What about Deconstruction?

In recent years, much has been written about Christian deconstruction. That may be a new term/concept to many of you, but it is something worth thinking about, for ourselves and for the people around us who are struggling with their faith or lack thereof. 

What is deconstruction? Well, in the physical world, we are all familiar with construction as meaning “the act or process of building something.” Similarly, deconstruction means the selective dismantlement of building components as opposed to demolition. It is construction in reverse.

Then there is the related word reconstruction, that is, “the act or process of building again something that was damaged or destroyed.” (Of course, Reconstruction was the term used for the turbulent era from 1865 to 1877 as the Confederate states were reintegrated into the United States.)

For quite some time, though, deconstruction has been used as a philosophical or literary term. In philosophy, it refers to the endeavor to understand the relationship between a text and its meaning. Philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930~2004) introduced that concept of deconstruction.

Somewhat surprisingly, since Derrida described himself as Jewish “without being Jewish,” his ideas about deconstruction have been influential among evangelical Christians, and especially among those who have become “progressive.”

Consider the construction, deconstruction, reconstruction process. Everyone acquires a constructed worldview, which for most people is linked to religious beliefs. The worldview or basic beliefs of children are constructed primarily by their parents and/or teachers (such as Sunday School teachers).

Most people grow up accepting what they have been taught without question—until they don’t. Some never change or veer very much from their other-constructed worldview or religious faith. Those who remain rooted in family and community structures into which they were born often make little change.

However, because of life experiences, critical thinking, and/or contact with different worldviews, most people who leave their birth “cocoon” begin the often rather painful process of deconstruction. That is true now for most Christian believers, of course.

According to Claude, in such cases, deconstruction for Christians

refers to a critical examination and dismantling of traditional religious beliefs, practices, and interpretations of scripture. This process involves questioning long-held assumptions about faith, doctrine, and biblical interpretation to uncover underlying power structures, cultural biases, and historical influences that may have shaped Christian understanding.*¹

The final paragraph of Claude’s response to my question states, “The ultimate goal for many deconstructive theologians is not destruction but reconstruction—building a more authentic, inclusive, and contextually relevant understanding of Christian faith.” Touché!

Is deconstruction good or bad (beneficial or harmful)? In the past, I have written how “unexamined faith is not worth having,” and posted blog articles about “Growing in the Faith” (2/28/17) and about the importance of expanding one’s worldview (7/30/24).*²

From a Christian point of view, I think it is harmful when deconstruction ends up destroying one’s Christian faith, as it sometimes does. However, it is certainly beneficial when it leads to growth, an expanded worldview, and a faith strong enough to meet contemporary challenges to a Christian worldview.

The reconstructed faith may differ from the institutional Christianity to which one was formerly linked, but it may, in fact, be more closely linked to the real message of Jesus Christ.

Two examples of the latter are Martin Thielen and Jim Palmer, both former pastors and both now outside of organized Christianity as a religion but still Jesus-followers, it seems to me.

Thielen is a former Baptist and Methodist pastor. He elucidates the deconstruction and reconstruction of his Christian faith in “My Long Farewell to Traditional Religion (and What Remains),” posted on his Doubter’s Parish website.

Palmer is an M.Div. graduate of Trinity Divinity School and served many years as a Christian pastor before leaving the ministry in 2000. He started the online Center for Non-Religious Spirituality in 2021, creating a community for people to explore spirituality apart from the core beliefs of traditional religion.

Palmer, who writes extensively, also has a Substack newsletter titled “deconstructionology.” Some of you might like to read “What if …”, his June 27 post, which lists “17 ways to transform candidates for the hereafter into lovers of the world.”*³

Best wishes to all of you who are currently working on deconstruction and reconstruction—and I encourage any of you who may still need to begin deconstruction to start that process soon.

____

*¹ Claude is now my AI chatbot of choice, and it (he?) gave an excellent response to my inquiry, “What does deconstruction mean for Christian theologians?” The words cited above is the first of six paragraphs produced in just a few seconds. (You can find an introduction to Claude here.)

*² The former was the title of my June 20, 2018, blog post and also of the 17^th chapter in my book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2019). Then, in connection with the latter blog article, in my 8/20/24 post I wrote about deconstruction for the first time.

