Deconstructing the faith

[Roman57]

I have Asperger Syndrome, so sometimes what is common knowledge to others is news to me. So I never heard the term "deconstructing the faith" up until the last two sermons at my church. When my pastor first mentioned it, my instinctive understanding of the term was that it is an attempt to analyze the faith, to see how things are tied together, and what is its logical structure. I would say that would be a good thing: in fact, that is precisely what that very pastor is doing in his own sermons, which is one reason I picked that church. But then the very next sentence he is telling us that actually this term refers to leaving Christianity and he was bringing it as an example of falling away of the church. What??? I mean, yes, I can see how SOME people might end up losing their faith when they overanalyze. But it can to both ways. Maybe for every person losing their faith that way, there would be two other people whose faith would end up being strengthened?

Being totally confused, I decided to google it when I came home. So I found some people saying "oh I was disappointed with Christianity in this, that and that other way, so I decided to deconstruct". That made no sense. Why would you be "deconstructing" something you are disappointed with? I would have assumed the contrary: you need to really LIKE the Bible in order to be interested in "deconstructing" it to find its deeper meaning. And then there were some youtube videos that would use the term "deconstruct" and "walk away" interchangeably. This makes no sense either. I would of assumed those things are opposites. To deconstruct, you need to put lots of attention to every detail of it, and see how it all ties together. To walk away, you need to just forget the whole thing and not care. Totally opposites, from my point of view.

The only way it "would" make sense is if someone were to say "I am disappointed in my faith, so I need to walk away. I can't get myself to simply walk away just like that. But I heard there were some OTHER people, who embarked into deconstruction project, and ENDED UP losing their faith that way (even though it wasn't their original intention). So let me do exactly what they did, in hopes I would lose my own faith too. So lets pick this Bible and spend hours deconstructing it. I know I hate the Bible but I will do it anyway since I know of those particular couple of people who lost their faith at the end"

Now, do you see how twisted this would sound? And what is even weirder is that nobody ever said what I just wrote in the last paragraph. It was just ME trying to MAKE SENSE of terminology, and that was literally the best thing I could do, even though it sounds so ridiculous. But all those other people, they were just using the word "deconstruct" and "walk away" interchangeably, without any explanation what so ever. Is it because everyone "knows" of that "twisted scheme" I just described so they don't have to mention it, its just a common knowledge?

The only other explanation I can think of is that they just thoughtlessly repeat the words after one another, without actually thinking about the meaning of the words. Since other people around them use the word "deconstruct" to mean "walk away", they use it in this way too. But how come it never strikes them the obvious contradiction betweeen the common usage of the word and its logical meaning? Is it because they never detect the logical meaning on the first place? So, with all the other words in the language, are they ALSO just repeating them after one another without ever paying attention to the logical meaning of those words? And when the words do make logical sense its just a coincidence that people collectively "got it right", so that I have that "Illusion" that they have intellect. But when it comes to the words that they "collectively got wrong" such as the word "deconstruct", then it becomes obvious that actually they don't have intellect, and never had it all along?

Ironically enough, what I am doing right now would be "deconstructing" in MY meaning of the term. Because, instead of just "following the crowd", I asked "what does this word really mean?" And you see how doing it this way quickly led me to saying that they are all idiots? But no, it didn't make me walk away from my faith. I only said PEOPLE are idiots, I never said Jesus was. But if other people treat Christianity as a type of a social club, then I can see how to them this line might be blurred. If they begin to deconstruct, they won't fit into the social club -- it doesn't matter if it is religious club or secular club: people (religious or not) don't like to deconsturct, so if you are the only one in the room who deconstructs, you won't fit in. Well, if it happens to be religious club, then from most people's perspective, they might as well not be Christians. And thats where I disagree with them. Because Jesus clearly contrasted His teachings from "traditions of men". So if you "deconstruct", you get yourself "away" from traditions of men and towards the actual teachings of the Bible.

But people just don't get this point. Despite Jesus' clear teaching against the tradition of men, they keep treating Christianity as such (without realizing that they do it, since it happens automatically). And thats probably why they view deconstruction as walking away. Because you see, from my point of view, true faith is something to be discovered by intense study (thats how I interpret Matt 7:13) and thats why I say "deconstruction would strengthen your faith". But other people are saying that the faith is something they were raised with, something their friends believe, or whatever. So they don't need any study, let alone deconstruction, to discover the faith. They assume they already have faith. The only purpose of deconsturction is to "trick themselevs to walk away from faith". And they skip right over the "trick themselves" part since they haven't "deconstructed" this sentence. They just say deconstruct means walk away, just cause their friends say so.

