I’ll confess–I have a preoccupation with words.
Furthermore–I’ll confess–my gift isn’t in the realm of succinctness! As a dear (and patient listener) friend affectionately told me, “Why use one word when twenty-five will do?!”
A single word can be a kind of doorway into the beautiful and into the vile…and string several of these things we name as “words” together in just the right manner…and oh…the results can be a kind of deliciously, sweet, rich-and-delectable, layered morsel that rests on my tongue. And as I turn the delicacy over and over on my palate and slowly chew, savor and swallow it, there is a kind of pleasure as well as a satiation and nourishment that I receive through these things we name as “words.“
A word.
What is a word, you ask?
According to the Oxford dictionary, a word is a “a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.”
But, as we now say in “conversational spaces”….“What does that even mean?”
And online, when we see something we consider “more than true or insightful,” we might remark: WORD.
Although oddly, a quick online search to confirm this understanding of the term doesn’t easily bring up my above-understood definition. Perhaps I’m a bit off, but somewhere along the line I researched the expression to get some kind of working definition and that’s how I recall it should be used. (Actually, I just searched differently “the expression WORD” and came up with this.) It seems my memory gave more weight to the idea than that of a “casual expression,” that it somehow held a kind of emphatic power.
In his well-known work of Romeo and Juliet, written around 1597, Shakespeare wrote:
“’Tis but thy name that is mine enemy:
What’s Montague? It is not hand nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part.
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
It would seem to me that Shakespeare was communicating some version of “it is what it is.”
It Is What It Is: Origin of the Phrase
– Who Coined the Phrase “It Is What It Is”?
Strangely, the exact origin or the moment when the phrase, “It is what it is” was first coined in the English language cannot be pinpointed. You may expect it to originate from a work of literature or poem like many common phrases, such as sayings that are actually famous quotes from Shakespeare or other renowned authors. However, that is not the case.
The earliest known written use of this phrase dates back to just 1949, according to the New York Times. The phrase appeared in a column written by J. E. Lawrence in the Nebraska State Journal.
“New land is harsh, and vigorous, and sturdy. It scorns evidence of weakness. There is nothing of sham or hypocrisy in it. It is what it is, without an apology.”
It’s unknown if Lawrence created the phrase; it is entirely possible that this saying was used in conversation before that time. Since then, it has become a common saying in English-speaking countries. It really took off in the 1990s and through the 2000s, and today you hear it frequently in areas as diverse as sports, business and politics.
The above quotation mentions that this term really “took off” culturally in the 1990’s through the 2000’s and for anyone who is following the course of deconstructionism in our society, this time period is noteworthy.
But next, I want to dig up one of my very favorite quotations by CS Lewis that I read in the book A Grief Observed around 2005-2006 following my first divorce.
I was looking for something faith-based to read at that time that might help me somehow process my grief, and by the title of the book, I thought it might be worth my time. Even though CS Lewis’ loss was of a different nature, there are universal truths about grief.
“One never meets just Cancer, or War, or Unhappiness (or Happiness). One only meets each hour or moment that comes. All manner of ups and downs. Many bad spots in our best times, many good ones in our worst. One never gets the total impact of what we call ‘the thing itself’. But we call it wrongly. The thing itself is simply all these ups and downs: the rest is a name or an idea.”
― C. S. Lewis
“The Thing Itself” — this term in this quotation which I not only follow in logic, but like in concept–seems to derive somehow from somewhere and is used by CS Lewis. Jacques Derrida (born July 15, 1930, El Biar, Algeria—died October 8, 2004, Paris, France) and CS Lewis (born November 29, 1898, Belfast, Ireland [now in Northern Ireland]—died November 22, 1963 were not particularly “contemporaries” and Lewis was thirty-two years older than Derrida. So I suppose in the momentary quest to determine where/why/how Lewis used the term “the thing itself” in A Grief Observed (written in 1961) we might take a look at the works of Edmund Husserl (born April 8, 1859, Prossnitz, Moravia, Austrian Empire [now Prostějov, Czech Republic]—died April 27, 1938, Freiburg im Breisgau, Ger.) whom Derrida drew upon.
Who knows.
