Deconstructing-Our-Faith-Intro

With Jesus confronting his disciples to be accountable with the above question, his purpose to deconstruct their faith should alert us. What do you think about in terms of deconstructing our faith?

As we discuss deconstructing our faith throughout this study, the focus of deconstruction will be neither as a mere idea nor some conceptual activity, though deconstruction has been discussed in such ways. Rather, deconstruction with a significant purpose involves telling stories. Such stories are not some fiction but the reality of human life embedded in the human condition. Composed in these stories is the main narrative that revolves around the status quo and how in our humanity we submit to or are complicit with it. This is the prevailing tendency, rather than resisting it, in spite of having any grief, pain or anger experiencing the status quo for our human condition.

For example, many Christians in the U.S, have been influenced by their surrounding context, and thereby have constructed their faith shaped by various political, economic, social, cultural, or even religious sources. These stories continue to evolve, but they often don’t get told, are not reported factually, or simply have not been shared with accountability.

1. the facts are gathered and reported without bias and predetermined interpretation,

2. it gives a clear voice to those muted (by others or self) as this also constructs their faith in a descending arc of an unavoidable inflection point,

3. and/or it confronts those willfully living in its shadows, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

This faith narrative unfolding truthfully is never a given but is always subjected to misinformation, denial or some biased interpretation. Nevertheless, the significance of the deconstruction narrative can persist to bring this reality into the light. As it does, an ongoing question unavoidably comes to the forefront of these stories: How much of the faith constructed necessitates deconstruction?

Notably, the deconstruction narrative is not new, but it unfolds throughout Scripture. The deconstruction story in the biblical narrative unmistakably brings to light the illusions and simulations of faith constructed first by God’s people in the Old Testament, and then by Jesus’ early disciples and by the early church in the New Testament. The faith of God’s people evolved in a recurring cycle vacillating in their faithfulness (as truthfully reported in Hos 4:1 and Mk 4:40). In the narrative of these truthful stories, they are confronted by God’s grief and anger in order to have their faith accountably redeemed and transformed. To emphasize, these grievous accounts do not convey a mere idea or conceptual activity by God but the history of God’s relational redemptive involvement to personally transform the faith of these persons, people and churches. As each story unfolds, it integrally both charts the steps necessary to be involved with God on a distinctly narrow path distinguished only by God’s terms, and lays the groundwork required for the deconstruction of faith to be completed by that faith’s transformation.

As we listen to muted voices and affirm their presence without distinctions fragmenting their identity, we can form a kinship together that usually strains to be developed, embodied and ongoingly involved on the relational level for reciprocal relationship together. This involves the integral process necessitating incorporating individuals with churches and further joining together with the Christian academy, so that God’s people will be constituted as family together. This outcome requires getting to the depth integral for all of them/us to be redeemed from the variable construction of their/our faith, a faith that keeps them/us relationally apart from each other as well as from intimate involvement with God.

Moreover, as we observe the construction of faith by others around us, it may also bring to light other subtle constructions of faith needing to be deconstructed—perhaps even our own. Once again, the question always at the forefront of these stories confronts any constructed faith needing to be deconstructed. Getting down to this depth is integral for such faith first to be redeemed and then transformed.

Therefore, in this process of deconstruction, our addressing faith’s inflection points cannot and must not be merely performative. This means that activism alone is insufficient, and that merely voicing the problem and its issues is inadequate. Even working for change in and of itself is incomplete for the required redemptive change directly antecedent to transformation. In other words, deconstruction is not an end in itself but only the necessary means to the new end for faith, which must by its constituting nature be constructed in wholeness.

