Franke’s next chapter is on deconstruction, which to him is one of the operations of the Holy Ghost. The Other rescues the voices of those who have been “excluded, marginalized, and ignored” (p. 103) — examples might include the writers of the neo-Confederate newsletters that I mentioned previously.
In this chapter, Franke says that deconstruction “constitutes not so much a tearing down as a bursting through of the cultural and intellectual sediment that so often serves to obscure and distort the truth” (p. 104). In other words, deconstruction is for him a good business, and he wants to push it right along. But notice his reference to the truth, like there was unified truth out there or something. One looks at the cover of the book again, where the subtitle sticks to its guns, stoutly maintaining that truth is plural.
“The reforming principles of deconstruction and self-criticism must be practiced and maintained as the only proper response to the material convictions of the Christian tradition regarding the primacy and ultimate authority of God in the church and the world and the limitations of created and finite human beings” (pp. 107-108).
There is a real puzzler here. Deconstruction is the “only proper response” to convictions we hold as Christians and, one gathers, if such deconstruction were to be done the right way, the results would be all to the good. But two points should be made. First, what is with this “only proper response” business? This is the way to do it? In a book peddling the plurality of truth?
But there is another point. Assuming vocabulary differences, what vocabulary did the prophets and apostles use when they taught us how to deconstruct the faith once delivered? This modern hermeneutics, developed by Frenchmen with brain snakes, is something we must do apparently. That being the case, then Christians in the 17th century, the 13th century, the 9th century, and the 1st century, all needed to do it also. And since they did not have access to the contemporary brain snake manuals, how did they learn this lesson? Where in the Bible are we taught to do the deconstruction shuffle? If I were to preach on this duty, what text should I use?
“Deconstruction and self-critical theological reflection are necessary because the church is resident to all the foibles of the human experience. It is not a perfect or infallible institution. It is prone to error and frequently loses its way in the world. This is precisely why deconstruction must be an ongoing practice and not viewed as something done once and for all” (p. 111).
Now this makes it seem as though establishment paradigms are the sin and deconstruction is made up of rebuke and repentance. If that were to turn out to be the case, then my question above is answered. Jesus wasn’t so much rebuking the traditions of the Pharisees as he was deconstructing them. Paul was not wanting the Judaizers at Galatia to cut the whole thing off, but was rather urging them to deconstruction, which that kind of was, so to speak. But if this is the case, why doesn’t Franke just write like A.W. Tozer, and just talk about sin and supplanting the Word of God for the sake of our traditions? Maybe it is because he wouldn’t be welcome at the same conferences anymore. I can think of a lot of things in the Church that need to be deconstructed, and with a nine-pound sledge, but I don’t think that is what Franke has in mind.
Deconstruction is supposed to free the Word “from cultural and ecclesial captivity” (p. 111). Okay, tell me more. “This captivity can serve not only to domesticate the witness of Scripture but also to demonize it when the words of the Bible are used to justify horrific practices such as genocide, slavery, murder, the abuse of women, cultural imperialism, racism and the oppression of those who do not conform to the assumptions and standards of the empowered majority” (p. 111).
This is quite true, as far as it goes, but the list he gives us shows that his cozy and very standard leftism needs to be . . . deconstructed. And all he would need to escape from his captivity to the left wing of modernity’s prison house is add a few things. And if he added them, he would be escaping from the prison entirely, and not just transferring from Cell Block A on the left side of the warden’s office to Cell Block B on the right side of that same office. I agree that every item on his list needs to be there, but not by itself. If he had just added “of the unborn” after murder, and included the “perversions of sodomite marriages,” then he might actually be addressing some of the things most in need of deconstruction.
But the reason he can’t do that is because to do so would condemn as demonic a number of the things that are now emerging from the emergent village, and then he wouldn’t be able to get his next book published.
The gangs that have formed in the left and right wings of modernity’s Chokey House have both elected their chaplains, and the deal is they are allowed to talk about sin, just so long as it is always the sin over there. But sin is always here in the human heart, as it turns out, and that is the thing that really needs to be deconstructed. God’s Word is like a hammer, Jeremiah says, that breaks a rock in pieces.