 

[BobRyan]

Depending on the intent of the one doing it - "deconstruct" can mean the opposite of construct, and has the goal of redirecting/rewriting the purpose, use.

"Dissect" appears to be the meaning you have been using for the term.

 

[public hermit]

I wouldn't be so quick to discount people's motives for deconstructing. Some find certain doctrines unintelligible, some have been deeply hurt by Christians or Christian institutions, some see a lot of hypocrisy, some sought fulfillment and didn't find any, some find an inconsistency between the teachings of Christ and the history of Christianity, etc. Their concerns should be heard and, wherever valid, acknowledged. The appropriate reaction to this fever of deconstructing is not to hand wave it away, but to reflect and see what might have merit. Only then can Christians begin to address what is a real phenomenon.

 

[Roman57]

"Dissect" appears to be the meaning you have been using for the term.

To my ear, the word "dissect" and "deconstruct" has slightly different connotation. Deconstruction is a form of dissection, that is more systematic and productive in some way, I guess. So if you dissect, then maybe you make progress, maybe you are just running in circles. But when you deconstruct, then you are more likely to make progress, at least thats what it sounds like to my ear.

And I am not saying that the presence or lack of progress is what differentiates the two. I am saying that there is a reason why deconstruction leads to more progress. Because deconstruction is more systematic. Think of it this way. Overanalyzing a passage is closer to dissection. Looking up different historic origins of different books in the Bible is closer to deconstruction.

I am not saying I would "define" those terms this way. It is just an example. I am sure there are more ways to deconstruct than just history and stuff. Here is another example. Lets say you have a puzzle of how to put pieces together. You trying, trying and trying, and then you give up. And then you are told the answer: actually you should use third dimension to put them together! And suddenly its simple! Thats how I think of deconstruction versus dissection. Dissection is like trying to put them together on a plane, deconstruction is like realizing there is a third dimension to it.

All I know is that when the pastor used that sentence "deconstructing their faith" my first thought was "I better read their work: maybe through their deconstruction they found answers to all those questions that I couldn't answer as I was dissecting things on my own". But then few seconds later the pastor made it clear he talks about people losing their faith. And I was like "oh wow! thats the opposite to what I just thought!"

 

[Roman57]

I wouldn't be so quick to discount people's motives for deconstructing. Some find certain doctrines unintelligible, some have been deeply hurt by Christians or Christian institutions, some see a lot of hypocrisy, some sought fulfillment and didn't find any, some find an inconsistency between the teachings of Christ and the history of Christianity, etc. Their concerns should be heard and, wherever valid, acknowledged. The appropriate reaction to this fever of deconstructing is not to hand wave it away, but to reflect and see what might have merit. Only then can Christians begin to address what is a real phenomenon.

What you just wrote confirms my point. Can you honestly tell me: did you actually read my actual post, or did you just read the title? In my actual post I was talking about the word usage and how it was misused. So the fact that in your response there was no mention of the issue of word usage indicates that you didn't even bother to read what I actually wrote.

Now, at the risk of being redundant, let me respond to what you said in the context of what I wrote. You mentioned that maybe people deconstruct because they were hurt. Thats fine and well, but do you see how this word was misused? Saying "they walked away because they were hurt" makes perfect sense. Saying "they deconstructed because they were hurt" doesn't make much sense at all. Because "deconstructing" is an analytic/intellectual pursuit. Why would getting hurt make a person engage in this deeply analytic/intellectual journey? Most people who are hurt won't have emotional energy for that.

Now, people that are hurt MIGHT "walk away" from faith. Thats fine. But we aren't talking about people that only used the word "walked away". We are talking about the ones who used the word "deconstruct" in conjunction with that. You seem to assume that these two terms are interchangible -- and that is precisely what I am arguing against.

P.S. Here is an example of a group of people who lost their faith through deconstruction. Think of Jehovah Wittnesses. They analyzed things to death, and ended up not believing in deity of Christ. Now, would you say that "Jehovah Wittnesses became that way because they were hurt"? Well maybe 2 out of 100 did. But that is, by far, not the typical way of becoming a Jehovah Wittness. Well, when you say "people deconstruct because they were hurt" it sounds just as silly as "people became Jehovah Wittnesses because they were hurt".

I mean, when we talk about deconstruction, we are not talking about your typical way of losing salvation. We are talking about a highly intellectual way of doing so. The people that might have been hurt are liberal Christians. The people that deconstruct are Jehovah Wittnesses. Are they both lost? Yes. But are they lost in the same way? NO!!!

 

[public hermit]

What you just wrote confirms my point. Can you honestly tell me: did you actually read my actual post, or did you just read the title? In my actual post I was talking about the word usage and how it was misused. So the fact that in your response there was no mention of the issue of word usage indicates that you didn't even bother to read what I actually wrote.