It is unmistakable that Jesus’ most visible followers were confronted with his penetrating question “Where is your faith?” (Lk 8:25) Many Christians have made and continue to make a common assumption about their faith that their faith practice is on the path of following Jesus. They assume to be on the same path as Jesus, because they believe in his teachings and observe its traditions, if not always his example. However, what they fail to understand is that they are on a parallel path with Jesus, which doesn’t get to the depth integral to “where I am” (Jn 12 26). This path only appears to be following him directly when in reality their parallel path has no direct relational connection with him. That’s why Jesus also asked his disciples, “Do you still have no faith?” (Mk 4:40, NIV)

1. not following his person and thus not being directly involved “where I am” in spite of serving him (Jn 12:26), hence

2. unable to truly “know me, my person” in spite of all the time spent with him (Jn 14:9) in the absence of relational involvement together heart to heart, no matter how much information is known about him.

As an unavoidable result, to continue on this parallel path is to have an illusion of faith in Jesus that merely simulates the practice of discipleship. Certainly, if not obviously, many Christians have been satisfied with a parallel path for their faith; and they remain unaware, in disregard or denial of a redeeming inflection point glowing before them in their shadow, thereby not going and getting to an integral depth in their faith.

Today, all the variations of Christian practice, and its improvisations, witnessed throughout the world are further assumed to make up the diversity constructing the church. This diverse construction, however, is not the body of Christ definitively both delineated by Paul and constructed by the Spirit (1 Cor 12). The diversity of persons composing the body of Christ only describes their unique function in the body; but that diversity does not and must not define the identity of who, what and how these persons are constituted “in Christ”. Both the individual and corporate identity are constituted only by the inner-out wholeness “I give” (Jn 14:27). In contrast and conflict with the diverse fragments composing the global church today, this irreducible and nonnegotiable wholeness constructs the body of Christ in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity (just as Jesus prayed, Jn 17:20-26).

On the other hand, there are Christians whose faith is constructed with uncertainty, distrust, fear, or a longing for a concrete faith not shaped by surrounding conditions. Whatever identity evolves from such a searching-dissatisfied condition or state becomes an identity construct from outer in that veils, masks, embellishes or otherwise buries the whole of one’s person from vulnerably emerging from inner out. This outer-in cover up prevails overtly or subtly to define human identity and to determine human function individually and collectively. With the pervasive stories of this dominating process, such an identity construct is also taken on by those on a parallel path, whereby the inner out of these persons is embedded in secondary position to their outer in.

Whether in a searching-dissatisfied state or on a parallel path, as well as any variations of them, the appearance of this outer-in identity construct and its outward construction of faith need to be exposed at the depth of their roots for their deconstruction to truly free them to be changed from inner out. Yet, this challenging process is ongoingly met with resistance and necessitates the redemptive work of the Spirit to free us from the grips of any identity construct. As this old condition is freed, turned around and negated, a transformation can begin to emerge to construct our faith in the image and likeness of the Trinity. This is the redemptive change constituted by the Trinity as the relational outcome awaiting our accountably confronting the inflection points constructing Christian faith (2 Cor 3:16-18).

It is critical to understand and take heed that redemptive change is neither a partial process nor a negotiable outcome. Thus, on the one hand, just changing aspects or parts of the old renders change fragmentary, which is insufficient for the new replacement to emerge. The Trinity only constitutes redemptive change to encompass the full condition of the old in us, first in order for our whole person to be freed (or old dying) from inner out, so that then our whole person will be raised up new in Christ as the new creation defining our identity and determining our function (2 Cor 5:17). This irreducible complete outcome in wholeness makes imperative that the stories in the deconstruction narrative must not be abbreviated or merely introduced. Otherwise, the outcome is subject to illusions or simulations of the outer-in appearance of what’s assumed to be new.

Furthermore, in contrast and in conflict with incomplete or outer-in outcomes, the Trinity irreplaceably constitutes redemptive change as the nonnegotiable relational outcome. What the Trinity enacts is only in an uncommon relational context and vulnerable relational process with us; and this doesn’t unfold unilaterally but with our reciprocal involvement just on God’s relational terms to its relational outcome from this relationship together. Accordingly, anything less and any substitutes from us are unable to bring about the Trinity’s integral outcome, which both irreducibly and relationally constitute redemptive change.

