“The Deconstruction of Christianity” by Childers and Barnett–A New Book Analysis Series (Part 1: #Exvangelical)

As things have turned out, the first part of this year has gotten me into reading books by people that many “progressive” social media types hate. Earlier this year, I went through Mere Christendom by Doug Wilson. Although I didn’t agree with everything he said, Wilson didn’t strike me as the raving, hateful lunatic that many have said he was. Now, I’m going to move on to yet another controversial book, Deconstructing Christianity by Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett.

In all honesty, I didn’t know much about either one. I would occasionally see tweets and YouTube videos by more progressive types about them and taking issue with things they say or write. Apart from skimming a few tweet threads or watching a few minutes of a video, I’ve largely ignored those arguments. Nevertheless, after seeing numerous comments about this book, I checked my credit card points and saw I could pick up Deconstructing Christianity for free. What the heck? Let’s give it a read and see if it’s something I want to write about. Sure enough, I’ve read it and think I could get a few blog posts on it.

Two Points Up Front
Now, I want to make two points up front. First, the basic argument of the book is that although taking the time to ask tough questions, express your doubts, and thinking through your faith is a valid and good thing to do, the current movement of “Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard” (26). Childers and Barnett ultimately see the current “deconstruction movement” as going far beyond just expressing doubts and trying to think through one’s faith. They see it ultimately as an attack on the foundational tenets of the Christian faith. Keep that in mind as we go through the book.

Secondly, and I say this as someone who grew up in Evangelicalism and has now been Orthodox for coming up on twenty years, it amazes me how American Evangelicals and “Exvangelicals” who come out of Evangelicalism, are so incredibly obsessed with labelling themselves and their “new movements.” Everything is about “branding.” Everything is an ad campaign. I just don’t get it. Not to tick off any Evangelical or “Exvangelical” readers, but why? It comes across as so shallow and commercialized. To allude to a certain parable by Jesus, whenever I see something like that, I think that if any seeds might start to grow in that kind of soil, the roots are never going to get that deep. To be honest, that’s a big part of what led me away from the “Evangelical world.” I don’t want my faith based on a slick ad campaign.

By the same token, it seems to me that the current “Deconstruction movement” is just another ad campaign—how could it not be? It was borne out of Evangelicalism. In any case, that is something I will probably come back to after I go through the book. For it seems to me that the “deconstructionist movement” is, at root (pun intended), a reaction against modern American Evangelicalism, and the biggest complaint I’ve had about modern American Evangelicalism is, more than anything, simply rather shallow.

That being said, I’ll say up front that although I found parts of Deconstructing Christianity to be rather shallow and thin on a number of points, it wasn’t altogether wrong in some of its critiques of the current “Deconstructionist movement.” These next few posts are probably not going to be that polished. I’m simply going to just jump and try to clarify what the book says and then respond to a few things. Enjoy the messiness of it all. My comments are in bold.

Chapter 1: Explosion
In this first chapter, Childers and Barnett begin by asking the question whether deconstruction is “a movement that seeks to lead Christians away from the truth and encourages them to deconvert from the faith” or does it simply mean “rethinking what you believe, engaging your doubts, and asking hard questions” (11). Basically, they see an honest wrestling with hard questions as a different thing than a purposeful attempt to deconvert people from the Christian faith. To be fair, if you take the label “deconstruction” out of it, it is true that there is a difference between wrestling with questions and actively trying to get people to leave the Christian faith. Are all people who identify with the “deconstruction movement” actively trying to get Christians to leave the faith? Of course not—but I’ve certainly met some.

Childers and Barnett then claim that for “a majority of people from the broader culture in the deconstruction movement, the Bible is seen as a tool of oppression to be rejected, not a standard of truth to be affirmed” (19). Again, I cannot say this is true for “ a majority,” but I have heard that line quite a bit from numerous Exvangelicals. Just last week, I got into a back-and-forth on “X” (Twitter) with an OT scholar, former Christian-turned-atheist, where he was claiming that the NT writers were all misogynists and that Mary didn’t “consent” to having God impregnate her. –This came from an actual PhD scholar. So, again, do a “majority” of “deconstructionists” feel that way? I don’t know. But many certainly do. That doesn’t so much offend me as I find many claims like that are simply stupid.

