The Deconstruction of Christian Scholarship

I’ve been thinking very seriously about this for a long time.  I will try to say it as plainly as I can:

To approach the task of Christian Education from a neo-presuppositional, Evangelical point of view, we must first understand the relevance of Florentine neoplatonic hermeneutics to pre-grammatical allegorical eisegesis.  This, of course, is based on an analysis of the latent psychological tendencies of the post-adolescent Homo Loquens, with her utter lack of critical and intellective faculties, or, as it is known to the base, vulgar tongue of the common multitude, the principle of Canis in corpore transmuto.

BibleInDebate

Of course, when the Ding an Sich is ingested by the Hegelian world spirit, a dynamic afflatus is engendered, in inverse ratio to the presence or absence of a vegetative soul in asymmetrical relationship to the square  root of pi, with the inevitable result that there is a most grievous and prodigious exhalation, release, and ejection of a diffused and distended substance not unlike, and bearing an analogous relationship to, gas, or, with due respect to the canons of Renaissance self fashioning, wind.

While such epistemological considerations can have the lamentable effect of inducing a state of angst, nausea, and psychological deviance on the part of the proctor, the ability to step in the same river twice, acquired by a diligent application of stoic inertia, should allow the student simultaneously to achieve stasis and to evolve toward the omega point of unity with the unfolding dialectic of his own navel.  All charges of solipsism should be assiduously ignored on the grounds that we exist, therefore we are.  When the involutions of the convoluted aspects of bovine meditation are properly integrated with the assured results of modern criticism, the accretion of jargon is assured.  Notwithstanding, we should beware of the temptation to reify actuality in terms of the categories of Non-Being, apart from which there is no recourse to anything less than an admission that whereof we cannot speak, we must be silent.

Robot Pony

In canis corpore transmuto?

Silence is then the final word uttered by the cacophany of freshperson  writing, couched in the allusion to an illusion of  intelligible peroration.  Therefore, I exhort you:  eschew, by pursuing, the tabula rasa, on which there is neither subject nor object, surface nor depth, impression nor obduracy, but only the cosmic blankness of the pre-rational psyche.  Let us inscribe thereon rather in contradistinction the contrapuntal effluvia of the Isidorian Decretals lest, caught in a backfire from the Canons of Dordt, we find our post-modern detachment dissolving in deconstruction, leaving us no alternative but to make, in spite of our best and brightest efforts to the contrary, some sense.

To conclude in brief and plain English:  Ad hominem, ex post fact cum corpus dilecti, quod inductio ex absurdum;  argal, Q.E.D.

(The question of the propriety, ethicality, and or admissibility of professorial exploitation of the captive audience syndrome for pecuniary gain is a fascinating one which need not detain us here.  Suffice it to say that it was addressed in the case of State of California vs. S. I. Hiawatha, 1983, with predictable results.  Argal, Q. E. D.)

If you are still with me, I have one more thing to say:  APRIL FOOL!!!

Flaming Pen

This essay is excerpted from Dr. Williams’ Book THE DEVIL’S DICTIONARY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008).  Check out Dr. Williams’ Lantern Hollow Press books at https://lanternhollow.wordpress.com/store/.

Advertisements

About gandalf30598

Theologian, philosopher, poet, and critic; minister of the Gospel who makes his living by teaching medieval and renaissance literature; dual citizen of Narnia and Middle Earth.

Posted on April 1, 2013, in Donald Williams, Literary Criticism, Philosophy, Theology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. I’ve read three books this semester that sounded exactly like this. While your tongue was firmly in your cheek, theirs was not. I had to pretend to take it seriously when we discussed it for three hours in class. Thank you Dr. Williams for reminding me that I am not the crazy one.

  2. You’re welcome! Of course, seeing through this kind of stuff is not enough in itself to establish your sanity–but it helps.

  3. I’m pretty sure I drew that picture, but I’m not sure how you got it. So, in addition to commending you for the brilliant April Fools post, I suppose I’ll have to commend you for your l337 hax. And here I was doubting your affinity with technology… ;D

  4. Everything we’ve ever used in an LHP post is just sitting there to be clicked on when you go looking for media to add. Doesn’t it come up for you when you click on “add media?”
    .

    • The problem is I don’t remember ever uploading this, it’s something I drew for Melissa as a joke (although there’s a version somewhere with bows in its mane; its actually supposed to be a robotic pony). So, my only explanation is that either I accidentally submitted it at some point, or you are secretly a master computer hacker, and the second proposition amuses me, so I’m going with that. Don’t try to deny it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: