Billy Joel once wrote, or at least once sang, a song called “Honesty” with these lyrics: If you search for tenderness It isn't hard to find You can have the love you need to live But if you look for truthfulness You might just as well be blind It always seems to be so hard to give
First, major kudos for referencing Billy Joel's song! Love it.
Second, thank you for this series. As one who once gave a sermon entitled "The Purpose of Deconstruction Is Reconstruction," I have so appreciated your thoughtful, thorough approach to this topic; coming from you, that depth of assessment is not the least bit surprising.
Third, in this particular case, I want to offer one word of gentle "push back" as it relates to the doctrinal discussion.
I just spent several days at a "Reconcile and Reform Conference" hosted by Matthew Vines and The Reformation Project, part of which included sharing my (and Vintage's) story of becoming inclusive/affirming while holding doggedly to our confessional Christianity and the authority of God in scripture. Matthew himself gave a keynote address that, if taken for its content only, would qualify in any confessional environment as a powerful proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In his work to champion the advancement of LGBT+ inclusion in the church, Matthew has seen churches deconstruct into nothingness, or deconstruct into something wholly other than historic, confessional Christianity, and it grieves his heart. The Reformation Project's three core values are love for God, love for the Bible, and love for the Church. That's one of the primary reasons I am so proud (and grateful) to be associated with them.
I say all that to say: while it may be true in some deconstructing circles that doctrine is of lesser importance, it is also true that in others - despite certain doctrines/interpretations being challenged - adhering to credal, confessional Christian doctrines is of PRIMARY importance.
Incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, the authority of God in scripture...all of these are and were central to my faith, and I would never have changed my mind on the subject of human sexuality and marriage if it meant sacrificing any of them. As it turns out, the more seriously I take them, the more it enables me to repent, on this subject, and on others.
As Matthew quoted Fleming Rutledge in his keynote address, "Prune the tree, but don’t cut so much off that you kill it." Many who are deconstructing don't want to kill the tree, they simply want to prune it so it can produce more good fruit.
Love a lot of your points here. I think a lot of people initially walked away because of a shallowness that you describe here. Then, the sense that, "maybe this authority that I appealed to all my life isnt perfect" allows the person to begin a deconstructing process, question the doctrines that the church has built itself on. It doesnt take much prodding and poking to unravel a lot of the pillars of belief. A cartoonish view of Penal Substitution, biblical inerrancy, hell, the end times are all pretty easy to explain away or question the evangelical understanding of. I wouldnt underestimate how important these are to most evangelical churches and how unsatisfactory they now seem to many that have deconstructed. The cultural issues you mentioned are a necessity but there must be some kind of reckoning with in the church to address the "fundamentalist" approaches to a lot of these core doctrines.
First, major kudos for referencing Billy Joel's song! Love it.
Second, thank you for this series. As one who once gave a sermon entitled "The Purpose of Deconstruction Is Reconstruction," I have so appreciated your thoughtful, thorough approach to this topic; coming from you, that depth of assessment is not the least bit surprising.
Third, in this particular case, I want to offer one word of gentle "push back" as it relates to the doctrinal discussion.
I just spent several days at a "Reconcile and Reform Conference" hosted by Matthew Vines and The Reformation Project, part of which included sharing my (and Vintage's) story of becoming inclusive/affirming while holding doggedly to our confessional Christianity and the authority of God in scripture. Matthew himself gave a keynote address that, if taken for its content only, would qualify in any confessional environment as a powerful proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In his work to champion the advancement of LGBT+ inclusion in the church, Matthew has seen churches deconstruct into nothingness, or deconstruct into something wholly other than historic, confessional Christianity, and it grieves his heart. The Reformation Project's three core values are love for God, love for the Bible, and love for the Church. That's one of the primary reasons I am so proud (and grateful) to be associated with them.
I say all that to say: while it may be true in some deconstructing circles that doctrine is of lesser importance, it is also true that in others - despite certain doctrines/interpretations being challenged - adhering to credal, confessional Christian doctrines is of PRIMARY importance.
Incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, the authority of God in scripture...all of these are and were central to my faith, and I would never have changed my mind on the subject of human sexuality and marriage if it meant sacrificing any of them. As it turns out, the more seriously I take them, the more it enables me to repent, on this subject, and on others.
As Matthew quoted Fleming Rutledge in his keynote address, "Prune the tree, but don’t cut so much off that you kill it." Many who are deconstructing don't want to kill the tree, they simply want to prune it so it can produce more good fruit.
Love a lot of your points here. I think a lot of people initially walked away because of a shallowness that you describe here. Then, the sense that, "maybe this authority that I appealed to all my life isnt perfect" allows the person to begin a deconstructing process, question the doctrines that the church has built itself on. It doesnt take much prodding and poking to unravel a lot of the pillars of belief. A cartoonish view of Penal Substitution, biblical inerrancy, hell, the end times are all pretty easy to explain away or question the evangelical understanding of. I wouldnt underestimate how important these are to most evangelical churches and how unsatisfactory they now seem to many that have deconstructed. The cultural issues you mentioned are a necessity but there must be some kind of reckoning with in the church to address the "fundamentalist" approaches to a lot of these core doctrines.