm shift, we will not take efforts to reevaluate if, how and to what degree our communication and teaching can help other address them.

I believe that one of the criticisms you listed in this message is certainly something that will affect Christian ministry. Your criticism was, “On the question of truth and knowledge, for instance, deconstructive postmodernism implies that each individual determines truth entirely for him or herself. Radical relativism prevails.” If you think about it, this should be very alarming in the context of Christian ministry. If everyone determines their own truth and everything is relative, then nothing is wrong or incorrect. The idea or belief that none come to the Father except through Jesus now becomes something that is not an absolute truth any longer. It opens the doors for people to believe that they can get to the Father through whatever method feels true to them. I know God’s desire is that none should perish but I do not believe he had this “choose your own adventure book” style of getting to Heaven. I have personally experienced mid-twenty somethings that are embracing this idea because it feels good. It allows them to do what they want and still believe that they are doing the right thing. Because after all, it’s all relative and your truth is not the same as their truth. It’s hard to dissuade them from this whatever feels good for you must be right to an idea of more sacrifice and self-restraint. I feel heartbroken for these that are being led astray by this convoluted ideology.

This article has helped further my understanding of deconstructive postmodernism. While deconstructive postmodernism is a helpful tool, I believe this can cause some to stumble or can lead to confusion by some lay members (even some pastors). I believe that this theory is complicated and have a negative theology, as has been stated before. This negative theology can be helpful for those that are philosophical thinkers but can confuse others that do not think in this way. Deconstructive postmodernism can be helpful to some but can be a stumbling block to others. As ministry leaders it is important to know where people are at in their walk and helping meet them there; a person might be in a place to talk about philosophy and this theory, and others might be just learning who Christ is and what it means to follow him. We must be cautious when using this theory, while it is helpful.

Dr. Oord,
Thank you for this more comprehensive explanation of deconstructionism. This has been a valuable learning resource to help me process this concept and its implications for Christian ministry in the midst of shifting paradigms. I sensed that something changed significantly in our culture when I witnessed the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, exercising much fluidity in the meaning of words like “is” when trying to rationalize why he wasn’t lying when he said that there was nothing going on between he and Monica Lewinsky. His statement, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” still sticks with me today.

A few things stand out to me in this post regarding the opportunities that deconstructive postmodernism affords the Church or postmodern theology. First, I appreciate the renewed call and vision to reach out to the marginalized. Especially for the Church of the Nazarene, the call back to our roots in ministering to the needs of “the least of these” is vital to truly accomplish the mission and vision that God has given us to make Christlike disciples in the nations. Second, the call to “humility in theology” is attractive because in recognizing that the work of, and understanding of a God that is “bigger than our language” we realize that we need those of other traditions to fill us in on perspectives and blind spots that we may not be aware of.

While I still remain skeptical of deconstructive postmodernism, I am beginning to see how some aspects of the process can be beneficial to the Church and to an emerging postmodern theology.

Chelsea, I really appreciated your post as it offered me the opportunity to really reflect on the language our local church might be using that just might be inaccessible to other people who are trying to understand or explore our faith. The hope that you talk about is precisely a focus that could get lost in the Christian faith if we focused too much on what we could not explain or understand. Somehow Scripture points us to the fact that our hope is a person Jesus Christ and his story is one of eternal hope which is accessible to all who believe.[102]

Hubert,
I agree when you said, “we also need to be mature to listen to the views of others and be prepared to provide reconstructive efforts drawing from Scripture”. Many Christians are intimidated when they are questioned by none believers on difficult questions. Some Christians feel that it a waits of time to question or that there are “stupid” questions. I feel that just as toddlers do not feel ashamed of asking questions about anything and everything people should get into the habit of asking questions. There are no “stupid” questions. But, we also need to be better listeners when we are being asked questions. I always say, “I would need more time to find out” if I do not have any answers. People will respect you more when you are sincere with them.
[Word Count: 134]

Courtney,
I appreciate your ability to state that while deconstructionism could be harmful, we should be conscious of what people can handle in our approach, rather than dismissing it outright. Our tendency tends to be when we feel someone may not be able to use something effectively, we reject it for all, which I do not feel is helpful in the long run. But I agree, there is a great amount of discernment to be made before we take others down this path with us.

