Deconstruction or Transformation?

There's a polarization that is occurring not only politically but philosophically/spiritually. Both Ken Ham and the atheists cannot abide both-ands. But that is at the heart of the Trinity: both three and one. Sometimes I wonder how much computers with their binary digits have intensified this either/or thinking...but its roots lay long ago, when the metaphysical idea of participation was chucked.

I also am uncomfortable with all this talk about "deconstruction." It sounds to me like just more either/or reasoning. Either you embrace everything or nothing; and if the latter, hopefully you build anew from nothing. But as I read Rev. 21:1, even God doesn't do that. Yes, Babylon is destroyed, but God doesn't erase his entire creation and replace it. As Aristotle would say, it's not a "substantial" change; it's an "accidental" change, where the properties of the substance change, but the substance remains. The thing is "transformed," not supplanted.

Which is why I like the way a friend of mine put it: “resting in XC." HE is the way, the truth and the life; He remains constant, and if we remain in Him, He will transform us. Transformation is different from deconstruction. When I deconstruct, I am the agent. When I am transformed, I am the patient, not the agent. It is much harder to undergo transformation than deconstruction, simply because it requires that I give up control, and trust the One who is acting upon me.

"For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He will also deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 11:b-13)