Summary of The Deconstruction of Christianity

Part 1 – Exvangelical

The term “deconstruction” has exploded in recent years. The term is used in many different ways. It can range from simply reexamining aspects of the faith you grew up with to a complete dismissal of all religion. Here is how Childers and Barnett define the deconstruction they are going to focus on in this book.

Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard.

The Deconstruction of Christianity (page 26)

Based on this definition, Childers and Barnett claim we should avoid using the term deconstruction but use discernment or reformation instead.

What are people leaving? People are not just leaving evangelicalism because of the bad behaviors of evangelicals (both celebrity scandals and negative personal church experiences), they are rejecting the sound doctrine of evangelicalism.

Deconstruction is a new word for an old process. There have always been people who are not seeking truth but are seeking their own desires. There has always been a pressure to follow cultural norms and to view God as more like us than he is really. This happens because we have lost knowledge of God and the Bible. We prioritize our personal preferences.

Today, we live in a culture where human beings are defined by their individual inner feelings and desires. We are encouraged to live in a way that lines up with those feelings and desires, which become our ultimate authority. Anything that challenges that notion is considered to be oppressive, especially Bible verses that contradict your own personal expression.

The Deconstruction of Christianity (page 58)

Part 2 – The Deconstruction of Christianity

Deconstruction can often be triggered by a crisis of faith. This can be caused by suffering, doubt, politics, purity culture, the Bible, morality/toxic theology, and abuse. Childers and Barnett address each of these areas and show how deconstruction isn’t inevitable and it is possible remain rooted in the authority of Scripture.

The authors discuss a process of reformation as opposed to deconstruction. Reformation focuses on rebuilding or reconstructing something, not just the removal of something. It is easy to destroy, but hard to rebuild. The goal of reformation isn’t to continually align with culture, but to get back to the truth. Truth is defined by the authority of the Bible. For someone who doesn’t believe in the authority of the Bible, the authors turn to apologetics to provide evidence (mainly Jesus).

Deconstruction Within Evangelicalism

The authors criticize the approach of popular evangelicals like Beth Allison Barr (author of The Making of Biblical Womanhood) and Kristin Kobes Du Mez (author of Jesus and John Wayne) among others for ignoring whether a doctrine is true and focusing on whether the doctrine has been used to oppress.

Deciding theological positions by what one perceives to be helpful vs. harmful, oppressive vs. liberating, or right vs. wrong is an invalid method for doing theology.

The Deconstruction of Christianity (page 150)

This approach views anyone who disagrees as seeking power or defending their privilege. They don’t seem to consider that one may hold a different view in good faith out of honest biblical interpretation.

Faith

Next, the authors describe faith by distinguishing between “faith that” and “faith in”. One can have faith that something is true, but not have an active trust and reliance in that truth for how they live their lives. They also distinguish between one’s personal faith and the Christian faith. Many people are deconstructing their own personal faith that has incorrect beliefs with the authentic Christian faith.

The Deconstruction of Christianity isn’t just about facts or beliefs, but also the impact on one’s relationship with Jesus. Rejecting truth will often lead to a rejection of Jesus.

The authors also point out that faith isn’t opposed to reason. Faith and reason are complimentary. There is good evidence for having faith.

Who is Deconstructing of Christianity?

The last section of part two describes who is deconstructing. These aspects of those who are deconstructing are also true of all humans.

• Image bearers
• Sinners
• Seekers
• Captives
• Rebels

The authors describe how these aspects can play a role in the process of deconstructing and seeking truth.

Part 3 – Hope

The last section focuses on providing hope and advice for those with loved ones who are deconstructing. Firstly, create a safe place for questions. Don’t vilify questions. Take them seriously and give serious answers. Don’t give incomplete or trite responses. Some people won’t accept the answers. Some people are just seeking an exit and it won’t matter what the answer is, but some people are seeking answers and will value a safe place to have an honest conversation.

The authors use the example of John the Baptist to show how to doubt well. When John asked Jesus if he was the Messiah or if they should expect someone else, he expressed his doubt. Here is what we can take away.

• Express your question.
• Question in community.
• Understand your question and its implications.
• Seek and answer to your question.
• Jesus can handle our doubts.

The authors provide advice on what to do if you have a loved one who is deconstructing.

• Pray
• Stay calm and stay in their life.
• Triage what they are dealing with.
• Set boundaries and respect their boundaries.

The authors end with a personal reflection on their experiences and offer hope that while we live in the Saturday after Good Friday, the fulfillment of Easter Sunday is coming.

Top Takeaways from The Deconstruction of Christianity

What is Truth?

The first helpful takeaway is the discussion of truth. They hit on a key shift in how our culture views religion. There is objective truth where the truth depends on the object. It corresponds to something in reality that is external and independent of any individual’s perception or feelings. There is also subjective truth that depends on the subject. Since it doesn’t correspond to anything external, what makes it true is the individual’s preferences, tastes, and opinions. The proposition “Christianity is true” has moved from an objective truth (a fact about external reality) to a subjective truth (a personal preference). This move is mostly an unquestioned assumption but is not something that can be proved or disproved. Either way requires faith, which should level the playing field when determining what is objective truth vs subjective truth.

Toxic Theology and the Deconstruction of Christianity

The next takeaway is the discussion of what deconstructors call “toxic theology”. There has been a turn from determining whether theology is correct or false to whether it is toxic or not. Toxic theology is any doctrine that one deems harmful. This can be applied to the doctrine of original sin or atonement. Deconstructionists claim that the doctrine that everyone is born sinful and the doctrine that Jesus had to die to pay the penalty for our sin causes discomfort or harm to people, therefore these doctrines are toxic theology. But this only makes sense if the doctrines are untrue. If they are true, then objective reality takes precedence over how it makes one feel.

