Is deconstruction a revered church tradition, Christian duty, or part of the rise of the Cult of Self?
I have been asked on several occasions to give my thoughts on the current trend of deconstruction.
Before I give my thoughts, it would be wise to declare up front that there are varying definitions for deconstruction held by those who are deconstructing and those who are not. Within the realm of those who are deconstructing, there are shades of deconstruction. Many feel they now live in "no man's land"—not accepted by those pushing deconstruction further and not accepted by those who fear it.
In Wait, You're Not Deconstructing?, Kirsten Sanders explains that if deconstruction is defined as disassembling current doctrinal positions and views to determine if they are true, then this has been a part of church history from the beginning. There have always been new ideas and cherished beliefs that must be challenged with reason, study of the word of God, and when dealing with the character of God, what God says about himself in the Bible.
Truth about God isn’t always easy, however. Faith that begins in earnest commitment sometimes must advance through a period of slow questioning, of confusion, of switchbacks and labored ascent. - Kirsten Sanders
Martin Luther is a prime example of one of the most significant deconstructions of the accepted and prevalent Catholic beliefs of his time. And while it's not usually wise to brush history with a broad stroke, these cherished beliefs by the Catholic church of his day seemed to boil down to salvation by faith alone and works as a result of love for God (not required for salvation). Many gave their lives and livelihoods to deconstruct false beliefs, fighting to give us the protestant branch of the Church.
Before that and up until current trends, deconstruction was considered the purview of scholars, some of which corrected beliefs while others may have led to many incorrect beliefs. Incorrect beliefs, over time, have either splintered off to become cults or banished to the historical rubbish bin. (Only to be resurrected every 40 or 50 years or so. None of these banished beliefs truly ever seem to die, they only get reincarnated.)
If we define deconstructionism to mean that we are carefully, prayerfully, examining a doctrinal belief or statement to determine if they hold true when compared to the rest of scripture, then deconstructionism should be embraced and a place made for those who are courageous and dedicated enough to do so.
However, most Christians today have not read their Bibles nor studied their Bibles—much less studied anything about Greek and Hebrew translation, textual criticism, or even received training in logic or critical thinking necessary to attempt this sacred duty.
Paul the Apostle taught that spiritual growth in Christ is dependent on faithfulness to sound doctrine as he taught it as the means of Spiritual growth (1 Timothy 1:13). John goes through a long encouragement about obeying right doctrine—including what sin is and how believers should avoid sin—as well as encouraging us to express this doctrine in love. The fruit of sound doctrine is faithful obedience and love. This is what happens when right doctrine is demonstrated in the believer's character and relationships and it is attractive to a dying world.
Right doctrine = faithful obedience and love. Wrong doctrine = disobedience and hatred.
Unfortunately, it seems that the definition of deconstructionism has come to mean a range of rejecting foundational Christian truths while keeping the moniker of Christianity or creating a version of one’s own cult. This is highly dangerous, and far too often in my experience, has led to a bankruptcy of faith.
In the construction world, a contractor might have to take a house down to the studs, leaving only what is good and strong and true. This would include the foundation, the studs, the crossbeams, and potentially the structure of the roof. On rare occasions, a contractor will have to take a house down to the foundation leaving perhaps only the framework that has the crossbeams. If they demolish beyond these foundational structures, it is no longer being deconstructed...it is demolished.
I am concerned that deconstructing has become a cloak for demolishing, and as such, it must be confronted.
The difference between deconstruction and demolishing is the intention of the deconstruction and what is left. If we deconstruct with the intention of leaving only what is true, then we deconstruct properly. Even if we have to go all the way down to the I-beams and the foundation to build it back, we deconstruct properly. There must be some things in the Christian faith that remain true in order for it to be a deconstruction of the Christian faith. If nothing remains of the faith, it is not deconstruction but rather destruction.
Deconstructing requires an enormous amount of slow and careful study in prayerfulness as well as accountability to ensure that our natural tendencies of self-worship and pride do not let us accidentally lay waste to a required tenant or a proven characteristic of God that does not fit with our preferences or preconceived notions.
One of the ways we stay accountable is by studying theologians whose minds are most likely far more focused and trained in logic than ours. But many who deconstruct don't or won't consider their writings. Studying theology without also reading the early church fathers and theologians who devoted their entire lives (and sometimes lost their lives because of their in-depth studies) is ludicrous to me. It seems as crazy as building a whole house without nails or tools unless you first invented and created them. Could it be done? Possibly. If you’ve got some real skills, maybe. But is it more than likely going to look like a hut? Most likely.
Disregarding these same theologians because they argued or disagreed amongst themselves is both short-sighted and inauthentic—arguing and disagreeing is a revered part of the deconstruction process! It’s also part of the rebuilding process.
It’s better to read, contemplate, and study with humility those who have gone before us than it is to start from the perspective that we are somehow the beginning of a whole new revelation.
It is blind hubris to think that all the previous generations upon generations missed the truth but somehow by cosmic chance or cosmic purpose, you are the first to see the truth. It’s not only sheer hubris but also exactly where the Cult of Self begins.
If we plan to deconstruct without any guard rails of accountability to scripture, the theologians who have gone before us, and those who would tell us when our pride is getting the better of us, we deconstruct at our peril.
In summary, deconstructing should only be attempted from the position of humility and within the context of a group that is smarter than you, knows church history, understands the lives that were given to purify doctrine and doctrinal statements, the hundreds upon hundreds of years of debate to see if the doctrine could and should stand, as well as training in textual criticism, reasoning and logic, critical thinking, and ancient languages.
Deconstructionism is not for the faint of heart, but if your goal is to remove from your heart and mind the things that are made by man—follow the path laid before you that is well-worn by those who went first.
Grace will be a light to the path of the humble.