Finally, Childers and Barnett discuss how “deconstruction” as a philosophical view comes from Jacques Derrida, who saw deconstruction as a means of “dismantling our excessive loyalty to any idea and learning to see the aspects of the truth that might lie buried in its opposite” (22). Basically, a hyper-skepticism of whatever someone is claiming as “objective truth.” Therefore, as I quoted earlier, they claim that “faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard” (26). The result is that its primary concern is “leaving behind what’s characterized as ‘evangelical’ beliefs” (28).

Now, although I am by no means a “pro-Derrida” kind of guy, the fact is he was reacting to the very modern Enlightenment notion of “objective truth.” And a core problem with modern American Evangelicalism is that it has unwittingly bought into this very Enlightenment notion of what constitutes as “truth.” This affects its understanding of both the Bible and the Christian faith itself.

The modern Enlightenment notion of “objective truth” basically says that the only things that are really true are cold, hard, objective, scientific facts. If you can’t “objectively prove” something is true, then it is just your subjective opinion…but it isn’t really “true.” Evangelical Christians, especially in the 20^th and 21^st centuries, ended up thinking that meant that in order for the Bible to be “true,” it had to be objectively, factually, and scientifically true in all regards. The result was a constant push to try to “prove” the Bible is…objectively true. But that push is, in fact, a bending of the knee to a very Enlightenment—and very unchristian—notion of truth.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the events in the Bible aren’t historical and factual. What I am saying, though, is that the Christian faith IS NOT a matter of just believing certain factual events really happened. The Christian faith is fundamentally relational, and therefore subjective. Salvation involves putting our faith in Christ and have a relationship with Him. It isn’t just a matter of believing certain “objective facts” about Him really happened. Of course, I believe the Gospels are history. Of course, I believe Jesus really healed the sick, was crucified, died, and buried, and rose from the dead. I believe all those are historical realities. But my faith isn’t a matter of simply believing certain facts “objectively happened.” My faith is trust in a Living Person, not a mental conviction of a fact.

Now, I’m going to guess that both Childers and Barnett would probably agree with what I just said: the Christian faith goes far beyond just believing certain historical facts happened and involves a relationship with the Living Christ. The problem, though, comes with this idea of “Scripture as the standard”—the standard of what? Whether or not they will admit it, the fact is that for many Evangelicals, they see the Bible as something like “the standard for objective truth,” meaning, “If I am a Christian, I have to believe the Bible is basically God’s moral commands dropped out of heaven and a collection of ‘facts’ I have to believe really happened.”

Many “deconstructionists” I’ve known are reacting to that kind of view of the Bible. Take this former Evangelical OT scholar on my “X” (Twitter)—he seems to think that Luke’s annunciation account is saying that it is okay for God to force Himself on women, and therefore, by extension, (since Luke and the other NT writers were misogynists), this passage can justify men forcing themselves on women. I’m sorry, that’s asinine. Now, back to Derrida and “deconstruction.” What is my Twitter antagonist doing? Simple: he’s rejected the authorial-intended meaning of Luke’s account–deconstructing it, if you will—and is essentially making up his own meaning then imposing it on the text to discredit the text.

All that is to said, (A) the Evangelical claim that the Bible is “objective truth” is misleading and unknowingly carries with it very Enlightenment assumptions, BUT (B) “deconstructionism” really does have its roots in Derrida, and many, under the guise of “deconstructionism” really are just about tearing down the text so they can impose on it whatever they want. That’s a problem.

Chapter 2: Exvangelical
In this chapter, Childers and Barnett say that for many people, “Evangelical” has become a dirty word., often presented as a virtual synonym for “white supremacy” and “Christian nationalism.” They’re right. I’ve really seen this over the past ten years. In addition, they articulate five issues that it seems most “Exvangelicals” have with Evangelicalism.

First, there is the insistence on a “literal reading of the Bible.” While Childers and Barnett acknowledge that a “literal” reading of the Bible entails acknowledging the different styles and genres of writing in the Bible and interpreting appropriately, they still say that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. On top of that, their overall response seems a bit vague to me: “…reading literally means believing that the Bible communicates literal truth, but not always in a literal way” (35). I would like to know what that actually means. What do they mean by “literal truth”? I think the Bible is inspired, theologically true, and historically reliable. Is that what they mean? Then okay. But is that what they mean?

Second, “Exvangelicals” push back on the belief that women have to be submissive to all men. Childers and Barnett respond to that by saying that nowhere in the Bible does it say women should submit to all men. Yes, it says wives should submit to their husbands, but that has to be understood within the context of what a Christian marriage should be, where the husband loves and cares for his wife, like Christ loves the Church. In that context, in a loving Christian marriage, any sense of “hierarchy” or “patriarchy” goes out the window.

