Episode 37 - Deconstructionism

Popular Christians are deconstructing their faith and it seems to be a trend we are seeing in our churches today. What does it mean to deconstruct? 

Transcript

Hello and welcome to Teleios Talk, I am your host Wendell Martens. It is the beginning of 2023 and we are starting our fourth year of broadcasting. Thank you to everyone who has found time to listen to our podcast.

Today we will be talking about Deconstructionism and the modern Church. Although not strictly a doctrinal study, the study of deconstructionism does touch on how we understand theology, the lack of Biblical knowledge in the church, and our maturity as believers. This is a big topic so please stay with me.

If you have spent any length of time in the church you have experienced popular aberrant theology, societal progression, and the soft erosion of tradition. We have moved from the Church meeting on Wednesday night, Saturday night, Sunday morning, and Sunday night; to a one hour meet and greet on Sunday morning — coffee and doughnuts included. Our sermons have morphed from an hour long teaching to a 15 minute encouragement, and the songs we sing are all based on how we feel instead of solid teaching of Scripture. Four part harmonies have been exchanged for choruses and our children are sent out of the sanctuary to play somewhere else in the building. We are appealing to what people want and yet attendance has fallen; church leadership has begun to resemble dynastic clubs of succession to the detriment of servant-led discipleship.

If we aren’t being challenged and our questions aren’t being answered why would we choose to remain in the faith? Do we have to chase the newest teaching? Is it inevitable the church will become stagnant? As it says in Hebrews 4:12, the Word is alive and growing, it isn't dead and — just as apple trees do not bear cherries — God never changes, His love never changes, His Word never changes, and His truth never changes. Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever."

With this as a backdrop the modern church tends to respond in one of two ways: We'll call the first response The Village Approach. This happens when the church moves out of its building and into the streets, focusing on home evangelism and outreach. The second is what has been coined Progressive or Deconstructionist. Here the church seeks to either build an entertaining cult of personality - worshiping the beast of social justice - or to eliminate the church altogether through the development and empowerment of the ‘nones’.

How did we get here? It is popular to point at the ‘old’ way and say it is to blame; “You’re too stuffy, You’re boring, You’re following a myth, You’re following a vengeful God, You’re backwards, You’re all hypocrites!” But is the ‘alternative’ beneficial or harmful to the church? In the same time that the church has begun to change, new movements have coloured how we teach and learn Scripture. Sometimes these movements are a result of upheaval, revival, and persecution; but more often these movements have come about as a response to societal pressures which stroke our vanity and seek to dismiss the basic teachings of the Bible — and this weakens the church.

In essence, if the church can be a place that makes you feel good while ignoring evil, sin, or judgment, how does it differentiate from practicing yoga, playing sports, or sleeping in on a Sunday morning. Everyone will worship the idol of their desire, be that self, money, or laziness. Church becomes second, third, fourth, or even last place on our list of things to do and the cacophony of rationalization is deafening.

The deconstructionist movement is one which I have a most particular interest in. Many of my friends and relatives have decided to change their worldview — to follow in this direction — and the cancer is spreading. Galatians 1:6 says, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel," If you have spent any time listening to Teleios Talk then you will know that we have addressed this peripherally many times since our first season. When we hear people in the church say they have no need for church (be that the building, or the institution), or, there are many roads to heaven, or, they have come to an alternate, or new, understanding of Christ's words regarding their preferred sin; then we are hearing the saccharine lie of deconstructionism seeping into the ethos of the family of God.

Deconstructionism was originally an approach to literary analysis, developed by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1960s. Initially, deconstruction sought to pull apart the assumptions of one’s cultural background and to question their certainty. The principles of deconstructionism became one of the core principles of the postmodernist movement. Deconstructionism in today's church is planted in the soil of the postmodern worldview; its roots fertilized by the emergent church movement, contemporary mysticism, the dis-order of Richard Rohr, the anatheism of Richard Kearney, and syncretism of Simone Weil who wrote, “Each religion is alone true, that is to say, that at the moment we are thinking of it we must bring as much attention to bear on it as if there were nothing else …”

Apologist Alisa Childers defines deconstructionism in this way “In the context of faith, deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way into atheism. Some remain there, but others experience a reconstruction. But the type of faith they end up embracing almost never resembles the Christianity they formerly knew.”

Truth be told, our churches have always fought stagnation and often it feels to me like the deconstructionists are only trying to push us out of our current stagnation. Not unlike the Jews during the time of Christ, we have a tendency to worship the Law, then ‘back-bench’ the love of God because we do not want to reexamine what we are doing, how we are worshiping, and if we are telling others the truth of the Bible. It is a slippery slope, we create traditions, liturgical rites, and ceremonies as a way to teach and preserve doctrine. And this is a good thing because it is doctrine which illuminates our understanding of the word of God. But when the traditions, liturgical rights, and ceremonies become the object of our worship, the church begins to stagnate – closing its doors to sinners, chaining the Bible to the pulpit, and chasing bloodlines to see if you belong to the club.

