Sunday Sermons

Answering Nonsense

Mark Dunagan
01/09/05 - Sunday Evening

Navigating the Maze

Deconstruction

Unnoticed by many people, even myself, recently the “father of deconstructionism”, Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher died. Someone might say, “The father of what?” The theory of deconstruction is the idea or claim that no text can communicate true meaning. When one takes apart the language of the author, one finds inherent contradictions and false suppositions that he or she was too mired in the cultural milieu (environment, cultural setting) to recognize Whether the author recognizes it or not, there can be no inherent meaning in a text. Of course, such a theory fully launched in the 1960’s has allowed people to take any literary work and twist it’s meaning without being seen as being dishonest with the text. Once “deconstructed” a literary work could then be “reconstructed” to suit the reader’s own mirey and often selfish agenda. As an “intellectual virus” this theory does live on, and it undermines the idea of absolute truth, meaning, and even logic. “The man or woman on the street who never heard of Derrida, have probably heard of legal quibbling over the meaning of the word is, or the CBS suggestion that certain documents it foolishly used were ‘fake’ but accurate” (World Magazine, 11-27-2004, p. 55). This theory has also been applied to the Bible, which allows the reader to plainly ignore the meaning of a verse under the assumption that the Bible writers had an ax to grind, and then allows the reader with his own ax to grind by force his own agenda upon the verse in question. It is interesting that people who come up with complicated theories about meaning call into question the motives and meaning of everything spoken or written—except what they have said. Derrida and those like him would probably be upset if someone misquoted him, took one of his statements out of context or deconstructed his work! Secondly, such a theory exposes itself to ridicule and so many inconsistencies. One website ran the headline, “Father of Deconstruction Does, If ‘Death’ Means Anything”. Well of course death means something, and you can deconstruct the word “death” all you want but at the end of the day the word still means that this man died. On a more serious note such a theory is an insult to God. Janie B. Cheaney observed, “It’s also a degradation of the image of God, who expresses Himself in the Word and promises that ‘on the day of judgment, people will give account for every careless word they speak’ (Matthew 12:36). Does language matter to Him, or not? When He says, ‘Let there be light’, it happens. When He says, ‘Get up and walk’, we do. What He says not only means something, but is something, as certain to come to pass as these words that I’m typing on my keyboard this moment” (World Magazine p. 55). God lives in the real world unlike some philosophers, and God knows that words mean something. The words we say to each other come from our heart (Matthew 15:19), and thus not only do they have meaning, but we are also morally responsible for what we speak from our heart. No one needs to “deconstruct” the Scriptures, because the only agenda behind the Bible is our eternal salvation. We are warned against distorting what the Bible says (2 Peter 3:16), and such a warning only makes sense if the verses are teaching a clear and definite truth. We are equally admonished not to add to the “words” of Scripture (Revelation 22:18-19). When Derrida was asked about the historical significance of the events that tragically happened in this country on September 11^th, he gave a lengthy reply, with endless qualifiers. “All the philosophical questions remain open, unless they are opening up again in a perhaps new and original way: what is an impression? What is a belief? But especially: what is an event worthy of this name? And a ‘major’ event, that is, one that is actually more of an ‘event’, more actually an ‘event’, than ever?” When I read this reply a couple of thoughts entered by mind. First, deconstruction is self-serving, that is, it enables you to put your head in the sand and appear to be intellectual. Second, it paralyzes a person from saying what needs to be said; it gives one an out, instead of standing up for what is right.