I did one more search just now and located in Wikipedia that “Following the war, from 1960 to 1964, Derrida taught philosophy at the Sorbonne,” —(Jacques Derrida)
And then, since I needed to do just “one more search” out of curiosity, I came up with this:
So now, when I click on the above link in the image shown, I come up with this website. While I only glanced at a few things, it would appear the writer is aiming toward analyzing the connection between Derrida and CS Lewis with a view toward “Resources for Affirming Theology” (since there is a link I see at the top with this heading). Hmmm….
So basically in one fell swoop of searches taking me fifteen minutes I make a Point A to Point B line from Derrida to a current “Sexual Theology” infiltrating the Church. CS Lewis seems to be caught up in the middle–somehow in the mind of this writer (whose full posts I did not read). I don’t believe that CS Lewis would have wanted association with such unorthodox, unbiblical teachings, so it just goes to show that many Christians may simply be unaware of the potential (future) landing point of some intriguing new way of thinking about things.
I remember back in 2005 being in a conversation with a twenty-two year old that I knew through church/homeschooling connections. Somehow we got to talking about language and “Christianese” and things people in the Church say in response to various situations. We were talking about language. It seemed to be a good conversation and there were a number of seemingly true things/feelings/observations we were reflecting upon. It was in this conversation that I first heard the phrase from this young man, regarding some particular statement Christians might make (that I’ve long forgotten): “What does that even mean?”
At the time, I thought that terse remark was quite insightful. And on some level, that well-placed question might serve a conversation very well. In fact, I liked that string of words so much that I took them away and over the years, used them in other ‘conversations.‘ But what I did not know at that time and likely the young person who was just out of university may not have known either, was the source of this trendy linguistic mechanism of deconstruction and its roots in the teachings of Jacques Derrida.
I still love–within the deeply philosophical and linguistic realm–both quotations by Shakespeare and CS Lewis. And while I ponder whether even CS Lewis had been influenced (knowingly or not) by the writings/philosophy of Derrida when he formed his expression, some things regarding the concept of deconstructing a thing or language can seem to be (at least superficially) beneficial.
My take-away from Lewis’ quotation was that whenever we endure a particular hardship/loss/grief/trial in life it doesn’t come to us at 100%, 24/7. As he indicated, there can be an overall condition (War, Unhappiness, Cancer, for example) and it comes in waves or ups-and-downs. Almost like childbirth…and of course, in something such as cancer it has a progression of intensity (with its corresponding losses of function and living) very similar to childbirth in some sense. And then, the person comes 100% face-to-face with “Cancer” upon meeting “Death.” And at the time, I applied these thoughts to the grief I experienced in being “Divorced.” All grief comes to us in moments of time so that CS Lewis was insightful when he may have even borrowed from the young Derrida and linked some concepts, saying, “One never gets the total impact of what we call ‘the thing itself’. But we call it wrongly. The thing itself is simply all these ups and downs: the rest is a name or an idea.“
One can certainly take away some insight, comforting truth from this expressed idea without the continuation of full-blown deconstruction of things we should not dismantle.
Given the current state of things in society and the Church (that if we research and understand the endgame of these language mechanics and machinations) we can rightly resist the “conversational space” that they are (by design) aiming to “create.” This is a “conversational space” is poised to call into question (and then to methodically deconstruct) anything in society considered foundational, or in the Church, anything considered “orthodox.”
Indeed, if “orthodox” and “heresy” have somehow become dirty (somehow objectionable) words in one’s mind, then I think we should start sniffing around for “Derrida.”
Space is created by the main mechanics of Derrida’s teachings and concepts (i.e. “the endless deferment of the meaning of a word”) wherein the door to all kinds of destructive societal agendas and biblical heresies have fertile ground to spring up and flourish.
What is an “orthodox confession” of faith and doctrine if it is not a verbal assembly of words with standardly accepted meanings that represent biblical truths, concepts and essential doctrines.
