Privilege and Responsibility - publications summary

 Chapters 1 and 2 on Joseph Needham and Jared Diamond

Joseph Needham and Jared Diamond lived about an ocean and a generation apart, yet they have several interesting things in common.

Both are known as scholarly researchers, who loved history. They were truly generalists with interests across several disciplines of study. Educated in the West, they then became acquainted with eastern cultures, which led them to a quest regarding the comparison of development between these cultures and the West.  Witnessing the intelligence and skill of their Asian friends, they began to wonder why these people had not experienced the development and prosperity of the West. Why did -in previous centuries- the genial Chinese not develop modern science (Needham) and why did economic prosperity elude the Papua of New Guinea (Diamond)?

Diamond found that not all people and places had an equal start. The Middle East and Europe, for instance, had significant advantages in their topography, climate, and natural resources. The agricultural revolution had in such places a greater chance of success, paving the way to civilization, cities, and military power. When St. Paul addressed the philosophers of Athens, he claimed that ‘the god they did not know’ had not only made each people group, but he had also determined for each of them their times and places.1  According to the Bible, it was the Creator-God, who chose not to distribute his blessings in an equal way.

Needham, and those who continued in his quest, found a variety of causes, which related to culture, politics, and freedom that were more conducive in Europe. The biblical worldview and the ‘liberation’ of the Reformation seemed to have played a major role in providing privileges in the West.

Chapters 3 and 4 on Tom Holland and Vishal Mangalwadi

Tom Holland and Vishal Mangalwadi are historians, too. Both of them discovered the impact of biblical teaching in shaping human thinking, living, and prospering. 

Holland discovered the (moral) value of the Bible when he was confronted with the brutalities, common in the empires of the Ancient Near East. When he examined his personal outrage about the way that -especially- their women and slaves were treated, he realized that, even though he had rejected the biblical claims regarding Jesus Christ, he had -unwittingly- still absorbed its moral teachings. And, he had to admit to favor its view of human dignity and the virtue of compassion for the downtrodden and the abused.

Mangalwadi was surprised and seemingly disappointed that his academic mentors in India were all convinced that truth cannot be known except through spiritual revelation. After considering the Hindu scriptures and the Quran, he saw himself forced to return to the Bible, even though he had dismissed it first. For, how could simple shepherds, farmers, and fishermen be able to communicate the revelation of Almighty God? When he could finally accept this possibility, his eyes were opened to the numerous blessings from biblical teaching in many areas of culture, in his native India, in Europe, and America. While he and his wife are seeking to put these blessings into practice among the poor in India, he is warning the West that -as she is cutting off its biblical roots- it must face the imminent loss of its many fruits. Only through another Reformation can we avoid the sun setting on the West.

Chapters 5 on 'Watching the Sunset'

So far, we have mostly focused on the sources of blessing or privilege. Nevertheless, in line with Mangalwadi’s concern we already looked at some more recent manifestations that suggest that the era of peace and prosperity in the West may be ending fairly soon.

In this last double-chapter, I want to elaborate on the processes that have been at work already. Although I have used a greater variety of resources, my primary sources have been provided by four men, who might be among those who are most vocal about racial or gender injustice, yet they share with us their concern about the recent attacks on liberty and the madness of the crowds.

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant American economist. Whereas E.F. (Fritz) Schumacher (1911-1977) subtitled his book Small is Beautiful as ‘Economics as if people mattered’, Sowell is urging us to look at people today as if their economic productivity mattered. Although he used to be in the socialist camp, he then discovered that their efforts to help the less privileged people actually resulted not only in economic loss for society, but also serious loss for those who were supposed to benefit.

Shelby Steele argues that 

“the age of white supremacy has given way to an age of white guilt – and neither has been good for African Americans. Through articulate analysis and engrossing recollections, (he) sounds a powerful call for a new culture of personal responsibility." 2

Voddie Baucham is a gifted preacher, who is another critical analyst, specifically with respect to Critical Race Theory. He sees the pervasive attack on ‘Whiteness’ and ‘White privilege’ as attacks on Christianity and God. He urges the Church to stand on guard against ‘the devil’s schemes’ and ‘the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.’3  What is being preached today is not another Gospel, but an anti-Gospel, meant to destroy the Kingdom of God.

Douglas Murray identifies as a gay man. He is seeking to open our eyes to the current “madness of the crowds”, by which we tend to lose a common rationality and morality, which is putting us at serious risk of losing our -formerly treasured- freedom in democracy.

Four men, who were supposed to feel oppressed in modern America. Yet, rather than jumping on the Critical bandwagon, they engaged in a critical analysis themselves and consequently found the popular madness wanting.

Those, who take the Bible seriously ought to remember that God is still in full control. Even as the evil of rejecting God and despising his many blessings seems to be ratcheted up in recent events, God still has patience with the world, giving us a chance for repentance and reformation.

We have been warned that the last days of lawlessness will be hard for all, but we are also promised that the King of kings will return to destroy all evil and restore his Righteous Rule. In the end, there will be two kinds of people: those who confess that God’s judgments are righteous and well-deserved, and others, who hate God and curse Him for his dominion.4

1. Acts 17:22-28.

2. back cover of his book "White Guilt- how blacks and whites destroyed the promise of the civil rights era.

3. my reference, to Ephesians 6:11,12 (NIV)

4. Revelation 5, 15: 3,4, 16:5-11, 21.

Deconstruction and the Church 7: How to Deal with Deconstruction in the Church

 

7 How to Deal with Deconstruction in the Church 

Of course, we care. Most Christians have close relatives or friends that have left the faith. Parents, teachers, and church leaders all need to get educated and involved with this. Here are some practical considerations.

1. Listening and guidance 

Anybody, who has experience with deconstruction, either personally or through a close relative or friend, knows that the process usually takes months and often years. During this process the D.P. (deconstructing person) has many questions, as they try to find “the truth” between the traditional or former thinking and the new alternative(s). 

Unfortunately, it is very common that, even early in this process, there is nobody from the challenged viewpoint (like parents, teachers, or church leaders) who are (known to be) available to appreciate the challenge and can provide healthy coaching. This should involve: respectful listening, careful analysis of what is said, probing for the underlying issues (like causes and sources), providing sound, biblical responses that really address the issues with at least some understanding of secular science and culture, and showing sincere interest in DPs and their struggles. 

Perhaps the lead pastor is not equipped to take on such a task, but then the congregation should look for senior elders with the knowledge and wisdom to serve as coaches,1  and the church must know that anybody can approach these trusted coaches to interact with anybody in deconstruction, who still seeks honest answers. 

In traditional churches, the leaders often think along fixed lines of communication and may never have considered ‘honest dialog’ as an option or important tool. They never learned to listen to people, who thought or taught differently from their own church, and since they are convinced they own the truth, they only know how to give a monologue to present their own line of argumentation. Any reasoning that provides a challenge for their own cherished view is seen as a threat, and all serious listening and processing is blocked. Ironically, this is what Martin Luther encountered in his life. Initially he was surprised and disappointed that the church leaders refused to search the Scriptures together. He was condemned as heretic, not because he twisted the teaching of the Bible, but because he refused to submit to the teaching of the church as the highest authority. 