Third, there is the objection to seeing homosexuality as sinful. Childers and Barnett point out that this stance isn’t just an Evangelical stance. This is a very touchy subject, and I actually got in trouble at my previous Evangelical high school where I taught when the headmaster who, in addition seeing me as “dangerous” because I didn’t accept young earth creationism, read an old blog post of mine where I pointed out that those “anti-gay” Bible verses that are often quoted are actually condemnations of same-sex sexual activity, often within the context of sacred prostitution in pagan temples. Same-sex activity is different than the modern notion of “sexual orientation.” The Bible does condemn the former but doesn’t address the latter. That being said, I do think Evangelicalism’s traditional stance is simplistic, shallow, and harmful (and “Exvangelicalism’s” reaction to be also simplistic and shallow, for that matter. Now that I’ve probably annoyed everyone…let’s move on.

Fourth, there is the accusation that Evangelicals assume that the American way of life is the best—this is probably where the current accusations of “Christian nationalism” come in. Childers and Barnett say there’s nothing wrong with loving one’s country, “as long as the Christian’s primary loyalty is to Christ and his Kingdom” (38); still, Christianity doesn’t teach the American way of life is best. I don’t see anything wrong with that response. It’s true.

Finally, there’s the “Exvangelical” beef that Evangelicalism identifies too much with political conservatism (i.e. Republicans). Childers and Barnett say that conservativism is the belief in limited government, and that reflects the convictions that human beings are inherently sinful and will abuse power when they have it—therefore, a limited government is the best way to curb that tendency in human beings. That being said, they say that doesn’t mean you can’t be a Christian if you’re a Democrat. Again, I pretty much agree with that. (I also think that the current US government is the most powerful political entity probably in the history of the world and that both Republicans and Democrats are pretty much “big government parties” now…but that’s another issue).

Chapter 3: Rerun
In this chapter, Childers and Barnett argue that the current phenomenon of “deconstruction” and its subversion of biblical standards ultimately is nothing new. That mentality is all throughout the Bible. The serpent tricked Eve by questioning God, then denying God’s word, to then “deconstructing” who God is. Jeremiah (19:3-5) condemns Judah for sacrificing their children to Baal, and says God never commanded that—they had “deconstructed” God’s Law and had followed the surrounding pagan culture around them instead. Hosea condemned Israel for going after the idols of the nations; because of that, they no longer had any knowledge of who God is. And even at Sinai, the Hebrews, even though they had God’s law, “deconstructed” their view of God (and literally all their gold) and “reconstructed” a god of their own making.

Therefore, Childers and Barnett look at what’s happening with the “Deconstruction movement” among Exvangelicals today and see it is just the same old “re-run” (hence the title of the chapter)—accepting the view of “religious pluralism” and affirming/celebrating homosexuality and transgender ideology. Again, it’s a touchy subject. At this point, I’ll just say that the sole focus of homosexuality and transgender ideology as being emblematic of what is wrong and sinful in America is part—a big part—of the reason why Exvangelicals are so upset with Evangelicalism.

Chapter 4: Fallout
In the final chapter of Part 1, Childers and Barnett focus on actual, self-described “deconstructionists” who openly admit that they have an agenda, namely, to get more Evangelicals to “deconvert.” I’ll just highlight two of their examples. First, there is Angela J. Herrington, author of Gaslighted by God. In her book, she tells Christians that “your faith is largely built upon bad translations, human error, and manipulative false doctrines designed to protect the church’s power” (71). Yep…that’s not really just encouraging Christians to “think through their faith.” It doesn’t seem to be encouragement to “deconstruct” one’s faith to find the solid foundation of the Christian faith. It’s a positively “evangelical” mission to get people to completely reject the Christian faith.

Secondly, there is a guy named Stan Mitchell, who was a pastor at a church in Nashville. In his own book, he openly admitted that he was “sowing seeds of deconstruction privately for many years” (71). He further wrote, “I knew they didn’t know who I was. And I knew that group didn’t know what I was doing. But I was okay with that, and I justified that because I thought it was in their best interest for them to stay in that blind space as long as they were in the pipeline of being converted by me to a more progressive way of thinking. Before I got them over to progressivism, I just wanted to get them into the throes of deconstruction” (72). Yeah, I find that problematic. Not only is it politically-motivated (oh the irony—those bad Evangelicals are too politically conservative!), but it also is purposely deceitful.

Okay….WHEW! I plowed through Part 1 in one, slightly long post! Look for Part 2 in a few days.