“The Deconstruction of Christianity” by Childers and Barnett: A Book Analysis Series (Part 3: “#Deconstruction” again)”

Another weekend has come. It’s time for Part 3 of my look at Alisa Childers’ and Tim Barnett’s book, The Deconstruction of Christianity. I’m going to follow the same routine as I have done in the previous two posts: (A) A quick summary of a chapter, and (B) My own comments in bold.

Chapter 8: Toxic
In Chapter 8, Childers and Barnett essentially describe “deconstruction” along the lines of a more “far-left” ideology that sees everything through a grid of “oppressed” and “oppressors.” They note that a big part of the deconstructionist critique of Evangelicalism (and Christianity in general) is it’s “toxic theology.” But what it deems “toxic” are standard Christian teachings like all people are sinful (i.e. the doctrine of “original sin”). The motive for such doctrines like original sin, they say, ultimately a grasp for power. It’s what abusers do: “tell someone they are broken, so that the person can be controlled” (141).

That kind of view, Childers’ and Barnett say, comes from modern Critical Theory that “understands and critiques power and oppression along the lines of race, ethnicity, class, gender, ability, sexuality, and other factors” (142). That is why it is simply assumed by many these days that Christianity is shaped by “oppressive ideologies like white supremacy, patriarchy, racism, homophobia, and Christian nationalism” (143). Thus, any truth claim Christianity makes from Scripture is interpreted as just a means of protecting its power: “Doctrines are viewed in terms of power, not truth, and thus deemed ‘toxic’” (144).

To illustrate this mindset, Childers and Barnett point to books by David Gushee, Beth Allison Barr, Kristen Kobes Du Mez, and Rachel Held Evans. Barnett, for example, claims that the Evangelical fight for inerrancy was “linked with gender [and trying to keep women down] from the beginning.” Kobes Du Mez claims that the Evangelical emphasis on “family values” really is just about patriarchal authority, sex, and power.

When it comes to the biblical text, Held Evans says she embraces Derrida and emphasizes appreciating “multiple perspectives.” Childers and Barnett also criticize James K.A. Smith’s take on Derrida and texts: “So we never get past texts and interpretations to things ‘simply as they are’ in any unmediated fashion…; rather, we move from interpretation to interpretation. The entire world is a text. Thus, ‘there is nothing outside of the text’” (157).

There are two observations I want to make regarding what is said in this chapter. First, although I’m not going to broadbrush everyone who embraces “deconstructing” one’s faith, generally speaking, most of those I’ve come across who embrace or promote “deconstructing Christianity” do, in fact, do the sort of things Childers and Barnett are describing, namely viewing everything through an “oppressed vs. oppressor” narrative. And those who do, often broadbrush Christianity (or at least Evangelicalism) with charges of white supremacy, patriarchy, racism, homophobia, and Christian nationalism. Quite frankly, whenever I come across those who broadbrush that way, I get bored really quick. I mean, “family values is about patriarchy”—give me a break. It’s not worth even engaging. It’s just stupid. (That being said, a few years ago, I did a rather long, in-depth critique of Kobes Du Maz’ book! Here’s Part 1. Find the other 9 posts from there).

Secondly, I think Childers’ and Barnett’s criticism of James K.A. Smith is off. When I read his book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, I found it incredibly insightful. His point with Derrida is simple. We can acknowledge that, contrary to the Enlightenment worldview and assumption, we CANNOT EVER“get back” to “pure history.” EVERYTHING WE READ about history is, in fact, an INTERPRETATION of that history. That is true, even of the Bible. As a Christian, I accept the interpretation of history in the Bible is, in fact, the inspired, true interpretation, but it still is an interpretation. I’m sure the Canaanites weren’t saying, “Yep, we totally deserve getting beaten by those Israelites!” From their point of view, what the Israelites were doing was bad—I just think their point of view is wrong. Now, the problem with some deconstructionists like Held Evans, it seems, is that although they see everything is interpretation, they reject the Bible’s interpretation as being the true, inspired one—and that is a big problem in my book.

Chapter 9: Faith
Chapter 9 continues Childers’ and Barnett’s criticism of deconstructionism. In my previous post, I criticized Childers and Barnett for implying that the Christian faith is nothing more than mental assertion of certain facts. I emphasized that the Christian faith is ultimate about trust in the living person of Christ. Well, in this chapter, Childers and Barnett emphasize that very thing. Kudos to them.

What they emphasize in this chapter can be summed up with this quote: “Often in the deconstruction explosion, people mistake their own personal faith, which might be full of incorrect beliefs, with the authentic Christian faith” (163). They say this in response to a few examples from self-professed “deconstructed” Christians who say things like, “If someone says, ‘This is what Christianity looks like…walk out.” That mentality, Childers and Barnett say, isn’t trying to weed out legitimately toxic elements that have crept into Evangelicalism from Christianity itself—it’s trying to deconstruct the Christian faith entirely. 

Nine times out of ten, that mentality does, in fact, lead to a complete rejection of the Christian faith. Why? Because it carries with it an attitude that says, “I am going to make my own version of Christianity—what works for me.” I had a close friend from graduate school end up doing that very thing—promoting a Christianity that works for you; then it became a “spirituality” that works for you; then it just went off the rails, complete with a “Witches against Racism” sign. It was sad to see.

Childers and Barnett then emphasize that, contrary to popular opinion, the Christian faith is not, as Pudd’nhead Wilson famously said, “believing what you know ain’t so” (172). It is not “believing in something you don’t have evidence for.” The Christian faith is active trust in the living God and it is rooted in the acknowledgement of real things that have happened in history. They quote JP Moreland as saying, “Biblically, faith is a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way, we see that faith is built on reason” (172). They also quote Greg Koukl: “Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality” (176).

I have nothing to add to that, other than that’s absolutely right. That’s why I have found so many rabid atheists who slander the Bible and Christianity to be so irrational in their critiques. I’ve gotten in debates with many of them, and quite frankly, I’ve found so many of their criticisms to be simply childish, irrational, and unreasonable.

Chapter 10: Deconstructor
In Chapter 10, Childers and Barnett focus on a couple of things. First, they rightly emphasize that just because Christianity teaches that people are sinful, that doesn’t mean they are worthless. The Christian analysis of human beings is that they are made in God’s image and therefore have inherent worth; at the same time, they sin and are susceptible to death, and hence God has promised to find a way through death for them to become fully like Him.

Second, they rightly point out that deconstruction often is either a reaction to sin (i.e. the person has been deeply hurt by Christians) or it is motivated by sin (i.e. the person simply wants to do whatever he/she wants). Again, let’s be honest—both are probably true.

Finally, they emphasize that for many deconstructionists, their goal is not really to arrive at the truth of Christianity. Ultimately, they simply want to reject any authority external to themselves. They write: “In the deconstruction explosion, submitting to an authority outside yourself is seen as authoritarian, controlling, and even cultish” (191). They quote one online deconstructionist as saying, “I think the most exciting thing about deconstruction is having the opportunity to decide what I believe for myself. No one is telling me what to believe anymore and that’s freeing” (192).

Given that mentality, Childers and Barnett say Christians are wrong to think if they could just “provide a bit more evidence,” then those people who have deconstructed their faith would believe. The whole point of “deconstruction,” as Derrida and philosopher John Caputo emphasize is never to arrive at a finished destination. It’s just to play in a sea of endless interpretations of texts.

Indeed, there is a certain amount of self-satisfaction to think you’re more enlightened than those rubes who submit to biblical authority, or Church authority. It can be quite an insular bubble to live in—simply rejecting anything anyone ever says is true or authoritative. Now, of course, I’m not going to say everyone who embraces this “deconstructing Christianity” movement is like that, but I’ll be honest, I’ve come across quite a few just like that.

Perhaps as I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten a bit more jaded, but whenever I come across someone with that attitude, I think, “Okay, buddy, you do you—you’re not worth my time.” It may sound harsh, but it’s true. As a Christian, I’m ready and willing to engage with and answer anyone who has sincere questions. And I’m not going to purposely judge anyone who doesn’t believe. But you can tell pretty quickly when someone is posing with that kind of smug attitude. They’re not interested in the truth or clearly understanding what a particular biblical passage says. They’ve already decided the whole thing must be torn down, and they view it as their own “evangelical mission” to deconstruct/deconvert you…to “save” you from your religious indoctrination.

All that said, from all the criticism I had seen and read about Childers and Barnett’s book, I fail to see how it is a horribly mean-spirited book. Like with Doug Wilson’s book, there are a certain few things I take issue with, but overall, what they are saying about the current “deconstructing Christianity” movement is, at the very least, partially true. I have to think, referring back to what I said in part one, that the pushback against their book is rooted in the American Evangelical (and Exvangelical) affinity for self-labels. “Deconstruction” is a now a label, a movement—some have bought the t-shirt. That’s the “team” they now root for. So, any criticism of it provokes a fanatic reaction.

To their credit, Childers and Barnett are actually commenting on and reacting to real things that many self-professed “deconstructionists” have said about Christianity. The few “deconstructionist” reactions to their book have struck me as rather nit-picky and petty. Perhaps there is something more substantial, but as an “outsider” to all this (I’m Orthodox), Childers and Barnett make a number of valid points that anyone serious about their faith (and anyone re-thinking/deconstructing their faith) should take seriously.

Alright, one most post to go.