“Progressive Christians” (or, rather Progressive “Christians”) may have a similar blocking mechanism towards anybody, who seems to cling to things that the Christian church adhered to for thousands of years. Again, this is the intolerance of today’s tolerance. 

2. Underlying Problems 

As mentioned, it is important to assess the current situation for the DP. In the early stage of exploration, there may be a lot of criticism, but gentle, well informed, clearly formulated advice may still be appreciated (even if it is countered with hostility). 

Read, study, apply, and preach the Bible in recognition of a Holy, Just, Loving, and Patient God, who has to deal with complaining, challenging, often rejecting children and students. And, when God demonstrated that their accusations were misplaced, often the people came to their senses and repented. The Bible is full of people, who had and uttered their rational or moral problems in accepting and following God. And, then God showed patience and sent spirit-filled people to help them reconstruct. 

Some long-time DPs may keep asking critical questions, while they refuse to change. After a while, it may be good to ask them: “If I really have the better arguments, would you be prepared to change your commitment?” It may well happen, that the DP has dug in so deep, that the honest reply is, “No, I just don’t want there to be a God to whom I should owe anything!” Even in many (deconstructing) churches, the time (has) come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear what they want to hear”. 2

3. Persistent Prayers 

Beside Jesus’ story of the persistent widow and her prayers,3  we have the account of Monica, the persistently (for 30 years!) praying mother of (Saint) Augustine. Later, he wrote this:4 

‘Like all mothers, though far more than most, she loved to have me with her, and she did not know how much joy you were to create for her through my absence. She did not know, and so she wept and wailed, and these cries of pain revealed what there was left of Eve in her, as in anguish she sought the son whom in anguish she had brought to birth. Yet when she had finished blaming my deception and cruelty, she resumed her entreaties for me.’ 

Praying mothers may also be inspired by Ruth Bell Graham’s book ‘Prodigals and Those Who Love Them’. 5

4. Maintain the (Whole) Truth 

In a culture that no longer has any real concept of God, the growing perception is that ‘god is not good’. So, when contemporary preachers to circumvent this lack of popularity, they can resort to modify the (concept of) biblical authority and the Spirit as its ultimate author. In a nearby church that seeks to cater to (international) university students, the sermon series is on “The Problem with the Bible”. The second sermon looked at the question: “Is God violent or peaceful?” The guest preacher apparently tried to uphold and defend the biblical teaching, but later it became clear that God at times had to be violent to actually protect the weak and innocent. There was no notion of God protecting his own Name and Kingdom, bringing judgement on people, who refused to submit to Him. 

Deconstructing churches want to be contemporary without being countercultural and even confrontational. They want to demonstrate God’s love for everybody, regardless of their lifestyle without emphasis on God’s holiness and wrath, when people, created in his image seek to destroy his Kingdom. They do not want to emphasize true doctrine, for this would be divisive and intolerant. And yet, this opens the door to all kinds of false teaching, which invites further deconstruction. Liberal teaching does not combat deconstruction, it facilitates the process. 

5. The honor of God; the purification of the church

The first humans, created in God’s image, listened to the deceiver, who challenged them about God’s goodness. Although God had blessed them with abundant resources, he had given them a test to see if they would respect the one tree that God kept as his personal possession. So, the enemy made the fruit of God’s private tree look very attractive and God’s goodness less attractive than it had been seen before. They fell for it, and although they were forgiven, the consequences stayed with them and are still with and in us today. 

Many other people, later, refused to seek and follow God. They would not recognize God’s blessings and yet, they cursed God when he took away some of his earlier provisions. Although God has much patience, especially for those who have received his Word and tasted his goodness, in the end he will not force them to real repentance. 

When one of our children wanted to live common-law with an unbeliever, I said, “Look, we love you as our child. But, if you value a relationship with someone who does not love Jesus over a loving relationship with Jesus Himself, we will still welcome you as our child, but we cannot embrace you as a true Sister in Christ. You must choose; choose wisely, with a view on eternity.” At first, she was upset, but -thank God- she reconsidered her options and today she is a godly mother in a Christian family. 

Nobody, who is under the regular preaching of the Word should be surprised that the Gospel, the message of the cross, the teaching of Jesus and the apostles always was countercultural, foolishness to the Greeks, and confrontational to traditionalists and liberals alike. Look, for instance, at the story of the brass serpent. Why did God’s children drag Him -as it were to court for negligence and murder? And, more remarkably, how did God convince them that they had been deceived by the ancient serpent again? How is it possible that they actually understood God’s righteousness in killing so many of his children? Seek and pray that you may know God. Will you listen to God’s ‘words of eternal life’, or will you leave him, too? 6

6. Hatred of hypocrisy 

Of course, Christians can bemoan the fact that many churches are running empty in the West. Nevertheless, we should at least consider the possibility that many or most churches had already deconstructed to the point of keeping the form of religion while they were losing the power of the Word and Spirit of God. In the meantime, the worship of Tolerance and Unity ensured that many people remained within ‘the Family’ for the wrong reasons. The result of such trends is obviously a proliferation of doubt but also a hatred of hypocrisy. And, this is actually a good thing! While many bemoan the apparent loss of Christian influence, God may actually use these times to purify and strengthen his church. 

Although we must show love and patience to anybody, who begins to question the historical Christian faith, we must not try to persuade cynical objectors to remain members in the church. God hates hypocrisy and people in the pews who do not love him with thankful hearts. If some ‘beloved children’ pressure their parents and churches to accept them as Christians, while they insist on living in sin, we must remember that the true disciple must make some hard choices. Will we love God more, even than our own children?

There comes a point that a deconstructing Christian is no longer a Christian. If their hatred of hypocrisy is consistent, at that stage DPs must admit they are no (longer) Christians. Progressive ‘Christianity’ is not historical Christianity and its message is not good news, for there is no other Gospel (Good News). Take it or leave it, but don’t pretend you have only put another wrapper around the same old Gospel. We have a close relative, who told me that much of the Old Testament is not the (inspired) Word of God. Why? Well, death by stoning is a terrible thing and no loving God would demand this for all kinds of minor trespasses, as the Old Testament would suggest. I countered that we know God through his Word, and if you only accept the mercy of God while you reject his holiness and righteousness, you have created another god. We will still respect you as a relative, but -please- do not call yourself a Christian. 

7. Build a strong structure; build on solid ground 

Another good thing about the challenges of deconstructing people is that it forces us to reconstruct our own beliefs in the light of the Bible. For about 25 years, I was an avid supporter of Creation Science. Authors like Alfred M. Rehwinkel, Whitcomb and Morris, and later Ken Ham, and Margaret Helder fascinated me since they seemed to provide a biblical perspective on difficult issues about the origins of the rocks and their fossils. Yet, when I began to find many serious problems in their theology and science, I went through a process of deconstruction. Some church leaders kept pushing such work in order to provide a biblical alternative to secular science. Yet, by promoting some bad ‘alternatives to secular science’, they actually helped to lay the groundwork for later deconstruction. 

8. Provide solid biblical preaching 

Although our Lord Jesus and his disciples (by his Spirit) provide us a fuller revelation of the character of God, their teaching was anchored in the record of the Old Testament. And in those books, we find a treasure trove of stories on the topic of deconstruction. 