Now, at the risk of being redundant, let me respond to what you said in the context of what I wrote. You mentioned that maybe people deconstruct because they were hurt. Thats fine and well, but do you see how this word was misused? Saying "they walked away because they were hurt" makes perfect sense. Saying "they deconstructed because they were hurt" doesn't make much sense at all. Because "deconstructing" is an analytic/intellectual pursuit. Why would getting hurt make a person engage in this deeply analytic/intellectual journey? Most people who are hurt won't have emotional energy for that.

Now, people that are hurt MIGHT "walk away" from faith. Thats fine. But we aren't talking about people that only used the word "walked away". We are talking about the ones who used the word "deconstruct" in conjunction with that. You seem to assume that these two terms are interchangible -- and that is precisely what I am arguing against.

P.S. Here is an example of a group of people who lost their faith through deconstruction. Think of Jehovah Wittnesses. They analyzed things to death, and ended up not believing in deity of Christ. Now, would you say that "Jehovah Wittnesses became that way because they were hurt"? Well maybe 2 out of 100 did. But that is, by far, not the typical way of becoming a Jehovah Wittness. Well, when you say "people deconstruct because they were hurt" it sounds just as silly as "people became Jehovah Wittnesses because they were hurt".

I mean, when we talk about deconstruction, we are not talking about your typical way of losing salvation. We are talking about a highly intellectual way of doing so. The people that might have been hurt are liberal Christians. The people that deconstruct are Jehovah Wittnesses. Are they both lost? Yes. But are they lost in the same way? NO!!!

I did read. Here's the thing: You don't get to define what they mean when it's not you who is going through it. Instead, you listen and learn. You're worried about intentions and semantics. Try focusing on the people and what they are saying.

 

[FireDragon76]

What you just wrote confirms my point. Can you honestly tell me: did you actually read my actual post, or did you just read the title? In my actual post I was talking about the word usage and how it was misused. So the fact that in your response there was no mention of the issue of word usage indicates that you didn't even bother to read what I actually wrote.

Now, at the risk of being redundant, let me respond to what you said in the context of what I wrote. You mentioned that maybe people deconstruct because they were hurt. Thats fine and well, but do you see how this word was misused? Saying "they walked away because they were hurt" makes perfect sense. Saying "they deconstructed because they were hurt" doesn't make much sense at all. Because "deconstructing" is an analytic/intellectual pursuit. Why would getting hurt make a person engage in this deeply analytic/intellectual journey? Most people who are hurt won't have emotional energy for that.

Now, people that are hurt MIGHT "walk away" from faith. Thats fine. But we aren't talking about people that only used the word "walked away". We are talking about the ones who used the word "deconstruct" in conjunction with that. You seem to assume that these two terms are interchangible -- and that is precisely what I am arguing against.

P.S. Here is an example of a group of people who lost their faith through deconstruction. Think of Jehovah Wittnesses. They analyzed things to death, and ended up not believing in deity of Christ. Now, would you say that "Jehovah Wittnesses became that way because they were hurt"? Well maybe 2 out of 100 did. But that is, by far, not the typical way of becoming a Jehovah Wittness. Well, when you say "people deconstruct because they were hurt" it sounds just as silly as "people became Jehovah Wittnesses because they were hurt".

I mean, when we talk about deconstruction, we are not talking about your typical way of losing salvation. We are talking about a highly intellectual way of doing so. The people that might have been hurt are liberal Christians. The people that deconstruct are Jehovah Wittnesses. Are they both lost? Yes. But are they lost in the same way? NO!!!

People sometimes respond to emotional hurt by looking for flaws in their religion. Our emotions and intellect often go together.

 

[Roman57]

I did read. Here's the thing: You don't get to define what they mean when it's not you who is going through it. Instead, you listen and learn. You're worried about intentions and semantics. Try focusing on the people and what they are saying.

Actually, I searched on youtube some videos about deconstructing the faith, in hopes they would answer this question. But they never did. What they talked about, at length, is how they were disappointed in their faith and why. But they never once explained why the word "decostruction" is the right word to use. They just took it for granted. As far as why they were disapointed,yes they explained that part. But why disappointed=deconstruct, that was never explained. They just took it for granted. Well presuming that they deconstruct, I would have expected them to be more analytical than that

On a different note, here is one video that I watched

And as I was watching her talk about her trip to Combodia, I felt like "I wish I had her contact information so I would point her to wars and rumors of wars passage in Matthew 24". Bible never said that the life here on earth will be good, so the fact that she lost her faith over this, pretty much shows she didn't understand Biblical faith on the first place. Yes, she read her note to God at 17 that shown that God was the center of her life. And I fully believe what she wrote. But, as Paul said, "she had zeal for God but not according to knowledge": she didn't know Matthew 24 and other passages that would have answered her concern.

