Posted By Chris Talbot on Jun 1, 2022 | 2 comments

I have had plenty of reasons to walk away from the faith, or really to never have begun it. If you will excuse a personal account, I grew up in a household that did not put an emphasis on Christianity and the truth of Scripture. My family went to church from time to time, but whatever commitment to the faith we displayed by attending church on Sunday was often neglected that following Monday.

So, when I heard the gospel and confessed Christ as a teenager, I found myself working against the grain of not only my family but also my friends. Many around me found Christianity to be too exclusive, too old, too supernatural, or too boring. Yet I found it to be embracing, relevant, powerful, and compelling. Still, even though I knew Christianity to be these things, I did not always have the words to articulate my newly found, vibrant, and growing faith.

As I grew in my faith, I started to notice stories of people having the exact opposite experience that I did. As I found more reasons to believe and dive deeper, I started to hear declarations of those who had “deconstructed” their faith. Stories of deconstruction are myriad. Popular YouTubers Rhett and Link, author and former pastor Joshua Harris, speaker and blogger Jen Hatmaker—the list goes on.

With each passing year, more and more well-known (and not well-known) Christians are forsaking the faith they once held dear and “deconstructing.” Some of those who have deconstructed still claim the title “Christian” in some sense, but more often they become agnostics, not knowing what to believe. The list of “exvangelicals” has become long, and it probably is not going to slow anytime soon.

Defining Terms

Anytime we enter the fray, we must define our words clearly. The word deconstruction, like other popular buzzwords, seems to have the perplexing ability to mean just about anything. The semantic domain seems to be a Rorschach test, saying more about its user than it does about an objective idea. In philosophy courses I have taken, one idea generally reigns supreme: You must clarify your terms. It is fine to discuss ideas, terms, etc., but one must be clear on what they mean when they use those terms. To be sure, those who use the term deconstruction would benefit from such an admonition.

In my engagement with this term, I have generally found three usages. Certainly, some may charge this interpretation with an oversimplification. Nevertheless, I have sought to operate with a taxonomy of sorts, realizing some may nuance their position differently. The uses are as follows: (1) a form of Derridian deconstruction, (2) a push to release Christianity from kinds of cultural baggage, and (3) a move towards affirming doubts of orthodox Christianity. We will deal with each of these on their own.

First is the “deconstruction” of Jacques Derrida, a post-structuralist and postmodern philosopher. Derrida is probably most well-known for his process of engaging with texts and meaning that he referred to as “deconstruction.” Derrida resourced Martin Heidegger. Though oversimplified, Heidegger (like George F. Hegel before him) sought to synthesize two opposing ideas (thesis and antithesis) into a new concept (the synthesis). But unlike Heidegger, Derrida was not looking for a dialectical approach that would result in some sort of synthesis. Derrida was not really interested in method or analysis or critique. Instead, his philosophy is more an ax, laid at the root of ideas. Derrida rejected Plato’s concepts of true forms and essences—those concepts that transcend time and space, and the fundamental definitions of what things are. Derrida believed that we should engage with meaning, but not to construct it. Instead, he would admonish a reader to challenge, confront, and ultimately—no surprise—deconstruct the meaning. As you can see, this approach is ultimately subversive. While some people in evangelicalism and the broader Christian context may have this background in mind by the use of deconstruction, I do not know that it is the most common use of the term.

Second, some argue for deconstruction to release Christianity from perceived “cultural baggage.” Broadly speaking, people who are seeking to clarify the essence of Christianity and to remove unfortunate cultural attachments may use the term in this way. A subscriber of this view would argue that a particular form of Christianity has become too captivated by its parent culture and needs to be deconstructed to reveal what is and is not part of faithfully expressed Christianity.

Third, some use the term deconstruction to refer to genuine rejection of orthodox Christianity. Those who employ this term would say that “X” doctrine, which is consistent with the historic Christian position, is not a position with which they agree, and therefore they reject either that doctrine or the entirety of Christianity. Probably most prominent in these discussions are the topics of gender and sexuality. In a culture where the emphasis is placed on personal autonomy and happiness, the historic Christian positions on gender and sexuality have caused many to reject these positions outright.

