Category Archives: Deconstruction

Babylon is Fallen: Is it Destruction… or Transformation?

Posted on by

We often focus on punishment and destruction when we think of evil. But the Bible reveals a more profound truth: God’s primary strategy is infiltration and transformation. From Manasseh to Babylon itself, God sends His people into broken systems and lives not to escape or destroy, but to redeem. Our calling isn’t to await the fall of our modern “Babylons,” but to actively participate in their restoration through faithful, everyday work—to plant crops in the cursed ground and pray for the peace of the city, believing that enemies can be turned into friends.

When I was younger, I was an aficionado of Resurrection Band. I even saw them in concert once at the Centennial Auditorium in Saskatoon and wore a signed T-shirt of theirs for many years. One of my favourite songs of theirs was entitled Babylon, which includes the bridge:

“I saw Babylon slowly start to burn
I heard the voices crying
Refusing ever to learn, Babylon”

The final line — that sticks in my mind until today — is “Babylon. Babylon is fallen!” This imagery hearkens back to the Revelation of John, where the great harlot, Babylon, the city that is opposed to God and works at spilling the blood of the Saints, is finally punished and destroyed. In the Bible, Babylon = evil.

I was mistaken for years in thinking that the only legitimate end for things that are evil like Babylon is punishment, as the song says. And part of me probably anticipated seeing this punishment enacted in my lifetime.

It’s part of our nature to want evil to be punished; especially evil committed against us by others. We’re not entirely excited when our own evils are called out and punished are we? But we like it when the bad guys lose and the good guys win — even if that means turning bad guys into Robin Hoods so that even worse guys can be punished.

But more recently I have come to realise that there are actually two destinations for things that are evil like Babylon. On the one hand, Babylon awaits destruction. Because after all, what does one do with their enemies? One fights against their enemies and seeks to defeat them. But is that what God does with his enemies? It seems that God instead enacts a plan so that his enemies strongholds are infiltrated by his people so that it becomes transformed and turned into something that is good.

The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Languages

Babylon’s origin story is the tower of Babel, where God confused human languages so that people would spread around the world.

A commentary I recently read said the tower was an attempt by people on the Earth to fulfill God‘s promise of “all the nations being blessed.” Rather than relying upon God for that blessing, they decided to enact that blessing themselves. Perhaps that’s at the core of Babylon‘s label of being opposed to God.

Manasseh

Manasseh was one of the kings of Judah. He was a bad guy. 2 Chronicles 33 outlines the extent of the evils he intentionally implemented to the point that he “misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that they did more evil things than the nations that the Lord had destroyed when the Israelites arrived in the land” (2 Chronicles‬ ‭33‬:‭9‬‭).‬‬

As a result of this, God calls the army of Assyria to come and carry Manasseh off to his kingdom, where he experienced difficulty.

Then we read this amazing story in 2 Chronicles 33:

“When he experienced this distress, he begged the Lord his God to be kind and humbled himself in front of the God of his ancestors. He prayed to the Lord, and the Lord accepted his prayer and listened to his request. The Lord brought him back to his kingdom in Jerusalem. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God.”‬‬

Wow!

Jeremiah 29

In the book of Jeremiah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are confronted with a horrible reality. It seems that King Nebuchadnezzar, the Emperor of Babylon, will be successful in conquering their city and carrying them off into captivity. The book outlines Jeremiah’s prophetic words from God to help the people of Jerusalem face this horrible possibility.

Apart from the fact that being a prisoner of war is a horrible thing in and of itself, for the people of Israel this reality was especially difficult to accept because as far as they were concerned they were the people of God who had been blessed by being the owners of Jerusalem and the land of Israel around them. Their understanding was that this was a promise that God gave to them in perpetuity. And so for them to be carried away was almost an impossibility — their theology didn’t support that. In fact, Jeremiah was the sole prophet who prophesied that they would actually be carried off into captivity (verse?). All the other prophets of his time had convinced the people that they would not be carried off into captivity but that they would only be gone for a few weeks or months (verse?). One of Jeremiah’s tasks was to prepare the people for a lengthy captivity in Babylon. In fact, many of them would die in Babylon because the captivity would last for 70 years.

