by Bradly Mason
To be outright anti-deconstruction is to reject the Biblical understanding of sanctification; it is refusal to “be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Rom 12:2), to “take every thought captive” (2 Cor 10:5), and to “plow up your fallow ground” (Hos 10:12).
Do we not know, as Christians, that sin has far-reaching effects? Not only has sin brought about spiritual and physical death, but sin has broken man’s community with God (Gen. 3:24-25), broken his community with neighbor (Gen. 3:16; 4:1-8; Gal. 5:14-15), corrupted his economic activity (Gen. 3:17; Isa. 3:5; Mic. 2:2), corrupted his habitation and environment (Rom. 8:19-21), and has even distorted his very mind and reason (Matt. 15:19; Rom. 1:28; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:18).
How can we not understand that to accept systems, structures, ideologies, and even “doctrines” that we have received, simply by being born in our historical context, without severe critique is to downplay sin and reject Spirit led sanctification? And not just for us as individuals, but as the Church itself in history.
Do you not tell us that, for example, “Christian” enslavers were just captive to the systems and ideologies of their times?
Should we accept that we also will simply be people of “our times,” demurring at the hard, dangerous, and self-critical work of sanctification?
God forbid.
Here’s your opportunity to demonstrate some “Christic Manhood” (I use with all due sarcasm), or do you fear exposing the weakness of your social philosophies masquerading as “Biblical” truth?
And what word/phrase could be used in place of “deconstruction” that will not be demonized in a week by those defending the status quo? I submit there isn’t one. It’s the substance they hate. Just look at the books they’re critiquing?
I’m not married to the word – I’ve never used it of myself. But it should be clear by now that they will problematize any linguistic turn to marginalize potent ideas that contradict their received social philosophies.
“Deconstruction” is only a part of sanctification, not the whole.
It’s also clearly not an end in itself and does not alone entail reconstruction (on another topic, that is why CRTers departed from CLSers). But, as defined below, it is certainly a necessary component, no matter what you call it.
We must take up the cross, friends, even in our ideologies, unexamined social philosophies, assumptions, and the many buried implications of our most cherished concepts and conceptual schemes.
###
Bradly Mason is a husband, father, parishioner, and cabinet maker. He has contributed many studies and research on Critical Race Theory, System Racism, and church issues both on his blog and on Twitter. You can follow him on Twitter: @AlsoACarpenter
Asking For Me 