So often God built something beautiful and (his) people tried to destroy it. So often God showed them the power of his faithful love, but soon thereafter the recipient of his grace complained against him, accusing him of a lack of love, unfair treatment, unreliability, and leading them into trouble. And then, God reminded them of Who he is and all the blessings he had given them. They required ongoing reconstruction on their views of their own identities and the character of God. This is what we need, so that we may know what to say to those who challenge us about the character of God. 

1. The elders are given the mandate to watch over their souls and they will have to give account for this! Hebrews 13: 17. 

2. 2 Tim. 4:3. 

3. Luke 18: 1-8. 

4. St. Augustine: Confessions.

5. https://billygraham.org/story/ruth-bell-grahams-5-truths-on-prodigals-and-those-who-love-them/ 

6. John 6: 60-69.

Deconstruction and the Church 6: The Falling Dominoes of Deconstruction, part 2

 

6 The Falling Dominoes of Deconstruction II 

4. The Experience of Suffering 

One of the most common challenges in apologetics1  is the question about suffering. Having read a fair bit about the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, the Rwanda/Congo genocides, warfare and slavery throughout the ages,2  I am amazed when someone claims that “People are basically good.” Although most people would agree that ‘it is wrong to harm other people’, almost all people do not hesitate long to modify this claim with ‘unnecessarily’ or ‘unless I feel that they harm me’. When our power or reputation, health or wealth are threatened, most of us would sooner or later accept the ‘necessity of hurting others’. Study political history or competition in business and you should find tons of examples. And look at ‘Cancel Culture’, which often justifies harming others in order to enforce their own agendas.3 L’histoire, se répète! 

So, why does God allow people to harm and hurt each other? Many good reasons can be given and have been given. God is… 

 • trying to bring people to turn from destructive sins to seeking him. C.S. Lewis wrote, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” 4

 • having patience before evil (and, essentially, all people who don’t seek to honour their creator and provider are evil) to be destroyed and -ultimately- people and societies to self-destruct. The Lord does not delay his promise (to return and remove all evil and rebellion), as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance. 5

 • working in us to make us more effective as his witnesses in experiencing his grace. The apostle Paul was given ‘a thorn in the flesh to facilitate his faithful ministry.'6  Suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. 7

 • allowing people freedom to make bad decisions, thereby exposing the evil within the world and themselves and the inability to save the world by human efforts. 

On the other hand, consider this: 

• If there was no suffering, how would anyone feel the reality of sin and feel the need to seek God? 

• If there was no God and demons, how would that help us explain the existence of suffering? 

5. The Future Hope 

Giles argues: 

‘If you live long enough, like me, you’ll start to notice an embarrassing yet consistent string of failed prophecies concerning the return of Jesus and the End of the World. After a while, it gets hard to believe that anyone really knows what the Bible says about this topic at all and you begin to lose faith in your leaders, Bible teachers and pastors who just keep making these predictions, or falling for them.’ 

The Bible teaches us that nobody knows the day or moment of his return.8  Therefore, if there is a string of false prophecies, there must be a string of false prophets.9  Peter already warned that, in the last days, scoffers will challenge the return of Jesus.10  People may argue that, since Jesus never did return in the past two thousand years, it will not happen in the future. This is like the Turkey’s Fallacy, where the turkey said the day before Thanksgivings Day, “The master never killed and butchered us, so, why would tomorrow be any different?”. 

6. The Church of Christ 

According to Giles, the church today no longer looks like the early Christian church; in fact, it has adopted pagan traditions. As a result, it is hierarchical and oppressive. The Bible clearly warns about authoritarian leadership and control in the church.11  So, if there are churches that lord it over others or try to legislate beliefs or ways of living -and such churches exist! - then, they need repentance and Reformation. On the other hand, if there are members who want to be accepted and respected as followers of Christ, while they persist to go -in teaching or living- against the clearly revealed will of God, then the church cannot and may not accept them as true believers. In spite of abuses in many times and places, this has been the basic churches’ commitment throughout the centuries. 

In summary, the six concerns are: 

• ‘There are examples of contradictions, apparent errors in time and names, and other aspects that show that our Bibles are not perfect.’ Well, God did not dictate his message to the biblical authors in the words of the King James Version. And biblical perfection is not the basis of our faith, for even with imperfections the message does not change. 

• ‘Hell is not so bad as evangelical Christians say.’ Well, Jesus spoke more about Hell than about Heaven, and though most of the language is symbolic (as the details are probably beyond our limited comprehension), it is very clear -for everyone who takes Jesus to be the expert on the topic of ‘hell’- that it is a well-deserved and actually self-chosen destiny of incredibly suffering and agony. What else do we really need to know? 

• The idea of God’s Son being sacrificed to pay for our sins is a late theory that suggests that God is guilty of cosmic child abuse. Well, the truth of the Atonement was believed by the followers of Christ in the first decennia after Jesus’ Ascension and -although it is foolishness for those who cannot or will not believe-, it is the most wonderful fact for those who have eternal life by faith on the ground of Christ’s voluntary sacrifice. 

• Why does God allow suffering? Suffering is directly and/or indirectly the result of rebellion against the Good Creator, Provider, and Sustainer of all life. God has patience and does not (yet) destroy all who do evil (and, who has never done anything evil?), so that must be seen as good news. Because we see evil, we are encouraged to search for what (or Who) ultimately defines ‘good’. When we make or buy something, we consider it ‘good’ if it serves the purpose it was made for. So, the ultimate question must be: “Who made us, for what purpose?” We need suffering in order to earnestly seek the (Source of) Good. 

• Many so-called Bible teachers and prophets have ignored Jesus and have predicted the time of Christ’s return. Why does this discredit the Bible or our faith in Jesus? Study the Scriptures, for people lose their faith for lack of knowledge. 12

• Although Christians are radically changed by the indwelling Holy Spirit, this is not total and perfect change during our earthly lives. If it was, then we could save ourselves and boast about it. Yet, when ‘Christians’ or ‘churches’ fail to show humility, love, and a willingness to dialog with those who ask sincere questions, this should lead us to study the Scriptures and to seek a living church. Those who are disappointed with the humility and loving patience of their leaders must also examine themselves to see whether they live up to their own standards. 

1. from the Greek word ‘apologia’, referring to the giving a rational explanation for our Christian faith 

2. 'recent' publications you may (not) want to read: Jason K. Stearns: Dancing in the glory of monsters, Christopher R. Browning: Ordinary Men, and Kevin Bales: Disposable People. 

3. “The rationale … is that physically violent actions, if used to shut down speech that is deemed hateful, are not “acts of violence” but, rather “acts of self defense”. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. The Coddling of the American Mind. (Penguin, 2019) p. 86.

4. from The Problem of Pain, chapter 6. 

5. 2 Peter 3:9. 

6. 2 Cor. 12:7-10. 

7. Rom. 5:3-5. 

8. Matthew 24:36-44, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3,2 Peter 3:10. 

9. If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. Deut. 18:22. 

10. 2 Peter 3: 1-7 

11. Matthew 20: 24-28; Phil. 2: 1-8. 

12. Hosea 4:6.

Deconstruction and the Church 5: The Falling Dominoes of Deconstruction, part 1

 

5 The Falling Dominoes of Deconstruction I 

Ken Giles writes about the six pillars of Christianity.1 These are six common Christian convictions, which are often thought to be the foundation of the Christian faith. In the age of secularization, these convictions are (often successively) challenged to establish a ‘Progressive Christianity’ that is significantly different from the convictions of ‘Mere Christianity’ that were held by most Christians for about two thousand years. When these fundamental truths begin to totter and to tumble, it easily triggers a chain reaction like the classical ‘domino effect’. Giles thinks this is a good thing to pursue. Alisa Childers responds to him in a discussion of these six points.2  I will split this topic into two blog posts, each covering three of the six. 

