The Destruction of Deconstruction

There is a new “old” term that has been breaking its way into the language of Christian culture. You may have heard of someone saying that they have “Deconstructed” or more specifically, they have “Deconstructed their Faith”.  This word no longer holds just the meaning of “taking something apart” as was first attributed to it in the 1860’s but has taken on a new meaning.  The more prominent meaning we know today emerged in the 1970s through the writings of French philosopher Jacques Derrida. He used “Deconstruction” to describe a critical approach to analyzing texts, primarily focusing on how language itself shapes meaning and sought to undermine the idea of a stable, singular interpretation. Derrida’s deconstruction aimed to challenge binary oppositions like good/evil, true/false, and male/female. In his effort to expose the instability of meaning within these containers, he presented a groundwork for these paradigms to no longer have a fixed meaning but rather be open to multiple interpretations and suffer from an endless play of language. This language deconstruction method led to the philosophy of critiquing “power structures”. This allowed users to analyze how the established texts within a structured construct could be used to present a lens that showed a desire to maintain the existing power dynamics and drive inequalities in society.

We are now seeing this challenging of established paradigms grow to multiple constructs throughout our modern culture. But when it comes to Christianity, it has taken on a whole variety of applications due to the already diverse belief populous within Christianity. In their book “The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It’s Destructive, and How to Respond”, Alisa Childers (formerly of ZOEgirl) and Tim Barnett (Host of Red Pen Logic) break down this definition into two types of “Deconstruction” when it comes to Christianity. The first is that some Christian scholars and theologians have adopted the term “Deconstruction” to mean “Critically examine Christian texts” as they analyze the Bible and other Christian writings. The second, but more pervasive use, is when an individual uses a loose form of the method developed by Derrida to look at the elements of their belief structure based on their current circumstances and inevitable walk away from “The Faith”.

In a sense, the first can be a healthy form of deconstruction as it allows for you to build a strong foundation for which your everyday decisions are evaluated against. In fact, that is part of the purpose of this website, Simplifying Christianity. Every article is “Deconstructing” the layers of cultural traditions to reveal the truths that they were established on and show them in their most simplified form, their base meaning. But this “Deconstructing” is using the foundational roots of Christianity to show where modern terms and teaching are deviating from the original intent. In their book, Alisa and Tim make the stance that, because the meaning of the word has been hijacked by philosopher Jacques Derrida and current culture uses it to define it as a term for a self-lead rejection of their faith, it is better that the Christian world refrains from using the word to describe the evaluations of Christians belief in a healthy way. They make the case that, because of the nature of those who use the term, it is better not to play in the say language pool. In substitution of using the word “Deconstruction” for the evaluation of beliefs, they suggest “Discernment” or “reformation” as a more appropriate term to use.

This is a fair assertion. While deconstruction, discernment, and reformation all involve critically examining established notions and beliefs, they differ in their methods, goals, and implications. When it comes to deconstruction, the method it uses is to focus on analyzing the inner workings of texts and concepts, exposing internal contradictions. Its goal is to destabilize fixed interpretations and open up possibilities for new understandings. By doing this, the Implications can be unsettling and lead to uncertainty or even loss of one’s faith. Those who perform this type of textual criticism are almost always doing it against the texts and concepts that are adaptations and evolutions of the original documents. Very few utilize the original roots of Christianity to create a stable point to search from.

Discernment, on the other hand, uses the method of carefully weighing evidence and information from various sources to make informed judgments about ideas and behaviors with the goal of distinguishing truth from falsehood, right from wrong, and make wise choices based on established values and principles. This allows for healthy decision-making based on these established values and often strengthens one’s commitment to their core beliefs. The main idea with discernment is criticism towards the situation with an “absolute truth” as the comparison point. The practice of this can lead to rigidity and exclusion if not practiced with openness and humility as some of the texts and concepts that are being used as comparison criteria may be unbased or distorted from their original roots. This is where Reformation comes in.

With Reformation, the main focus is identifying and correcting flaws or errors within an existing system or structure and working towards improvement from within. The goal here is to revive, restore, or renew something to a more ideal state, while still preserving its fundamental principles. This can lead to positive change and renewal but requires a clear vision of the desired outcome and a willingness to confront established power structures. In other words, it is peeling back the layers of adaptations throughout time and getting back to the heart of the thing being criticized. So, by these definitions, reformation is where the objective of Simplifying Christianity lives.

When it comes to evaluating your beliefs as a Christian, you are most likely going to be facing some sort of event that will trigger you to start applying criticism to the event (discernment) or your framework that you use to evaluate it with (reformation or deconstruction). Alisa and Tim call this moment a “crisis”. Ultimately, it is up to where you place your anchor as to which path you will take when you start your criticism. If you anchor in the foundational truths of God, you will likely land with a renewed understanding in your faith as God is fully searchable in his truth and is not contradictive in his nature. But if you anchor in your own understanding, or a social construct developed in opposition to God, then you will most likely walk away from your faith in discouragement. If you perceive tension while trying to apply your framework to a “crisis”, it is human nature to start questioning that framework and determine if it is the correct scale to measure by.

With the world slowing down during the events of Covid in 2020, people were granted the time to reflect on their frameworks rather than responding with established tropes. When the world is moving fast, few people take the time to reflect and will rely on the frameworks they have absorbed. This is why we saw so many people that were living in the currents of Christian culture claim “Deconstructionist” or “EXvangelical” during the worldwide lockdown.

When it comes to someone choosing to deconstruct, Alisa and Tim are quick to point out that this is no different than the very nature of sin itself. Much like we talked about in the origin of sin (“We Overcomplicate Sin”), it has more to do with choosing self, over choosing God. That is the action that caused the separation that we talk about in that article. In other words, because a deconstructionist is using themselves as their anchor point, they will always find themselves in a state of separation from God. This is also why the authors talk about the process of deconstruction by these people feeling like a loss or death.

It is OK to question the nature of the things you are taught as a Christian, but you must be comparing it to the absolute truth of God. Because the foundation of Christianity was based on the mental framework established by the Christ (“How Then Shall We Live”). We as humans have continually adapted the ways we express what it looks like to Love God and Love Others throughout the years, and it has left room for the need of “Reformation” to take place. But the use of Deconstruction becomes destructive as most deconstructionist place the foundations for their argument on something that is a derived tool of a Christian belief rather than its original intent. Without discernment, a deconstructionist will misplace the anchors from Christ and shift them to their own mental framework. Without proper reformations taking place throughout time, simplifying the original intent of Christ’s teachings, the burden of combing through superfluous language falls upon everyone.

Ultimately, we as Christians (followers of the framework established by Christ), our responsible to maintain the original intent of Christ. This means that it may require you to call out a wrong belief when observed, whether that is through reformation or dialogue with someone deconstructing their faith. It may also mean that you need to dig to the root of the topic and understand the grounds of it for yourself.

In Alisa and Tim’s book, they do a good job of establishing the difference between an absolute truth and a personal opinion. They pull off of others work to show how the general philosophy of the world has moved the truth of Christianity from fact to opinion. They also do a great job of walking you through how to have those conversations with a person currently questioning the principles of their faith. I highly recommend you take a look through their book and get a grasp for what our current Christian culture is struggling with.

One response to “The Destruction of Deconstruction”

Leave a comment