Existential Punk

The Simultaneity Of Deconstruction & Re/Construction

Wikipedia has the following to say about deconstruction:

'...an approach (whether in philosophy, literary analysis, or in other fields) which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of undoing the oppositions on which it is apparently founded, and to the point of showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable or impossible.

Deconstruction generally operates by conducting close textual readings with a view to demonstrating that the text is not a discrete whole but that it instead contains several irreconcilable, contradictory meanings. This process shows that any text has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point...'

Many Christians, in my opinion, even within emerging church circles, misunderstand what deconstructing our faith really entails. Often they say it is time to stop deconstructing and that it's time to move on to reconstruct and rebuild what has been deconstructed. Then there are those Christians who believe deconstructing and reconstructing becomes an exercise in relativism and creating the scriptures and G-D in our own image. i do not claim to fully understand deconstruction in the Deriddean philosophical vein, but Pete Rollins crystallizes deconstruction so clearly in the emerging church construct for me (HT: Jonathan Brink):

'A lot of people talk about deconstruction like this.They say, “Well we’ve got to deconstruct and then once we’ve deconstructed, we can rebuild.”

And I want to stop at that point and say, “No.  We never cease to deconstruct.  Deconstruction is not like knocking down a building so we can clear a space to build something new.  Deconstruction is like the heat that keeps our ideas fluid and molten and moving and dynamic.” '

For me, deconstruction and re/construction are a simultaneous process that need each other. We must constantly question, rethink, seek, search, doubt, dig, knock, push, tear, rupture, deconstruct, reconstruct. We must also allow the Divine to invade, rupture, embrace, invade, transform, deconstruct, reconstruct us in ways we might expect but also in unexpected ways that are beyond our human imaginings. We are imperfect humans who can never claim to fully comprehend and understand the Divine. We, as people of faith, MUST and NEED to make room for the Divine to invade us without our preconceived notions. There can never be any human being who can claim absolute knowledge of everything about this life and the Divine. i don't care how knowledgeable, studied, gifted, et al any of us are, we are still fallible, imperfect humans who always screw up and get it wrong. No amount of knowledge, theology, Biblical literacy, intuition, etc. can outdo what G-D designs to accomplish. G-D is a relational Divinity that is not stagnant and stuck in a certain epoch.

i am mesmerized and humbled when Rollins boldly says that, 'I do not believe Christians are called to believe in the resurrection of Christ.  I believe we are called to be the resurrection of Christ.  To be the site where resurrection takes place.' That statement is amazing and has such deep implications for our faith. Take time to mull on those 33 words and allow them to really sink down into your being, your soul! This is deep stuff people.

We get so wrapped up in what we believe and don't believe so much that we are failing to really listen to the indwelling of the Divine and the radical transformation that the Divine desires to bring forth and rupture in our souls. We get in this us vs. them mentalities, argue over who has the right/correct beliefs, who is in and who is out. So often we are all so very ungenerous, whether conservative, liberal or in the middle. i know i am very guilty of this and for that i am truly sorry. My pride and hurt feelings get the best of me more often than not. i truly want to be a site where Christ's resurrection takes place. i am human and will fail often. At least i acknowledge my weaknesses and human frailties although it is very difficult and humbling. Sometimes i don't care that i fuck up and treat people ungenerously. That is one of the many dark parts of my soul where i need the Divine to rupture and transform me. Even in my unwillingness i need G-D to embrace me, transform me, deconstruct and reconstruct me.

These are merely my musings, thoughts, rants. Maybe i am wrong or just maybe i am on to something. Either way, i hope i challenge you, dear readers, to chew and ponder. i am not attempting to sway you to my way of thinking, lead you astray, or change your minds. This is simply my space to throw out what is ruminating in my soul and my being. i am just trying to make some sense of my feelings, thoughts and meanderings inside my little ol' mind! If you are here reading this and find yourself vehemently disagreeing with me, i am ok with that. Even if i am way off track, i trust the Divine G-D of the universe will gently nudge me back on track. That is how i have always lived and walked with G-D, and so far G-D has been the faithful one!

What do you think?

