Tim Barnett, an apologist and speaker with Stand to Reason — an Evangelical apologetics ministry, recently wrote a post giving three reasons why he is against deconstruction:
While writing The Deconstruction of Christianity with Alisa Childers, we discovered some fundamental beliefs that undergird the deconstruction process. Moreover, these ideas are antithetical to the Christian worldview. This helps explain why so many who deconstruct their faith end up leaving the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Here are three reasons why I changed my mind about deconstruction.
….
First, deconstruction has no correct destination.
A defining feature of deconstruction is that there’s no right way to do it and no right destination.
….
Why isn’t there a right place to land in deconstruction? The answer is that deconstruction is a postmodern process. What I mean is, deconstruction isn’t about objective truth. It’s about personal happiness.
….
Notice how deconstruction assumes there is no objective truth when it comes to religious beliefs. That’s why it doesn’t matter how you do it or where you end up as long as you’re happy.
I want you to notice two things. First, Jesus mentions two ways. There is a narrow way and a broad way, a right way and a wrong way. Second, Jesus mentions two destinations. The right way leads to a good destination: life. The wrong way leads to a bad destination: destruction. According to Jesus, there is absolutely a right place to land, and he tells us how to get there.
Second, the deconstruction process never ends.
Imagine you deconstruct your beliefs. Now what? Well, you construct new ones. However, once you construct new beliefs, you have to deconstruct those too. See how this works? There’s no finality to this process. Deconstruction requires a never-ending skepticism about your beliefs and the beliefs of others.
….
Third, deconstruction has no biblical authority.
In deconstruction, there is no external authority to tell you what your faith should look like. You are the ultimate authority.
….
Deconstruction isn’t about submitting to biblical authority; it’s about choosing to be your own authority.
….
I changed my mind about deconstruction. After researching this topic, I’ve come to see that deconstruction isn’t merely asking questions or a synonym for doubt. Rather, it’s a process with no correct destination, no ending, and no biblical authority.
As you can easily see, Barnett is against deconstruction because it can and does lead to what he believes is a bad outcome — deconversion. Left unsaid is that Barnett is likely against deconversion because it leads to people leaving Evangelicalism for kinder, friendlier, more hospitable churches and faiths. In other words, since deconversion results in Evangelical churches hemorrhaging members — many of whom were committed followers of Jesus — the answer is to ignore WHY that is, informing restless, thoughtful Evangelicals, “God says, thou shalt not deconstruct.” And with proof texts uttered, deconstruction has been put to bed. Or so Barnett thinks, anyway.
My correspondence with deconstructing people suggests far different reasons for their deconstruction than postmodernism, or, Loki-forbid, the desire to think for themselves and be happy. Their emails suggest that Evangelical churches and preachers need to look in the mirror if they want to see why people are deconstructing (and deconverting). Many of the people deconverting have gotten a whiff of Evangelicalism’s rotting corpse and want nothing to do with it. They see the hatred of LGBTQ people and immigrants. They see the racism, bigotry, and misogyny. They see the extreme politics and social views — especially support of Donald Trump. They see the news stories about sex crimes committed by Evangelical preachers, yet never hear their pastors say a word about the abuse scandal. They see the fancy suits, designer clothes, and Rolex watches as their pastors preach about the humble Jesus who had no place to put his head. They hear the rumors and know what goes on in secret in the homes of their pastors and other church leaders. Worse, many of them are preacher’s kids. They have seen the hypocrisy firsthand.
Barnett is against skepticism when it comes to the claims of Christianity. I suspect he doesn’t take this same approach when it comes to non-Christian religions. In other words, be skeptical about all the other religions of the world, but when it comes to Christianity, just believe; read the Bible, pray, and trust that your pastor will tell you the truth. (Can you really trust anyone who hasn’t or won’t deconstruct their beliefs?)
Barnett is right in one regard; deconstruction can be driven by a desire for happiness –as if that is a bad thing. You bet. Once you leave Egypt and break the bonds of Evangelicalism you have a newfound freedom. That freedom can lead to increased happiness. Sounds like a pretty good selling point for skepticism and rationalism. 🙂
As Evangelical apologists are wont to do, Barnett reminds those considering deconstruction that HELL awaits those who follow this path. Only those who “question” their faith within the safe confines of the Evangelical box shall be saved! Deconstruction leads to Hell, just look at that Bruce Gerencser guy.
Checkmate. 🙂
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Wow…oookay then.