Paul wrote:
“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” – I Timothy 4:16
“Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” – I Timothy 6:12
While on some level, I do understand that creeds and confessions are humanly-constructed conceptual summaries of that which the Church has historically exegeted from God’s Word and considers essential/foundational for the Christ-follower, and formed from the best understanding from the holy, authoritative scriptures, yet the the deconstructionist might say, “What does that even mean?” At some point if we want to preserve the essential Christian faith as best-understood through the whole of scripture, we must defer to orthodoxy.
I invite readers to listen to the following resources (YouTube Videos and any links in this piece) to get a better understanding of Jacques Derrida for the purposeful or recognizing (as I have done) where and when I am being influenced in my thoughts/words by Derrida’s concepts/teachings. While there may be some kernals of truth in any system of thought, overall Derrida has had an extremely harmful impact on society, the world and the Church.
We who follow Jesus as His disciples must exercise all care that we do not unknowingly fall prey through deceptive and empty systems of thought and end up as “Disciples of Derrida.” Our allegiance must be to Jesus, and our submission to God’s Word. While there may be conversational space to better understand the process of canonization and various hermeneutics, when we significantly depart (and even “glory in”) some newfound way of viewing a sound, biblical doctrine/concept/truth about God or any other matter of faith and praxis, we must make sure that our reasoning hasn’t been hi-jacked by deconstructionist thought.
The following is a very good primer of Jacques Derrida, in a talk by Dr. Jordan Cooper in his series on Makers of the Modern World. Below the video I will place a few notes I emailed to myself as I listened (this is the 2nd or 3rd listening I’ve done to this talk) along with the “approximate” place in the video where anyone who listens might pay close attention. (I was screen-capturing wherever I hit pause, so the time markers need to be re-wound a bit, but really, the talk needs to be taken as a whole. I’m simply putting a few pay attention alerts and comments regarding why a part stood out to me.)
Time stamp pauses:
6:50 – 8:10 Cooper makes mention of Derrida’s focus at Harvard on the writings of the author James Joyce and Ulysses in terms of language. I note that Gary D. Collier whom I first addressed in this piece, draws upon Ulysses in a 4-segment series on his blog regarding the “Inspiration of the Bible.” While I have not read Collier’s four pieces in this series, I just found this potential connection interesting, and for anyone wanting to further and deeply explore Collier’s possible influence by Derrida (i.e. Derrida’s focus on James Joyce and Ulysses), more research would need done to see if there is any legitimate connection.
“Word Games” of modernist authors such as James Joyce intrigued Derrida.
11:25 David Fitch 1-3 uses the term “presence” quite a bit as in faithful presence (Viewers should note the visual presentation Fitch begins with in having himself seated in a position reminiscent of modern philosophers and religious gurus, and as the music begins he adopts several facial macro/micro-expressions and makes the sign of the cross before speaking…these audio-visual film-making methods are quite intentional forms of communication, and we must scrutinize such things in terms of their potential to brainwash, indoctrinate and deceive followers. They must be scrutinized for tacit coercion, manipulation, and even emotional bonding techniques, and we cannot consider our favorite “Christian” teacher above scrutiny for any formation of persuasion/manipulation).
Gary D. Collier4 is also wanting us to invoke “the presence” of “Paul” over “coffee” and seems to be employing this same conceptual emphasis linked to Derrida. Here is a video What if We Could Reimagine How We Read the Bible? by Collier where we must also scrutinize his videography techniques and the intentions thereof. After watching the video several times, I begin to wonder why he has the camera zoom upward leaving the viewer gazing down upon Collier, who is looking upward at his “hearer.” If Collier wished to make himself “god-like” he might have done the opposite–slowly elevate the camera angle so the listener has a subtle upward view of Collier. With each technique there is an alteration of size/perspective, of course.
What I interpret Collier to be doing in this video is a technique designed to work in tandem with his messaging that he will lead his followers into so-called “power reading” of the bible…he, (Gary D. Collier), will give them the sense of having a newfound, “god-like” power. Isn’t this the same sneaky lie and concept that the serpent presented to Eve, or that Satan tempted Christ with in the wilderness? “Follow me” and I will illuminate/gift you with a special “power” or “result” or “insight”–and in the case of Collier’s commodity he is working so hard to sell, this “power” is by his own description, nothing short of an all-new-bible-reading approach. He even boasts that this new method will “spoil” its adherents for any other traditional “bible study.”