1. The inerrancy of the Bible 

We may have grown up in a church that always insisted on the ‘inerrancy of the Bible’, without a clear explanation of the meaning of the term. Therefore, young people may have grown up with the conviction that ‘There are no errors in the Bible.’ Since the Bible seemed to be the ultimate authority and source on ‘who or what God is’, it is no wonder that this would be the first temptation Christians get to face in the process of deconstruction. Giles writes, 

“If your Pastor has ever told you that the Bible was 100 percent accurate about everything and if even one thing was proven false, then the entire Bible would be worthless.” 

Yet, the concept of inerrancy is not about the possibility that there might be ‘errors’ (according to a critical analysis), but rather that it is entirely reliable for the purpose of knowing God, knowing our identity and dependence on Him, and how we must and can be saved by faith by his gracious rescue plan. 

It is not really constructive to base your faith on the hearsay that the Bible is ‘without error’. Let us look at two other ways of constructing a deep respect for the biblical reliability. Note that in both cases the foundation of the Christian faith is ultimately not the Bible but Jesus himself, and we must look to him to inform us how we are to view the Bible. 3 

While Kathy Keller was young,4 she knew that God existed, but growing up in a mainstream church she had never learned to base this conviction on the Bible. She writes, 5

“It wasn’t until college that I met intelligent believers who accepted the Bible as God’s Word, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” 

She wrestled with the authority and inspiration of the Bible for several years, until she realized from studying the Gospels that Jesus trusted the inspiration of the Old Testament and promised the inspiration of the New Testament. She continues, 

“If I trusted Jesus to be who he said he was, why wouldn’t I also trust his view of the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures? This was a game-changing realization for me… now that I trusted God’s Word as truth, written to aid my flourishing and not to diminish it, my choices needed to be submitted to Scripture. When my choices and God’s commands clashed, he won.” 

If you love Jesus, you will love the Bible and in loving thankfulness voluntarily submit to its teaching, even when the rationale is not (yet) fully understood. I believe it was Francis Chan, who once said, “If the Bible told me to stand on my head, it would not make sense to me, but I would still (try to) do it in love of God and respect for his Word. 

Yet, I have heard theologians and preachers talk contemptuously about some of the apostolic teachings, like 1 Peter 3: 1-6, and if this kind of talk is tolerated over time, it seems only logical that it leads to (further) deconstruction. 

When Alisa Childers went through a period of deconstruction, she was shocked to see other church members take a delight in ‘all the exciting new things they were learning’, as they were led by their pastor (!) in destroying the historical teachings of the Bible and the church. 6

Sean McDowell,7 in an interview with Alisa Childers,8 responds to the question of the role of resurrection in deconstruction. Sean argues, 

“Let’s keep the main thing the main thing. If the resurrection (of Jesus) happened,9 Christianity is true; if it didn’t, it’s false. It’s really that simple. A lot of people start deconstructing their faith when they find (what they think is) a contradiction in the Bible or they can no longer believe the Bible is inerrant. And that’s then the crack that leads them then to chucking their entire faith. Yet, even if there were contradictions in the Bible while Jesus rose from the grave, Christianity would still be true.” 

2. The justice of God 

Giles starts this point by stating, “Once you start to doubt the absolute accuracy of the Scriptures, it’s a short walk to questioning the validity of Eternal Torment in Hell for those who don’t pray the prayer and join the Christian club.” It’s interesting off the bat how he describes the Church of Christ as a club that one joins by reciting the sinner’s prayer; it’s clear that Giles neither knows Christ, sees the Kingdom of God, nor understands the church as it is supposed to function. His arguments appear to be from the Bible, yet -in my experience- the concerns about the fact that Jesus takes “Hell” very seriously is seen as a moral problem, not a rational one. When we read about the plagues that must come upon the earth before God’s Kingdom will be restored, we see 10  that some people acknowledge that God is righteous and justified to bring these plagues upon the earth, while others curse God while they refuse to repent. The same is true today. People who don’t know or seek God see themselves as innocent and God as a wicked monster, if indeed he would cast the unbelievers into hell. They do not see and acknowledge all the blessings they have received from God and are convinced that they could happily live without God and his blessings (not realizing that this -in essence- is “hell”). Tim Keller would say with C.S.Lewis, that hell is what the wicked people choose themselves. 11

3. The Atonement 

When we read the story of Abraham from the perspective of Jesus, the (true) Son of Abraham, we see that the ‘cutting ceremony’ of the covenant,12  in which the two parties are to walk the path of blood left Abraham standing at the side, while ‘a smoking fire pot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between’ the cut-up animals. Later, when Abraham was tested on his sacrificial love, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his beloved son and promised that He himself would provide the perfect sacrifice. 13

So, after Pentecost, the apostles understood that God sacrificed his Son to remove our guilt and reconcile us to Himself.14  Again, Giles suggests that it took centuries for Jesus’ followers to come up with this ‘theory’. 

What is the big obstacle? It’s the foolishness of the cross,15 which was already viewed as an abomination in the time of St. Paul. An early graffito was found in Rome, mocking Alexaminos for worshiping a crucified God. In this cartoon (see below), Alex’s god is shown with the head of a donkey, clearly mocking the message of the early Christian church. It still is folly for those who are on the road to perdition, while for the followers of Christ it demonstrates the power of God’s love. 

1.https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2019/08/the-6-pillars-of-religious-deconstruction/ 

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_mCUi4pHWo. 

3. Alisa Childers also learned to follow this pattern. Another Gospel? p. 164-171.

4. Kathy Keller is the co-founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. 

5. Kathy Keller- Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles- a case for gender roles in ministry. Zondervan, 2012., p. 10, 11. 

6. Alisa Childers. Another Gospel? A lifelong Christian seeks truth in response to progressive Christianity. Tyndale, 2020. p. 24.  

7. https://seanmcdowell.org/. 

8. https://www.youtube.com/watchv=nJyLkfoxGYY&ab_channel=AlisaChildersAlisaChilders. 26 – 27:30 .

9. See: Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, 2004. and: http://isaac-smit.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-resurrection-foolishness-to-greeks.html. 

10. Rev. 9: 20, 21; Rev. 16: 9-11 

11. Tim Keller tweet: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it....No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it." C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce. 

12. Matthew 1: 1. Genesis15: 17, Jeremiah 34: 18-20. 

13. Genesis 22: 12-14. 

14. For instance, Romans 8: 32; and in the early creed, recorded in 1 Corinthians 15: 3, Galatians 1: 4, Hebrews 9: 26. 

15. 1 Corinthians 1: 18.

Deconstruction and the Church 4: The Triggers of Deconstruction

 

4 The Triggers of Deconstruction 

Deconstruction in a traditional church can be the moral thing to do. If a refusal to examine the church’s teaching in light of Scripture is frowned upon, and if there is pressure to just conform and fit in, then we are not building the Church of Christ. 

