Ch 4 Deconstructing Conclusion

Most, if not all, Christians would readily say that “Faith in Jesus is faith,” and thereby would not question the faith of others as so stated. Certainly, these Christians would not be tempted to ask “Do you still have no faith?” (Mk 4:40), just as Jesus asked his early disciples following him the most rigorously. Do you think those disciples had no faith?

As a Christian, who do you believe in? What do you believe in, and how have you believed during situations and circumstances of your live? During the storm, the early disciples had to face the faith they constructed as Jesus’ disciples, a faith which obscured the face of Jesus to follow face to face for living their faith. Past or present, the faith constructed is always either subjected to the examination of deconstruction, or subject to the necessity for deconstruction.

In the present, a major issue in the surrounding context is the dominant influence of “the medium is the message,” whereby the secondary has displaced the primary in the priorities of life. For example, when listening to songs, the music often becomes the message over the words of the song. Likewise, Christian faith is faced with what distinguishes their faith: the medium or the message, the secondary or the primary. The former may sound good in its practice but not be significant to function for the viability of the latter.

“The medium is the message” for Christian faith is a subtle condition that appears contradictory in its theology and practice: notably in a theology of “justified by faith apart from works” (Rom 3:28), and in a practice of “faith without works is dead” (Jas 2:26). Thus, in a statement of belief of the former, “works” is anathema, whereas in an act of faith of the latter “works” is the medium. For the former, having faith becomes an end in itself, that is, the medium is the message. In the latter, the act of works becomes the message. In other words, the distinction between faith and works is confusing, if not contrary, for many Christians—especially if they consider Paul and James to be in conflict.

Both Paul and James challenged a faith reduced to practice without relational and functional significance. Both countered a faith that was an end in itself or a means for self-determination, even for justification. Critically for Paul and James, faith is not static, passive, self-involved, and a mere statement of belief. Rather, by the nature of God’s righteous relational action (cf. Ps 85:13), compatible faith is the righteous relational dynamic, actively responding to God and others in relationship with one’s whole person from inner out as the relational outworking of one’s belief (Gal 5:6; Jas 2:17; cf. Amos 5:21-24). Anything less and any substitutes of this relational response are reductions evolved from the counter-relational workings of the sin of reductionism. The simulations and illusions of faith from reductionism are the underlying issue Paul and James challenged in faith’s function and outcome, both of which they countered with whole faith—the wholeness of one’s relational response of trust and its relational outcome of whole relationship together with God and God’s family.

Basically, Paul and James confronted for accountability two different inflection points constructing faith during the early period of Christianity. Paul confronted a weak view of sin, in which the thinking reduced becoming justified to requiring the work humans could do to be released from the charge of sin. James confronted for accountability a fragmented theological anthropology, in which the thinking was that only having faith as a noun was sufficient for Christian faith, thereby making any further work unnecessary, if not contrary, for Christian faith.

Therefore, Paul and James would not conclude the deconstruction of faith until the essential relational work of trust constituted the relational outcome of faith with nothing less and no substitutes. The integral convergence of faith and its relational work is illuminated by Paul and reinforced by James. And the integral theology and practice that Paul and James make definitive for Christian faith likewise clarifies, corrects and convicts what is viable for all Christians in their faith. Thus, what is integral for Paul and James is irreducible and nonnegotiable.

All individuals, churches and academies are facing the existential reality made axiomatic by Jesus, not as a theoretical proposition: “The measure of faith you use will be the measure of faith you get for your life” (Mk 4:24). Initially, churches and academies are dependent of the measure of faith used by individuals for determining a church’s or academy’s formation. Thereafter, individuals become dependent on the measure of faith used by churches and academies for determining the faith individuals get for their life.

The examinations in this study hopefully cleared the theological fog obscuring outer-in referential measures and outcomes, which have evolved from anything less and any substitutes for relational measures. These have been clarified and corrected. Now we are all faced with living our faith in the inner-out measures of the experiential Truth (not propositional), the relational Way, and the whole Life embodied by Jesus (Jn 14:9) for the relational connection and outcome of our whole person joined intimately equalized in the wholeness of relationship together as Jesus’ new creation family in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity. And “the face of Christ” continues his presence and involvement with love to illuminate our hearts with the relational reality of his relational outcome (2 Cor 4:6).

