Ok, so how's that for a fancy schmancy title? I need to develop my ideas a little more (and see what's actually going on with this concept already), but I think it is high time to explore a deconstructionist philosophy within Christianity, and I'm not seeing it happening anywhere I normally look. Now, I'm sure if you know Deconstructionism, you are probably thinking I am crazy, so hold on just a moment.

I find reading Jacque Derrida painful, to say the least, but I find deconstructionism extremely interesting once I pull the concept out of Derrida's text (which is truly deconstructed). The basic premise is simple enough: “meaning is endlessly deferred.” Whenever we seek meaning about something, which is called “the center,” we move away from the center, placing the focus on the means of understanding. It is essentially impossible to zero in on the thing itself, according to deconstructionism.

Deconstructionism differs from the atheistic, twentieth century existentialism in that it does not argue that meaning is arbitrary or non-existent, but rather that it is impossible to get to. I think this is actually a more faithful outgrowth from Kierkegaard's original flavor of existentialism, and it also fits in neatly with my interest in redeveloping a Barthian neo-orthodox theology. Essentially, deconstructionism undermines any system of rational thought, admitting that none of them can get to meaning. This, of course, would include natural theology, to which we must follow Karl Barth in saying, “Nein!”

But, this does not lead to despair when applied within Reformed theology, because our knowledge comes not from our own reason but God's. To me, it seems that what seems true coming out of deconstructionism is essentially an observation about the fall: a fallen creation cannot rationally or otherwise actualize meaning. The meaning is clearly there, but that meaning can only be drawn close to, not found. We can accept a Thomistic framework of natural theology, but we must accept that the center will be missed and must be interpolated via revelation. This is an important point, because it does not rule out reason, but rather puts reason within the bounds of revelation, our only hope of actually escaping a never ending series of collapsing systems.

I think this is not only interesting, but it also serves as an excellent response to modernist over-rationalism. From experience we can say that modernism does not work, precisely because everyone must accept a crisis point of faith and make a leap of faith to enter whichever scheme of knowing they feel is most proper. Deconstructionism does not say anything new, yet it gives its message so boldly and directly, I think it does bring significant value to the table.

Hrmm…. I'm not nearly as familiar with the philosophical aspects of your argument, but it definitely smacks of postmodernism (especially in that it is a response and counter to over-modernism). As you will hear in Apologetics and Outreach, there truly is much to benefit from in a post-modern process, but it must be rooted in the inerrancy of scripture and faith. When rooted thusly, the logical conclusion isn't a nihilistic agnosticism, but a resting in the mystery and sometimes paradoxical nature of God. We don't HAVE to rationalize that which He seems to purposefully leave unexplained.

The cultural ramifications, of course, are incredibly pressing and important to keep in mind. I haven't even begun to figure that out in its entirety though….

Yup, it is thoroughly post-modern. However, I think often post-modernism is associated with the atheistic existentialism of Satre, etc., rather than the Christian existentialism of Kierkegaard or Deconstructionism, so I avoided the term. The big thing with deconstructionism is that it does not reject meaning, it only rejects our ability to find it ourselves (in Derrida's worldview that eliminated the hope of finding it at all, but as you say, rooted in faith it isn't that way). This makes it sizably better than the relativistic post-modern pop philosophy that floats around.

I'm looking forward to Apologetics and Outreach next Spring!

In April of 2006, a post of mine brought about a thoughtful critique of Barthianism by Eduardo . He gave a three point critique of Barth’s theology focusing on its antagonism of natural theology, unique perspective on revelation and its implicit uni…

Name:
Location:
Homepage:
E-mail:
Subject:
Remember my information