*³ While Palmer now identifies as non-religious, much of what he posted in his June 27 newsletter is not much different from what Pastor Jarrett Banks posted in his June 25 Substack blog article.  

The Loss of Transcendence: On the Sadness of Shrinking One’s Worldview

The importance of expanding one’s worldview was the subject of my July 30 blog post. I’m sure most of my blog readers have done, and continue to do, that. But I’m afraid that many people, but probably only a very few of my Thinking Friends, have moved in the opposite direction—and I think that’s sad. 

In recent decades, there has been a marked increase in secularism, which usually means a denial or rejection of transcendence. 

Please note that, as I have done previously, I make an important distinction between secularization and secularism. As I wrote in a February 2020 blog post, secularism as an ideology “is confined to ‘temporal’ or ‘this-worldly’ things, with emphasis on nature, reason, and science.”

Secularism usually rejects transcendence, the affirmation of reality “beyond” that which can be analyzed by science. As I  wrote in 2/20, “When secularism is truly an ism, it is a worldview that has no room for God, by whatever name God might be understood… .”

Such a denial of transcendence necessarily involves a markedly shrinking or flattening of one’s worldview. The postmodern mindset basically embraces subjectivism and rejects the notion of there being objective realities such as God, Truth, or Good. The result is often moral relativism and narcissism. 

As eminent Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor explains, subjectivism (and/or individualism) can lead, and has led, to “a centering on the self, which both flattens and narrows our lives, makes them poorer in meaning, and less concerned with others or society.”** 

Much recent secularism in the U.S. is a reaction to the “Religious Right.” There is much in conservative evangelical belief and practice that needs to be rejected, or deconstructed, to use a term that is popular in some circles.

There is even a Wikipedia article on “faith deconstruction,” describing it as “a phenomenon within American evangelicalism in which Christians rethink their faith and jettison previously held beliefs, sometimes to the point of no longer identifying as Christians.”

There is what can be called positive deconstruction, which means questioning the faith one has grown up in and growing into the reconstruction of a more mature, viable faith. That is what I was suggesting in my July 30 blog post. 

But there is also negative deconstruction as noted in the Wikipedia article. That doesn’t always lead to complete secularism, as there are, indeed, some who actively seek to be spiritual but not religious. But for many, deconstruction is accompanied by a loss of transcendence.

It is sad when people jettison religious faith and accept a narrower, shallower worldview. It is sad because so much is lost. The old cliché, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, seems an apt description of what is lost. 

How very sad if in disposing of the dirty, unneeded bathwater (the out-of-date, untenable beliefs) the precious baby (the belief in God/Transcendence) is also discarded!

Many who have lost their religious faith, or never had such a faith to begin with, are not “bad” people. Many secularists are kind, loving people, showing concern for others and for the environment, working for peace and justice—at least for a while. 

Without an ongoing, sustaining sense of the Transcendent, however, people often “burn out,” become cynical and/or depressed, lose the joy of living, and seek to escape the meaningless of life by excessive emphasis on hedonistic pleasures or by over-use of drugs, including especially alcohol.

In the early years of this blog, one of my Thinking Friends was a thoughtful man who convened a discussion group mainly of atheists and agnostics. He was concerned about social issues.

This friend was a vegetarian because, he said, he realized that the grain used to fatten animals for slaughter and human consumption could and should be used to feed people in the world who didn’t have enough to eat. I quit eating beef and pork partly because of his influence. 

Several years ago, though, this friend seemingly “burnt out” and dropped out, and I ceased hearing from him. Then a mutual friend told me that he had drunk himself to death. I was greatly saddened when I heard that. 

One can’t prove anything by an anecdote, but I think my atheist friend’s story is not uncommon. It is sad, indeed, when one doesn’t have or loses a sense of Transcendence. 

_____

**The Ethics of Authenticity (1991), p. 4. Taylor (b. 1931) is best known for his massive, 874-page book, A Secular Age (2007). I regret that I have never taken the time and expended the energy to read the latter book carefully. In keeping with the subject of this article, though, I did read (although too hastily) the eighth chapter, “The Malaises of Modernity,” in which Taylor describes the “three forms which the malaise of immanence may take: (1) the sense of the fragility of meaning, the search for an over-arching significance; (2) the felt flatness of our attempts to solemnize the crucial moments of passage in our lives; and (3) the utter flatness, emptiness of the ordinary” (p. 309).