In my opinion, how arrogant, divisive and potentially vile. That he communicates it as a “good thing” that once his followers are essentially brainwashed into his “methods” that their eyes will be “so opened” they will find themselves essentially ruined and disabled (and I believe there is trickery involved: “you will not be disabled but enabled”…just like the statement made by the serpent to Eve) for future sense of purpose, belonging, agreement, ministry and more in the spiritual lives of his protégés.
How sad!
And, how insidious a lie. Indeed, if one closely reads over Collier’s blog writings, he seems to intentionally lure-and-dangle his readers for more…never coming right out and clearly expressing his “Coffee With Paul” methods, for just one example.)
“Likely, by now, someone might be asking, “Well, how do I have this conversation? Are there steps?” Hang on. We’re just not there, yet. That’ll come in a few weeks from now. Right now we’re talking about foundational principles. “ – Gary D. Collier in this blog piece
And next, below, a red highlighted screen shot from the very same page on Collier’s blog.
So in the above time stamp which I commented upon, Cooper describes some things Derrida emphasizes that amount to “A kind of false ‘privileging of presence.'” (around minute 6:50 – 8:10)
29:28 This next time-stamp-pause deals with a shift in the concept of “logos” and logos centrism. This term/concept came up in a recent commentary I located which at first blush appears to be promoting orthodoxical scrutiny of what is named as “Spirit Christeology.” I came across this The Son and the Spirit: The Promise and Peril of Spirit Christology in my readings last week after becoming concerned/interested in whether various statements read on Collier’s website, and another I had visited, were actually carefully-worded and intentionally (or unintentionally) unclear and atypical wordings/concepts that may actually be veiling the writers calling into question the doctrine of the Trinity that Christians have historically known.
Collier wrote a number of unclarities (to me, as a reader, with my deeper understandings of Derrida and deconstructionist thought/techniques) in his 3-part series on “Spirit.” Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 He seems to be essentially pulling a “Derrida” in the very first part; in other words, “Spirit,”–“What does that even mean?” so-to-speak…
But back to time stamp 28:00 to 29:28 or so…Cooper addresses that Derrida’s critique of “logos centricism” is definitive of “western culture.” He explains that if you reject the logos-centric nature of the world you are essentially rejecting western culture. And indeed, embedded in all of the post-modernist, deconstructionist “critical theories” (and in David Fitch’s teaching, for example) is essentially a categoric assault (with a view to dismantle or “bring down the power and hegemony” of western society. (i.e. Fitch’s recent book “Reckoning With Power” is a veiled attempt to “Marx-ize” the Christian Church of the west.) That of course is why such notions as settler colonialism and “de-colonization” (“Do Some Homework” on this topic in these two talks — Settler Colonialism and The Violence of Decolonization ) are at the forefront of the news lately as we try to navigate and assess the disparate narratives of the Israel-Gaza situation.
To wrap up this section of time-stamps in Cooper’s talk on Derrida, I want to mention Derrida’s focus/impact on “structures” with regard to his unfavorable view on various hierarchical systems. I “think” Cooper continues on with this idea past minute 30:00 but I’m really not sure. Somewhere within his talk he does turn to the inherent concept of hierarchy/structures whenever there are interactions between more than two people. Once a third person is added (he gives example of group projects in classrooms) someone always takes the lead. It’s how things get done.
What strikes me about this is the connection to Fitch’s focus/mentions of hierarchical systems in various writings, as well as Collier’s, in essence. Gary D. Collier seems to pay significant focus to the concept of chiastic structure in the “responsible” and proper reading of “texts” and “documents.” This critique (by Brad Green, Spring Church of Christ) of Collier’s book called The Forgotten Treasure focuses on the impact/implications of attempting to extract or superimpose “chiastic structure” (an ancient literary device) on Old and New Testament writings. The net effect, as Green states, is that Collier’s methodology creates a kind of hierarchy of the importance of various texts within a passage or single book.
For further insights/possible connections of approach, this article What does Derrida mean by ‘the text’? may or may not hold some additional relevance. I have not read the article.
