Deconstruction versus Destruction

Comparing Vatican 2 with Ex-Evangelicalism

I recently finished reading Peter Seewald's two-volume biography of Joseph Ratzinger, pope Benedict XVI.

One of the issues of debate surrounding the life of Ratzinger concerns if he made a "U-turn" in regards to the reforms of Vatican 2. 

For those unfamiliar with the story, Ratzinger was one of the leading theological voices that shaped Vatican 2, the council that attempted to "update" the Catholic church (the Italian word was aggiornamento) and bring it into the modern world. Because of Vatican 2, the Latin Mass was replaced with Mass in the vernacular, and the priest no longer stood with his back to the congregation but now faced it. There were reforms meant to increase the role of the laity in the church and to spark new evangelistic efforts. The Holocaust needed to be addressed along with modern science. The church began to emerge from its medieval cocoon. 

The reforms of Vatican 2 were progressive, but very quickly debate and controversy erupted, debate and controversy that continues to this day. Soon after Vatican 2, progressive voices in the Catholic church began pushing for even greater reforms, citing the "spirit" of the council. More conservative supporters of Vatican 2 pushed back, arguing that the radical experimentation the council had kicked up were a distortion and misinterpretation. The progressives in the church had gone too far and missed the point. A fight ensued, a fight still ongoing, about what the council actually intended and accomplished. To some conservatives and traditionalists, Vatican 2 was simply a mistake. To radicals and progressives, the promise of the council remains unfulfilled, having been stuffed back into a box before it really got going. Moderates find themselves between these two camps, defending the council to the conservatives while at the same time trying to prevent a Vatican 2-inspired unraveling of the faith among the progressives.

The story of Ratzinger's purported "U-turn" regarding Vatican 2 started soon after the council ended. Again, Ratzinger had been an influential player at the council. But soon after the council, radical student protests broke out around the world. This was 1968 after all. Feeling legitimized by Vatican 2, a radical, revolutionary spirit took hold of the church. Ratzinger began to push back hard. To many observers, this seemed a betrayal and a reversal. The champion of Vatican 2 had turned his back on reform.

Or did he?  

That's the debate about Ratzinger. Did he make a U-turn? Well, that all depends upon who you think possesses "the truth" about Vatican 2. Ratzinger himself felt he never made a U-turn. In his view, it was the progressives and radicals who were betraying the council. But in the eyes of the progressives, it was Ratzinger who had changed his mind and who was working to roll back the reforms of the council.

If you're a Protestant, I don't know how much of this history you're aware of, or how much you keep up with the continuing debates about Vatican 2. My point in raising this topic is to share an observation I had, noting similarities between the Catholic debates regrading Vatican 2 and evangelical journeys into "deconstruction."

That there are parallels between the controversies regarding Vatican 2 and evangelical deconstruction shouldn't be overly surprising. What plays out in the Catholic church corporately and ecclesially, tends to play out among evangelicals individualistically. If the Catholic church is going to "deconstruct" they will do that all together. Evangelicals, by contrast, will do that alone.

Here's what I see as the similarity between the Catholic debates regarding Vatican 2 and evangelical deconstruction. Specifically, what is the point, goal, or aim of "deconstruction"? Well, the goal is purportedly to update an inherited faith to make it more strong and vibrant. Sometimes that means leaving outdated or dysfunctional beliefs behind. Sometimes that means breaking down walls and old taboos. Sometimes that means becoming more open, hospitable, and inclusive. Sometimes that means questioning tired dogmas.

Of course, the label "deconstruction" isn't a perfect fit for Vatican 2, but I do think it's a good description for the wider Catholic reception of Vatican 2. A lot of progressive Catholics really did deconstruct their faith. It was this very deconstruction that caused Ratzinger to do his purported U-turn. He felt that the deconstruction had gone too far and was becoming destructive. So he tried to shut it down.

A similar thing happens, albeit individually, with deconstructing evangelicals. Just how far is too far in the deconstructing process? What's the end goal? Ratzinger feared that many Catholics were going too far with Vatican 2, distorting the faith until it was no longer Catholic. In a similar way, many deconstructing evangelicals deconstruct themselves right out of any recognizably Christian faith, or just leave the faith altogether. 

I am sharing all this because, in reading the Seewald biography, I felt a lot of sympathy for Ratzinger's "U-turn" as I look on at the phenomenon of evangelical deconstruction. Specifically, is the point of "deconstruction" to question until you no longer are a Christian? Or should it be a healthy process where you update, mature, and grow in your faith? Shouldn't you be a stronger, more committed and passionate Christian after deconstruction, rather than a weaker one?

The issue here is if deconstruction should go hand in hand with reconstruction. And if so, where are all the "reconstructing" narratives out here? Or is deconstruction just a one-way street, from faith to apostasy? Because if deconstruction is mainly functioning as a one-way street, I have a very Ratzingerian response: Deconstruction has become destructive, rather than a vital and necessary journey to mature and deepen your faith.