The emerging church, the seeker sensitive movement, progressive theology, and health and wellness churches teach deconstructionism. They are missionaries for evil. The church was never called, or instructed, to be relevant, ever. We don't compromise Biblical truth; we don't try and be hip, cool, or trending; and we don't downplay Gospel friction. The church was instructed to teach the truth. Period. End of statement. G. K. Chesterton once wrote, "In freeing ourselves from Christianity, we have only freed ourselves from freedom." 

Do we need deconstruction or reconstruction? Is the building failing because the foundation is bad or because the builders are building a house on sand? It is time to get out of our leisure wear, put on some work clothes, and get down to rebuilding the church; tearing out the rot and burning down the idols we have placed in our hearts.

In his 1726 satire "Gulliver's Travels", Johnathan Swift detailed the Grand Academy at Lagado. Here the people have abandoned the traditions of the ancient to pursue a new way. They are poor, starving, and highly divided because their neglect has resulted in collapsing infrastructure and untended fields. Yet, the Academy churns on, trying to get sunlight from cucumbers, creating food from excrement, and solving mathematical equations by eating the paper they are written on. It sounds ridiculous, which it should, but it also parallels the meaninglessness we observe in politics, educaction, and religion which ignores its foundation.

Jon Steingard, speaking about his own deconstruction with Sean Mcdowell, says that he found himself asking, "If I don't have to believe in God, do I?" He admits that considering the answer terrified him. How we respond to the deconstructionist is very important. Years ago, my father reminded me that when people leave the church it is wrong to treat them as unclean. Jesus demonstrated this by healing the sick, eating with sinners, and associating with the most hated people in society. We should share the Gospel with those who are lost.

Both Sean Mcdowell and John Cooper have been vocal regarding the rise of famous and popular Christians who define themselves as 
exvangelical, progressive, and deconstructionist. On his podcast ‘Cooper Stuff’, John Cooper talks about Kevin Max of DC Talk, and his recent slide from the faith, saying, “those who deconstruct never really knew what their faith really was.” As Hebrews 6:4-6 says, “...it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” 

Does this mean that we could lose our salvation? There are those who would argue both sides of the question. But in this verse the context leads us to a clearer understanding. That is because this verse was not written to believers, but unbelievers, who were intellectually persuaded but spiritually uncommitted to the faith. The writer of Hebrews argues that you can act like a believer, speak like a believer, and do all the things a believer would do; but if you reject the truth in your heart, it is impossible to be restored to repentance.

Those who become involved in the deconstructionist movement like to paint Jesus as the great deconstructionist, as though they were following His teaching, but such a claim is specious and misleading. Jesus, being God, would never have come to earth to say, “Hey, wait a minute, I kinda screwed up here. Let’s try something different, and for good measure, let’s make everything that I’ve instituted so far represent evil instead of good.” That isn’t what the Gospel is about; nothing in the words of Christ support such a statement. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus intentioned to give 
clarity and meaning to those beliefs that already existed; He was trying to break our dependance on Law versus Love, and Love versus Law. So when Jesus said “You have heard that it was said…But I say to you…” (Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), He wasn't dismissing the Old Testament, He wasn't rewriting the Law, and He wasn't relaxing the commandments either. So where does this idea come from? How dare we put words in His mouth!

In an article for Pathos, Joel Furches wrote, "It has long been argued in religious conversion studies whether there is a significant difference between conversion and deconversion. One line of reasoning goes something like this: every conversion to something is a deconversion away from something else. So that a person who becomes a Christian is changing a great deal of his or her worldview as a result of the conversion, and discarding old notions as a result. The reverse would also be true. A person deconverting from Christianity would be changing worldviews to adopt new standards and ideas."

Can we argue that the process of deconstructing is the same, or similar, to deconverting? If changing one's worldview is the milepost, then I think it is. According to Brad Jersak in his book, “Out of the Embers - Faith After the Great Deconstruction”, “What the deconstructionist is trying to do, is dismantle (whether voluntary or involuntary) the beliefs and values of a person or culture.” 

What we see in deconstructionism is twofold: first there is a turn towards a ‘woke’ mentality in which the deconstructionist justifies embracing their sin and encouraging the sins of others, secondly there is a determined redefinition of terms, a strategy which is regularly employed by cults, to create confusion and detachment. But what is the ‘woke’ mentality? It is a religion of works.  

A good example of this is former pastor and leader in the emerging church movement, Brian McLaren. Although he would be quick to tell you that he never properly deconverted, in the sense that he no longer believes in God or adheres to religion, he has adopted a form of religion based on action in which the only doctrinal substance is that it is moral to love one another. In this sense, we could say he is a Universalist, without necessarily believing in an afterlife (nor denying it exists). 