In any case, lets not confuse two issues: We have two separate quetions:

Question 1: Was she justified in walking away from faith?

Question 2: Was the word "deconstruct" the right word to describe it?

 

[Roman57]

People sometimes respond to emotional hurt by looking for flaws in their religion. Our emotions and intellect often go together.

But deconstruction is not the same thing as looking for flaws. Deconstruction means to look at each ingredient separately rather than as a package deal. And that does not imply thinking negatively about each ingredient.

For example, I wish people could "deconstruct" their political views. Because the issue of gun control has nothing to do with issue of gay marriage. So why is it that if you are pro-gun you are anti-gay and if you are anti-gun you are pro-gay? It only makes sense because people take it as "package deal" like there is "Republican package" and "Democrat package". But I wish they could deconstruct those packages and think of it as issue by issue type of thing.

But notice how this has nothing to do with looking for flaws? Instead, it has to do with looking at it more logically?

Now, someone "might" try to pretend to be "logical" when their real intention is to look for flaws. But that would be a rather peculiar version of deconstruction, don't you think?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Actually, I searched on youtube some videos about deconstructing the faith, in hopes they would answer this question. But they never did. What they talked about, at length, is how they were disappointed in their faith and why. But they never once explained why the word "decostruction" is the right word to use. They just took it for granted. As far as why they were disapointed,yes they explained that part. But why disappointed=deconstruct, that was never explained. They just took it for granted. Well presuming that they deconstruct, I would have expected them to be more analytical than that

On a different note, here is one video that I watched

And as I was watching her talk about her trip to Combodia, I felt like "I wish I had her contact information so I would point her to wars and rumors of wars passage in Matthew 24". Bible never said that the life here on earth will be good, so the fact that she lost her faith over this, pretty much shows she didn't understand Biblical faith on the first place. Yes, she read her note to God at 17 that shown that God was the center of her life. And I fully believe what she wrote. But, as Paul said, "she had zeal for God but not according to knowledge": she didn't know Matthew 24 and other passages that would have answered her concern.

In any case, lets not confuse two issues: We have two separate quetions:

Question 1: Was she justified in walking away from faith?

Question 2: Was the word "deconstruct" the right word to describe it?

So all of this is really just not liking the word "deconstruct" being used that way.

 

[public hermit]

Actually, I searched on youtube some videos about deconstructing the faith, in hopes they would answer this question. But they never did. What they talked about, at length, is how they were disappointed in their faith and why. But they never once explained why the word "decostruction" is the right word to use. They just took it for granted. As far as why they were disapointed,yes they explained that part. But why disappointed=deconstruct, that was never explained. They just took it for granted. Well presuming that they deconstruct, I would have expected them to be more analytical than that

On a different note, here is one video that I watched

And as I was watching her talk about her trip to Combodia, I felt like "I wish I had her contact information so I would point her to wars and rumors of wars passage in Matthew 24". Bible never said that the life here on earth will be good, so the fact that she lost her faith over this, pretty much shows she didn't understand Biblical faith on the first place. Yes, she read her note to God at 17 that shown that God was the center of her life. And I fully believe what she wrote. But, as Paul said, "she had zeal for God but not according to knowledge": she didn't know Matthew 24 and other passages that would have answered her concern.

In any case, lets not confuse two issues: We have two separate quetions:

Question 1: Was she justified in walking away from faith?

Question 2: Was the word "deconstruct" the right word to describe it?

I can appreciate what you're saying in expecting them to be more analytic. And, I see your point about the difference between Questions 1 and 2. I have a better sense, now, of what your issue with it is. Thanks. I'll leave you to it.

 

[disciple Clint]

I have Asperger Syndrome, so sometimes what is common knowledge to others is news to me. So I never heard the term "deconstructing the faith" up until the last two sermons at my church. When my pastor first mentioned it, my instinctive understanding of the term was that it is an attempt to analyze the faith, to see how things are tied together, and what is its logical structure. I would say that would be a good thing: in fact, that is precisely what that very pastor is doing in his own sermons, which is one reason I picked that church. But then the very next sentence he is telling us that actually this term refers to leaving Christianity and he was bringing it as an example of falling away of the church. What??? I mean, yes, I can see how SOME people might end up losing their faith when they overanalyze. But it can to both ways. Maybe for every person losing their faith that way, there would be two other people whose faith would end up being strengthened?