Motivation

I agree with the authors that much of the criticism of Christianity (and many other institutions) is based on ascribed motivations. Many deconstructionists attribute negative motives to evangelicals who claim objective truths. Critics claim that it is always about power, control, and it doesn’t matter if it is conscious or not. All truth claims are about power and control. This shifts the debate away from whether something is true or not and makes it primarily about the motivation behind it. I agree that the debate should be centered on the truth of a claim since I believe that objective truth exists.

Critique of The Deconstruction of Christianity

Christians Using the Word “Deconstruction”

Childers and Barnett give several reasons that Christians should not use the word deconstruction to describe healthy questioning or reexamining aspects of faith. Firstly, they claim that using the word within the context of historical Christianity and biblical authority doesn’t align with how more extreme deconstructionists use it and will mislead people who will view it as a bait and switch. Secondly, the concept of deconstruction has philosophical baggage from Derrida who claimed that words don’t have any singular, objective meaning. It is a part of postmodern philosophy. Thirdly, they claim that deconstruction is primarily about authority. Defining it this way, they claim that deconstruction is not about correct theology, has no end goal, and has no room for external authority.

I think the problem with this narrow definition of deconstruction is that it immediately dismisses a large population of people who are using the term deconstruction in a less extreme way. While extreme deconstructionists may disagree, they are not the intended audience. When the church uses the term deconstruction to engage with people who are reexamining aspects of their faith and are asking healthy questions, we are able to meet them where they are at. We also have an opportunity to show people that deconstruction doesn’t have to lead to rejecting biblical authority and doesn’t have to lead to atheism or agnosticism. It also seems petty to correct someone and tell them they are not deconstructing even when they use that term but should use the term discernment or reformation instead.

What Are People Leaving Behind?

The authors claim that people are not just leaving evangelicalism because of the bad behaviors of evangelicals. They are rejecting the sound doctrine of evangelicalism.

Here is the “sound doctrine” (as defined by Blake Chastain for using the exvangelical hashtag):

• A literal reading of the Bible
• A belief that women are to be submissive to men
• A belief in the sanctity of heterosexuality/heteronormativity and a rejection of homosexuality as sinful
• The assumption that the American way of life is best
• Identification and partnership with political and social conservatism

Childers and Barnett address each of these points and attempt to clarify what the biblical truth is behind them and reject the common misinterpretations. I think there is quite a bit to disagree with in their analysis (e.g. limited government reflects biblical teaching), but the bigger critique is that the authors don’t even question why so many people think these five things define evangelicalism. Could it be that the evangelical church acts like these five things do define evangelicalism? I think this is a serious problem and addressing this underlying cause would prevent many people from deconstructing in the first place. If people viewed the core of evangelicalism as Jesus, atonement, justice, and the Kingdom of God, I think the situation would be different. I think many people would have to deconstruct their view of evangelicalism in order to recover the true core of the gospel.

Lack of Discipleship Leads to the Deconstruction of Christianity

I think the real cause of deconstruction (all kinds, not just extreme cases) is a lack of discipleship. What is left of one’s faith after stripping away the politics, nationalism, literalism, and complementarianism that has been melded with much of evangelicalism? If the answer is nothing, then no wonder people are leaving the faith altogether. If the answer is a strong and real relationship with Jesus, then there is something core to cling to. I would argue that a personal relationship with Jesus is the core of Christianity and the “sound doctrine” being deconstructed is more peripheral. If churches took spiritual formation more seriously, then more Christians would have a strong core to their faith and be able deconstruct in a healthy way.

Which Evangelicals?

One last critique of The Deconstruction of Christianity is that the whole conversation assumes that evangelicalism means white American evangelicalism. I think much of the content and approach of this book would not align with the experiences of many Black American evangelicals and evangelicals in other countries.

Evaluation of The Deconstruction of Christianity

This book is intended for people who are experiencing deconstruction from the outside, not for people who are deconstructing. If you are deconstructing, much of this book won’t be helpful for you and probably doesn’t align with your experience. If you have a loved one who is deconstructing, this book may be helpful to understand some aspects of the movement, but it won’t capture everyone’s experience. This is because of the authors’ narrow definition of deconstruction.

If you don’t believe in the authority of the Bible and you do believe Christianity/religion is a subjective truth (based on personal preference), then this book isn’t for you. It doesn’t address those concerns in sufficient detail. Everything else that follows assumes the authority of the Bible and that Christianity is an objective truth.

The authors claim that the core problem is one of authority. We should convince people that the Bible is the true source of authority, and we should do it using evidence and reason. Then if people ask questions, they won’t be deceived by the ideologies pushed by the culture. They will remain firm in their faith despite holding to unpopular beliefs. I don’t think this is a helpful or effective approach.

A Better Approach

Assuming reality is limited to only that which can be known by science and reason or supported with rational evidence is a self-defeating premise. You cannot prove that reality is only that which can be known by science and reason or supported with rational evidence by using science and reason or rational evidence. For this reason, if we debate Christianity solely on the battlefield of reason, we are already conceding to the view that reason alone determines truth.

I think we have a more powerful apologetic by telling a better story. We can share our experience of a different reality. We can share what following Jesus looks like for us and the difference it has made in our lives. This will help people experience the love and forgiveness of Jesus firsthand. The intellectual questions can come later.