Therefore, the deconstruction of our faith cannot be a singular or partial action for the relational outcome to be complete, that is to say, constituted in wholeness. This relational process necessitates the vulnerable relational involvement of our whole person from inner out in order to be compatible with God’s relational involvement. Just having faith is inadequate to be involved with God and is insufficient to receive the outcome of God’s promises. Furthermore, this essential relational involvement for this integral relational context embraces not only the individual person but also requires encompassing the church and the theological academy, thus not rendering them only as institutions. In the same relational terms, churches and academies also cannot be addressed merely from an impersonal level without personal constituencies. These are persons needing to be addressed from inner out, so that their involvement will be completely dealt with from inner out as persons, not institutions.

Deconstruction efforts in churches and the theological academy substituting an institution for personal constituents, as well as dealing with persons less than inner out, are efforts rendered insignificant for resulting in redemptive change. Even with good intentions for change down through the years, such measured efforts have resulted in changes that do not go deep enough for the old to be truly redeemed. Thus, the prevalent results have been churches and academies operating with illusions and simulations of faithfulness, or more and more church and academy closures as we are witnessing today. This history has been witnessed in both local and global stories about churches and academies.

The above issues initially discussed for the individual, the church and the academy will be discussed further in the following chapters. The scope of each issue will basically overlap and/or interact with the others to compound the problem of constructing faith, thereby urgently prioritizing the essential work of deconstruction. The question before us now is: Who will engage in this work and how will they be involved?

All Christians need to examine deeply their faith—examining its composition, its practice and its outcomes, while setting aside our assumptions and biases. How well, for example, can you distinguish your faith from being on a parallel path with Jesus?

Many who followed Jesus were confronted with the reality that their faith had no significance to him (Mt 7:21-23; Lk 13:26-27). This included Peter, the most outspoken of his early disciples (Mt 14:28-31;16:21-23). Why so? These biased individuals generally followed images and ideas about Jesus, but their bias kept their involvement at a relational distance from him. Thus, in spite of their serving him intensely, they had no relational connection directly with his person to be “where I am” (the relational imperative of discipleship, Jn 12:26). Consequently, individuals, church members and those in the academy are all faced with the issue of confronting a faith to which Jesus responds, “I don’t know you…in spite of all that your faith claims to do in my name” (paraphrasing Mt 7:22-23).

Church leaders and academicians are especially susceptible to living on a parallel path. They assume the significance of their faith based on their service and/or theological foundation. And their influence obviously is pervasive in shaping the construction of others’ faith. Who, beside Jesus and the Spirit, will confront these persons for their accountability? Where and how will churches and the academy experience redemptive change?

An essential issue that underlies the significance or insignificance of our faith is observed in the narrative of God’s people. As they evolved from faith’s inflection point, the words from God revealed the human condition of their faith: “These things you have done and I kept silent; you thought I was altogether just like you” (Ps 50:21). While we may not overtly state that God is just like us, we are all susceptible to assuming this one way or another in our faith practice. Indeed, the human shaping of both God and faith in our image are an ongoing critical issue needing to be exposed and transformed at all levels of individuals, churches and academies.

Therefore, it is inescapable, though avoidable, that all Christians at whatever stage of their faith development:

In whatever season of life and whatever stage of one’s faith, anyone can be subjected to some deconstruction of their faith.

So, what’s ahead for you, our churches and academies? The status quo was, is and will be always the target of Jesus’ deconstruction, just as highlighted in his critique holding accountable the majority of churches identified as his followers (Rev 2-3). Most notably confronted was a church with a reputation for being alive: “Wake up…for I have not found your faith practice complete according to the lens of my God” (Rev 3:1-2).

[1] All Scripture quotes are from the NRSV, unless identified differently; any italics in the Scripture quoted in this study signify emphasis or further rendering of terms.