In February, the place of deconstruction in the Church became a question. It was screamed from the stage and became a follow-up Facebook post. I was surprised this was a question and the answers many Christians had for it. What came clear is that there is not an agreed-upon definition of what Christians mean when they deconstruct. Is it a movement? Is it a group of people? Where did this idea of deconstruction come from? I don’t have all the answers to these questions but the dialogue brought up some thoughts and ideas, especially the Facebook post.
What is Deconstruction
While a clear definition is not offered, enough is described to have a ballpark understanding of deconstruction to contend with; even with the disclaimer in the post that said “I’m going to use the definition deconstruction that works with my argument.”
An aspect that is closest to a definition in the work is “Deconstruction” which is the heading most recently applied to the process of questioning, doubting, and ultimately rejecting aspects of the Christian faith. This is an application of deconstructionism, an approach that claims to dissemble beliefs or ideas while assuming their meanings are inherently subjective.” To this source, deconstruction is a danger because of an assumed conclusion to the process. Based on this definition of deconstruction, questions and doubts unavoidably lead to rejection of parts of what Got Questions consider Christian Faith. Yet, no proof is given to support that definition. What is the percentage of Christians that go into a deconstruction process that does reject aspects of their Christian faith? Are there particular aspects that tend to be rejected? The GotQuestions website is “Christian, Protestant, evangelical, theologically conservative, and non-denominational.” Since the quote is from a website that has a specific outlook on Christianity that is not universally held do all Christians even have these particular aspects inherently. Got questions is not a website or entity operating to represent universally Christianity and it doesn’t represent anything from the philosophical discipline that the term deconstruction came from. “True deconstructivism” labeled as such from someone that can’t even define it without an obviously skewed source is questionable. Such a definition leaves much to be desired.
A closer definition of deconstruction could be “a critical dismantling of tradition and traditional modes of thought.” Deconstruction is a process that can be done for any kind of tradition; literature, cuisine, martial arts as well as religion. The Encylopedia Brittanica is upheld by a group of “worldwide leaders in education, knowledge, and information for more than 250 years. Under our Encyclopædia Britannica and Merriam-Webster imprimaturs, we provide people all over the world — students, teachers, researchers, and casual learners.” It’s a reliable source of information more neutral in nature than that of Got Questions regarding Christian Faith. The point of deconstruction is to question, doubt, and interrogate. It is a process, not a result. A person could deconstruct a belief system and lead to beliefs that are explained as “absolute truth”. The assumption that people who deconstruct no longer uphold the so-called absolute truth shows more about that truth than the person. Criticizing the process of deconstruction for not upholding denominational tradition shows the lack of understanding of what is deconstruction! This whole defense of yelling about “deconstruction Christians” hasn’t given an example, much less proof of the “danger” of deconstruction other than to unquestioning obedience.
Relationship with people who have deconstructed from Christianity
Frankly, more important than the definition of deconstruction is the relationship with Christians in deconstruction promoted. It is difficult to persuasively claim love for people who have deconverted when you described their process as “a disease widely occurring in a community at a particular time”. Furthermore, People who talk about their deconstruction are equated to men who want to get with a woman who is a wife to another. People who have left Christianity can’t speak about why they left Christianity. They can’t monetarily be supported by their work of disseminating their experience which seems unfair since many Christians are monetarily supported by their beliefs in Christianity. Only certain Christians can write books, make music, or set up podcasts about Christianity? The post makes it quite clear that Christians who have deconstructed should not have a voice. How loving.
Unsurprisingly value judgments have been placed on the false distinctions made to support vitriol toward people that go through deconstruction. Deconstruction does not describe either renouncing one’s beliefs. It is a process that may lead to renouncing aspects of belief, any belief. The distinctions offered are unquestioning obedience to a particular understanding of Christianity and through question and interrogation, a person renounces aspects of their belief and are to be distrusted. The first is not deconstruction the second is a result that could happen from deconstruction. It’s not deceitful for people to talk about their positive results with deconstructing and then other people do it. If that leads to deconversion that’s between the deconstructing person and their faith. It is not the duty of Christians to gatekeep other Christians regarding deconstruction, especially in Christianity which has many shades and opposing views on how to follow Christ. It is a Christian’s duty to love them.
Conclusion
In my opinion, deconstruction is a process, and what the initial fight was about is the results. How deconstruction is defined and by whom can make a significant understanding I don’t think I’m underreacting to people coming to terms with the more ugly sides of the institutional church and Christianity and are searching for a better way. They are still part of God’s creation and worthy of human dignity. They are still part of the call to love one’s neighbor as yourself.
Thornback’s Theories 