And when it comes to deconstructing Christian faith, everybody must examine themselves to determine whether they love God with all their heart and mind, energy, time, and money or whether they really want to live for other things (read: idols), like family, happiness, wealth, business, career, or status. If they find being-a-Christian oppressive or burdensome, they should earnestly seek to know who God really is or confess their unbelief and break with the church. God hates a church filled with hypocrites; it is a dishonor for His Name and over time such a church will collapse and self-destruct. 

Be intellectually and morally honest! I prefer to have friends, who are pantheist or atheist, and who are honest about their convictions than those, who insist they are Christians of the progressive type. But, if you still have honest, real questions, pray to God for a serious Christian who can coach or mentor you during this time so that when you make a final decision, it will be a well-informed one. 

Listening to various people online, who talk about (their) reasons to break with the Christian faith, it seems that there are a few basic patterns. Trevin Wax discerns two categories of doubts and struggles. 

The first relates to the truth claims, which includes doubts about God’s creation, Jesus’ miracles, and his death and resurrection. Related to that can be doubts about the reliability of the Bible as God’s Word. The emphasis here lies on intellectual obstacles. Indeed, many consider Christian teaching as irrational and absurd. 

The second focuses on the goodness or fairness of biblical teaching. Especially, in light of critical theories, Christian teaching is commonly viewed as a major obstacle to social progress and human flourishing. Often, it has been said that pride (in various forms) is the greatest obstacle to revival. Ecclesiastical pride stands in the way of church revival and personal pride stands in the way of sanctification or transformation by God’s Spirit. 

 • Often, deconstruction involves a personal frustration of being controlled by their church community. In traditional cultures, there may be little room for personal opinion, expression, and lifestyle. The only way to be accepted, and especially to be respected, is to toe the line of expected behavior. If these restrictions are too fierce and control is too strict, it will be tempting to rebel for many, who insist on personal processing and evaluation of doctrine and life. 

On the one hand, this can be an insistence of total personal freedom that then becomes incompatible with the sacrificial love, required for community living. On the other hand, for the church to flourish, it must encourage personal struggles in order to facilitate strong, personally appropriated faith. It also prevents traditionalism, where leaders and parents can no longer adequately explain or defend the rationale for their rules for doctrine and life. 

 • Others deconstruct on the basis of personal experiences or feelings. In a proseperity-gospel-church, people can finally come to feel utterly disappointed through dashed hopes: if strong faith must result in material blessings, and this does not happen, there must come a time that people just give up. Similarly, if faith is especially linked with feelings, and one comes to the valley of the shadow of death, the lost joy can easily make people lose ‘their faith’. 

In this context, we should consider Jesus’ parable of the sower and the soils.1  Although we are called to spread the good seed everywhere, we are warned that many places will never bear fruit. In the case of our examples, however, we also must recognize that churches with poor preaching must share the blame for raising false hopes and missing the purpose of the Christian life. 

 • For those who wrestle with ‘truth claims’, they often have adopted a ‘scientific mindset’ that presumes there is no God who created and controls the laws of nature and that the only way to acquire knowledge comes through scientific inquiry and not through ‘listening’ to God’s revelation. This mindset cannot accept the existence of miracles that seem to go against or beyond the observed laws of nature. Yet, although the resurrection of Christ is rejected as impossible, the evolution of life from non-life, moral-rational humans from animals, and living cells from a primordial soup are considered plausible, even though they are just as impossible in view of the observed laws of nature. 

While they take for granted the incredibly minute likelihood that complex life could form on earth, they like to stress the apparent inconsistencies or paradoxes in the Bible. Consider the biblical teachings that God is absolutely in control and free and that human beings have the freedom and responsibility in moral choices, they may conclude that the two are mutually exclusive and therefore false. Yet, in their pride they insist that God must be so small and simple that our minds can comprehend the fulness of his glory. 

 • In the current situation in the west, the greatest obstacle to the Christian faith may no longer be intellectual problems but moral concerns. Old Testament stoning, slavery and genocide, Jesus’ teachings about judgment and hell, and at the end an apocalyptic barrage of terrible judgments all look quite primitive to the postmodern, ethnocentric mind. A dear Chinese friend, who always seemed open to the Gospel, over the years deconstructed to a form of western Buddhism. If the God of the Bible condemns people to hell, and Chinese parents may have ended up there, she could not believe in such a god. Since there is no absolute truth and truth is constructed by every beholder, why not construct or follow a religion that claims there is no hell or punishment for evil. Ironically, New Age and Hinduism teach that departed souls, in realizing their evil lives, desire to be reincarnated as seriously handicapped people to get a better chance to pay off for earlier ‘sins’.2  This sounds like a different, yet very real, concept of ‘hell’, not at the end of this life, but when the soul is forced to start over and try again, in more miserable circumstances than before. 

At the root of it all, most people reject their Father-God, who created them in His image. And then, not unlike the ancient Greeks, they create their own gods, in their own image. And as they do so, in their audacity, they think they are actually more righteous, merciful, and loving than their Heavenly Father, whom they have refused to seek. Study the Old Testament prophets with an open mind, and imagine Yahweh’s reply to such an attitude! 

Sean McDowell, during an interview with Alisa Childers,3 shares how at one time he had a fairly long chat with a small group of Christian teens. They all seemed positive, Christian young people, and then Sean asked them, “Why are you a Christian?” The answers he got ranged from ‘I feel at home among Christians’, ‘My parents raised me Christian’, ‘My friends are Christian’, and ‘It makes me feel good.’ Sean felt strongly that teenagers with such rationale might easily turn to deconstruction, when they would end up in a different peer-group or cultural community. If they wanted to feel good and ‘at home’ in their new environment, they would have to. During the interview, it was concluded that strong or mature Christians must have come to a strong, personal conviction of their sinfulness and need for a Savior, and must have wrestled with competing truth claims that led them to the conclusion that the Bible is reliable, that the Gospel is indeed the truth. 

1. Matthew 13. 

2. Ruth Montgomery: Herald of the New Age. 1986. p. 156. Also, Ravi Zacharias: Jesus among other gods. 2000. p.83.

3. https://www.youtube.com/watchv=nJyLkfoxGYY&ab_channel=AlisaChilders

Deconstruction and the Church 3: The Background to (Large-Scale) Deconstruction

 

3 The Background to (Large-Scale) Deconstruction 

Over the last century, a wave of secularization has swept over the western world. This process started much earlier already, especially during the Age of Enlightenment, but since WWII in Europe and about 1980 in North America, the predominant culture has become post-Christian. Tim Keller observes that, “While religion was broadly seen as a social good, or at least benign, increasing numbers of people now see the church as bad for people and a major obstacle to social progress. Traditional Christian beliefs about sexuality and gender are being viewed as dangerous and restrictive of people’s basic civil rights.” 1

Giving this secular environment, it should become obvious that God’s Word is seen as countercultural. In previous centuries, the church was keenly aware of its minority position and the secular opposition, but today most churches apparently seek to be ‘attractive’ and ‘culturally relevant’, which is thought to imply that we must be tolerant to be contemporary, not obviously different and countercultural. 

Let’s look at some of the broad cultural trends that have attributed to the current situation. 