Thank you for an interesting read. I don’t think post modernists are saying there is no truth, only that words are inherently subjective and are thus an imperfect medium to represent truth as seen by one person, to another person. Yes, this calls into question the apparent (and for each person, “relative”) meaning of the words. Yet we have no choice but to continue trying to point to the “truths” we know, using the only tools we have available today. I believe the important thing is to always recognize the limits of the tools we are using, and as one example, replace dogma with healthy skepticism and curiosity.

I hope my words help to point someone in the general direction of the truth I know.

Deconstructive postmodernism seems like it would be well at home with some of the non-denominational contemporary churches such as mine, because of its ability to embrace diversity and challenge many of the traditional hierarchies that may have “driven” folks out of the main denominational churches. That said, Dr. Oord makes a great case on the limitations of deconstructive postmodernism, especially here: “On the question of truth and knowledge, for instance, deconstructive postmodernism implies that each individual determines truth entirely for him or herself. Radical relativism prevails. I believe Christian theology should reject radical epistemic and moral relativism.” Challenging things is good. However, deconstructive postmodernism tends to lead folks down a weaving and unmarked path. I tend to agree with Tim’s observations above in that this path seems to have a high potential to just lead down a road to nowhere. Dr. Oord, I think, makes the very right assertion that Christians should approach deconstructive postmodernism with a “yes, but” attitude. The fact that deconstructive postmodernism just seems to attack and point out “errors,” but does not offer solutions does not sit well with me. My background calls me to eschew the approach of coming forward with problems, but not presenting any potential solutions. Deconstructive postmodernism does indeed seem like a “good idea” that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Deconstruction and its emphasis on the inconsistencies in language provides an important aspect to consider in the Christian tradition. The language we rely on, although important for communication and helpful for many things, can be exclusive in the sense that it cannot communicate everything completely objectively. Every reader reads with a preset of knowledge or contexts that change the intended meaning of the author. Therefore, every individual has their own meaning of an author’s writing even if the differences are small. My concern with this kind of radical relativism is that it leaves everything to open-ended. We cannot contain importance if meaning is too scattered. Thus, we should find some kind of middle-ground where we can, perhaps, collaborate meaning too form a unity in meaning that can be communicated effectively. Too much relativism creates individualism without community which is dangerous to the Christian tradition.

In the 1985 movie, Back to the Future, Marty McFly travels back in time. In the film, Marty interrupts the meeting and courting of his parents George and Lorraine. When he does this, he threatens his existence. However, this is impossible because if Marty traveled from 1985 to 1955 and prevented his existence, then he did not exist in 1985. Since he would not exist in 1985, who travels back to 1955?
You write that we need positive postmodern theology. However, postmodernism rejects the absolute and accepts all things are relative. Theology may be a system of religious beliefs or ideas unless a person is a postmodernist. Since theology would have to be relative, even the positive must be understood in postmodern terms; i.e. the definition of positive is subjective and cannot be defined in certain language. Even the word theology, if it has meaning, is the Greek Theos (God) and logia or logos (account, word, discourse or reason); therefore the word itself suggests meaning. Nevertheless, meaning is relative, consequently, what does the word even mean?
“Meaningless! Meaningless! … Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” (Ecc. 1:2 NIV)
Works Cited
Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2011.

It appears that deconstructionism is an approach that redirects the intellectual to an impossible pursuit away from the alternative. Much of Scripture was written in a manner that requires the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the reading of it. Attempting to understand the meaning of the Bible on an intellectual or cerebral level will lead to numerous incorrect meanings and increased ambiguity. While there are many things that remain mysteries within Scripture, using this postmodern method to further separate one’s mind from the mind of Christ is not a good approach for the believer. Drawing closer to God by being humbly reliant upon the Holy Spirit while reading the text is the correct alternative.

Derrida’s deconstructionism has challenged the status quo when it comes to the usage of words and their meaning. The challenged for me is the fact that words even within the proper context can have different meanings to those to whom I am communicating. I agree with Oord, “Communication is never crystal-clear. Just when we think a word corresponds fully to reality, we find it inadequate.

Deconstructive postmodernism is, for the most part, negative, and the gospel of Jesus Christ is called, “good news.” To me, that needs to be the emphasis since we live in a world that is full of terrible news and so many people need the reassurance of the hope that Christ gives. Even though there are good parts to deconstructive postmodernism and it challenges me in my thinking, I believe that there has to be an “upside” to what is good and right and hopeful in living a Christian life.

