I myself "deconstructed" from Christianity and fully embraced rational materialism. But my skepticism didnt just "turn off" when I deconstructed. As a rational materialist, I still tried to discover the truth about the origins of the universe, the meaning and purpose of life, and see if pure logic could truly lead to sound morality. As a rational materialist and an atheist I must accept that the universe and all its energy created itself out of nothing in a single moment for no reason. Accept that life has no higher meaning or purpose outside of biological reproduction, life is just tiny particles randomly colliding in space. That love is not a supernatural or transcendant force, but simply a chemical reaction in the brain. That human life is in no way sacred or divine, and we are not children of God made in His image, but rather we are just barely sentient chimpanzees. That I have no free will, that the universe is deterministic based on physics, and therefore my free will is an illusion and Im not a person with agency actively living life but rather a robotic automaton that reacts to stimuli passively experiencing life happening to me. That there is no such thing as objective "right" or "wrong" and "good" and evil" , just a collection of subjective experiential values. That even things like "men and women" are no longer true or real, and a man can become a woman by simply declaring he is one like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy! LOL In the end I discovered that I'm actually just way too skeptical to be an atheist or a rational materialist. I went all the way with worldy wisdom, studied what the great atheistic minds like Sam Harris have come up with, and I discovered that the wisdom of the world is truly, truly folly. And it is a deeply alienating worldview that asks me to set aside all the parts of my life that are most true and relevant to my experience as a human. Eventually I found my way back to the Truth. And when I returned to Him, sheepish and ashamed, He ran to me and did not reprimand me but scooped me up in His arms and covered me with His love.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/ than are dreamt of in your philosophy ". Shakespeare cuts both ways. Tho I am a Christian its very easy to see the world thru the eyes of atheism.
I had a very similar path as you. Learning to be skeptical of my skepticism was a turning point for me. I ultimately learned how little materialism had to support it philosophically (it’s almost incoherent; materialists say that only the material exists, yet often can’t even define what they mean by ‘material.’) Philosophers like David Bentley Hart really woke me up to the subject of Ontology and the Hard Problem of Consciousness, and how Materialism tends to sidestep these issues. I learned about “scientism” and the circular arguments that materialist atheists make, and became able to spot it. The historical evidence for the resurrection was a lynchpin for me. I was shocked with how much difficulty atheist scholars had in explaining the origin of Christianity in secular terms. While I don’t think it’s foolproof, the evidence got me close enough that I could make the leap of faith. (Faith, of course, no longer meaning ‘believing something for no reason,’ but rather ‘what you can reasonably put your trust in once you’ve exhausted the evidence.’)
Funny enough, I watched a bunch of 'deconstruction'/'deconversion' videos (there're so many out there) yesterday. John and Sean are right, all these people have broadly the same set of sometimes ridiculously shallow reasons to deconvert that repeat over and over again throughout all of their videos. Lot's of experience/emotion based ones + basic level Biblical doubts that could have been easily cleared out with a tad of research or a brief convo with a competent pastor/bible teacher. I agree with the fact that there's a bit of a lack of willingness to solve the problems, probably propelled by an already embraced predisposition to find a way out, instead of a desperate, agonising search for what is true in order to remain in lurking behind the scenes. I don't say this in a judgemental way. I struggle with mental health myself since I was little and I've faced the temptation to justify my dismissal of the tenets of faith in order to escape many times in the past. I do understand the pain and the anxiety of these situations, but praise God, he has never left me wanting when I wholheartedly searched for the reasons to believe. Thanks for this interview and looking forward to read the book!
Excellent observations, and another one I see is the need to "live out loud," because a man of convictions would tend to keep his thoughts to himself, turning them over as a gardener, looking for what might sprout next. I pray for progressive healing for your mental health. As a disabled vet, I know a little about that. A lot about that. Something about depression, though, it brings you to your knees, amen?
In the postmodern philosophical literature from which the term originated there is no "positive" deconstruction. Decon is a process of historical and linguistic techniques for subverting meaning.