1. Increased mobility

When we grew up in a strict-conservative church, most of us lived in ‘splendid isolation’. We had our own church, schools, newspaper, political party, Bible study groups, political and social clubs, choirs, etc. Since I was a teacher, my first jobs were also within this same group of people, which had its own distinct subculture. So, naturally we had outspoken bias against “all the others”, with sentiments of disdain as well as fear. 

As the community of faith is exchanged for a totally different environment, all the earlier convictions and biases, that appeared self-evident had to be reconsidered and often reconstructed. Geert Mak writes about his father,2 a Christian Reformed pastor, who -after spending time in Japanese captivity in Thailand- was abhorred to read that one of the theology professors claimed that no one could enter Heaven by doing ‘good works’ apart from true faith in Jesus Christ. Although the Bible clearly teaches this, the pastor thought it presumptuous of the theology professors to know the will of God and inconceivable that wonderful Buddhist women, who shared their precious food and water with them dirty guys would not benefit from the grace of God and therefore be excluded from the bliss of Heaven. Since about half a century ago, it became possible and affordable for most people to take their holidays abroad. This was one way in which the walls of isolation were breached as people got to know other friendly folk, often in a relaxed setting. And so, the whole population started the process of deconstruction. 

2. Internet and Social Media

An even greater mobility is offered now through social media. If radio and T.V. brought secular thinking and living into the daily lives of Christians, eroding the traditional values over time, social media now allows (young) people to interact with the thoughts and convictions of peers from all kinds of backgrounds. 

Some thirty years ago, a close relative asked me to record or copy the video “Dirty Dancing”.3 She had watched it with other girls from our church. Seeing the title, I was suspicious about the message of this video, so I watched a few short clips. I asked her what (she thought) the movie was about. She insisted it was just an innocent story. I shared with her my idea that the underlying message seemed to be that if you really like someone (of the other sex), you celebrate this ‘love’ by having sex together. To my surprise she agreed with my perception, but somehow, she had never considered this sinful or potentially corrosive to sexual purity as God would see it. 

Today, anybody with critical questions, interested in exploring alternative views on church-related issues and feeling threatened discussing this with mature Christians in the church community can easily find kindred spirits in cyber space to share their deconstruction process. And so, they transfer to a more agreeable community. 

3. The waning respect for authority

When we were young, most church members would prepare for Bible study by reading a devotional commentary by some pastor in our churches. So, when we would be discussing a passage or raising a question, often somebody would just read a few sentences from the church-approved study material, so that we all would know the answer. I thought this was very frustrating, as it killed a real discussion and discouraged us to do our own research with Bible and concordance. Nowadays, in most such meetings nobody should try to share the ideas of reliable scholars, for everybody must construct their own truth, sharing what they ‘feel” about the passage. Quite regularly, I would hear conversation stoppers, like, “You’re judging!’ or ‘I cannot imagine that God would make a problem about such things’. 

As part of my personal Bible research, I often like to consult with the findings of the founders of the Gospel Coalition. These men are from different church backgrounds, yet they can effectively cooperate in studying and sharing biblical teaching, where they seek to submit to the apostolic teaching. Over a period of some twenty-five years, I have found their teachings almost always biblical, yet neither traditional nor liberal in approach. So, if I am addressing a related issue -either in conversation or in writing- I like to insert helpful quotes, with reference to the source. Yet, in recent years I have been criticized for doing so, as if quoting a theologian makes me see him or her as an infallible source or pope. 

God, the Holy Spirit, has blessed the church with gifted people, men and women, for various tasks and roles, and we would be foolish not to value these. Everybody learns and gleans from other people, and it is good to keep track of our sources and to share these to help others. Yet, in the current postmodern world, there is no absolute truth and even church leaders sigh that, giving the multitude of personal interpretations and views, the Bible has become ‘a very difficult book’.4  What makes you think you have superior insight in the views you hold- regardless of your biblical references or the quality of your reasoning? 

We have already started on the next cause: 

4. the outworking of postmodern thought. 

When I took my first hermeneutics class, the prof started with a simple sketch of what it involved. “There is an ancient author, embedded in his culture, writing a text… and now, here are you as modern reader, embedded in your culture. How do we interpret what his message means for us in today’s culture?” I was surprised, for -although I realized the author wrote in and for his culture, he did not write from that culture, but from the perspective of God, and his perspective was rarely on the same page as the culture of that time (not only the pagan culture, but often the culture of God’s people). In other words, the unique character of the Bible as God’s inspired Word appeared to have been shelved in this literary analysis. When I asked the professor where God was as author, he replied that that was coming later, but somehow, I never heard that part. 

It was my introduction to the new way of interpreting the Bible. Observing a shift in ideas from Old Testament to New Testament (like, from accepted polygamy to monogamy as the only acceptable form of marriage), modern interpreters often argue for another, post-apostolic shift, as if it is our mandate to extrapolate from the apostolic teaching to see how that ought to be adapted to our (post)modern world. In this process, however, the apostolic teaching is no longer the real norm for us, today. Actually, we are then at great risk that today’s cultural (read: secular) ideals become the goals to which the apostolic teaching must be aiming. 

This then becomes a powerful tool, like an interpretive crowbar. Finding some uncertainty about Paul’s teaching about head coverings for women, the conclusion is made that all Paul’s teachings are culturally colored and maybe rejected for us, today. 

A few years ago, newspapers reported that scientists found that drinking wine increased the chance of getting cancer. A colleague and brother explained to me that here was another example how we ought to be careful in taking the apostolic advice too seriously, for if Paul had known ‘these facts’ then, he would not have recommended Timothy to drink some wine. Therefore, if Paul had seen how today’s gay men can live decently and faithfully together, he certainly would not have rejected or condemned this. Some extreme forms of postmodern thinking are now found in critical theory and the pressure for us to be woke. 5

5. You become what you consume

Paul warns the church in the worldly city of Rome not to conform their thinking and living according to secular society, but to have these transformed by the Spirit of God.6  Yet, the only way to do that is to be more informed by God’s Word and Spirit than by the talk and walk of the world that does not reckon with its Creator and Provider. Perhaps, we ought to do this exercise: For a few weeks, record all the time we are tuned in to secular opinions, whether blatantly or subtly expressed, from colleagues, friends, family, and neighbors, through radio, TV, newspapers, and Internet and do the same for the time we are exposed to Bible reading, godly sermons, Christian websites, like Desiring God or The Gospel Coalition. I would dare suggest that most Christians or ‘Christians’ today are far more exposed to godless ideas and opinions than to godly instruction. So, over time we can expect the erosion of biblical convictions and opinions. And, when we then hear someone argue that Peter or Paul thought differently, we might shrug our shoulders and bemoan the ‘fact’ that some people are not with the times. 

6. My people perish for a lack of knowledge

When we follow modern western thinking, convinced that all slavery is always bad, and then see how Paul and Timothy volunteered to be slaves of Christ, we shudder. If we have been convinced that men and women are at all times interchangeable, we revolt when the apostolic teaching insists that women may not be elders or preachers in the church. When we realize the brutality of stoning someone to death, we protest when we read how often the Old Testament demands that someone be stoned to death. 

Then, the God who revealed Himself in Scripture cannot escape our judgment, for then we are convinced we are more loving, more righteous, and more merciful than God. Or, we conclude that the Bible is not really the God’s reliable self-revelation in which he effectively communicated his character and will to the church of all times and places. 