Subby Szterszky, writing for Focus on the Family says, “The most extreme form of deconstruction, which denies core doctrines of Christian orthodoxy, is synonymous with deconversion or apostasy. It might be better described as destruction or demolition of the faith, seeking to “burn it all down” or twist it into an unrecognizable shape. Needless to say, such a practice is never endorsed in Scripture.” This extreme form is practiced by such Christian leaders as Jen Hatmaker, Rob Bell, and Glennon Doyle; Whose ‘christianity’ runs contrary to the teachings of Christ. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 famously says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths" Has that time come? We certainly are in a time where chasing our desires and turning away from truth is taught from the pulpit.

One of the voices for progressive theology is VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer who compares modern Christians to "Confederate theologians" because they oppose legal same-sex marriage. During an interview Visher snaps back at Christians who think that Edenic marriage is a "permanent thing" worth conserving.

Ultimately the deconstructionism movement among Christians is the symptom of a larger disease. Christians are suffering from their apathy to the study of God’s word. We have embraced a rebellious heart. We went from believing we had no value in the 90's, to embracing sin as our values.

Why don't we preach sin and repentance anymore? In our book, "Six Good Questions" I make this statement: "There is this increasing desire in today's culture to make, or view, God as an emotionally challenged deity; a sociopath, who revels in an off-balance, chaotic, man-handling of His creation. But any time spent in Scripture, studying the personhood of God, reveals that God is capable of complex emotions which not only rival, but exceed our own. Our attempts to “humanize” God are predicated on our desire for sin; and if we can worship a sinful, or incomplete, god, then we are not guilty of any sins we commit. We would rather follow the “do what thou wilt” philosophy than live morally upright lives." "In the prose of classic theology the anthropopathism of God's emotions is rejected as an attempt to categorize, or understand, them; to put a humanality into the incomprehensibility of the Godhead."

This sorry attempt to humanize God is seen in the words of the Presbyterian theologian Frederick Buechner who wrote: “Some think of a Christian as just a Nice Guy. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could "come to the Father." He said that it was only by him — by living, participating in, being caught up by, the way of life that he embodied, that was his way. Thus it is possible to be on Christ's way and with his mark upon you without ever having heard of Christ, and for that reason to be on your way to God though maybe you don't even believe in God.” What Buechner does is strip the deity from Jesus, painting Him as just another mystic, with just another good thing to say. He drinks the deconstructionists kool-aid claiming you don't have to believe in God in order to be saved by God. He cheapens grace by presenting Christianity as just another works based lie. Does Scripture have to define the ethic, doctrine, or religion of God when all of Scripture is a Testament to who God is and what He expects from us; when worship of foreign gods is expressly forbidden; and when we are told there is only one narrow way to eternity?

Jesus said in John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments." Quite simply, If you say you love God, your life should reflect it, you should follow the commands of the God you love. Why would Jesus say this? MacLaren’s Expositional Commentary says this: “Jesus Christ is not speaking merely to that little handful of men in the upper chamber, but to all generations and to all lands, to the end of time and round the world. The authoritative tone which He assumes here is very noteworthy. He speaks as Jehovah spoke from Sinai, and quotes the very words of the old law when He speaks of ‘keeping My commandments.’ There are distinctly involved in this quite incidental utterance of Christ’s two startling things - one the assumption of His right to impose His will upon every human being, and the other - His assumption that His will contains the all-sufficient directory for human conduct.”

So what point is Tony Campolo trying to make when he says, “It seems to me that when we listen to the Muslim mystics as they talk about Jesus and their love for Jesus, I must say, it's a lot closer to New Testament Christianity than a lot of the Christians that I hear. In other words if we are looking for common ground, can we find it in mystical spirituality, even if we cannot theologically agree, can we pray together in such a way that we connect with a God that transcends our theological differences?” No! The answer is, No! What kind of apostate are you? Who is this transcendent God you worship? It must be the progressive god of deconstructionism, because it isn't the all-powerful creator God defined in Scripture. The folly of Frederick Buechner oozes once again to the surface of shallow progressive Christianity. 1 John 2:22-23 reads, "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."

Maybe we should ask, was there deconstruction in the early church? The church has always courted heresy, false teaching, and those who fall away. Hebrews 13:9a reminds us, "Do not be misled by varied and strange teachings;" From the Sadducees to Gnosticism, Marcionism, Arianism, Docetism, Pelagianism, Waldensianism, and Antinomianism; it isn't a stretch to apply this accusation against deconstructionism as well. Even among the disciples, Jesus identifies that there are some of those who follow Him who do not believe that He is God. Then in John 6:67-68 we read this discourse, "So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.”"

Michael Sean Winters, in his address to the Catholic Church, writes that, "if they are to survive and flourish, (they) must shy away from 
intellectual fads and focus on enlarging their students' worldviews by introducing them to the rigorous study of biblical scholarship, patristics, liturgical traditions, ecclesiology, church history and hermeneutics, all in the context of the clament realities of the church’s life today."

There is a persistent ringing in our ears when we hear this. Our church desperately needs a return to solid teaching, intergenerational discipleship, conversational evangelism, and community accountability. Against a defense such as this, the deconstructionist falters.

Are you prepared to do the work, confront the lie, and share truth? It's a nearly impossible task but we don't struggle alone.