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.
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.
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!!!
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/.