@@TruthUnitesI'm encouraged to see Robert's generous donation. As an outside observer it's obvious that: 1. You understand & appreciate science. 2. You have exceptionally good critical thinking skills & are consciously aware of sound & valid argumentation. 3. You can operate within different [even contrary] paradigms, with epistemic humility. PS. Hi Robert W.. Gavin didn't pay me to.say, any of the above. lol =D I'm an 'ex-christian' who loves theology, philosophy, metaphysics etc.
@@TruthUnitesIf 'Creationists' attempt to burn you at the stake, we'll do our best to beam you back up to the Starship Enterprise before it's too late.
Been enjoying Sean McDowell's videos a lot recently. What a blessing to have this Biola professor willingly share his knowledge. And also wonderful to have the 3bof you on together 😊
How does this video only have 435 likes?! Super helpful video as I myself am going through some deconstruction of my Baptist views. Pastor Ortlund's videos have been super helpful for me in providing the right questions to ask myself. He always centers the discussion around Christ and the Bible. Loving the content!
It's so true that a lot of people who end up deconverting were never really christians to begin with, they never had the revelation in their life that Jesus is King they never had that moment where they fell on their knees.
34:34 ....I have been working on my presentation of the Gospel recently and these few sentences will help me greatly improve the way I have been wording things. Thank you!
Thank you for the book tip. I have been fascinated by this deconstruction topic and have been looking for a book about it that explains it but doesn’t just encourage people to leave the faith.
I would add, as parents, it’s good to pre-emptively discuss this with our children and teenagers for sure. Like Sean said, they can’t ride on the parents’ faith. Tell them that at some point, they will need to investigate for themselves and you will be there to help them along the way in the search for truth! Maybe explain why you believe what you do, and how you got there. Just having this “out in the open” helps our kids have the latitude they need to reach out and find their own real faith.
At a Christian Union QnA I was on the panel for I was asked a fairly standard question, "Do you ever question your faith". My slightly smartie pants answers: "yes, I question all the time. And the more I question and search for answers, the stronger my faith gets." Because Christianity is the truth
Good conversation to be having. I am struck by the poverty of faith in the deconstruction stories. One's faith is not in being a Christian, that is your own identity, but in Christ's identity. The first duty of a Christian is to believe and receive: 1. "This is the work of the Father, that you believe in the one He has sent." 2. "If you do not allow me to do this (wash your feet), you can have no part with me." So, there's a common narrative in all deconstructions/apostasies. That could be addressed. How many were put in leadership positions too early. How many had a fruitful prayer life. How many ever had a personal answer to prayer. How many understood that the Church is the body of Christ on earth. How many were oversold ideas about the Bible, about their soteriological position, about the goodness of their tradition, etc. How many were concerned with a worldview but not a heavenly view. and a million other questions, which are valid to all of us. We all need the freedom to ask questions, and good apologetics to provide some answers. I applaud brothers Ortlund and Mc Dowell for their continuing commitment to ecumenical dialogue. Unity is the Lord's express will, and in fact the Church suffers a tumultuous infancy in her present state: '1. "I would that you be one, that the world might believe." 2. "...until we come to the unity of the faith, in the knowledge of the Son of God, unto the mature man, unto the measure of the fullness of the stature of Christ." But while the book is timely, and therefore necessary, it can hardly be probing. This is a tip of an Evangelical iceberg. The Titanic here is the soft Calvinism which always pervaded the American Protestant landscape. Brother Ortlund is proof enough. Though he understands many things, he remains (technically) a congregationalist. Where is our authority structure in a truly ecumenical sense? RUclips serves as the forum of theological debate and accountability. But as much as I like RUclips, it suffers from an inherent confirmation bias. It feeds you what you want to hear. And we humans suffer from tribalistic instinct. We want to be part of choir which amens the choirmaster. So, the willingness to engage across denominational barriers is doubly needed. To brother Ortlund, I would ask that you soften the blow to Catholics. You are correct in your conclusions, but your appreciation for the reasoning which lead to Catholic innovations is poor. Ancient obsessions are not easy to appreciate. The Theotokos was seen as a necessary corollary to several paradoxes-- the hypostatic union, the stain of original sin. Perhaps start at the beginning and teach some history. Give God's people the facts and let the truth prevail. I hope that you read this. Your comments section usually fills up fast. Again, the amens go right to the top, diluting the effectiveness of this platform.