Deconstructive theology has an important prophetic voice. It points to us how we tend to seek control over our understanding of God and of who and how God is active in the world and in our lives. There is a great value in humbly accepting this prophetic voice, and understand that whatever language we use to try to describe God and God’s ways, is and will always be limited. Language tries to word the experience we have with the living God. A God of love, compassion and justice. Deconstructive theology helps us do a “checkup” and makes us question where we are standing. But we “need positive postmodern theologies” that will help us stay standing in a world that is full of questions and doubts about the Christian faith.

Dr. Oord,

Many times in my reactions to the deconstruction readings in your course, I tried to articulate exactly your concluding points regarding deconstruction/negative theology. There is something we can learn from deconstruction, and we should not be afraid to dive into it. Many Christians may be averse to even studying this subject, for fear that they may begin to doubt. Doubt is good! Doubt can be useful.

I believe that we should test the waters of deconstructionism as a way to keep our beliefs, and the truths we hold dear, in check. We should temper our “is” with the “is nots” so encouraged by apophatic theology. We may learn something new, or we may realize that what we thought we knew is not actually what we truly believe. However, I fully agree that this approach in and of itself is insufficient for the Christian’s search for truth. Above all, we need to pray, study, articulate, and allow the Spirit to form us, and not lean unto our own understanding. God did give us our intellect, though, and God expects us to use it in our pursuit of truth. Thank you for this post!

In conversing with one another we rely upon a “linguistic foundation” as Dr. Oord states in which “modernists base their knowledge about the world.” I’d venture to say, most of us depend on that same ‘linguistic foundation’ to define or describe certain aspects of our lives. It is assumed we use words to define concepts, objects, theories, etc., to bring tangibility. Deconstruct means to take apart and as deconstructionism claims “language cannot be nailed down” which can be confusing for some who are intrigued by deconstructionism. Their perspective seeks a shift wherein they become lost in the words and meanings they’ve depended upon to define or describe and it’s not working. As you write above, Dr. Oord “If language cannot be trusted and always undermines authorial intent” it best not to put one’s faith in the words of those who defend deconstructionism. I find deconstructive postmodernism fraudulent. Yet, I find Derrida’s heart was consistently on an arduous journey to find solace in God. Derrida was one of those Thoreau described as not keeping “pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.”

Kitt

Dr. Oord thank you for a clear understanding of Deconstruction Theology. “Communication is never crystal-clear” (pg.2). How accurate, one only needs to read the articles assigned to this week’s reading. It is essential to understand that the meaning of words depends upon the context. Deconstructionism points this out.
It does remind today’s Christian theologians one cannot capture adequately with words who God is and what God wants, he is more significant than our language. All the words one uses to praise our God do not even come close to describe him. All one can do is stand in awe.
I absolutely love it when you said, “I don’t think deconstructive postmodernism is the best overall resource from which Christian theologians should draw in a postmodern age. I do not agree with a deconstructive stance on truth. Truth is not what one determines individually. Truth is God.
Again, thank you for this clear understanding of deconstruction theology it has helped me see the good and the not so good of this theology. Thank you for: “Contemporary Christians should take a ‘yes, but’ approach to deconstructive postmodernism.

There is a specific part of this post that I want to touch on. Oord asserts that “God is bigger than our language”. Jesus has shown us that in many ways. He came to save a chosen group but chose to save all instead. But the most important way that God shows us He is bigger than our language is in the tower of babble. Many people of many nations were gathered yet they heard the message in their own native tongue. This is a great symbol of just how much bigger God is than our language. But, I believe this tower of babble goes further. In people who speak the same language we often understand things differently. God is able to speak to us in ways that are specific to each of us in a way that we perfectly understand.
Let me give you an example. I have 6 children. Two of my children are special needs and they don’t always understand what is being talked about. In fact, a lot of times they do not understand. God puts people into their lives that talk to them in a way that they understand His love for them. And eventually, I pray that they will be able to reach others that have the same trouble understanding. There is no one language and one truth that every single person can understand, but there is a God who can make each of us understand His love.

