Deconstruction involves launching an assault on logocentrism, "the assumption that something lies beyond our system of linguistic signs to which a written work can refer to substantiate its claim to be an authentic statement." (A Primer on Postmodernism, Stanley Grenz, Eerdmans, 1993, p.148)

Derrida wants to show us, "the impossibility of drawing a clear line between reality and our linguistic representations…He wants to wean us from too quickly assuming that we can discover the meaning inherent in a text…the text always has the potential to yield further meanings." (ibid, p. 148)

I'm having a nice theological squabble with a long-time sparring partner about the need to understand rival positions before criticizing (let alone mocking) them. In this case, it's Derrida's view of the fluidity or non-existence of authorial intentions i.e. there is nothing 'behind' the text, least of all an author's purposes.

But the Bible tells us to be wary of the plank in our eye prior to slamming our brother for the speck in his. I'm wondering if this doesn't apply very well to Christian thinkers who enjoy making fun of post-modernism's revised view of writing.

Okay, so we believe there IS an Author behind the text and He HAS intentions, but let's face it: we seldom agree on what the Author is saying.

Study theology enough and you'll encounter the myriad of interpretations. Diversity is the order of the day. In evangelicalism, diversity even breeds contempt and divisions.

Some say God controls everything, others say He only controls some things, and others say He's given up most of His control. Some say God is Love so He will not condemn people unconditionally, some say His glory requires the condemnation of sinners and some say He doesn't condemn at all.

Some say we can choose against the will of God, some say this is just an illusion and that everything is the will of God. Some say Hell is a place, some that it's a state, some that it doesn't exist. Some say there are no more supernatural gifts, others focus on not much else.

And of course some say we are 'justified by faith' but others would add, "True, but we're not justified by believing in justification by faith', thereby earning the gripes of the former.

How is it fair then to make fun of Derrida's suggestion of infinite meanings within a text? Doesn't our divergence in fact exemplify his thought? Complaining about Derrida is like chastening someone who says that no audio system exists, when we can barely decide what's coming out of it.

Yeah, so the mike has sound coming out of it. Great, but we're divided over what's being said. How cool is that?

Possibly more disconcerting is the fact that the Author is believed to have contrary intentions. "There are two wills in God," some proudly declare: God wills all people to be saved, but He doesn't will that all people are saved. And yes, this is Biblical i.e. the Author said so. Go figure.

And we think Derrida is weird? (smile)

(My written attempts at grasping Derrida continue here. There's also a major piece on my website where I attempt to challenge the notion that Derrida advocated linguistic nihilism via the denial of authorial intention)