I’m finding it somewhat hard to articulate why I connect Collier to Derrida. Incidentally, Cooper mentions Derrida’s studies at Cambridge Oxford in 1992 (Jacques Derrida’s Cambridge Affair) and I read that Collier also obtained a degree at Oxford in 20145, but wrote The Forgotten Treasure as part of his graduate work in 1993.
It would seem the Oxford School around that time (1992) was a seedbed for deconstructionist methodology. I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand anything of the distinctions in these apparently related institutions–other than from superficial Google searches: Oxford vs Cambridge
Whereas Derrida advocates for deconstructing a “logos centristic” understanding of texts/language, Collier seems to hyper-focus on written texts, and also by adding in a rule of a “non-whole, non-harmonizing” hermeneutic which essentially is like putting someone on a leash. While some biblical “leashes” of sorts are beneficial, this “leash” seems in my view to accomplish a kind of potential scriptural disablement in the end user.
This “leash” Collier creates simultaneously prohibits inter-referencing of words/texts from multiple biblical books/authors and at the same time in doing so, guides the “leashed” into a very limited territory of thought/linkages/conceptual building through inter-referencing. In my view, this is a type of “handicap” Collier seems to “energetically” promote. And to what end does this serve? We must wonder.
Collier considers standard bible reading a “hopscotch” or “schizophrenic” approach but essentially, by compartmentalizing and segregating texts/books/authors in the bible, he is achieving a type of dissociative, dis-integrated understanding of biblical themes/doctrines/narratives that is actually and essentially the classic understanding of “schizophrenia!”
So Collier’s seeming disdain (I’ve read various remarks of his online and on his own website) for the “very idea” (essentially the “language of”…let’s dismantle it Derrida-style) of heresy and orthodoxy is a feature we see in a number of “these people.” (meaning, the plethora of deconstructionist, heretical teachers infiltrating and dismantling orthodoxy and traditional praxis, of which Fitch seems to proudly lay claim to, along with many others of his ilk.)
In summary, it would seem that the connection between Collier’s particular flavor of “Derridic-deconstructionism” of linguistics/structuralism would need a deeper exploration to properly identify and articulate.
For anyone who made it through the “Do Your Homework” of the above talk by Jordan Cooper, I recommend the next one (below) for further reflection and expansional basis for various conceptual linkages and methodology we are seeing today in all forms of post-modern deconstructionist theories.
There’s a anecdotal story Cooper mentions in this talk (I “think” it is in this talk and not the preceding on just Derrida) which makes a good point, although its use of violent references may be considered by some as “un-Christian.” He says that there’s a story that goes around that if someone had two bullets and Hitler and Michel Foucault were standing before them, what would they do? And the answer is, they would ‘shoot Foucault twice.’
I do think he makes a good point through that imaginary illustration, from what I know of Foucault and how much ongoing destruction his thinking has introduced into society and the world. That David Fitch quotes (in any positive way) from Foucault in his recent book, I find categorically unacceptable in terms of harmonizing the naming oneself as a Christ-follower or any kind of adherent to scriptural truth. One can read more on that in this piece DO YOUR HOMEWORK SERIES: FITCH, FOUCAULT, RHOR & ZAHND (AND NO, THAT IS NOT A LAW FIRM…)
Footnotes:
_____
1DO YOUR HOMEWORK SERIES: FITCH, FOUCAULT, RHOR & ZAHND (AND NO, THAT IS NOT A LAW FIRM…)
2BOOK REVIEW: “RECKONING WITH POWER” BY DAVID FITCH
3DO YOUR HOMEWORK SERIES: DECOLONIZATION|HEDGEMONY|EVERGREEN|FITCH
5Collier then completed his Ph.D. in 2014 with the Graduate Theological Foundation through its association with Oxford University. His dissertation defense was held at Christ Church before a mixed American/Oxford faculty committee.[12] Professor Donald A. Hagner served as the supervisor of the dissertation entitled Engaging Paul: Shades of Conversation in 1Thessalonians (2014), which has since been thoroughly revised and expanded for a wider audience.[13] (Source)
Thank You For Reading
Please Feel Free To Express Your Thoughts Below
