The New Age of Deconstruction: Responding to a Relevant Post

 Today, Relevant Magazine posted an article titled, “The Age of Deconstruction and Future of the Church”. In this post the writer attempts to defend and/or justify the notion of destruction.

Immediately the writer tries to portray deconstruction as the remedy for “Christians…falling right and left.” He defines it as, “the practice of revisiting and rethinking long held beliefs, specifically in the Christian faith.” Like many progressive terms, definitions are often hard to come by or misleading. To the writer’s credit, he does at least offer a definition. Unfortunately, it’s a remarkably vague definition. As we’ll see, the examples of deconstruction seem to be much more than that. Elsewhere in the electronic pages of Relevant Magazine, deconstruction is also defined as, “An academic term for the systematic pulling apart of the belief system you were raised in.”

So already, one media source has provided two different takes on what deconstructionism is. One downplays it as almost an evaluation of what one’s faith is, while the other immediately gets to the “pulling apart” of that faith. One media source, in two articles, cannot even agree what exactly deconstruction is.

Back to the post at hand, the writer quickly gets to “the most well-known Christian leader to popularize the term” of deconstruction: Richard Rohr. This is offered up as a defense of the process, rather than the alarm it should be. Rohr’s beliefs are much more in line with new age mysticism than historic Christianity. This would explain his popularity among folks like Oprah Winfrey, perhaps the foremost icon of “spiritual but not religious” and others who have traveled from Christianity into atheism, such as musical artist Michael Gungor. Rohr, at best, plays footsie with many unorthodox views such as Perennialism, Panentheism, and Universalism. In other words, if the foremost authority on deconstruction is Richard Rohr, a discerning Christian should be wary of the process.

The writer continues by noting how deconstruction, “is a culture-wide phenomenon with thousands of books, podcasts and social media accounts dedicated to it” and how “Every other week, it seems, there is a new buzz about the next prominent Christian influencer that is renouncing their faith and stepping into a new life.”  A few sentences later, the writer claims, “Deconstruction is no longer a fad.” This statement seems contradictory to the evidence just previously presented. After all, Merriam-Webster defines fad as, “A practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal.” Deconstruction is, by all accounts, a fad.

It’s also noteworthy that of the four names provided as examples of deconstructionists, two are now atheists, one stated his faith was on “incredibly shaky ground,” and the fourth recently denied the existence of hell and has begun promoting psychedelic mushrooms. Again, these are examples the writer is offering as individuals who have gone through deconstruction. I’m not sure how any of this sounds appealing unless you are simply searching for a trendy way to publicly walk away from your Christian identity.

The writer states, “Through deconstruction, we are able to find the good and the helpful parts of our faith upbringing, while reshaping or throwing out the unhelpful.” Nowhere it is explained by what standard we are to find the “good and helpful parts.” Historically, Christians have studied the bible to evaluate and test one’s faith. Is this belief from God? Is this practice pleasing to Him? The answer has always been to study the pages of God’s word and consider the conclusions reached by those who came before us. Yet deconstruction offers no such tool beyond the stories and experience of other deconstructionists as the measuring stick. This is far more illustrative of Gnosticism, the practice accessing a hidden knowledge only reachable by some, than Christianity.

This is also why the writer insists that deconstruction must be done apart from the church. Afterall, the church, Jesus Christ’s bride and God’s gift to believers, offers guard rails, cautions, and biblical wisdom when evaluating and testing one’s faith. Sadly, such support is considered too constrictive for the would-be deconstructionist. The writer believes that the church must “embrace [deconstructionists] in their questions.” Silly me, I had always thought questions were to be answered, not embraced.

Unsurprisingly, the greatest enemy of deconstruction is the local church and evangelicals. Now to be clear, many evangelicals have responded poorly to honest questions from confused and weary Christians. Churches, pastors, and Christian leaders must do better in this area. Yet so many are already doing this, and doing this well. Apologists and YouTubers like Alisa Childers, Mike Winger, and many others address common questions and doubts in kindness and grace. In addition, sites like Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry have pages upon pages of information on various topics with biblical references. Contrary to what some promoters of deconstruction may say, countless resources exist to address questions and doubts—questions and doubts the Church has been wrestling with for two millennia.

Nearing the conclusion, the writer states, “It is still painful for me every time deconstruction leads people out of their faith completely. I do not believe that is God’s intent for this process” (for reference, shortly before these sentences the writer claims he believes deconstruction is from God). Yet again, the examples of deconstruction have time and again led to just that: Hersey, Agnosticism, or Atheism.

What it mostly comes down to this is this: Progressives will define something one way, but act in a completely contradictory manner. Here, deconstruction is presented as simply evaluating one’s faith and testing whether previously held beliefs fit within the Christian faith. Yet the elephant in the room is that so many who under take deconstruction end up on the other side as atheists, agnostics, or of some version of faith that does not reflect the biblical and historic Christian faith.

A gardening analogy may prove helpful. Caring for plants often requires pruning or even replanting. Evaluating and testing one’s faith is like the careful pruning—clipping off certain branches to promote the overall growth and health of the plant. It’s like removing views in contradiction to the Christian faith, perhaps something like the melding of one’s faith with the prosperity gospel. As these false beliefs are pruned away, the true Gospel is able to flourish in one’s life.

Meanwhile, deconstruction in practice is much different. It’s far more comparable with hacking off the rhododendron bush at the trunk and hot-gluing tulip petals, acorns, and ferns to the stump and still having the gall to call it a rhododendron (and feeling giddy when other sadomasochistic botanists hit the “like” button).

Christians with questions and doubts are not alone. One is not a “bad Christian” simply for being confused and evaluating what they’ve always believed to be true. Pastors and mentors who do not come alongside Christians going through this process are failing them. Yet doubt is not somewhere we want to stay. Questions have answers. Evaluate and test one’s faith, yes, but the cult of deconstruction is not the way to do it.