Being totally confused, I decided to google it when I came home. So I found some people saying "oh I was disappointed with Christianity in this, that and that other way, so I decided to deconstruct". That made no sense. Why would you be "deconstructing" something you are disappointed with? I would have assumed the contrary: you need to really LIKE the Bible in order to be interested in "deconstructing" it to find its deeper meaning. And then there were some youtube videos that would use the term "deconstruct" and "walk away" interchangeably. This makes no sense either. I would of assumed those things are opposites. To deconstruct, you need to put lots of attention to every detail of it, and see how it all ties together. To walk away, you need to just forget the whole thing and not care. Totally opposites, from my point of view.

The only way it "would" make sense is if someone were to say "I am disappointed in my faith, so I need to walk away. I can't get myself to simply walk away just like that. But I heard there were some OTHER people, who embarked into deconstruction project, and ENDED UP losing their faith that way (even though it wasn't their original intention). So let me do exactly what they did, in hopes I would lose my own faith too. So lets pick this Bible and spend hours deconstructing it. I know I hate the Bible but I will do it anyway since I know of those particular couple of people who lost their faith at the end"

Now, do you see how twisted this would sound? And what is even weirder is that nobody ever said what I just wrote in the last paragraph. It was just ME trying to MAKE SENSE of terminology, and that was literally the best thing I could do, even though it sounds so ridiculous. But all those other people, they were just using the word "deconstruct" and "walk away" interchangeably, without any explanation what so ever. Is it because everyone "knows" of that "twisted scheme" I just described so they don't have to mention it, its just a common knowledge?

The only other explanation I can think of is that they just thoughtlessly repeat the words after one another, without actually thinking about the meaning of the words. Since other people around them use the word "deconstruct" to mean "walk away", they use it in this way too. But how come it never strikes them the obvious contradiction betweeen the common usage of the word and its logical meaning? Is it because they never detect the logical meaning on the first place? So, with all the other words in the language, are they ALSO just repeating them after one another without ever paying attention to the logical meaning of those words? And when the words do make logical sense its just a coincidence that people collectively "got it right", so that I have that "Illusion" that they have intellect. But when it comes to the words that they "collectively got wrong" such as the word "deconstruct", then it becomes obvious that actually they don't have intellect, and never had it all along?

Ironically enough, what I am doing right now would be "deconstructing" in MY meaning of the term. Because, instead of just "following the crowd", I asked "what does this word really mean?" And you see how doing it this way quickly led me to saying that they are all idiots? But no, it didn't make me walk away from my faith. I only said PEOPLE are idiots, I never said Jesus was. But if other people treat Christianity as a type of a social club, then I can see how to them this line might be blurred. If they begin to deconstruct, they won't fit into the social club -- it doesn't matter if it is religious club or secular club: people (religious or not) don't like to deconsturct, so if you are the only one in the room who deconstructs, you won't fit in. Well, if it happens to be religious club, then from most people's perspective, they might as well not be Christians. And thats where I disagree with them. Because Jesus clearly contrasted His teachings from "traditions of men". So if you "deconstruct", you get yourself "away" from traditions of men and towards the actual teachings of the Bible.

But people just don't get this point. Despite Jesus' clear teaching against the tradition of men, they keep treating Christianity as such (without realizing that they do it, since it happens automatically). And thats probably why they view deconstruction as walking away. Because you see, from my point of view, true faith is something to be discovered by intense study (thats how I interpret Matt 7:13) and thats why I say "deconstruction would strengthen your faith". But other people are saying that the faith is something they were raised with, something their friends believe, or whatever. So they don't need any study, let alone deconstruction, to discover the faith. They assume they already have faith. The only purpose of deconsturction is to "trick themselevs to walk away from faith". And they skip right over the "trick themselves" part since they haven't "deconstructed" this sentence. They just say deconstruct means walk away, just cause their friends say so.

Wait, You’re Not Deconstructing?

What’s behind the exvangelical trend isn’t new. But it sheds new light on theology.

www.christianitytoday.com

 

[Roman57]

So all of this is really just not liking the word "deconstruct" being used that way.

Bingo! You finally understand what I was asking in the OP. But don't dismiss it with the word "just":

a) If its not an accidental misuse by one person but instead its a persistent thing, then it might be something theological I am not seeing. So it is the right time to ask the question to see what is it I am not seeing.

b) If everyone asks one sort of question, yet nobody asks the other sort of question, I would be the one to ask the question nobody asks. Because you see, when it comes to the first type of question, I don't have to ask it: I can just google it. But when it comes to the second type of question then, no matter how much I google it, I can't find it. So I have no choice but to ask.

c) By asking the types of questions that nobody asks, I am also helping others, too. Because if I bring up something that has been brought up multiple times, there isn't much of a diffrence between having 100 posts about it and 101 posts about it. But if I bring something nobody brought up before, I change your thinking! You become mindful of things that you have never been mindful of before (by the virtue of not having been asking that question).