First, lets just get this out of the way – there is no objective truth in Christianity or any other religion. Just because someone believes it to be truth doesn’t make it objective truth. The problem is that pesky thing called faith. Objective truth and faith sort of don’t go together. This isn’t something people “assume”, it’s just a fact. Objective truth has to be something that can be proven. Religion in general fails then proof test.
“ First, deconstruction has no correct destination.
A defining feature of deconstruction is that there’s no right way to do it and no right destination.”
Ok.. true. That’s kind of the point. But I love the word salad combining “postmodern thought”, “objective truth”, then ties it all together with a nice “Jesus says” garnish.
“Second, the deconstruction process never ends.
Imagine you deconstruct your beliefs. Now what? Well, you construct new ones. However, once you construct new beliefs, you have to deconstruct those too.”
Yes, very true. It’s called learning and growing. As we learn new things, we can evaluate are lives and correct where needed. This allows us to engage with the real world around us in healthy ways. It is self critical, you improve yourself.
“Third, deconstruction has no biblical authority.”
Ummm…yeah. 🤔🤔 That is sort of the point of deconstruction. I think my brain broke when I read that section.
To summarize his verbose post. Deconstruction is a critical review of christian belief. It can lead to rejection of god. This is bad and will lead you to hell. So don’t deconstruct…just reform the way you believe and stop worrying bout all that stuff that you shouldn’t be thinking about. Just watch the spinning cross and relax….relaaaaxxx…
That quote from MLK is almost the same as a mantra that I try to live by. As we age, it’s easy to get set in our ways, so I use a quote that I’ve not found the author of, but it’s ‘I’m against change, even change for the better.’ and I always try to accept and embrace new ideas, not moan about them, dismiss them or pine for ‘the good old days.’ Here in the backwoods of Wales, we have good public buses and the one that runs through my village 3x an hour has just been upgraded to a smart new fleet with better route information screens, better disabled access and wi-fi etc. We wrinklies have free bus passes so they’re always busy. I overheard 2 oldies say when they used the new bus, ‘I don’t like these new buses, do you?The old ones were far better!’ I hope never to become like that, to close my ancient mind automatically to new ideas/things/concepts on principle just cos they’re new.
“Deconstruction isn’t about objective truth. It’s about personal happiness.” It’s about both. I find I’m happier when I live a reality-based life and am able to question what doesn’t add up.
Isn’t apologetics a part of modernism. Actually, postmodernism has an important point in the dismantling of modernism. I think there’s actually good points in both, though I’m not trained in philosophy. But a point which I think Wittgenstein makes: Deconstruction is just part of being human. We’re always doing that, all the time. Period. The denial of such is part of the problem. Within my own faith, that’s not a problem at all, but a part of it. And actually, since Evangelicalism is so set on apologetics steeped in the denial of such, it is no wonder it goes against being human. Love that MLK Jr. quote. Thanks again, Bruce for another thoughtful post. Made me think, anyhow.
Ted, I’m curious on just what version of christian you are. I asked the same on a post on your blog.
I’m sorry if I missed that, clubschadenfreude. Anabaptism Mennonite on the progressive side. I dislike labels, but that is how I would be described. With an emphasis on following Jesus in the way of Jesus, community in Jesus, activism for justice, respect for all peoples, culture and religious or nonreligious traditions, the hope of universal salvation in Christ (Romans 5; etc.), everything in the way of PEACE, which includes love for one’s enemies. Facing the hard questions, asking them. And all in humility, being a goal. Knowing that we all have much to learn and unlearn.
your bible certainly shows little peace in it if your jesus = god.
Hi Ted,
So no Christ on a white horse leading the slaughter of the hell-bound? Or yes, a slaughter but eventually salvation?
I would say judging all the evil. Like what is going on today in the obvious places. That God has the final word. Retributive justice, but some of us see the Bible as not stopping there, that there’s ultimately restorative justice in Christ, that judgment includes both.
Thanks. Though I may not be clear exactly on what you’ve said. I would follow up with “judging all the evil” as in Noah’s day and the flood?
