Deconstructing the faith

[Roman57]

I don't have anything to say on the intention of the word "deconstruction." I think it misses the point.

It is possible to have more than one issue that is important. Is it important to discuss why they walk away? Yes. Is it important to discuss why the word is misused? Also yes. In order not to confuse those two topics, each of them deserves a separate thread. I am sure there were plenty of threads on the topic why people walk away. But nobody besides me ever made a thread about the word usage. Hence I came along and made a thread about the topic that has been overlooked.

 

[Servus]

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?

The way I see it is being a Christian is a process of building up faith layer by layer. And leaving that faith is a process of tearing it down layer by layer.

 

[Servus]

"Faith deconstruction, also known as deconstructing faith, evangelical deconstruction, the deconstruction movement, or simply deconstruction, is a Christian phenomenon where people unpack, rethink and examine their belief systems. This may lead to dropping one's faith all together or may result in a stronger faith."

Faith deconstruction - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Roman57]

"Faith deconstruction, also known as deconstructing faith, evangelical deconstruction, the deconstruction movement, or simply deconstruction, is a Christian phenomenon where people unpack, rethink and examine their belief systems. This may lead to dropping one's faith all together or may result in a stronger faith."

That happens to be the meaning that I would have used. But then those other people are using a totally different meaning.

 

[Servus]

That happens to be the meaning that I would have used. But then those other people are using a totally different meaning.

Perhaps they need to be told:

 

[Roman57]

The way I see it is being a Christian is a process of building up faith layer by layer. And leaving that faith is a process of tearing it down layer by layer.

Thats an interesting way of explaining that other usage. So then we have two ways of looking at the word deconstruct:

Meaning 1: Pull things apart to see their logical roles. An example would be to deconstruct the food recepie in order to see the logical role of each ingredient, and then use that information to see how you can improve it

Meaning 2: Take things away layer by layer. An example would be if you built something and you decided you don't need it any more. In this case you don't analyze the role of each layer to see which one is needed. Yet, you are still taking it apart layer by layer. So you still use the word deconstruct even though the logical role of each layer is no longer important.

I guess to me, in the context of faith, I want to use Meaning 1, but they want to use Meaning 2.

Maybe the difference between Meaning 1 situation and Meaning 2 situation is that meaning 1 pertains to ideas while meaning 2 pertains to physical things. Like in case of a recipie, thats not physical: thats an idea on how to build the physical. But in case of the building it is physical.

So if, instead of a recipie (not physical), you were to have an actual dish (physical) then physically deconstructing it would be a bad idea: then you won't be able to pull it back together. Well, you would be able to replicate it with a different dish. But in case of faith you don't want a different Jesus (2 Cor 11:4), there is only one Jesus. So if you don't want to replicate a dish with a different one, you clearly don't want to deconstruct it (is this where Hebrews 6:6 and Hebrews 10:26 come from?)

On the other hand, what if instead of a building (physical) you had a design of a building (not physical). In this case, in the scenario of wanting to get rid of it altogether, would you really need to take it down layer by layer? No of course not: you just forget the whole thing. But if the building is physical, thats when you take it layer by layer (hence the word deconstruct in its second meaning).

So maybe the reason why I assign Meaning 1 to the faith context and other people assign Meaning 2 to it, is that my faith is more intellectual, while other people's faith is more tangible? For example, I been wondering how can people with Alzcheimer still be saved if they lost their intellectual capacities to have faith in Jesus? Or how can infants be saved without knowing Jesus? Thats because I think of faith of Jesus as an intellectual pursuit. But others, when they picture relationship with Jesus as something more tangible, then of course Jesus can take care of both infants and Alzcheimer's patients. Just like both infants and Alzcheimers patients can live in a bulding without having intellecutal capabilities to see how that building is being built.

So maybe the fact that I picture faith as more intellectual while others picutre it as more physical is the reason for disagreement with regards to word usage, too.

As a matter of fact, people that "deconstruct their faith" might be a prime example of how it is more than just an intellectual pursuit. Intellectually, they already decided that they don't believe. Yet on practice its still there. So they have to deconstruct it, with Meaning 2 of the word, just like they would any building thats there.

In fact look at it this way. Intellectually, I have more faith than them. I keep choosing to continue to believe, yet they chose not to. But in terms of the actual physical relationship with Jesus, they have it more real than me. Here I am wondering "what does it mean to have a relationship with Jesus", "can it be something more than an abstraction", etc? But in their case they KNOW its real, thats why they have to deconstruct it with Meaning 2, treating it just as real as any other building. If only I saw what they see (its not about "knowing" any more, its about "seeing") this would probably address most of MY faith issues. Except that, unlike them, I would say "thank you Father for SHOWING the building to me, I will cherish it" -- unlike them, who want to deconstruct it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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.

I have been hearing this word quite a bit lately especially by those who have been raised in a particular denomination during their impressionable years. It's a good word to use because it implies that " building back" is a possibility, in other words, there is still hope.One very important fact to keep in mind is, building back ones faith comes by vastly different time frames and for many the first stage is to walk away.
A Pastor's responsibility is to keep the fold in truth however ,we know this is not always the case and doubt will arise. Doubt is not in the Kingdom of God and He knows the heart of all. It is better to walk away from confusion and doubt rather than play a part in deception.
Deconstructors are seekers. They need to process what they learned, un-learn it and learn again in truth. It may be that their truth is complete apostasy or complete submission either way, our Father only lives in the believer and His dwelling place is only contained in love. Blessings.

