Search

Bo Sanders: Public Theology

updating & innovating for today

Tag

deconstruction

Deconstruction and the Dark Night

Is there a connection between deconstruction and the dark night of the soul?

Many who participates in deconstruction experience the dark night. Not everyone, however, who experiences the dark night of the soul has been doing deconstruction.

There is enough overlap that it is worth exploring.

Many people who begin to deconstruct their faith experience various levels of disorientation, discouragement, depression, and even despair. It is difficult to dismantle the thing that used to give you shelter and even structure your experience and very existence. You begin to question everything that you have been taught, the people who taught it to you, and even yourself for being misled, fooled, or indoctrinated.

This can trigger feelings of abandonment, isolation, embarrassment, shame, and god-forsakeness at times.

This is where I find the work of Peter Rollins very helpful. He says things like

“I’m not trying to make you depressed, I trying to help you see that you are already depressed.”

One of my favorite things that he introduced me to (working off a thinker named Lacan) is called the Experience of Absence and the Absence of Experience. Let’s say that you and I are sitting at two table in the coffee shop. We are in the same place doing the same thing at the same time – with one big difference: you are expecting a friend who has not shown and is not answering your texts or calls.

You are experiencing your friend’s absence, whereas I am having an absence of that experience.

This is helped me so much over years since Peter’s book “How (Not) To Speak of God” came out. It has become a key for me that has unlocked a door into a much bigger auditorium of ideas.

I have learned to embrace the experience of absence. I actually prefer it of the absence of experience. I know that something is wrong or missing – but I would rather sit in that awareness than not know and sit in my happy naiveté.  I would rather be awake the beautiful disaster than not-awake and happy.

This is not a criticism of anyone else and I know many who would disagree with me.

One of the treasures that gives me comfort in the Experience of Absence is that we have resources for this crisis inside our tradition. One of my favorites buried treasures in Christian history is called ‘via negativa’ or the apophatic tradition.

It basically says that god – by the very nature of being god – is so expansive, beyond human comprehension or our ability to explain or describe the divine essence in anything that resembles its reality – that it is more accurate to speak of god in the inverse or negative.

I love this idea.

If there is something as grand as god then every time we try to assert something about god we both say it and inherently un-say it at the same time. [1]

Via Negativa shows that it is actually easier and more accurate to speak of god in the inverse: that god is not like anything or anyone you can compare to (analogy). Even when you try so say something in the positive, whatever you say is actually far more true in the inverse.

Whatever we know about god or believe about god, there is infinitely more that is unknown and unsaid (unexplored).

Any god-talk is actually more untrue about the actual divine than it is true.

Why do I bring this up? In the same way that I have learned to embrace the Experience of Absence, I have come to love the infinitely beyond-me. Deconstruction is concerned with the limitations of words and that has been immensely rewarding as it connects with Via Negativa and another deep idea:

Paul Ricoeur has a concept called Second Naiveté when you pass through the desert of criticism (deconstruction?) and come into faith again with your eyes open. It is not first faith and it is criticism. It is Faith Again but awakened to the mystery (moment).

I could talk and write for days about Ricoeur. His concept of ‘a surplus of meaning’ has transformed my life, faith, and ministry.

None of this the same as the 16th century Catholic concept of ‘the dark night of the soul’ which leads to mystical union with god. There are, however, enough similarities and overlaps that they all belong in the same conversation.

The Experience of Absence, Via Negativa, 2nd Naiveté, and the Dark Night have all helped me on the deconstructive journey.  I would love to hear about helpful resources that you have found.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

[1] Two great examples are found in the analogy of ‘rock’ and ‘father’.

Scripture often refers to god as ‘a rock’ to signify strength, resilience, and trustworthiness. But of course god is not actually a rock and a rock is not god. It is a metaphor or analogy at best.

Jesus sometimes referred to god as ‘father’. This was of course relational language saying that he related to God as one relates to a (perfect image of) father. Not that god was big man in the sky who got Mary pregnant.