So, what were they supposed to be doing while they were in Babylon? They were supposed to infiltrate Babylon become a part of the fabric of Babylonian community; make their lives in Babylon the lives that God had called them to; they were to build houses, and they were to plant crops, and they were to get married and have children, and have their children get married. All of these things are things that new immigrants do when they come to a new place. Furthermore, they were also to pray for the blessing of the City.

What does Jeremiah 29 teach us about how God deals with evil places like Babylon? God sends people to infiltrate it so that Babylon too can be transformed from a place of evil to a place of goodness.

The Emperor who became a cow

Nebuchadnezzar the Great was the Emperor of Babylon but at a certain point in his life, God turned him into a cow! The point I want to emphasise here is that God chose to interact in an immersive way with the most powerful human king the world has ever seen. As the emperor of Babylon, he personified opposition to God — they called him the King of the Universe. Which is perhaps why God chose to allow his context to change from the most powerful human on th earth to a mere domesticated animal. Nebuchadnezzar’s worldview was deconstructed in a dramatic way but was then reconstructed into something better — he moved from being the so-called “King of the Universe” to submitting himself to the Universe’s True King!

Jesus

Jesus was all about freeing people from sin and the effects of sin in their lives. Jesus’ death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead ensured that we too would be saved from our sins and have eternal life. But Jesus is about more than merely saving us from death. He wants our lives on Earth to also be reflective of his life on Earth. He wants us to be his disciples. He wants us to be like him. He wants us to be holy. If he was merely interested in saving us after we died, what’s the point in talking about holiness?

One of the clues to Jesus’ purpose on earth can be found in Luke 4. In Luke 4, Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazareth and is invited to speak in the synagogue. He stands up and asks them to read from Isaiah 61. According to the account, this is what was read:

“The Spirit of the Lord is with me. He has anointed me to tell the Good News to the poor. He has sent me  to announce forgiveness to the prisoners of sin and the restoring of sight to the blind, to forgive those who have been shattered by sin, to announce the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus concludes his sermon with the words “today this scripture is fulfilled in your presence.”

Surprisingly, the congregation is enraged and wants to kill him. Why do they want to kill him? What’s so significant about these words that he’s saying? When Jesus said these words and when he referred to Isaiah 61 as being fulfilled in him, he was equating himself with God. The inhabitants of Nazareth who regularly attended synagogue knew the work of God was encapsulated in this passage from Isaiah 61.

This is something that we have often neglected is the evangelical church today. We’ve focused on the sweet by and by without thinking too much about the here and now. I realise that’s a generalisation and I generally try to avoid generalisation but if I look at my own journey I can see how at one time in my life I was very fascinated and fixated upon having the right theology and not so much about living a life that’s filled with good works. In fact, good works were identified as a bad thing in my early theology — something to be avoided — because they didn’t serve any purpose. At that stage in my theological development, any good thing that I tried to do was only self righteousness and was not of any benefit in salvation. What I avoided was understanding that we are created to do good works. We’re supposed to be good people. We’re supposed to do good things. We’re supposed to imitate the life Christ lived. This has nothing to do with our salvation, but is a result of our salvation. So my generalisation is based upon my own personal experience. I realise that your experience may be different than that, and if so then that’s wonderful.

What of the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah?

There, sometimes a perception of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament of two different people. This perception typically identifies the God of the Old Testament as God of wrath and destruction, while the God of the New Testament is a God of love and peace and restoration. Of course we know this isn’t true. But then people point a certain events that happened in the Old Testament and say how can these be the actions of a loving God? Let’s look at a couple of things, including the story of the flood with Noah and the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God went to extraordinary extremes to save Noah — the man who found grace in his eyes. Noah testified for 100 years. He lived his righteous life faithfully obeying God’s command to build a ship to save the people of earth from the flood he was going to send. Noah is an agent of salvation for the people of the earth. The flood is not necessarily an event that will destroy them — all they have to do is get on the ship. If they don’t then that’s on them. Isn’t it? This was Noah’s message to the world every day for 100 years.