Irreligiosophy Podcast

Leighton and Chuck at Irreligiosophy have their interview with me and Pete Rollins up today. Check it out as it's billed as their best podcast to date! Thanks guys!

Thoughts On Deconstruction & Emerging Church

'Deconstruction: This represents psycho-spiritual transmutation; reprogramming negative behaviour patterns through alchemical processes; turning the black dross into pure gold.' Found this here and thought it apropos to my post.

i have been thinking about deconstruction and faith within the emerging church conversation the past month or so, ruminating, pondering, and attempting to form some cohesive thoughts. Today i came across a wonderfully thought-provoking post titled "Allowing Ourselves to be Deconstructed" by Blake Huggins. i see deconstruction as a form of transmutation which can be defined as,

'the act of changing or the state of being changed into another form.'

Deconstruction can be defined as,

'analyzing (a text or linguistic or a conceptual system) by deconstruction, typically in order to expose its hidden internal assumptions and contradictions and subvert its apparent significance or unity.'

Many in the emerging church conversation say things like, "Ok, we have deconstructed. Now it is time to move on and reconstruct, stop talking, and move on to praxis." i'd actually like to say i disagree with this premise because we are always in need of deconstructing. i see deconstruction/reconstruction as a continual and simultaneous process that in order to be holistic must include decontructing myself and my belief systems. We must read things we disagree with and allow it to read us, get under our skin, and challenge us and our assumptions. Also, deconstructing belief systems, whether long-held traditions or ourselves, while at the same time putting things into actual praxis is the simultanaity i am advocating for in our lives. Is it messy and scary? Of course! Yet, it is necessary. It goes along with Pete Rollins' idea of furthering along my own conversion. Huggins talks about this deconstruction of our own beliefs so eloquently. He says two things that stuck out to me:

'I’m wondering if sometimes, in our efforts to deconstruct “something else,” we miss the opportunity to let ourselves be deconstructed.'

AND

'That is not to say that I reject the deconstructing of historical figures or systems of thought.  Not at all.  I’m only suggesting that perhaps there is a tension between our deconstruction and our being deconstructed.  The key is learning to live and embody that tension well.'

People must realize deconstruction is NOT a one time event to move on from but a continual, life-long process! What are your thoughts?

Pete Rollins Muses on Emergent Churches

Shirley Hoogstra interviews Pete Rollins on an Inner Compass Episode at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Just scroll down to Episode #909 and enjoy the informative conversation. It's about 25 minutes in length.

Lessons In Evandalism Tour

Pete Rollins is returning to the USA for his upcoming tour entitled 'Lessons In Evandalism', which will include a visit to Richmond, VA the end of February. He describes the tour as:

The current religious landscape is cluttered with various expressions of faith that claim to rethink Christianity at the dawn of a new cultural epoch. However such groups often accomplish little more than the repackaging and redistribution of faith as we currently understand it. A repackaging that involves flashing lights, video projectors and ‘culturally sensitive’ leaders who can talk about the latest mediocre pop sensation.

Throughout his Spring 09 tour Peter will be arguing that, in the midst of this arid landscape, there exist small but fertile sites of resistance. Groups who offer a way of thinking that not only challenges the way we express faith but fundamentally ruptures the way we understand it. He will argue that these pockets of resistance represent a growing, organic movement that are proclaiming the death of God, church and religion as we know them in preparation for their resurrection in a radically different form.

Through a mix of parables, philosophy and discussion Peter will be exploring the theoretical kernel of this emerging movement and addressing its dangerous, revolutionary and transformative potential.

For more, read here.

Pete Rollins & Far Side

My good friend, Pete Rollins, finally explains the relationship between ikon and his two books, "How (Not) To Speak of God" and "Fidelity Of Betrayal: Towards A Church Beyond Belief". He even has a fixed Gary Larson cartoon that i am unable to post here because something is wrong with Typepad and my blog at the moment. So, to see the cartoon, click here. He says the following:

"A question I sometimes get asked concerns the relationship between ikon (the transformance art collective I am part of), and my writings. This is a question that is asked both by those outside ikon and within it.

The short answer is that my work is enriched by, tested within, developed from and a sustained reflection upon, the concrete lifeworld that is ikon. My work both speaks out of a direct involvement with this collective and also speaks into it. For while I am the founding member of ikon much of my time is spent outside that context, networking with other groups and attempting to develop robust theoretical resources that will both enrich it and groups like it.