Dr. Oord,
Thank you for your post. It has helped me better understand how deconstructionism can provide useful insights in Christian life and ministry without having to accept all its negative theology and moral relativism.
You mention that, deconstructionism, “promotes humility in theology, because it reminds us we cannot corner the market on truth. Dogmatism and epistemic pride have no place.” I wonder how this can be so when we want to reject moral relativism in favor of the Truth of God. Can you please elaborate? Shouldn’t we cling to the Truth and invite others into the knowledge of Truth rather than conclude that the Truth of Scripture is somehow not adequate?
In Christian life and ministry I believe that we need to guard and stand firm on our corner of truth and teach and help other Christians to do the same. If we reject truth, what are we left with? In that case, I can see how deconstructionism can help us get to the bottom of the truth we have, because it will help us to more fully understand what we believe while also helping us rid our beliefs of fallacies, superstitions, or things we have come to believe but are not true, while also helping us to have better reasons for our beliefs.
God has given us the Truth through special and natural revelation. Shouldn’t we trust God’s truth and the words it comes to us in rather than debating whether or not we can actually believe in words? Naturally words can have many meanings, but I think we should use deconstructionism to help us solidify what we mean by words, or at the very least the context we use them in, and not allow it to deceive us into thinking that words cannot mean anything of significance, especially when it comes to our faith and ministry when words are the foundation of communicating the gospel and making disciples.

Deconstructive postmodernism is good for getting us thinking but it is not the answer to all questions. We need to keep God and his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnipotent in our focus. God is bigger than us and thus He is bigger than what we can think and understand about Him.

I agree that deconstructive postmodernism should “reaffirm the prophetic, messianic, apocalyptic, and limits of theological language.” We as people desire to understand these, but we are limited to what God allows us to do and understand. We can use deconstructive postmodernism, but it should not replace a relationship with God and us allowing Him to guide our path.

If we allow the inherent inconsistencies in the language to rule us we may find ourselves unwilling to head to those gentle nudges the Holy Spirit gives us as hear what God is saying. God speaks through His Word, messages (sermons), music, and the relationships we have with other people. He surely will speak to us if we try to deconstruct words, but we must be willing to give way to His leading.

This post puts deconstructive postmodernism into more manageable and concrete terms for me. Looking at language, you wrote, “In opposition to modernity, deconstructionists point out that language cannot be nailed down.  Words inevitably contain unintended meanings.  Communication is never crystal-clear. Just when we think a word corresponds fully to reality, we find it inadequate.” My 23 year old son is deaf, and his first language was American Sign Language, and ASL was my, and my husband’s second language. It is a language with it’s own sentence structure and syntax, but more than that, it is a language of body language and nuance. Signs, for me, often had unintended meanings because my body language did not match up with the simple meaning of the sign. My son does not understand language in the same way that hearing people do. I know this, though it is hard to communicate with words exactly what I mean. (Some deconstruction going on). Concrete words are easy enough. Sock, shoe, ball, horse, milk. But abstract concepts were much harder for him to learn. Honesty, love, justice. His capacity to learn, his intelligence was not less, but his deafness made the grasping of the concepts more difficult. Perhaps if he had deaf parents whose first language was sign, the lag wouldn’t have been so pronounced. I agree with your comment completely that deconstructive postmodernism reminds us that our finite human intellect and languages can never fully comprehend or explain God. It keeps us humble, and also gives us something to hope for and look forward to when we are in His presence.

The comment that most stood out to me in reading this was the reality that this type of literature study forces us to acknowledge legitament differences. I never realized just how “cookie cutter” the churches I have attended seem to be until I talked to a friend who grew up in a different culture from the one I did and we compared the different church cultures. His church was very charismatic with people talking to the preacher, shouting out praises during the service, and dancing during the music. My experience, on the other hand, was of a church that was quiet and polite, stood when they were told to and sat when instructed to sit and basically observed the service. Neither experience is necessarily wrong, but I realized in that moment that even the word “worship” meant something different to me than it did to my friend. I think deconstruction, while it does have its flaws, is extremely useful in this one area because it forces us to realize that our understanding of language isn’t the same as everyone elses’ and that doesn’t necessarily mean one of us is wrong and the other is right. Deconstruction invites and demands diversity and this is something I believe the church needs more of.

As a Christian it should be a littling experience to know that ”we cannot corner the market on truth” and that “dogmatism and epistemic pride have no place.” We seem to find pride in thinking we have it all figured out, when in fact “we cannot capture fully with words who God is and what God wants. God is bigger than our language.” It surely is humbling to know that God is beyond our knowledge, our language and our understanding.
This should humble each one of us to the point where we accept that God is beyond what we know and understand and that we must settle to lay down our pride and agree to the acknowledgement that God is beyond us in every way imaginable. I think this helps us to take a step back in our discipleship and allow others the opportunity to share, think, speak and have grounds for not feeling disrespected. We must lay down our pride, tear down our walls that we believe are knowledge and wisdom and remember that God stood before Job, a very righteous man and asked Job who payed the foundations of the earth implying that with as righteous and good Job was, he knew and had nothing on who God is.