Abram’s nephew Lot was given a choice of where he wanted to live. He chose to live in the lowlands because the land was richer. Note that this choice didn’t make Lot a bad man but it does lead us to ask the question of how successful Lot would become in the lowlands. We already know he was a successful farmer and business man — would this success follow him? We end up discovering that Lot was not as successful as he might have been because he wasn’t able to have a positive influence on the place he chose to live. We don’t know why this is but it’s clear that his presence in that city wasn’t enough to even influence 10 people to join the path of righteousness. Is that because Lot neglected his role? Is that because the people of the area were unwilling to listen to his message? We are explicitly told the answer but the fact that in the end God saves Lot and his family while fire rains down from the sky implies that those consumed had also made their own choices.

The Psalms provide us with a rationale for why there is war between God and humans in the Old Testament. Psalm 2:1 asks the question, “Why do the nations plot?” And it seems to me that the fact that there is a plot implies an explicit and intended opposition to God. This is a planned event. “We will be in rebellion against who God is.” We’ve talked about the tower of Babel. We’ve talked about Manasseh. We’ve talked about Babylon. We’ve talked about Nebuchadnezzar.

The best argument against claims that the God of the Old Testament is an evil God is that the very passage that describes how God’s people should engage society comes from this same Old Testament. And it’s interesting that in the midst of the distress that Israel is about to experience, there is a glimpse of the hope that God is bringing to the entire world. At this time it’s appropriate to bring out the verse that we most commonly associate with Jeremiah 29, namely verse 11, that says God has plans for us. What’s important for us to realize is that the good plans that God has for us are contingent upon our agreeing to those plans, aren’t they? Don’t the people Jeremiah is talking to within Jerusalem need to say, “OK God, I’m willing to accept the fact that we need to be exiled for 70 years, but that you have good plans for us”? Don’t the people of Babylon and also have to be willing to listen to the testimony of those who are in captivity so they too, can experience the good things that God has a store for them?

God’s love and call to repentance always come first, yet when that love is rejected, judgment surely follows. The fall of Babylon shows us both: an offer of transformation through grace, and, if spurned, the certainty of destruction. To keep both together — love before wrath, repentance before ruin — helps us see the fullness of God’s justice and mercy.

You and Me

Even though we’re talking about structural evil at the level of nations opposing God, we can’t ignore the fact that personal evil is also a major part of what goes on. We notice the engagement strategy that Jeremiah presents to the people of Israel is that they are supposed to live out their lives in a personal way, which includes homes for them to live in, families for their children, crops, etc. So, in order to be a good person in a society like Babylon I need to live out my life in a way as if I have a future there and there is a future for that city.

But this is not merely limited to making sure I live a good life in the midst of an evil city. Rather, it’s an understanding that through my living a good life in the city, setting down roots, and contributing to the economy of the city, I am also interested in the future of that city and praying for the city. Praying means calling upon God to help with the transformation of the city. Praying means calling upon God to make the city a place of justice, a place of goodness, a place of kindness, a place with love, with joy, with peace, with patience, with kindness, with goodness, with faithfulness, with self-control. And being a part of the fabric of the city means that we position ourselves for future leadership and guidance within that city as well.

Jeremiah 29 invites us to “Plant crops.” Even though the process of planting crops seems like a bit of a gamble. One of my friends referred to farmers as the people with the most faith in the world because they do everything they possibly can to invest in a product that is not guaranteed to emerge at the end of the process. Planting is hard but planting actually starts in the middle of the process. Before that we have to prepare the ground. I have to chop down trees and pull out stumps. We have to pick rocks. We have to break the ground. And then the broken ground needs to be broken up again. And only then can the crops be planted.

Growing crops is hard. Harvesting crops is hard. It’s a long and tedious process that takes a lifetime to perfect. And once you harvest him then you gotta try to sell it. Selling those crops at the end is hard, and some of the hardness of that process is directly because of the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The ground is cursed and it’s by the sweat of our brows that we can get something to emerge from the ground. In our farming processes, we need to go beyond adding to the curse of the land and try to find ways that help remove that curse. And of course, beyond planting there are other aspects to it.

An example with a Brazilian connection

I recently attended a seminar in Brazil, where we talked in part about the integration of faith and agriculture. A couple of the things emerged that help inform our discussion today.