Before we get to this stage of deconstruction, we had better study the Old Testament, like the book of Exodus. Time and again, God’s people accused God of being too cruel or too demanding, until God showed them His, (the True) perspective of the situation. 

1. Introduction to ‘How to Reach the West Again’. 

2. Geert Mak, De Eeuw van Mijn Vader (Amstel Uitgevers, 2005), p. 466 

3. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092890/

4. 2 Peter 3: 16 – Paul’s letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 

5. https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/06/07/my-woke-employees-tried-to-cancel-me-heres-how-i-fought-back-and-saved-my-nonprofit/

6. Romans 12: Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Deconstruction and the Church 2: The Pain of Deconstruction

 

2 The Pain of Deconstruction 

Although the outcome of deconstruction is usually experienced as liberating, the process is often experienced as painful. In this post I like to explore why this is so. I think it is important for church leaders and Christian parents of critical children to think about these things. 

Depending on the nature of the deconstruction, it often involves (to some degree) a paradigm shift. In other words, it involves a restructuring one’s personal identity in relationship to questions like: Who am I? Who or what is “god”? What is unique about the human species? Is there an absolute morality? Can I accept the traditional teaching (of church, parents, Bible) regarding these things in light of contemporary cultural convictions and scientific teachings? In the process of comparing ideas and convictions (truth-constructions) and replacing some of these, there is often an experience of Insecurity and loss. The philosophical basis of one’s personal identity is shaking and the new ideas are first experienced as alien, thus threatening, and the whole experience is not unlike the grieving that is experienced with the passing of a close relative or good friend. It takes time to restructure the (perceived) reality to achieve a new stability and sense of peace. 

Aside of the internal paradigm shift, there are aspects of loss in terms of our relationships. Perhaps we can distinguish aspects of conscience, community, and culture. 

Conscience 

When I started to listen to and learn from Baptist leaders, I was abhorred to learn that many (if not most) in my church refused to see Baptists as fellow Christians. In our church, we were convinced that -just as in the Old Mosaic Covenant children were included in the people of God (as symbolized in circumcision)-, so children of believers were automatically included in the New Covenant. Therefore, they should be baptized and accepted as members in the Church of Christ. Since the Bible was clear on this (!), obviously the Baptists were seen to reject the Word of God and therefore no true believers, and a Baptist church could not be seen as a genuine Church of Christ. Quite a few leaders would no hesitate to label such churches ‘false (or fake) churches’, which actually implies they were seen as ‘Synagogues of Satan’. 

When I publicly rejected this -and some other (informal) teachings in the church-, I lost my teaching job and my wife and I were formally treated as those, who in doctrine and life gave evidence that we were unbelievers.1  So, when I started to attend a Baptistic seminary, my church leaders told me that they saw this as evidence of my hardening in sin. Also, my father, who had celebrated the successful completion of a secular M.Sc. study had nothing positive to say about me attending a Baptistic seminary. The first day I attended, my conscience made me feel badly out of place. I felt totally alien, and had serious doubts whether I was doing the right thing before God, since I was obviously rejecting the “faith of the fathers”. Now, our consciences are certainly a tool of God’s Spirit to warn us about straying from the will of God. On the other hand, they can be hijacked by well-meaning parents and church leaders to make us feel guilty about non-essential things. 

Community 

When people deconstruct, this does not only involve a shift in thinking, in accepting what is true and/or good, but it also involves a social deconstruction. 

Read 1 Peter 4: 1-5 and see what happens when someone embraces the Gospel: their (former) friends find it strange that the recent convert no longer seeks and loves the things they used to do together with them. If their converted friend does not leave these friends too early, he may be a person of peace to share the love of God, which gave him a new hope and joy and purpose in life. 

Read about the conversion of a Muslim to the Christian faith, like Nabeel Qureshi’s account, and you recognize what a social sacrifice had to be made. For many Christians, Jesus’ words may not really penetrate, that his followers must be ready to accept the shunning or even death threats by family and friends in order to fully follow Him. 

Especially in smaller, rural, or more traditional situations, belonging to a church community is a major component of one’s identity and life. So, it is a huge risk to openly question or criticize their common traditions or convictions. In our traditional church denomination, the common idea was that the six days of creation had to have been 24 hours long. Personally, I knew theology professors and pastors, who had come to other convictions, yet they knew that it would have been suicidal for their status in the church if they had shared this publicly. It was not open for honest, brotherly discussion. I have been called a theistic evolutionist and an unbeliever when I shared my doubts about the exact length of the creation days. Also, I have been warned by good friends in the Reformed church not to search the Scriptures on the issue of infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism, as this would probably cause a lot of pain and hardship for me and the church. If people are so controlled in their walk and talk, will they not become mere people-pleasers, rather than God-pleasers? 2   And, if they, for a longer time, live separated from this community (and the primary reason for adherence is removed), will they not be swayed by information and ideas they had never heard or considered before? Or, if their whole community is slowly deconstructing, will they not continue to follow such trends as true people-pleasers? If tradition and control dominate the church, how can there ever be a reformation or revival? 

While traditional churches may run the risk of an underground deconstruction, (even though superficially they remain orthodox), liberal churches typically experience communal deconstruction. They may rightly condemn the ecclesiastic tribalism and pride of some traditional churches in their idea that they have a monopoly on the Truth. Yet, this is often a prelude to relativism and the tolerance of all kinds of heresies. Rather than seeking the renewing of their minds by God’s Word and Spirit, they often reject the clarity of Scripture and the authority of the written record of the apostolic teaching. So, they gladly grasp for modern hermeneutics in order to explore new ways of reading and interpreting their former norm for faith and life. In this kind of setting, it is the one who refuses to deconstruct their faith, who must face marginalization, alienation, and rejection in ‘the church’. This is the common pattern of ‘the intolerance of tolerance. 3

Culture 

Again, every church denomination or congregation has its own particular culture, which defines what one is to believe, say, and do. From this cultural standpoint, others are evaluated and judged. As one of my seminary professors quipped: ‘On Sundays, the Reformed folk look at the Baptists, shaking their heads; ‘Look at them! They claim to be Christians, yet after church they go to a restaurant! can you believe that?’ Meanwhile, the Baptists look at them and wonder how they can claim to be Christians, if they drink beer and wine and even smoke a cigar or pipe. These may be caricatures, but there are of course other dividing issues. While most Reformed churches see themselves under the Law of God, in that they are required to obey the Ten Commandments, most Baptists seem to hold that New Covenant believers are free from the old code and its curse, yet, as they love Christ, they desire (in loving thankfulness) to obey his teaching.

1. Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 85: .”… According to the command of Christ: Those who, though called Christians, profess unchristian teachings or live unchristian lives, and who after repeated personal and loving admonitions, refuse to abandon their errors and evil ways, and who after being reported to the church, that is, to those ordained by the church for that purpose, fail to respond also to the church’s admonitions— such persons the church excludes from the Christian community by withholding the sacraments from them, and God also excludes them from the kingdom of Christ. 