@robertstephenson6806 Thank you for that amazing reply, my lovely brother in Christ. I think the Trinity is troublesome, but essentially sound in this: Whatever Jesus is is as good as God, at least as we are capable of apprehending, and as worthy of worship as any concept of God we are likely to have. Whatever the Spirit is, is of God in some essential way, or it's something else, and scripture simply doesn't support the "elseness" of the Spirit. ("The spirit is the Lord.") So we're left with a paradox, and Greeks being attuned to such things, as well as trinities of gods, lets be honest, saw a pathway out of the more ridiculously heretical versions that were going around, and the rest is History. Which you know a lot about, perhaps too much. I say this, because it's essential to pray everything through. "All things are sanctified by the word of God... and prayer." Without the second one, we will never access the meaning of the first. I'm not accusing you of not praying, but you might not have the word of the Lord on these matters, at least not all of them. So, your theory that those who disobey the Lord's teaching and will be judged is sound, but only to a point. For He teaches: "I do not condemn you. You have one who condemns you: 1. Moses (the law) in whom you have put your trust 2. Your own words 3. My word which is not my word but 4. the word of the Father who sent me Ok. Digest all that and get back to me. I really admire your story and I think you have a lot to offer the body of Christ. One of the best RUclips comments I've ever received. Top 10 for sure. Love to you and your family of faith: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."
@robertstephenson6806 Ok, brother, thanks for the Greek lesson. But, you're not taking into account the personhood of Christ who is the express "image of the godhead." And you're not taking into account Genesis, in which man (Adam) is made in God's image. Note how Paul appeals to the connection between the first Adam and "the last" or the second Adam, Christ. He does this in Romans 5: "He is a pattern of the one to come." and again in 1 Corinthians 15: "So it is written the first Adam became a living being; the last Adam a life giving spirit." This very verse is one that Augustine used to defend the Filioque, and his belief that all three members of the Godhead could be thought of as the Holy Spirit. I'm not so convinced. As you point out, spirit has a meaning, and holy spirit has a meaning. It is further complicated by the fact that in a couple of instances it lacks the definite article, "holy spirit," vs "the holy spirit." It is also neuter in gender but takes the masculine pronoun, at times, i'm not sure if this is the case always. So, those are some of the textual difficulties. If you are scholar you are free to ruminate at length. A disciple must be more rigorous in piety but less rigorous in knowledge. Admittedly, Paul is loathe to call Jesus God directly but he is not ashamed to call him Lord, and his usual pattern of speech goes: "One God and Father and one Lord Jesus Christ." Note well, it's not two Lords, but one, though no one would dare deny the lordship of the Father. And salvation is vested in the name of the Son alone: "There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby they might be saved." One may argue the Father's name isn't "under heaven," but that's beside the point, as we certainly are. Ok, digest all that and get back to me. Be brief. I don't need lots of cut and paste scripture. "Where many words are, sin is not wanting."
@robertstephenson6806 1. "Where many words are, sin is not wanting." 2. You see ME stringing scripture out of context? Give me the context, whatever you like, and I can bombard you ad nauseam. But this is not a game, my brother. You are toying with dark entities. Are you delusional enough to think the scripture speaks of YOU?
@robertstephenson6806 RE: context. Jesus wrestled Micah's lament that a house was divided against itself into a Messianic manifesto. Totally out of context.
