Giving Up God(s)

July 31, 2010 By George Elerick 4 Comments

Decorated Earthen Items

according to process theology – everything is in process – (some ancient jews defined perfection as being in process) – then the last thing we want to do is arrive. this is why deconstruction as part of our process is so important, it keeps us ‘perfect’ – maybe idolatry is about worshipping the ‘god’s we don’t dismantle.

and so a faith journey is one where deconstruction is an inherent aspect to understanding our own faith.questions. challenges. doubts.
these are important components to our growth.

if our faith doesn’t change, we don’t change.

if we don’t change, our faith doesn’t change.

there is a deep synergy between the two. if we accept the above definition of perfection as ongoing then our responsibility it to make sure our faith doesn’t stay where it is. but that we keep pushing and prodding, and not for the sake of pushing and prodding but for the sake of self-transformation that leads to global transformation.

the more we hold onto to our beliefs in god and keep them where they are the more at risk we’re at for endorsing a process towards idolatry. i think part of this process of deconstructing faith is about understanding that there are many meanings to scripture, god, jesus, and the many things in-between.

if jesus is god, and god is the objective or the Object outside of us. then when jesus comes to earth, he leaves the OBJECT-ive and becomes subjective. by doing this jesus shows us that we might need to give up the objective(s) for the subjective. or that the objective and subjective is the same. there are some conversations around whether or not there is a subjective and objective truth, reality, or experience. i think the issue lies in the fact that we still try and separate the two things.

but, what if we look at them non-dualistically? so, rather than placing a middle between them, we bring them together? so than there are objective subjectives or subjective objectives. if we do this, than there is much space for a more pluralistic understanding for how things like life, politics, poverty, religion, healing and etc. work within each of their contexts. but not only that, then it allows creative/inventive space for discovering amazing pluralistic outcomes that speak into the cultural context(s) within which they each breath.

there is too much space for there to be only one meta-option. the world is a microcosm of itself. we must be willing to see that plurality allows for many voices rather than one. and that means we have to be willing to work together and suspend our ego’s for the betterment of the world.

and i think a good place to start is realizing we are working toward subjective objectives. when we do this we then no longer have to fight for meta-objectives, because those objectives are informed by subjective elements. we need not be afraid of subjectively-tainted outcomes. we need them. and we can be transformed by them. and this means our outcomes will be culturally (& therefore subjectively defined). and when we step away from demonizing the subjective we begin to realize it too has objective sparks hidden within it.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 4 Comments

Enchanted Deconstruction

July 26, 2010 By George Elerick 3 Comments

Last day in Paris

“Deconstruction is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophy, literary analysis, or other fields.”

The word deconstruction tends to conjure up a lot of different responses. Some fear it. Others embrace it, still yet, there is hope in deconstruction. I think though from the variety of responses across the internet some have become disillusioned with the art of deconstruction. But, what if it doesn’t have to lead to disillusionment?

Some might think it is all about disenchanting the subject of enquiry.
But, what if we deconstruction could be about restoring the enchantment within a field of study?

I think deconstruction as a science is a practice that could lead to nowhere. Since the 20′s, it has been to distance itself from modernism, a much needed shift I think in terms of social progress. but the days of deconstruction a science I think should be numbered. as an art, well, there is definitely room for growth there.

if i were to define enchanted deconstruction i would say its the process of trying to understand the enchantment of a subject. with the hope of finding ways to utilize that enchantment to make the world a better place. so let’s use politics as an example. when we deconstruct politics it is still the goal to ‘get to the bottom of it’ but not for the sake of destruction, but for the hope toward self-global-objective discovery.

in finding what makes a topic enchanted we can then approach subjects with an wide-eyed expectancy rather than the stereo-typical cynicism that we get labeled with as deconstructionists. the enchanted aspect of the deconstruction means we look for the pieces of what we’re deconstructing that are still valuable and still can add value back into society.

sometimes deconstructionists get labeled as ‘all-or-nothing’ people when approaching the process of deconstruction. this is what i call the science of deconstruction, which i think needs to be left to the wayside. the art of enchanted deconstruction leaves necessary space for the child within to be fueled by the discoveries that can have equally integrated outcomes. so, how does this work in terms of christianity?

I think essentially, in terms of philosophy, the church needs to be against the Church (e.g., or politics against Politics). if we believe in growth or progress than to leave room for the church, politics or fill-in-the-blank of the future. to be one step ahead of ourselves (or better said: informed by the future) we must be willing to be against ourselves and not in the sense of aggressive hegemony, but one of realistic curiosity of what we might look like in the unknown future.

Jesus used the image of old wineskins and new wineskins. How one doesn’t really go with the other. imagery about imagery that is counter-cultural to the other. and so in these terms for the church to embrace this new enchanted deconstruction it must be willing to ask what are the things that still speak to society today and can help re-enchant society as a whole.

the danger is that we keep things for the sake of tradition. when you participate in any sort of estrangement and make any object/yourself a foreigner to the place of origin there is radical space for reinvention and reformation. i think enchanted deconstruction is in a prime place to help inform the Church of their future. this coupled with the transformative offerings of post-structural christianity (a previous post) we can begin asking the really difficult questions.

but also rather than simply look at the theological offering and trimmings that might need to take place, the enchanted deconstruction of any subject is about reinstiling a radical child-like enthusiasm for global change…when we do this, then the word impossible is a word in the past dictionaries of our deconstruction…

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , 3 Comments