I am a theoretical physicist and, believe it or not, I have the same kind of issues there too. So, in quantum field theory, they are using numbers known as Grassmann numbers. Suffice it to say, those numbers have mathematical properties that blatantly contradict the properties of numbers we are used to. Yet it doesn't seem to bother anyone but me. The reason is that the answer to any kind of calculation is never a Grassmann number. Instead, Grassmann number is just something that is being used as a tool to get to that answer. Yet, at the same time, they have things like superspace where the dimensions of superspace are measured with Grassmann numbers. Yet again they are not bothered by it because nobody "sees" superspace, it is just being used as a tool to get to things we do see, which isn't Grassmann. But I couldn't deal with it: I can't talk about a space I can't visualize. It doesn't matter if it is a prediction or a tool or whatever. I want to be able to visualize every step I am doing. At least in principle.

Long story short, Grassmann numbers always bothered me. But nobody could understand why they bothered me. I was going around the department asking various professors "how are Grassmann numbers possible". Everyone gave me the same answer, which I couldn't accept. Eventually, 10 years later, I answered my own question. I came up with a mathematical model of my own making that would produce a mathematical objects whose properties would approximate the ones of Grassmann numbers. But then I had a different problem: I couldn't explain to anybody why it was important, so it was very hard to get it published. Eventually, I asked one of the professors whose math class I been taking to be my co-author in this, and eventually we got it published. Which I am super greatful for, since all those years weren't wasted.

But, back to the topic of this post, let me spell out the analogy. In case of faith, the practical issue is people losing their faith. A theoretical issue is whether or not the word "deconstruction" is a good way of describing it. In case of quantum field theory, the practical issue is the prediction. A theoretical issue is how to make sense of Grassmann numbers that were used in obtaining it. In both of those situations, everyone else is concerned about the practical issue, while I am concerned about theoretical issue. In both cases, I have hard time conveying to others why I am concerned about theoretical issue. And, just like you asked "are you just not liking the word", in physics they ask "are you just not liking a notation". And in both cases I would say "yeah, but please don't use the word just" because, in both cases, it illustrates deeper issues that nobody seems to see but me. And the more nobody notices them, the more I want to talk about them. Because the very fact that nobody notices might illustrate on a fundamental thinking difference between me and other people, so perhaps we can both learn from each other by actually "talking" about those "unspoken things" so to speak.

 

[Roman57]

I can appreciate what you're saying in expecting them to be more analytic. And, I see your point about the difference between Questions 1 and 2. I have a better sense, now, of what your issue with it is. Thanks. I'll leave you to it.

Why did you end this with the sentence "I'll leave you to it"? Did you assume I just wanted to communicate what I wanted to say and wasn't interested in other people's opinions? If so, you misunderstood me. Yes, I am interested in others opinions. The only reason I responded to your first post the way I did is because the topic you talked about was different from the one I wanted to talk about. But now that you finally know what topic I want to talk about, then, yes, I do want to hear what you have to say about *this* topic.

 

[Roman57]

Here is an example of what I talk about. Go to this page The Aquarian Age: You're Living in It, Get to Know It Does it ever strike you how is it possible they are sitting just like that without falling? How did they get up there? And, more importantly, how are they going to get down?

I bet nobody besides me ever asked that question. Because thats not what that page is about. So they just take that photo for granted and go on reading what that page has to say.

Same with deconstruction. Since they aren't talking about the word structure, they just take that word usage for granted and go on to read what is being communicated.

But I am not that kind of person that can just look past stuff like that. The more people look past it, the more I want to ask. So, for me, the most interesting thing about that link is that photo. And the most interesting thing about deconstruction is the word structure. And both of this is largely because nobody else notices it. Which makes me ask: do everyone know something that I don't?

 

[WolfGate]

"Deconstruction" is used the way it is in conversation not because analysis of the word fits, but because the meaning has become common in context. So your general statement about the word not seeming to fit is correct, but as you also found out, the common meaning is pretty consistent across people, though not really logical.