God is as different from our earthly father as god is anything like those beautifully flawed human men.

D is for Deconstruction

Deconstruction is love. If it were not love then one would employ destruction.D-Deconstruction

If the way things are is good enough, one would take up preservation.

Deconstruction is not destruction – but to those into preservation it often feels like it.

Think of de-construction as a controlled burn (purifying fire) that clears out the old brush and undergrowth to make space for new growth.

Deconstruction is loving something enough to pull it apart and see what might be salvaged – or freed – from the suffocating stagnation bound-up-ness.
When topic or institution has become assumed or presumed, it is in need of this kind of love.

Like a plant that has been in a pot too long – or has gotten to big for the container – the roots can actually begin to grow back on themselves. This is a condition known as pot bound (or root bound) and loving that plant means to pull it out of the pot and to pull (or even cut) at the roots in order to separate and loosen them.

Institutions can be their own worst enemy. Christian ones seem particularly prone to become pot bound. To love the church – or the christian tradition for that matter – requires some tough love. If you didn’t love you could just walk away. If it were ‘good enough’ you could settle in and settle down for the long haul.
Deconstruction is loving the tradition enough to pull at (or even prune it) in the hopes of life and health and new growth.

One of my favorite things to listen to is ‘Ideas’ by the Canadian Broadcasting (CBC). They have recently had a series on ‘After Atheism’ about new developments regarding belief in God.
The first episode was with Richard Kearney on ‘Anatheism: God after God’. The second episode was with Jack Caputo (his book on the subject is great). I would highly recommend giving them a listen.

What those two episodes have got me thinking about is the passion it takes to stick with it and the conviction is requires to believe there is something worth all the labor and care. I know lots of people who were raised with some kind of belief but have walked away. I also know lots of people who are fine with things the way they are who are happy to keep plugging away.
I find myself in neither of those camps. I love the church too much to walk away and way to much to leave it in the condition that it currently rests in.

Deconstruction isn’t for everyone. In fact, one of the most challenging aspects of it is simply trying to convince the preservationists that your intentions are good and that your not trying to kill the thing! To those who assume and presume that things should remain as they are, pulling and clearing feel or seem like destruction.

I have written before about The World Come of Age (Bonhoeffer) or what others call The World Transformed (Hunt) or what Kaufman calls The Nuclear Age. The simple fact is that the 20th Century – between technology and war – changed the world and radically altered what we call society. The reality of living in the 21st century are very different than they were in the 12th – let alone the 2nd.
The questions of the 21st century are not answered by repeating inherited answers or by parroting ancient thought.

Farming, hygiene, reading, telephones, banks, travel (airplanes) …. there are thousands of examples of how different our existence is from those in previous centuries. Even the way was imagine our self (identity) and community (belonging) has changed.

Deconstruction is loving the question enough to dare a different answer. Then turning around and examining the initial questions itself.
We live in world come of age – a nuclear age – that asks something different of us. Theology can not just continue to repeat the same old answers over and over – or louder and louder – and wonder why it isn’t satisfying the demands being put on it by those inside and outside the institution.

From the linguistic turn in philosophy to globalized markets, from Hiroshima to Auschwitz, from twitter to the pill …. we live in a different world than the ancients. Our religious beliefs deserve to be re-examined and longingly pulled at (or even cut at) in order to prune (or bleed) in the hopes of life and health.

Deconstruction is now a necessary part of theology.

Deconstruction. A term used primarily in *hermeneutics (the art and science of interpreting written texts or spoken language) to describe the process of analyzing a particular representation of reality so as to offer a critique of how a text “constructs” a picture of reality. Although deconstructionists are not always explicitly negative in practice, they often use deconstruction as a technique to discredit a text to which they are philosophically or ideologically opposed. Deconstruction, which is sometimes known as poststructuralism, arose out of, and in response to, a theory of literature called *structuralism, which sought to analyze the common structures that characterize various texts or literary works.

 Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Kindle Locations 361-364). Kindle Edition.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