If I speak only from within ikon then I will be limited to social commentary. But if I only speak to ikon I will end up imposing an external, alien system upon it. This of course creates a tension, however one that I believe to be both productive and generative.

Directly related to this is the tension that exists between my desire to work within a particular context while also formulating a set of theoretical tools that will help to usher in what Phyllis Tickle terms “The Great Emergence”.

This tension reflects the fact that any attempt to speak in a universal manner  must arise from a specific location. Ikon is my privileged location for a variety of reasons that I will not go into here, it is the location that allows me to speak beyond its borders.

So, while my work is deeply nourished by my involvement with ikon, ikon is but one concrete manifestation of how my work can be applied. When explored within different contexts this theory will be able to give birth to or revitalise groups that only bear a vague family resemblance to ikon.

Yet it is not simply my writings that attempt to traverse the tension between local and global, ikon itself exists in this tension, being a local expression of life that is increasingly gaining global recognition.

BTW the above cartoon is a shameful adaptation of a Gary Larson cartoon"

Excerpts from "Fidelity of Betrayal"

I read today the Prologue and Introduction of Pete Rollins' forthcoming book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" and had my appetite whetted to read the remaining pre-published copy he sent me. Here are some excerpts that struck me in profound ways and will hopefully entice you into reading his book:

PROLOGUE:

Pete tells a parable about a small town of believers faced with a very difficult situation, one which would challenge their obedience to the voice of GOD over a rebel visitor. The situation eventually presents itself where GOD asks one of the men to defy GOD's word.

This is the man's response to GOD:

    "The caretaker, a man of deep faith, looked up to heaven and replied, 'If you want me to remain faithful to you, my God, then I can do nothing but refuse your advice. For you have already demanded that I look after this man. You have written that I must protect him at all costs. Your words of love have been spelled out by the lines of this man's face, your text is found in the texture of his flesh. And so, my God, I defy you precisely so as to remain faithful to you.' "

    "With this God smiled and quietly withdrew, confident that the matter had finally been settled." (p. 3)

This parable brings to my mind the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. Why didn't Abraham question GOD about killing his own son and take a stand to question and defy GOD speaking double-talk?

INTRODUCTION:

Here Pete explains where his title was inspired: the "What Would Jesus Do" phenomenon that the abbreviated form, "WWJD" that was, "...etched onto countless bracelets as a way of reminding the bearer that they held Jesus as the ultimate authority in moral, political, and religious matters." (p. 5) I never got into this "CRAZE" of the CONSUMERISM OF CHRISTIANITY!!! Although, i have, in the long past, my own encounters with Christian Cosumerism. Ickkkkk!!!!

Then Pete came up with the question, "What Would JUDAS Do?" as a way of asking what would Jesus do if confronted with Christianity today. "Rather, by asking whether Jesus would betray Christianity as Judas betrayed Christ, I am asking if Jesus would plot the downfall of Christianity in every form that it takes. Or rather, to be more precise, I am asking whether Christianity, in its most sublime and revolutionary state, always demands an act of betrayal from the Faithful. In short, is Christianity, at its most radical, always marked by a kiss, forever forsaking itself, eternally at war with its own manifestation." (p.6)

The crux of the book is broken up into three parts:

Part 1 explores what we mean by the idea of the Word of God.
Part 2 interrogates the Being of God.
Part 3 introduces the reader to the centrality of the Event of God.

   

"As this structure is gradually revealed, I argue that the consequences are twofold: First, we are led to embrace the idea of Christianity as a religion without religion, that is, as a tradition that is always prepared to wrestle with itself, disagree with itself, and betray itself. Second, this requires a way of structuring religious collectives that operate at a deeper level than the mere affirmation of shared doctrines, creeds, and convictions. It involves the formation of dynamic, life-affirming collectives that operate, quite literally, beyond belief." (p. 7)

THANK YOU, Pete, for what looks like another incredible, insightful, soul-stirring, and challenging book. ALL THE BEST with its success!
 