I have heard people use "reconstruct" to cover the concept of examining what they were taught about faith and keeping the parts that align with what they see the Bible teaching and the Holy Spirit guiding them to understand. That allows them a bit to separate from "deconstruction" often meaning moving away from faith to more of a rebuilding faith. And that type of reconstruction is really what we all should be doing as we move through sanctification.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Bingo! You finally understand what I was asking in the OP. But don't dismiss it with the word "just":

a) If its not an accidental misuse by one person but instead its a persistent thing, then it might be something theological I am not seeing. So it is the right time to ask the question to see what is it I am not seeing.

b) If everyone asks one sort of question, yet nobody asks the other sort of question, I would be the one to ask the question nobody asks. Because you see, when it comes to the first type of question, I don't have to ask it: I can just google it. But when it comes to the second type of question then, no matter how much I google it, I can't find it. So I have no choice but to ask.

c) By asking the types of questions that nobody asks, I am also helping others, too. Because if I bring up something that has been brought up multiple times, there isn't much of a diffrence between having 100 posts about it and 101 posts about it. But if I bring something nobody brought up before, I change your thinking! You become mindful of things that you have never been mindful of before (by the virtue of not having been asking that question).

I am a theoretical physicist and, believe it or not, I have the same kind of issues there too. So, in quantum field theory, they are using numbers known as Grassmann numbers. Suffice it to say, those numbers have mathematical properties that blatantly contradict the properties of numbers we are used to. Yet it doesn't seem to bother anyone but me. The reason is that the answer to any kind of calculation is never a Grassmann number. Instead, Grassmann number is just something that is being used as a tool to get to that answer. Yet, at the same time, they have things like superspace where the dimensions of superspace are measured with Grassmann numbers. Yet again they are not bothered by it because nobody "sees" superspace, it is just being used as a tool to get to things we do see, which isn't Grassmann. But I couldn't deal with it: I can't talk about a space I can't visualize. It doesn't matter if it is a prediction or a tool or whatever. I want to be able to visualize every step I am doing. At least in principle.

Long story short, Grassmann numbers always bothered me. But nobody could understand why they bothered me. I was going around the department asking various professors "how are Grassmann numbers possible". Everyone gave me the same answer, which I couldn't accept. Eventually, 10 years later, I answered my own question. I came up with a mathematical model of my own making that would produce a mathematical objects whose properties would approximate the ones of Grassmann numbers. But then I had a different problem: I couldn't explain to anybody why it was important, so it was very hard to get it published. Eventually, I asked one of the professors whose math class I been taking to be my co-author in this, and eventually we got it published. Which I am super greatful for, since all those years weren't wasted.

But, back to the topic of this post, let me spell out the analogy. In case of faith, the practical issue is people losing their faith. A theoretical issue is whether or not the word "deconstruction" is a good way of describing it. In case of quantum field theory, the practical issue is the prediction. A theoretical issue is how to make sense of Grassmann numbers that were used in obtaining it. In both of those situations, everyone else is concerned about the practical issue, while I am concerned about theoretical issue. In both cases, I have hard time conveying to others why I am concerned about theoretical issue. And, just like you asked "are you just not liking the word", in physics they ask "are you just not liking a notation". And in both cases I would say "yeah, but please don't use the word just" because, in both cases, it illustrates deeper issues that nobody seems to see but me. And the more nobody notices them, the more I want to talk about them. Because the very fact that nobody notices might illustrate on a fundamental thinking difference between me and other people, so perhaps we can both learn from each other by actually "talking" about those "unspoken things" so to speak.

Would the term "taking apart" or "picking apart" work better?

 

[public hermit]

Why did you end this with the sentence "I'll leave you to it"? Did you assume I just wanted to communicate what I wanted to say and wasn't interested in other people's opinions? If so, you misunderstood me. Yes, I am interested in others opinions. The only reason I responded to your first post the way I did is because the topic you talked about was different from the one I wanted to talk about. But now that you finally know what topic I want to talk about, then, yes, I do want to hear what you have to say about *this* topic.

I don't have anything to say on the intention of the word "deconstruction." I think it misses the point. Use whatever word you like, but this phenomenon of people taking a hard look at the faith they grew up with is important both for them and for the rest of us. But if you want to focus solely on the word, then I'll leave you to that task. That was why I ended with that sentence. At risk of stating the obvious, this is your thread, and it's not fair for me to try and take it in some direction that you're not interested in exploring.

 

[Roman57]

"Deconstruction" is used the way it is in conversation not because analysis of the word fits, but because the meaning has become common in context. So your general statement about the word not seeming to fit is correct, but as you also found out, the common meaning is pretty consistent across people, though not really logical.

I am glad you finally noticed this too. Now, here is why it bothers me. Because the word usage reflects thinking. So when people just use a certain word because everyone else does it, it means that they frame their thinking patterns after everyone else. So this means that they don't have an original thought. If I want to be able to think originally, I want to have all words at my disposal, which I can use in the way that they actually sound rather than the way I was conditioned to think that they do.