I was introduced to a paper that spoke of Palissy’s idea that even an unlearned potter can question accepted wisdom and put forth his own ideas. He derives this from Jesus’ parable of the talents implying that each of us is given a task and responsibility and we need to use that appropriately. These talents for Palissy include the land and the forests that have been neglected and are in need of what he calls a true formula in order to be restored to their original intent. 

Palissy’s very direct statements about not wanting to engage in clear-cut logging with no restoration can be directly tied to the concept of eliminating the sin that’s in the world. If the world’s natural state itself is destroyed then what of the task that’s been given to humans to overcome the sin that’s in the world? 

These aren’t just better farming techniques; they are acts of spiritual warfare against the curse, a practical way to “pray for the peace of the city” by healing the very ground it stands on.

If these are the examples that the Bible gives us about how to confront evil, that means that you and I have to be intentional as well about confronting evil. Not with the goal that evil will be punished but with the goal that evil people escape punishment because they are transformed into good people. The Bible calls this transformation repentance or changing the way we think and act.

How can I start working on this today? I need to start with my own life and find areas in my life that I need to repent of — I need to start being good. I need to then look at society I’m a part of — whether that’s my community, my church, my city, my province, or my nation — and find areas that we as a group need to repent of. And then we need to start doing better. And then I need to look at the physical world around me and begin the hard, faithful work of planting crops.

Because there is hope, even though the presence of evil in the world makes it next to impossible for us to believe. The hope that the Bible gives us is that Jesus is the key to this hope. Only Jesus can offer a better leadership than the leaders that we have continued electing time and time again — and we can testify to the effectiveness of serving Him over others, proclaiming the gospel of grace that makes it possible. Only Jesus can give us the values we’ve been trying to establish — these can only be found in His kingdom and we can be witnesses to it. Only Jesus can give the hope that I can actually love my neighbour just as much as I love myself — and our love serves as testimony to this truth. Only Jesus can supply hope, through his interaction with us daily, that God is faithful — and we can also testify to that truth.

Getting back to Babylon

The final lines of Babylon show us the way forward:

“Time to build again
Babylon, Babylon is fallen”

Is Babylon fallen because it has experienced God’s punishment or is it fallen because it has been rebuilt into God’s kingdom? Revelation 11:15 gives the answer:

“When the seventh angel blew his trumpet, there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will rule as king forever and ever.’”

The fall of Babylon is prefaced by the rebuilding started in Jeremiah 29 where God sent his agents into the enemy camp in order for the enemy to become a friend.

God wants the same things to happen today as well. He wants enemies transformed into friends. And that transformation begins with us.

Image by Boban Simonovski on Unsplash.

Imagining what the world is like: The usefulness of windows & doors in our worldviews

Posted on by

Imagine living in a room with no windows or doors. You are not alone. After a while you would develop a worldview limited by those four walls. Anything else would be speculation. Of course your other senses would work fine. You may hear things outside your room. You may smell things. You may feel vibrations. You may speculate as to what your senses were telling you but you wouldn’t be certain. The group would come up with an idea of reality. 

Then imagine that all of a sudden someone else appeared and installed a window. All of a sudden your world view would expand. Not only because the window expanded your view but because you also realised that other people existed outside of your room. 

We can then imagine the changes that would happen as windows were installed in each wall and as more and more of the world became visible. 

Now imagine that a door was installed and the installer invited you outside. What would change? Then imagine what would happen if you actually went outside. How would the group decide who would go? Would everyone go? What factors would contribute to whether people went or not?

What would happen when those who went out returned? Would their stories be clearly told? Would those who stayed behind believe them or not? Would more be convinced to leave or would decisions be made to close the doors & windows? 

Some more questions arise. What if you didn’t enjoy the view? What if what you saw was unbelievable? What if you didn’t want to go out the door? What if you didn’t trust your senses or trust the one inviting you outside? 

The examples could continue on into absurdity. What if the view out the windows wasn’t in fact direct but was an elaborate system of mirrors bringing you reflections of the world outside. What if (ala Plato’s allegory of the cave) all you could see was shadows of activities outside? What if the decision of the group was to tear the walls down and live together with those other people in the world?

How would the worldview change process work? What senses would you prioritise? What senses would you distrust more than others? 

A lesson from Men in Black.

