Deconstructing Deconstructions

Defining Deconstruction

If you’ve been involved at all in the evangelical conversation that takes place online in the last few years, you’ve heard the word deconstruction. Deconstruction is the word used by those leaving the evangelical faith after they begin taking issue with certain ideas, doctrines, ethical concerns, or cultural aspects of evangelicalism. Now just as evangelicalism is not a monolith, neither is deconstruction. There are many different strains of deconstruction. For the purpose of this article, I will generalize some key tenets within the broader movement of deconstruction.

First, deconstruction usually starts with an individual asking questions of beliefs they’ve held historically. Then, answers are sought. A tenet of deconstruction is to seek answers outside one’s traditional faith system. In the age of social media, deconstruction has taken place publicly, through frequent posts and videos. After answers are sought and weighed against the worldview of the one deconstructing, a conclusion is made, usually that the deconstructor leaves the Christian faith.

Notable former evangelicals who have publicly deconstructed are Rob Bell, Michael and Lisa Gungor, Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal (of Youtube fame), and Josh Harris. Each publicly walked through their deconstructions through social media. All of these deconstructors experienced a generally warm embrace from their respective online communities. They were celebrated for beginning to live their truth and being true to their authentic selves.

After all, much of deconstructing from orthodox, Evangelical Christianity is a pursuit of authenticity. And authenticity is the great goal of our age. To deconstruct is to seek to find what you authentically believe about God, Christ, the church, and even yourself as opposed to what you’ve been told to believe in creeds or church or Scripture. Deconstruction provides a road to authenticity. (For an outline of the history of Western culture’s pursuit of authenticity, see Charles Taylor’s ‘A Secular Age’). In our age of the pursuit of authenticity, every external claim fades to the background if it’s not personally authentic. 

Take, for instance, someone beginning to question why they ought to trust the Bible. Instead of turning to the Bible itself or to their own tradition, they pursue what feels authentic or true to them at that time. Perhaps they don’t find compelling evidence for the trustworthiness of Scripture. For the sake of authenticity, they forsake the truth. In deconstruction, truth is relative; authenticity is authoritative. This then leads to the rejection of biblical authority. After the rejection of biblical authority, biblical doctrine is on the ropes. As biblical doctrine shapes biblical ethics, so the rejection of biblical doctrine shapes the rejection of biblical ethics. 

People deconstruct for a myriad of reasons. Some find the teachings of Scripture to be incompatible with their political views. Others have a crisis of faith, wherein a traumatic event in their life forces them to ask big questions about their belief system. Still, others claim to feel “boxed in” by Evangelicalism, desiring more inclusion, more mysticism, and more authenticity. 

What’s Wrong With Deconstruction

Below, I will line out some issues with deconstructionism, and to close out, how the Evangelical church should respond to the coming ‘Deconstruction Revolution.’ First off, in pursuing an escape from organized religious tradition, deconstructors have begun to form an altogether new religion. In point of fact, Keith Giles, a former pastor who deconstructed his faith, has written about the ‘6 Pillars of Religious Deconstruction.’ Never mind that most religions are founded upon certain ‘pillars’ or doctrines. These pillars, which are common across many high-profile deconstructions, read like a mantra or a series of confessions and denials. The 6 Pillars take umbrage with an inerrant Bible, eternal conscious torment in hell, penal substitutionary atonement, the problem of suffering, eschatology, and biblical ecclesiology. For a departure from organized religion, the 6 Pillars seem quite doctrinal and confessional. Rather than separate deconstructions by individuals, there seems to be forming a new religion, that of deconstructionism.

Another problem with deconstruction is its incompatibility with any sort of hope. As the historic faith is rejected, the gospel loses its shape and form. Without the biblical gospel, there is no hope. Many people start to deconstruct their faith because of anxiety or trauma. To be sure, anxiety and trauma can affect us in serious ways and might shake us for a season. However, hope can only be found within the biblical gospel. Deconstruction sets itself up to be a process to answer questions and provide a cure for anxious Christians. However, deconstruction is gospel-less, therefore, it’s hopeless. And if there’s any root cause of true anxiety, it’s hopelessness. Anything that leads to a departure of the faith once delivered to all the saints is hopeless. 

Finally, deconstruction puts all authority in self, in the pursuance of authenticity. Questioning one’s faith pushes one to reject the authority of God and his word. However, rejecting God’s authority can only lead to more questions. If all truth-claims are rejected on the basis of self-authenticity, then no one will ever land at the truth. For most deconstructors, leaving biblical Christianity brings about a supposed rest after a period of doubt and questioning. But this will not suffice or endure. Rest and finality will only be found in Christ and in living in the will of God. The search for authenticity is a search for how we might feel about something at a particular time. It’s fleeting. God’s Word is unchanging. Its authority is unchanging. There’s no rest in deconstruction.

Responding to Deconstruction

With every public deconstruction, the revolution marches forward. The church, then, must figure out how to respond.

First, the church needs to construct more resilient disciples. Churches need to be construction zones, where people are formed into strong disciples. Our faith will be tested, prodded, and poked. Resilient disciples might ask questions, but they won’t be shaken. They’ll run from the temptation to deconstruct. They’ll learn to take joy in suffering. They’ll see that enduring in the gospel is infinitely greater than leaving in deconstruction.

The church must also learn to live on the outskirts of cultural influence. Whether deconstructors admit it or not, most deconstructions come from a desire of fitting in with current political or social thought and life. To them, if the Bible or the church doesn’t line up with a popular political opinion or social ideal, then the problem is with the Bible. But the church must remain in lockstep with what the Bible teaches. The Word of God is often not the vox populi. Deconstruction is an effort to keep up with the cultural climate rather than biblical teaching. The sooner the church is okay with not fitting in, the better.

Finally, the church must respond by staying steadfastly biblical. Yes, it’s discouraging to see young and popular people publicly leaving the faith. Yes, it’s disheartening to see statistics about falling church attendance. But we don’t bend or break. That means we might be smaller in coming generations as those doctrines become more “unappealing.” So be it. The church should be a place where people ask questions, sure. But the church can only answer those questions from a biblically-informed worldview, standing forth strong in the power of the gospel and glorifying God. 

Sadly, more deconstructions will come. Will the church stand ready?