 

[Roman57]

I have been hearing this word quite a bit lately especially by those who have been raised in a particular denomination during their impressionable years.

Can you tell me what denomination is it? That would shine a lot of light on my other questions.

It's a good word to use because it implies that " building back" is a possibility, in other words, there is still hope.

Is it because, going with Meaning 2 (as I described in the previous post), if you pull the building apart into bricks, you can still build a new building out of those bricks, but if you just ruin it by an explosion of some sort then you won't be able to build it back together? If so, that makes sense.

By the way, it is ironic that you said how the meaning of "deconstruct" is a hope of building it back. Because the pastor in the sermon said the opposite. He told us they have no hope via Hebrews 6:6 and Hebrews 10:26, and he told us we shouldn't even pray for them (quoting 1 John 5:16)

By the way, I can tell you exactly who that pastor is. So he has a website called "Torah Unleashed", which is here Olive Tree |Albuquerque | Torah Unleashed Its also called Olive Tree as well, but there are other congregations with the same name. So the "Olive Tree" I am talking about is the one in Albuquerque. He posts his sermons on youtube https://www.youtube.com/@TorahUnleashed Now when I go to his youtube channel I see some sermons from months ago. But try to find the recent ones (from last week and two weeks ago). Thats where he talked about deconstructing.

Deconstructors are seekers. They need to process what they learned,

Yes, thats how I understood the term (with Meaning 1). But it seemed to have been used differently. Because some of the people on youtube videos that talked about deconstructing, were talking about painful experiences as opposed to being seekers. Those are two different things.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Can you tell me what denomination is it? That would shine a lot of light on my other questions.



Is it because, going with Meaning 2 (as I described in the previous post), if you pull the building apart into bricks, you can still build a new building out of those bricks, but if you just ruin it by an explosion of some sort then you won't be able to build it back together? If so, that makes sense.

By the way, it is ironic that you said how the meaning of "deconstruct" is a hope of building it back. Because the pastor in the sermon said the opposite. He told us they have no hope via Hebrews 6:6 and Hebrews 10:26, and he told us we shouldn't even pray for them (quoting 1 John 5:16)

By the way, I can tell you exactly who that pastor is. So he has a website called "Torah Unleashed", which is here Olive Tree |Albuquerque | Torah Unleashed Its also called Olive Tree as well, but there are other congregations with the same name. So the "Olive Tree" I am talking about is the one in Albuquerque. He posts his sermons on youtube https://www.youtube.com/@TorahUnleashed Now when I go to his youtube channel I see some sermons from months ago. But try to find the recent ones (from last week and two weeks ago). Thats where he talked about deconstructing.



Yes, thats how I understood the term (with Meaning 1). But it seemed to have been used differently. Because some of the people on youtube videos that talked about deconstructing, were talking about painful experiences as opposed to being seekers. Those are two different things.

It is quite common within "hyper Charismatic" victims. They basically invented the use of this word. But it can be used for any denomination pushing an unholy agenda. Honestly all Pastors would have a problem with a congregant deconstructing, it directly reflects badly on the them.
Blessings

 

[Roman57]

It is quite common within "hyper Charismatic" victims.

If its the Charismatics, then this ties together with what I meant in Post 26. Because Charismatics believe in physical manifestations of faith (tongues, and so forth) while baptists believe tongues ended in the 1-st century, and are viewing the faith more from intellectual standpoint.

But then again, baptist would also be opposed to the practice. Because, from baptist standpoint, faith is a bunch of solos. So there is nothing to deconstruct. The very fact of deconstructing amounts to denial of those solos, which baptist views as a heresy.

But, at the same time, if a baptist decides to leave their faith, they won't deconstruct it. They would just walk away (again, you can't deconstruct a solo). The only way it is relevant to a baptist is that a baptist can criticize someone else deconstructing it.

On the other hand, for a charismatic, yes, they can in fact deconstruct it. Since they picture it as something real, like a building. And with a real building you would have to pull it apart layer by layer, even if you already decided you don't want it altogether.

So, long story short: the person deconstructing would have to come from charismatic origin. But a person criticizing someone else who deconstruct can be either charismatic or baptist, but the way in which they criticize them would be different.

Do you think this theory is the reason why its the charismatics that came up with a term? Or do you think its a different theory? What is your opinion?

They basically invented the use of this word.

Do you have any specific details on when that word was invented and by whom?

Honestly all Pastors would have a problem with a congregant deconstructing, it directly reflects badly on the them.

It depends on the meaning you attach to this word.

Looking at my post 26, if the meaning is 1, I don't see how it would reflect badly on them. On the contrary, it can reflect good on them since they taught their congregants to think critically. As a matter of fact, what that very pastor is doing in his sermons I would have called deconstructing (with meaning 1 attached to the word) and to me its the main thing I like about him. So if people in his congregation were to deconstruct with this meaning of the word then its great: his teaching was successful. Thats also why it was so surprising he talked of it in the negative terms: I would have expected him to praise it.

On the other hand, if the meaning is 2 then yes it would reflect badly on them, I agree. Obvously you don't like the building if you want to take it apart. The fact that you take it layer by layer that doesn't change much of anything (other than a remote possibility of rebuilding it in the future, I suppose).

 

[Clare73]

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!"

Your pastor is correct.

Deconstruct is to tear down, and construct is to build up.

You are misunderstanding the word.