In the classic 1997 movie Men in Black, James Darrell Edwards III is taken into a room with “the best of the best of the best.” As part of their testing before becoming one of the Men in Black, they are all taken into a shooting room full of graphical alien potential targets. They are supposed to shoot the dangerous targets and save the innocent ones. All the candidates go in guns blazing except for James, who carefully looks at each scary monster before calmly shooting the “little Tiffany” in the head. Let’s take a look at the script:

ZED: “May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?”

JAMES: “She was the only one who actually seemed dangerous. At the time.”

ZED: “And how did you come to that conclusion?”

JAMES: “Hook-head guy. You explain to me how he can think with a hook for a head. Answer; it’s not his head. His head is that butt-ugly bean-bag thing over there. ‘Cause if you look at the snarling beast-guy, he’s not snarling, he’s sneezing — he’s got tissues in his hand. No threat there, and anyhow, the girl’s books were way too advanced for an eight-year-old’s. And besides, from where I’m looking, she was the only one who appeared to have a motive. And I don’t appreciate your jumping down my throat about it. Or, uh — do I owe her an apology?”

James spent time carefully studying before going off guns blazing. He looked at the world around him to understand it so that understanding could better inform his actions.

The Windowless Room and Theologising.

It got me thinking about how much theology is done from the theologian’s office and how much from wandering about and observing? Which ends up being better? How important is listening to others’ analysis and evaluation as opposed to making your own? 

I love to read books. I particularly love escapist fiction because it draws me into a world that I can live in. I can dream while reading. I can imagine what life would be like if I were a character in the book. I enjoy people watching and trying to image their motivations for doing what they do. I also have a tendency to be shy. I prepare my sermons and lessons in isolation and them present them to people with real connections in the real world. But I realised after a while that my well was running dry. I had no more information to present and no way of finding a way forward into something new.

So I decided to study ways to better understand the world. That meant I had to study things like anthropology. I had to study about culture and society. Each of these fields has its own perspectives and theories that are useful in gaining understanding. Sometimes these theories offer criticisms of the current world. Sometimes they offer ways to better understand it. Sometimes they offer insights into how various and sundry parts of the world relate to each other. Sometimes they offer insights into how to interpret the world. It was great. It was like windows were being opened up for me to see out.

But more so than that, studying forced me to go out into the world and engage with it. I learned to observe people in the everyday environments and wonder why they did the things they did. I walked around my community trying to notice the things that I normally passed by. I learned to ask questions and listen for the answers. I talked to men on the street about their understandings of masculinity and religiosity. We talked about families. We talked about how to know the truth. We talked about their own ideas and perspectives. We developed deeper relationships with each other.

I certainly know that I gained more perspective once I got out into the real world. How do you maintain connections with the real world? How does that help develop your own perspectives and ideas? Please let me know in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please also consider subscribing to this blog either via email or WordPress itself.

Image by Arm Sarv on Unsplash.

Denying the Metanarrative is a good thing, but the process of denial is a bit more complex than we sometimes think.

Posted on by

One of the tenets of postmodernism (if indeed it can be said to have tenets) is the denial of the metanarrative. A metanarrative is “an overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.” For many, these metanarratives provide a framework for understanding the world. What’s sad is that sometimes these same metanarratives also provide a framework for oppression and hardship, if you happen to be on the wrong side of the narrative.

Postmodernism has it detractors, mostly people who adhere to a different philosophical system (cough ‘Modernism’ cough). One of their complaints is that denying a metanarrative is a metanarrative in and of itself. Apart from being a bit of a copout because it doesn’t seek understanding, this argument misses the point because it presumes that denial is single-stage process.

For example, in the 1970s, a number of Filipinos devoted their lives to overturning the metanarrative that basically denied their place in the world. Zeus Salazar started telling a new history with his Pantayang Pananaw. Virgilio Enriquez started telling a psychology story with his Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Pospero Covar started telling a new anthropology story with his Pilipinolohiya. Jose de Mesa started telling a new theology story with his work on contexualisation. These four men began telling stories that overturned the metanarrative that prioritised the West and saw places like the Philippines as “deviant.” In retelling the story with indigenous languages, using indigenous concepts, and respecting indigenous knowledge, they were able to open up a new chapter to a previously incomplete metanarrative. We have a lot to thank these pioneers for. And people are continuing the process today in ways that include anti-colonialism and post-structuralism.