Here is another example of this same phenomenon. What does global warming have to do with gun control, and what do either of those two topics have to do with abortion? Yet, the fact that they are all partisan issues and we have just two parties make them have everything to do with one another. If someoen believes in global warming you can bet they are pro-abortion. WHY??? Well, maybe the issue is that when they talk about global warming its not "about" global warming. Rather its a 'dog wissle" to say "hey I am a democrat" or "hey I am a republican" depending on what global warming belief you express. Similarly, with any other partisan issue. So if they were to look at ACTUAL issues as they are, they would find they have nothing to do with one another. But if they look at those issues as "dog wissles" to say that they belong to a certain party, then yes they have everything to do with each other. The only problem is that they don't sound like dog wissles. When I look at those photos of embroys trying to hold to the mothers thumb, it looks far too real to be a dog wissle. And when I hear people talk about global warming, it sounds like just acknowledging scientific facts (so thats me siding with Republicans on the first issue and with Democrats on the second one since, unlike everyone else, I am not brainwashed). Yet, if I look at the partisan statistics, I can see that they "are" dog wissles, even though they dont sound that way.

And this brings me back to the usage of the word "deconstruct". That word, too, is a dog wissle for something else entirely. And the way they can totally ignore the word structure and just treat it as if its not even there, that just shines a light on their thinking patterns in general. You know why Republicans don't see the scientific arguments about global warming, and why Democrats don't see the photos of those embrios, no matter how much you shove it into their face? For the same exact reason as people don't see the structure of the word "deconstruct". They just don't see anything other than what they are conditioned to see. And thats really sad.

I have heard people use "reconstruct" to cover the concept of examining what they were taught about faith and keeping the parts that align with what they see the Bible teaching and the Holy Spirit guiding them to understand. That allows them a bit to separate from "deconstruction" often meaning moving away from faith to more of a rebuilding faith. And that type of reconstruction is really what we all should be doing as we move through sanctification.

The words "deconstruct" and "reconstruct" have different connotations though. The purpose of "reconstructing" is to reproduce the original form of something. Kind of like in a court when cameras are not allowed, and a certain person draws the proceedings to the best of their ability, that would be "reconstructing". On the other hand, the purpose of "deconstructing" is to look at the thing piece by piece and try to treat each piece for its designated purpose only, as opposed to treat it as part of the whole. Thus, if someone were to "deconstruct" the courts proceedings, one would be asking questions such as "who played what role" there.

Let me give you another example. Lets say we talk about the recepie. If you somehow lost the recepy, you can try to "reconstruct" it, by trying to remember what you can, guess other ingredients by tasting it, etc. You might not be completely successful, but your goal is to basically get as close to that recepie as possible. That would be "reconstructing". On the other hand, lets say you still have the recepie, you didn't lose it. But you realized that a lot of the ingredients are not needed. Do you really need vanilla in vanilla ice cream? Wouldn't it taste just as good or even better if you just use plain old half an half by itself? What if you take away this ingredient and keep the other one? How would it taste? And what if you do the opposite, keep the other ingredient and get rid of the first one? That would be "deconstructing".

Now, if you can't use the word "deconstruct" because it was hijacked, then yes, you can "make do" of other words. But, at the same time, you won't be able to describe that specific connotation that is specific to that word. You would have to write the whole paragraph, like I just did, instead of simply using one single word "deconstruct". All because that word was hijacked.

And its not "just" the issue of not having enough words. Even more seriously: in order for people not to respond to the word "deconstruct" the way I do, they have to basically be brainwashed to overlook its obvious meaning. And when people are brainwashed to overlook things, that hinders original thought.

Going back to my ice cream example: lets say you are fed up with ice cream, and you are just not in the ice cream mood any more. Would you really be "deconstructing" the way I described in the paragraph above? Hardly. So you see how ridiculous it sounds when they are using the word "deconstruct" in the context of faith? Yet nobody besides me sees this elephant in the room. Which is my point right there that people are brainwashed.

 

[Roman57]

Would the term "taking apart" or "picking apart" work better?

I think "taking apart" or "picking apart" would have the same meaning as "dissect", discussed earlier. So, to me,

"dissect" = "take apart" = "pick apart" = Less productive way of focusing on details

"Deconstruct" = More productive way of focusing on details

Still, however, I can use your words to illustrate the point I was making. All those people that claimed to "deconstruct" their faith, would they ever say they "picked apart their faith"? No, they won't use that term, because they weren't doing the intellectual process they were going through emotional trauma. Well, for the same reason they shouldn't use the word "deconstruct" either. I mean I don't have to explain why they shouldn't use "pick apart": nobody uses it anyway. Yet somehow people started to use the word "deconstruct" without seeing anything wrong with it. Why don't they see that putting the word "deconstruct" in that particular context is just as silly as putting the phrase "pick apart" in there there?