What the artist needs to hear

Gene Edward Veith observed, “Many of today’s artists have swallowed uncritically the bohemian myth, that the artist is superior to lesser mortals and the source of meaning and values. First of all, an artist’s opinion about politics, government, or public policy is not necessarily better than anybody else’s. An artist, by virtue of his art, is no authority on topics such as nuclear physics, economics, or theology. An artist’s sphere of expertise is his art. That may entail the ability to pretend to be someone else, the ability to play a musical instrument; the ability to make up rhymes really fast, the ability to draw pictures, or the ability to tell a story. These may be valuable gifts that can enrich our lives and contribute to the overall culture. But they do not entitle artists to be rulers. The best artists, though—Shakespeare, Bach, Rembrandt—had no such pretensions. They did not see themselves as creating either their art of their culture out of their own genius. Rather, they looked outside themselves to an objective realm of order and beauty created by Someone other than themselves” (World Magazine, p. 30). We see this vividly demonstrated in the Bible. The ancestors of Cain were extremely talented and artistic, but they did not have the truth (Genesis 4:21-22. “The focus is on the three sons. Each of them is listed as the ancestor of some cultural accomplishment. Genesis is making the point that through the (disobedient) line of Cain many of the world's significant cultural discoveries emerged. One is reminded of the Greek and their contributions in the areas of art and philosophy and of the Romans and their legal and political institutions” (Hamilton p. 239). Kidner notes, “A biased account would have ascribed nothing good to Cain. The truth is more complex: God was to make much use of Cainite techniques for His people, from the semi-nomadic discipline itself (20; cf. Heb. 11:9), to the civilized arts and crafts (e.g. Ex. 35:35)...the Bible nowhere teaches that the godly should have all the gifts. At the same time we are saved from over-valuing these skills: the family of Lamech could handle its environment but not itself. The attempt to improve on God's marriage ordinance (19; cf. 2:24) set a disastrous precedent, on which the rest of Genesis is comment enough. Cain’s family is a microcosm: its pattern of technical prowess and moral failure is that of humanity” (pp. 77-78). We see the same truth manifested in Acts 17:16 where Paul comes to the great cultural and intellectual center of the Roman Empire, the city of Athens. Filled with art, philosophy—and idolatry. “There is something enthralling about Paul in Athens, the great Christian apostle amid the glories of ancient Greece. Of course he had known about Athens since his boyhood. Everybody knew about Athens. Athens had been the foremost Greek city-state since the fifth century B.C. Even after its incorporation into the Roman Empire, it retained a proud intellectual independence...It boasted of its rich philosophical tradition inherited from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle...What should be the reaction of a Christian who visits or lives in a city which is dominated by a non-Christian ideology or religion, a city which may be aesthetically magnificent and culturally sophisticated, but morally decadent and spiritually deceived or dead?”(Stott p. 276)

“I don’t want a list of Bible verses”

I received an email recently from a man who said I was a “sick puppy” because I believed what the Bible said about the topic of hell. In addition, after I sent him a reply which simply had some Bible verses in it, without any comment on those verses, he said that he did not want a list of verses, and that such was simply a manifestation my own ego and insecurity. Allow me to make some observations at this point:

· We need to point out to people that when we give them some verses for them to read we are not giving them our own opinion; in fact, often we have said nothing about those verses, but rather simply present them. Giving a verse as an answer is not an opinion, rather we are doing the exact opposite of giving an opinion; we are appealing to a standard outside of ourselves. What we are saying is, “In response to your question or comment I am not going to give you something from within myself, or a sampling of my own limited knowledge, rather—hear God. I did not write this or invent it, it has been around long before I was born”.

· It is ironic that people, who say, “That’s just your interpretation”, in response to a verse that we have given them, have no problem sharing all their opinions and interpretations with us. In fact, what often prompts the sharing of a verse with someone is that we have just had to listen to his or her “interpretation”.

· When we offer someone a Scripture, that is not our ego or insecurities speaking, rather, we are putting our ego and insecurities aside, and we are letting God speak to the issue at hand.

“I want proof!”

It is certainly legitimate to ask for evidence that proves the Bible is the word of God, and plenty of evidence exists (see www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net). But let me make a couple of observations on this point:

· It seems that the unbeliever is always asking the Christian for proof, but as Christians we fail to ask the unbeliever to give us some proof. Yes, I will give a person evidence that the Bible is the Word of God, yet I also want some “proof” in return. I want some proof that the opinion that one just shared with me, often without my asking, is infallible, and that God will honor it as valid on the last day. That is, if someone claims that absolute truth does not exist—then prove it. If one claims that God will not send anyone to hell—then give me a verse where God said that.

· Sometimes a person will object when among the many evidences that we offer that the Bible is the Word of God, one evidence that we offer is the Bible itself. This is not the only evidence, but it is a valid evidence. First it claims to be the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). On this point alone we can eliminate 99.9 percent of all other literature as not being a communication from God. Secondly, it has all the ear-marks of a book that God authored, whether it be doctrinal unity, historical accuracy, the person of Christ, the highest moral standard known to man, scientific foreknowledge, predictive and fulfilled prophecy and so on. The obvious first text for the genuineness of any document is to simply read it. Not allowing the Bible itself into the discussion as to whether or not it is the Word of God, and the sole, final and exclusive Word of God(Jude 3; John 16:13), would be like determining whether or not a painting was authentic without ever examining the painting itself.