But the process must necessarily continue past that point because, even though these guys fulfilled an essential service way back when, that service has now led to claims of essentialism among them. Essentialism meaning a specific definition of what ‘Filipino’ is. In their efforts to make the Filipino voice heard, they by necessity saw that voice as one voice. It was the Filipino voice.

What we realise today is that the Filipino voice is perhaps best characterised as “voices.” The Philippines is an archipelago of just over 7,400 islands of varying sizes, shapes, and populations. There are just over 180 languages in use on a daily basis. Filipinos are also present in all the countries of the world and live in both the most populated and least populated areas of the world. Filipinos are both fiercely nationalistic and regionally loyal. The family is the basic building block of society. All of this creates a rich diversity of identities. I like how Dr. Exiomo puts it: “Being can be expressed in many different ways.”

In other words, the metanarrative still needs to be denied because it doesn’t accurately tell everyone’s story in the proper way. It’s a continuous process of editing and revising that will ultimately lead to a fulfilled humanity.

Where do you fit into the metanarrative? Where does the metanarrative fail you? Feel free to let us know in the comments below!

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Jakayla Toney on Unsplash.

What four myths do I need to consider when talking about deconstruction & how can I counteract them in my own process of deconstruction?

Posted on by

Deconstruction has been in the news of late — especially in the news surrounding Christian theology and practice. Christians, dissatisfied with the way things are going, have been pushing back against the status quo. And with good cause. For example, in just in the past year we have seen pushback against:

  • The usefulness of borrowed theologies to the church.
  • The Canadian Indian Residential School System and the church.
  • Gender and the church.
  • Race and ethnicity and the church.

So what’s the big deal? Why deconstruction?

Deconstruction is a push back against the idea that there is one standard interpretation of meaning in the world. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, “Deconstruction focuses on a text as such rather than as an expression of the author’s intention, stressing the limitlessness (or impossibility) of interpretation and rejecting the Western philosophical tradition of seeking certainty through reasoning by privileging certain types of interpretation and repressing others. It was effectively named and popularized by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida from the late 1960s and taken up particularly by US literary critics.”

For example, I grew up in the era when martial arts didn’t exist. What we had was the karate chop. As time progressed, and as our knowledge grew, we came to understand that the term karate chop was problematic. First of all, karate is only one of many martial arts, each with their own methods and systems. Second, chop is only one of many martial arts moves. In fact today karate chops seem to be limited to striking boards with the side of one’s hand. They have also lost much of their coolness factor — I challenge you to find a karate chop in a Marvel movie! The meaning system of karate chop has been deconstructed from its dominant place and been relegated to one small part of the larger category of martial arts.

Deconstruction is a necessary process but it is challenging because it deals with the very basic definitions of “meaning.” Those raised with a concept of Absolute Truth find it hard to separate Absolute Truth from the truths that I believe at any given time. [For more of my thoughts on truth, see my posts, here, here, here, here, and here]. For example, it is Absolutely True that the karate chop is a thing. There are many experts in the technique in the world today. However, what isn’t absolutely true is that the karate chop universally identifies all forms of martial arts today. The term has been replaced with Martial Arts.

I should also point out that it is important to not simply deconstruct — one also needs to construct a new system that is more reflective of the basic realities of the world. Granted this has been a rather simple explanation of a very complex topic. If you want to understand it more you will need to read Derrida for yourself. However, I do believe that there are four myths, or false assumptions, that we need to be aware of when we engage in deconstruction. Without understanding these myths we won’t be very effective in our deconstruction-reconstruction process.

The myth of the noble savage.

There is an idea that pre-civilisation was an idyllic time of peace, joy, and happiness that was subsequently destroyed by the arrival of various civilising forces. The noble savage represents the people unsullied by civilisation and is often the person that we wish we were and that we sometimes deconstruct to become. Of course, we can’t deny that colonialism has wreaked havoc on the world but to say that pre-colonial cultures were perfect is also an error.