A Note from Pete Rollins

Here's a note from my good friend, Pete Rollins, about his forthcoming and second book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" published by Paraclete Press:

In this work I make the claim that, in order to remain faithful to Christianity, we must be courageous enough to betray the bible (section 1), God (section 2) and the church (section 3). Why? Do I think that we must abandon them as redundant relics of a by-gone era? Do I think that they have served their purpose? Or do I feel that they prevent the world coming of age? By no means! Here I argue for a betrayal that remains faithful to these very words by helping us to re- discover the truly untamed, white-hot, life-transforming reality that they house.

This book was not easy to write and it will no doubt be difficult to read, but I hope that you find it to be a provocative and worthy dialogue partner as you continue to reflect upon what it means to follow Christ today.

Cheers,
Pete Rollins

"Fidelity of Betrayal"

My great friend, Pete Rollins, has a new blog from his publisher, Paraclete Press, that simply looks cool. Can't wait to see Pete adding stuff! AND, the BIG  news is that his SECOND BOOK, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: The Ir/Religious Heart of Christianity" will be released this coming spring (2008). You can PRE-ORDER it at Paraclete or Amazon. I am really excited for Pete and look forward to reading it. Here is a summary about the book from Pete's site:

"The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief

What if one of the core elements of a radical Christianity lay in a demand that we betray it, while the ultimate act of affirming God required the forsaking of God? And what if fidelity to the Judeo-Christian scriptures demanded their renunciation?

In short, what if the only way of finding real faith involved betraying that faith with a kiss, like Judas did to Christ? The author of last year’s much-talked-about debut, How (Not) to Speak of God—is at it again.

Employing the insights of apophatic theology, Soren Kierkegaard, and deconstructive theory, The Fidelity of Betrayal seeks to explore the subversive and clandestine nature of a Christianity that dwells within religious institutions while simultaneously undermining them."

Purchase the book at ParacletePress.com >>
Purchase the book at Amazon.com >>

Mediocrity

i am in Plano, TX with Katryna visiting her parents. Jere (pronounced JERRY) is having prostate surgery tomorrow, so we are here for support. We just got home from her parents church, Reformed Church of Plano. Everyone we met was really nice. Jere is very involved in the youth programs. Anyways, the message was pretty plain and boring except for the following incredibly simple yet deep quote, which the pastor was unable to cite the source:

"Mediocrity is the result of a lazy dreamer"

My soul jumped with excitement when he said this and i thought immediately of how the Christian church of modern times has squelched creativity within its walls. For so long, and still many today do, separate the sacred from the secular. If they do incorporate the arts into church, many times the quality is lacking and often tries to copy, most of the time failing, the secular forms of creativity. My feeling is that a narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible and God's ways inhibit us from dreaming big and thus, producing lackluster results. God encourages us to dream big but our humanity often stifles. We ought to quit trying to copy the world and rather use it as a springboard for our own dreams and creativity. We need to let go of our preconceived ideas and "open" our palms to God and ask God to help us dream BIG!!!!!

The following country song (i am not a huge fan of country music) was played at the end of the service and the words i reprint here because i found it to be an honest song, which so often is lacking in churches and lives of those who follow Christ:

Do It Anyway
by Martina McBride

You can spend your whole life building
something from nothin'
One storm can come and blow it all away
Build it anyway

You can chase a dream that seems so out of reach
And you know it might not ever come your way
Dream it anyway

God is great but sometimes life ain't good
And when I pray it doesn't always turn out like i think it
should
But i do it anyway . . . i do it anyway

The world's gone crazy it's hard to believe
That tomorrow will be better than today
Believe it anyway

You can love someone with all your heart
For all the right reasons
In a moment they can choose to walk away
Love 'em anyway

God is great but sometimes life ain't good
And when i pray it doesn't always turn out like i think it
should
But i do it anyway . . .  i do it anyways

You can pour your soul out singing
a song you believe in
That tomorrow they'll forget you ever sang
Sing it anyway . . . Yea - sing it anyway

i sing . . . i dream . . . i love . . . OH Anyway

So, i leave you to chew on all these words. Have a wonderful day!

Addendum: HT to Relevant Magazine for this MSNBC.com article "Evangelicals seek 'creators of culture' role".