If I did not receive Jesus in the Eucharist regularly, I would have dried up spiritually like all these de-constructors and left faith long ago. Who can bear to live in a spiritual desert?
May I suggest some improvements on "Look at Wilberforce"? The problem with "Look at Wilberforce (or other historical evangelicals)" is that we remember those guys *because* they were successful in changing society. And changing society simply isn't always going to be successful. We need to be able to accept that our society may fail despite our faith (challenging) but also that our faith doesn't depend on our society (liberating). Instead of Wilberforce, lets go back to Scripture. Let's talk about e.g. Isaiah and Jeremiah. During their time, Judah deconverted and became completely pagan and lawless. Did Isaiah and Jeremiah manage to stop it? No. Was society getting lost a proof that their faith was unjustified? No. Did anyone manage to turn Judah around? Yes....and that was Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon's soldiers. Are Jeremiah and Isaiah heroes of the faith? Yes! Or let's look at 1 and 2 Peter. They are *manuals* for not only surviving but thriving as a church in the face of persecution. Or Psalm 73. Or Psalm 37. This stuff isn't new, and we can go straight to the source on this topic, we have far better things than a few recent exemplars. We do need to stop linking our faith so strongly with the sinking ship that is the West.
What John stated about our political system in Canada is 💯% truthful. The vast majority of Canadians are “centrist” and are fortunate to have multiple parties representing centrist morals, values, and ethics. This certainly permits flexibility (ie: A Liberal or one belonging to the NDP, who holds very conservative views, has the benefit of finding various parties that represent/reflect one’s perspective on important issues - even though they do not belong to said party.) It was a brilliant end to this discussion! I remember how a 14 year old friend confided in me about having an abortion! I certainly was shocked due to her age…and…my Biblical view on the value of life certainly framed my perspective. However, I wish I had listened and supported her even more than I had at the time, as she was devastated following the abortion. Her mother forced her to have the procedure. It was extremely difficult for me understand how a mother would do this to her own child, for she had been a teenage mother. Obviously, her own personal experience influenced her reasoning as to why she thought she was doing the right thing in making her daughter terminate her pregnancy. If only, I had my Psychology degree and insight at 14! Perhaps I could have been an even more compassionate friend. Sadly, the daughter continues to struggle with forgiving herself 30+ years later. Fortunately, I’ve found ways in which to be a better listener with a more compassionate heart, for both my dear childhood friend, and many other teenagers throughout the years via my career. Ending the video as you did was very uplifting and true to how Christ lead his time on earth. Truly, a beautiful and appropriate ending!☺ May the Lord bless all those in this online community - along with you, your family, and ministry Gavin!🇨🇦xx❤xx🇺🇸
The people who are turned off by big E evangelicalism are not all young (I am 83). A lot of this discussion focuses on the individual. But I am not deconstructing my faith. rather I am deconstructing from a lot of churches who are sold out on big-E. It is very difficult to fellowship with others in church who on the other side and it is pervasive, such as the SBC. Kristin Kobes du Mez has written a geat book on the corrumping of the faith by Evangelicals. Gavin, thank you for this show which is becoming a very reliable source for me. Would love for you to interview Kristin du Mez. She shows that evangelicalism has already been corrupted BEFORE Trump came along, so it should have been no surprised that he was enthusiastically endorsed by Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Robert Jeffress of FBC Dallas. The goal of many Big E "Christians" is to turn America into a theocracy, run by white men.
Great discussion! Thanks for hosting this Gavin! I don’t understand this being a concern though if you’re coming from a reformed pov on soteriology. Also, like the Republicans or not (I certainly don’t), voting for a Democrat (that supports abortion, LGBT, etc) is simply not an option for a Christian
@robertstephenson6806 They’re all lovers of money, ‘equality gone too far’ is an interesting way to say satanic, and third parties are not feasible. I vote for the GOP even though they are far too liberal
Studiously following 1 Peter 3;15 to become a better witness for Jesus Christ often leads to deconversion. ruclips.net/video/12rP8ybp13s/видео.htmlsi=G9hdKf4U5M0g1jKf
Dr. Tony Evans book, “Kingdom Politics” is very helpful to discussions related to Christian activism in the context of the American political system within a constitutional Republic.
