Step one: Assert that the constructivist is saying nothing new.
A constructivists’ criticisms are obviously true and we know this already and we’ve already incorporated them into our work and so all this is old news
Step two: Assert that the constructivist is wrong.
These criticisms are obviously false because they misrepresent how real people (ie., not academics) understand religion themselves
Step three: Assert that it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter whether these criticisms are true or false because we’re just going to do what we’ve been doing anyway and so all this critique amounts to is time-wasting navel gazing that distracts us from doing the real work that we’ve already decided to do. For this last reason, deconstructive critiques that tell us that work in religious studies is analytically incoherent are not helpful because they might prevent scholars of religion from doing the analytically incoherent work that we will inevitably do because, hey, no one’s perfect.