These three uses are not always exclusive. Often, people do not clarify how they are using their terms. Instead, the lines can easily blur between these categories and it can be incredibly difficult to untangle. For example, those seeking to reject or remove part of orthodox Christianity may also be responding with an intentionally subversive hermeneutic a la Derrida. Or those who are seeking to remove cultural add-ons may inadvertently challenge historic Christian positions. The confusion between these categories seems to be at the heart of all the unconstructive talk about deconstruction. Thus, we have more reason for Christians to be clear and truthful in these conversations.

Dealing with Doubt

Now that we have enumerated these three uses, we may ask how we engage with the topic of deconstructionism overall and with those engaging in a process of deconstruction. Of course, this question is monumental—one that probably needs a book rather than a blog post. That said, I offer some profitable steps forward.

As Christians, we are admonished to do all things in love. Moreover, we are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Too often we speak the truth through harsh tones and judgmental declarations. But this is not the way of Christ. Or, conversely, we accommodate to the zeitgeist by simply privatizing our faith and failing to express it rightly as true Kingdom followers. This is not the way of Christ, either. Instead, we are to hold to orthodoxy and orthopraxy with a zeal for the truth and a heart full of compassion. The biblical commitment to both right teaching and right living should shape our conversations on any topic and certainly orient our hearts and minds as we meet with individuals.

The first question I may ask someone is what they mean by deconstruction. This question helps me know where to begin a conversation. “What kind of deconstruction am I engaging with?”

With the remainder of this article, we will focus on the latter two definitions of deconstruction. First, some in the United States are concerned about the cultural captivity of Christianity across the theological spectrum. Individuals are worried that much of Christianity has become too consumeristic, too anti-intellectual, too sentimental, too ethno-centric, too narrow, too repressive, etc. These critiques would need to be taken each on their own merit, but Christianity can clearly become too culturally captive. It has happened plenty of times before and will certainly happen again.

We must remember that Christianity is not expressed in a vacuum. Certainly, the fundamentals of Christianity are true across all time and space. Yet we express our faith in a particular time and place. That is why, at least at my local church, we sing, read, and hear the sermon preached in English. Even more, our pastor seeks to apply the sermon message specifically to the lives of our congregants. Thus, while we should seek to challenge cultural accommodation, we also need to realize that any given Christian lives in a cultural context. The pursuit of true Christianity is a rightful one. The pursuit of Christianity absent of a culture is impossible.

What about those who seek not to find genuine Christianity but, instead, reject parts or all of it? We must be abundantly clear on what constitutes true Christianity. The problem, though, is that we can be notoriously bad at determining how important a doctrine is or is not. For this reason, Christians should seek to employ basic theological triage. We must be clear about the distinction between the “fundamentals” of the faith and secondary and tertiary issues.

If someone wants to reject the divinity of Christ, clearly they have lost the essence of Christianity. If they challenge theories on eschatology (e.g., premillennial, postmillennial, amillennial), then they have more freedom. Undoubtedly, these examples are rather easy. For this reason, we should realize that the Church broadly has held strong doctrinal positions on more culturally tenuous positions as it relates to sexuality, gender, etc. If an individual stands at odds with two thousand years of Christian belief, they are most likely not on the side of truth. We might also utilize the creeds and confessions of the early church. By so doing, we can know whether they stand in solidarity with the historic beliefs of Christianity.

Conclusion

Generally, I do not find the term deconstruction to be a useful one. If someone is engaging in theological reflection, whether to reject cultural accommodation or actual orthodox theological doctrines, deconstruction does not seem to be a helpful term. First, it is so easily confused with the Derridean term, and one can quickly assume that those deconstructing are engaging in a rather seditious philosophical approach that leads to and embraces a postmodern worldview—and they may very well be.

Second, I always want to encourage individuals to be clear and, consequently, I think it is more helpful and truthful to try and label their thought for what it is. Are you rejecting biblical Christianity? Call it what it is. Are you wanting to clarify the heart of biblical Christianity in the midst of its cultural expression? Let us pursue clarity. As Christians, we pursue clarity and charity—not apart from one another but in tandem.

The best way to stay up-to-date with HSF

SUBSCRIBE!

You have Successfully Subscribed!