Often our ideas of deconstruction want us to return to this idyllic time of peace, joy, and happiness. How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? Rather than assume that all new things are bad and all old things are good, it might be better to find culturally appropriate ways to deal with all these bad things so that our new, reconstructed world, is a better place. Even though both pre- and post-colonial times are problematic, deconstruction seeks to find indigenous solutions to the problems.

The myth of the tabula rasa.

Tabula rasa means simply, “clean slate” and is the belief that all people are born as blanks that are slowly filled up over a lifetime.

Theologically speaking the only true tabula rasas were Adam and Eve, who had original righteousness. Once they began their slavery to sin — a condition that now affects the entire human race — their slates were no longer blank.

What we often also miss in this is that while we may be born blank, the influences around us are by no means blank. We are socialised and enculturated using specific systems, languages, structures, and processes that may or may not vary from other systems, languages, structures, and processes in the world. One key aspect to military training is battle school that is designed specifically to extract a person from as many of these influences as possible and reshape them into soldiers.

Often our ideas of deconstruction want us to return to an existence where all influences are removed and a whole new set of influences are written. How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? We often wish that we were blank slates. I myself have said many times that I wished I was able to read the Bible for the first time again. The reality is that we are not blank slates and no amount of hoping will change that. Rather we can embrace our previous experiences and seek ways of writing into the margins of what we have already done.

The myth of cultural purity.

No one is an island and no culture exists in isolation. All are impacted by cultural hybridity.

I remember when our class on Philippine Society and Culture at the University of the Philippines read Alvina and Madulid’s Flora Filipina: From Acapulco to Manila that talked about how Spanish trade introduced many botanical species that are popularly considered native to the Philippines. This is called the Columbian Exchange. Alfred W. Crosby coined the term and defined it this way,

“In 1491, the world was in many of its aspects and characteristics a minimum of two worlds—the New World, of the Americas, and the Old World, consisting of Eurasia and Africa. Columbus brought them together, and almost immediately and continually ever since, we have had an exchange of native plants, animals and diseases moving back and forth across the oceans between the two worlds. A great deal of the economic, social, political history of the world is involved in the exchange of living organisms between the two worlds.”

On a more local scale, the church is not merely a bunch of individuals who share some common beliefs. The church is a community — a body, a building, a vine, a nation, a people — that shares life, work, and wonder. That’s why none of what the church does is to be done in isolation — we need the input of others in our theologising.

How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? Rather than trying to remove all outside influences, it might be better to embrace cultural hybridity by engaging others to find new perspectives, new ideas, new world views, and new paradigms that will help us to see things in a more complete and complex way. For example, if my own experience with Jesus is framed around guilt-innocence then dialogue with those who have an honour-shame or power-fear framework would help me to see that salvation is a much more complete and complex thing.

It’s also important to point out that this is a two-way street because both parties in the exchange are impacted.

The myth of cultural essentialism.

Cultural essentialism is the belief that cultures must contain certain essential characteristics. A simple example would be, “Americans are rude and Canadians are polite.” The problem that neither of these statements is entirely accurate — there are many polite Americans and many rude Canadians. Furthermore, there is no law that says that in order to identify as an American I need to be rude, or to identify as a Canadian I need to be polite.

Essentialism a form of generalisation that doesn’t take into account the differences that exist within cultures and seeks to smooth them out into some kind of manufactured, easily defined, timeless reality that isn’t really real. Reality is more nuanced than that. The example of Americans and Canadians above also doesn’t take into account a vast range of other factors that can’t merely be smoothed over, including but not limited to, gender, socio-economic position, race and ethnicity, geographical location, and political bent.

I should point out here that the oft-mentioned idea of “colonial mentality” is related to this. The term is used in a pejorative way to indicate those who don’t think in an appropriately indigenous way (which is also used often in a pejorative way).

How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? The simplest way is to find ways of looking through Other’s eyes. For me, a middle-aged white male, that would mean developing relationships with people different than I. The Bible’s meaning may be clear to me but is that only a false clarity? Is there another perspective I need to see?

These are some of my initial thoughts on deconstruction so I am sure that I have missed something. What do you think? Is there another myth we can add to this list?

Your voice is important to me. That’s why commenting is open on this post. Please let me know what you think below.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by alleksana on Pexels.