2.  Gal. 1: 10 * For am I now trying to persuade people, or God? Or am I striving to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 

3. D.A. Carson. The Intolerance of Tolerance. (Eerdmans, 2013)

Deconstruction and the Church 1: The Background and Forms of Deconstruction

1 The Background and Forms of Deconstruction 

The term ‘deconstruction’ was coined by French philosopher Jacques Derrida. I have not yet studied his views or insights in depth, so I love to learn more to check if my understanding is correct. One focus for him seems to be on binaries: contrasting concepts, such as darkness-light, water-earth, chaos-order, evil-good, male-female. Derrida finds that there is no strict boundary between the two poles and that it is rather fluid over time (or between cultures). This is indeed true in our fallen world. Yet, when God ‘constructed’ the cosmos, he used separation to bring order into the existing chaos. And, when the rebellious one sought to destroy this, God promised that he would continue to protect -and eventually restore- the cosmos. And, in this context, he promised to maintain the essential antithesis of good vs. evil until the end. 

Derrida essentially follows through in postmodern thinking where absolute truth does not exist. When we use terms like darkness-light, male-female, or evil-good, each one of us has our own idea of the referenced reality of each term. Partially, this is based on the mental construction, given to us in our families, communities, and cultures, and partially it is formed by our own experiences, preferences, and feelings. Critical observers will notice the effects in (post)modern art and culture, like in movies or in books. If you are familiar with Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, you will have noticed how the concepts of good and evil are slowly brought from enmity to harmony. At the end of the story we find no happy homecoming, the long-time hope that there were loving parents ‘out there’, still in control of the events is dashed, and there is no happy homecoming after all. Rather, good and evil decide to journey together, like Beauty and the Beast.1 The antithesis gradually morphs into a synthesis, like ‘Yin and Yang’. 

When most people talk about deconstructing ‘the’ faith, however, there is a more specific process in view. Alisa Childers has been there. She writes: “Deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way to 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.” 2

This is not restricted to (young) people, leaving the church or the Christian faith. In fact, it can happen at an older age and it can happen from any culture, tradition, or group-association. Biographies can be very revealing on this process. 

Fritz Schumacher, author of Small is Beautiful- economics as if people mattered, grew up in a German, nominal Christian family. Deconstructing the nominal faith seemed not too hard, and the critical thinker Fritz became an atheist. As a student, he began to see the growing individualism and materialism in the modern, western world. When he was in his late twenties, he deconstructed from his privileged background and became a communist. However, over time it became clear to him that communism was not truly charismatic. Rather, it was full of resentment and hatred towards the privileged people. So, about fifteen years later, he deconstructed from communism to Buddhism. And then, surprisingly, twelve years later he committed himself to the Roman Catholic faith. 3

Nabeel Qureshi was a devout Muslim from a Muslim missionary family. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, while at a collegiate forensics’ tournament, he met David Wood, a Christian with strong convictions, who had spent the previous five years studying the Bible and learning to follow Jesus. They became friends. Since they both took their religions seriously, they spent a lot of time searching for the truth. It took more than four years of deconstruction and reconstruction before Nabeel surrendered to Christ. He wrote a fairly detailed report of this experience in his book “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.” 4

Although I grew up in a Christian family and today, I am a committed follower of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, I grew up in quite a strict, traditional Dutch Reformed church, where most other church traditions were seen and treated as apostate imitations of the genuine church. In my late twenties, I began to critically examine what I had been taught at home and church in light of the Bible. So, over time, I began to question some of the early convictions, partly because I experienced that Christian young people from (the bad) evangelical church were often more godly in their talk and walk than my peers in the ‘superior’ church. My deconstruction process was ratcheted up after our migration to Canada, where the associated group of Reformed churches was still as traditional and strict as ever. Although, in private discussions, I found kindred spirits in the church, there could be no open dialog with our church leaders. When I was about forty years old, I made a fairly thorough inventory of my concerns, which led me to write a fairly critical analysis.5 The church then labeled me a heretic, and we were placed under church discipline until we left about a year later to join a more accepting Reformed church. When I was almost sixty, we were back in The Netherlands for a stay of three years. After some searching, we requested membership at our former church in my home town. There, I discovered that en masse the church had deconstructed, so that (almost) all churches and ideas were tolerated and the apostolic teaching was actively re-interpreted to ensure the church would have a contemporary character and appeal. We were not prepared to deconstruct in this way, and after some research and attempts to share our concerns, we decided to join a Baptist church in town. 

It has been said that the word deconstruction refers to a combination of destruction and (re)construction. This is helpful for when we reject a certain teaching or culture, we implicitly adopt a new teaching, a different culture. So, when we are talking about deconstruction, it is important to explore what exactly is being destructed (and why) and what we are constructing to take its place. Hunter Beaumont argues 6 that we all need to discern between what the Bible teaches and how this is worked out in a particular church culture. In other words, we must distinguish between deconstructing the Christian faith and a cultural deconstruction, which keeps clinging to the apostolic teaching of the church of all places and times. In traditional churches, however, little or no distinction is made between these forms of deconstruction, so cultural deconstruction (asking sincere yet critical questions about the doctrine and/or life of the church) is considered negative or threatening and is therefore strongly discouraged. This can easily lead to a brain drain, where critically thinking believers are shut up or shut out. To prevent trouble with church leaders, family, and/or friends many will keep quiet, so that hypocrisy is fostered. 

When I was a teacher at a Reformed high school, some students asked me whether it was permissible to mow one’s lawn on Sundays (in light of the fourth commandment), I replied that God does not explicitly forbid this, but it seems like a good tradition to keep. Later, the school board deliberated on this incident for hours, after which they sent me a stern warning that I not say or teach such ideas ever again. It seemed to me that the (good) church tradition was put on the same level as the revealed will of God. 7

Most Christians will agree that not all deconstruction in the church is bad. In fact, many would agree that it is essential that we encourage young people to do as the Bereans did,8 and test their church’s doctrine and preaching in the light of the Bible. If they are to be(come) strong, committed believers, who can stand the tests of faith, they must personally wrestle with and appropriate the Christian doctrines. And the church must facilitate this process in gentle dialog and wise coaching. And, if the church keeps reforming, it must engage as Body of Christ in an ongoing deconstruction (read: Reformation) to face the challenges of the secular age with the truth of Scripture. Yet we must be on our guard, for there is much deconstruction that challenges the teaching of the Bible. In the next post we must study this process in greater detail.

1. http://isaac-smit.blogspot.com/2015/01/beauty-and-beast.html 

2. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2000), 24. 

3. Barbara Wood, E.F. Schumacher, his life and thought (Harper & Row, New York, 1984). 

4. Nabeel Qureshi. Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus. A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2014. 

5. Isaac Smit, Praying for Rain. A Call for Renewal in the Canadian Reformed Churches. (Mount Hope, 1998)

https://sites.google.com/site/pr4rain/praying-for-rain-the-book 

6. Hunter Beaumont, Don’t Deconstruct, Dis-enculturate Instead, chapter 4 in ‘Before You Lose Your Faith: Deconstructing Doubt in the Church’ (The Gospel Coalition, 2021) 

7. A similar experience is related in this blog post: http://isaac-smit.blogspot.com/2013/07/tradition-and-will-of-god.html 

8. Luke describes in Acts 17: 11, 12 that the Jews in Berea listened intently to Paul’s teaching, after which they studied the Scriptures to verify whether his teaching was reliable and true.