At this stage in your faith, what have you learned about the Christian faith in general and your faith in particular? Given the above examinations, how would you assess the qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness of your faith?

The conclusion of deconstruction is not open to negotiation, thus it does not conclude by variations of Christian faith, the global church notwithstanding. For example, how would you assess those who construct their faith acting like Jesus? Certainly this would be better than acting like the church or the academy, wouldn’t you think?

The key measure for such a faith is understanding the difference between “like Jesus” and “the likeness of Jesus.” Most Christologies would include the examples of Jesus’ life, along with his teachings. These examples in particular become the measure of discipleship, that is, following “like Jesus,” which is always subject to variable interpretations and practice. And even if faith “like Jesus” could claim to be compatible with Jesus, it cannot be congruent with Jesus in likeness. However, in a complete Christology, Jesus made imperative the measure distinguishing his disciples by their love “just as I love you” (Jn 13:34-35), which cannot be distinguished merely “like Jesus’ example” but only on the essential basis of Jesus’ love constituted in the relational likeness of the Trinity.

Thus, any faith acting like Jesus cannot, does not and will not conclude the deconstruction of faith. Nothing less than and no substitutes for following Jesus’ whole person (not just example and teachings) in the relational involvement of love constituted in his relational likeness will have the relational outcome of “being where I am” (Jn 12:26) in reciprocal relationship together in further likeness of the Trinity.

Deconstruction concludes only with the relational outcome integrally embodied by the Word in relational language and constituted in the image and likeness of the Trinity, the relational outcome of which is the faith lived inner out by the action of love in Jesus’ likeness. The terms for this invariable measure of faith are only relational terms, the irreducible and nonnegotiable relational terms enacted by Jesus for the wholeness of reciprocal relationship together in its primacy, not for the faith acting in the fragments of secondary examples like Jesus. Accordingly, the examples of Jesus in referential language will only yield referential outcomes lacking the relational connection necessary to live faith in the action of love relationally involved with God and others in the likeness of Jesus.

Faith Viably Turned Around

Whatever surrounding contexts and situations we are in with our faith, the viability of faith’s relational work (1) clarifies its primacy over the secondary function of all related works, and (2) corrects the misinformation, misrepresentation and mistaken practice of the medium of works composing the message of faith. Whenever such a medium composes the relational message of faith, what others hear and see has no substantive quality to distinguish that faith as viable and thus to constitute it as living.

Whether challenged by the conditions of stormy waters or by the vulnerability of having your feet washed, Jesus always wants to know from us: “Where is your faith?” and “Have you no faith?”—just as he confronted his early disciples. Since they followed him the most rigorously, they obviously had faith. But, having faith was insufficient for the relational connection necessary to “be where I am,” in spite of how much they served him (Jn 12:26, the relational paradigm for following). They needed to turn around in their faith in order to make this relational connection. Take heed church leaders and educators, no matter how much you serve Christ.

Therefore, in Jesus’ relational language, he is not asking if we have faith, but rather about our relational response of trust directly in him. Only the relational work of trusting him in reciprocal relationship together makes the action of our faith alive—viably alive to the fullness of life Jesus shared with us. “I am vulnerably present and relationally involved with you that you may live and have our life together in its fullness qualitatively from inner out, not quantitatively from outer in” (paraphrasing Jn 10:10). So, “where is your relational work of trust in me?” “Don’t you trust me when your situations are stormy, or when you have to make yourself vulnerable for the intimate relational connection of love?”

The deconstruction of our faith cannot and will not conclude until our faith viably turns around from the activity and acting of faith to the action of faith, from faith as a noun to faith as a verb, the viability of which Jesus embodied and enacted for us to trust him in reciprocal relationship together “to be where I am.” Trusting him on his relational basis, the deconstruction of our faith can and will conclude by the relational Way, the experiential Truth, and the whole Life, as constituted integrally by the relational reality and outcome of “as I have loved you.”

Viably turned around, our faith will “Be relationally involved in trusting the Lord with all our heart from inner out, and will not rely on our own insight. In all the ways of our everyday life, we will be ongoingly relationally involved with him, and he will always straighten our path with direct relational connection with him rather than on a parallel path” (paraphrasing Prov 3:5-6).

So, where is your faith now? Is the deconstructing of your faith concluding or is more deconstruction needed? The same questions extend to the church and the academy, because all inflections points will be accountably confronted.

back to top home