Yes, that’s another hard one. God in the Genesis 6 story is rightfully ticked over all the violence on the earth and regrets that God made humankind. If there’s a god, and it’s that god, then that has to be taken seriously. Walter Brueggemann actually says/writes that God is in conflict with God’s self. But yes, sending a flood and drowning all does seem to me to be an overreach, an overreaction for sure. But for me that’s little different than the two-year-old who gets run over by a car, or the evil killing of children and civilians in Gaza right now, etc., etc., etc., etc. I wouldn’t pretend to answer such. I see the world as of great good and beauty and also great evil and horror, both. How can I reconcile that with the existence of any god? I can’t myself. But hope is a part of the human psyche, or so it seems to me. And so I see the story of Jesus as one answer to that hope.
I actually don’t care about winning arguments. I don’t think I can prove the existence of a god, nor do I think that can be disproven unless one insists on just naturalist explanations. I am not qualified, anyhow. For me I live in a kind of faith, hope and love. And I tend to think that all are borne into the same thing in their own way, even though not with the same understanding. Otherwise one might be left with nihilism, nothing mattering? Somehow we all think things matter. Like justice and injustice, and the love of neighbor.
I think I understand Ted, that you believe the story of Genesis has having been literally true. Walter’s opinion reads as a conflict that arises in narcissism. God looking in the mirror and realizing they blew it. Neither omnipotent, omnipresent nor omniscient. It is difficult to realize one is not perfect as one believed. It would appear that God agrees with you re: flood, car accident, genocide etc.
I wonder if humanity created Hope to cement “beauty and good.” Nothing wrong with that it seems. Though as a species, perhaps hope allows one to be numb to reality as reality is. Yes, good and evil. It’s not enough to behold the good and beauty in and of itself, because that every present evil just lures around the corner and there has got to be a reason and a salvation for it.
Christians hope for Jesus. Muslims for Allah. My mother hopes for the good aliens to save the planet and destroy the evil aliens that are here and getting in the way of The Great Awakening. And so it goes, from belief to belief, cult to cult, through the ages. Personally I see no difference in what she believes from my former belief. Angels – good. Demons – bad. It was a comforting thing to once believe that God had it all under control. And no matter the slaughter of innocents, thank God they would take care of it all. And this mayhem we are subjected too for good and for bad is all just temporary, hallelujah . . . though it sounds like for you there is Hope for universal salvation of all. I truly get why one would believe this way. I do think that Hope can be quite toxic because it might be keeping us from being present in the many horrible atrocities that do exist. Maybe even make us as humans lazy in thought and practice.
Thank you for the discussion. I don’t intend to draw it out and I’m not about an argument.
Thanks, Zoe. I see Genesis like Revelation (like Genesis 3, 6, etc.) as largely poetic and storytelling and not literal history.
Mennonite Action (from the denomination we’re part of) is organizing a gathering in D.C. beginning this weekend and with others (Muslim, Jewish groups, etc.) on the 16th will be calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Yes, hope is hollow if it’s only about “the sweet by and by.” Thanks for the discussion, for the pushback, and for your graciousness.
and Hi Zoe, as well…..
poor lil’ cultists, no hell, and their sadistic little fantasies will never come true.
I have studied and taught literature and history. I also have read more philosophy than the average person. I can therefore say, with some authority, that Tim Barnett has little idea of what he is talking about when he expounds on “deconstruction. (He reminds me of why I am loath to use that word.)
Deconstruction does not have happiness as a goal. Granted, many of us derive happiness from understanding something in a new way—which, for some, could be a goal of deconstruction.
Deconstruction is about interrogating the assumptions and structures that underpin language, ideas and anything that proceeds from them. Just as it doesn’t have happiness as a goal, it doesn’t have an agenda of destruction. If there is any goal, it might be to understand what makes, say, a Shakespeare sonnet what it is and why we think of him as a great writer.
If any book and institution are ripe for deconstruction, they are the Bible (and its translations) and Christianity. For the former, what—apart from belief—makes the Bible a “sacred” text, or any sort of literary text? And why, apart from the vagaries of idioms, is there no equivalent to the King James Bible in, say, French or Spanish? (I find it ironic that Hispanic and Francophone fundamentalist churches translate KJV into their languages.) Were there cultural or other assumptions—or challenges to them—in early 17th Century England that caused the KJV to assume such authority? Also, what assumptions and social and linguistic structures allow for a belief in a triune God that died and was resurrected?
Given what I’ve said, I can understand why someone like Tim Barnett would worry about people deconstructing the Bible or Christianity. If anything , if he actually understood it, he probably would be even more worried—or walk away from Christianity. But the way he expresses his concern shows that he no more understands deconstruction than those who believe Critical Race Theory is about “making white people feel guilty .”
30 years ago, I joined an evangelical church. I only lasted 6 weeks. The evangelical brand of religion is riddled with logical fallacies and obvious failures of biblical fidelity. Another thing that bothered me was that new converts like me were like scalps that heathen Bushwackers sported on their belts. The more convert scalps on the belt, the higher up in the organization the scalper rose. It all seemed so corrupt from top to bottom. It was like Satan’s version of the Christian religion.
Jasper- I grew up attending an “evengelical” church before the term was coined. When I was a kid these churches were called “charismatic”. I went to the Assemblies of God, which would have been called “Charismatic Pentecostal” due the “speaking in tongues” part of the worship.
I really knew no other form of Christianity. The Pastor kept saying we were True Christians®️, and kept mentioning “other” Christians that were not like us. He was actually more charitable towards Catholics to the dismay of some of his flock, most of whom considered Catholics not to be Christian because they “worshiped Mary”. Other Protestant churches were “spiritually dead” because they just went through the motions (i.e. practiced liturgy, wore clerical vestments, etc) or practiced works salvation (I never figured that one out), or were just plain boring (no instruments other than an organ and maybe a piano).
I remember the first time I experienced something other than free-form jazz type of anything goes worship. I went to a service at the Oxford, Ohio United Methodist Church. It was in an old Gothic looking church. There was appropriate reverence, an order of service, liturgy, and the Pastor wore vestments. I was hooked. I was done with Charismatic evangelical Pentecostal flavor of the month entertainment church from that point forward.
After some years in Zen Buddhism (introduced by a friend) I found my way to Catholicism. In feel very much at home in this church, and very much struggle with the horrific history of abuse at the same time. I am still trying to figure everything out. I will never argue with anyone who says the truth, other than ask them to not judge me personally for following my path.
My own journey has led me to insist for myself that I respect others’ perspectives. Bruce’s own standard, allowing the likes of “Dr.” Tee (who as he says is neither a Dr nor a Tee) as well as Revival Liars (pardon me, I meant “Fires”) to read and post on his page shows me that I don’t have to agree or even personally like those who disagree with my views, but I cannot just act like they don’t exist.
Tim is using the Bible to prove his point. I can just as easily use it to prove that he is going to hell. You can make the Bible say anything you want it to say.
Reading the entire Bible rather than just the John 3:16 / Romans Road verses reveals what a muddled mess Christian doctrine is.
(And naysayers don’t need to mention that the same sun that softens the wax hardens the mud. That’s as worn out as Pascal’s Wager.)
Deconstruction has no “correct” destination: my answer to that is that deconstruction is a journey toward truth. It’s about critically examining evidence and continuously moving forward in search of truth. I doubt if I will ever get “there”, which leads me to the second point Barnett is making below.
Deconstruction never ends: my response is that growth never ends. The cessation of growth is decline toward death and decay. A healthy human should always be deconstructing, in my opinion, on their search for truth.
No Biblical authority: in ny opinion, that is irrelevant, criteria only important to someone who presupposes that the Bible is a reliable source of truth. Evidence has not led me to that conclusion.
Always Be Deconstructing.
Barnett is concerned about deconstruction because an overwhelming number of people who deconstruct leave fundamentalist evangelicalism for kinder, gentler Christianity or for other religions or for no religion at all.
Good points, Obstacle! I saw a lot of my own journey thus far in your observations. To allow one self to journey is to mitigate the fear that stops so many from starting, or causes them to seek compromises to where they feel they’re being led in order to not cause trouble or hurt feelings. If my dad were alive in 2017 he would most likely have tried to persuade me to become Lutheran or some other Protestant denomination. He wasn’t religious at all, but he would have made the argument that my decision to become Catholic would cause controversy in my extended family, and my mom would be angry (she actually wasn’t upset when I finally told her). My dad was a great and kind person, so it would have come from a place of good intention. But my dad also expressed alot of regret in the last years of his life because he didn’t make decisions that would have made him happier but would have angered or disappointed other people, particularly my mother.
That was the last lesson my father taught me, albeit inadvertently. You have only one life on this Earth, which is I think one idea religious and non-religious folks can agree on. Those people who you strived not to upset in your life will not give 2 cents about you when you’re gone. Your journey is your responsibility, no one else’s.
That’s right, John, you need to be true to yourself. Living a lie, or suppressing your true self (as long as you aren’t harming anyone) is unhealthy.