This is a very fascinating discussion. While I appreciate some of the nuances that Mr. McDowell and Mr. Marriott bring to this topic, I fundamentally disagree with a significant portion of what was said here, and with some of the implicit assumptions that I think are being made. As someone who has both undergone something of a “deconstruction” (I prefer the term “reconstruction”) process, and is also a young Christian in the generation which McDowell and Marriott seem particularly concerned with, I would like to voice one particular concern I had. I think McDowell and Marriot are both correct in their conclusion that perceptions about what the evangelical church stands for on social and political issues is a major driver in leading young Christians to deconstruct, and in many cases to deconvert. However, I think they are both incorrect in their framing of this issue. It is not that the church is too political, or that it overstates the importance and relevance of political issues - Gen z is, on the contrary, a politically hyperactive generation. We are very politically conscious and very politically outspoken. Rather, the issue is that the evangelical church is inextricably linked to the wrong kind of politics. The churches we were raised in were institutionally conservative, and so to deviate on any given social or political issue (abortion, homosexuality, transgender identity, capitalism, etc.) was not merely to disagree on a secondary issue, but to deviate from the true faith. One does not need to dig particularly deep to see just how significant the relationship between conservatism and American evangelicalism truly is. Russell Moore, a formerly high-ranking official within the Southern Baptist Convention, recently made headlines for some of his comments about what was going on in a lot of SBC churches. Some of these churches have become so deeply entrenched in conservative politics - particularly, the reactionary, populist flavor of conservative politics presented by Donald Trump - that when pastors would preach from the Sermon on the Mount, their congregants would confront them and accuse them of preaching “liberal talking points”, or otherwise suggest that these sorts of teachings are “weak” and ought to disregarded. As another anecdotal example, Redeemed Zoomer, an influencer that Mr. Ortlund has interacted with in the past, and who has become very popular among young, conservative Christians online, has an Instagram bio that reads “From Leftist to Christian,” wherein faith in Christ is being directly counterposed to a politically left-wing outlook. Republican politicians across the country have covered their campaigns and political agendas with the language of evangelical Christianity - we saw Mike Pence do this on the Republican debate stage a few weeks ago. Major far-right pundits such as Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh (who is a self-described “theocratic fascist”) and Michael Knowles (who called for “transgenderism” to be “eradicated from public life”) among many others, seem to have been widely embraced in evangelical circles. Mr. McDowell himself, has made a not-insignificant amount of videos pertaining to conservative political issues on ideas such as transgender identity, homosexuality, abortion, and the like. He has made plenty of videos in which he combats so-called “progressive Christianity;” in which he makes it clear that taking progressive stances on any number of issues is not merely secondary, but heavily indicative of the state of one’s faith. Alisa Childers, whom Mr. McDowell has collaborated on this very topic of deconstruction, has gone out of her way to publicly declare that Christians who lean progressive on certain issues - like the late Rachel Held Evans - are actually unsaved. These are just a few examples that I think demonstrate a wider, and very important point about evangelicalism that is relevant in discussions on deconstruction and deconversion. For many of us who came to think differently on these topics, it became clear that, whether evangelicals knew it or not, conservatism and evangelicalism had become nearly synonymous with one another. And because of that, our thinking differently about homosexuality, or about abortion, or capitalism, or egalitarianism, or whatever the case may be, became not simply a change in perspective, but a crisis of faith. Think of it as a house of cards. Taking out one card about, led to the collapse of the entire structure. If conservative Christians are afraid of losing young people, they need to isolate the extent to which conservative politics is explicitly and implicitly baked into their faith, and be more open to reviewing the biblicality of those ideas, as opposed to simply insinuating that those are defaults of good Christian faith, and that any suggestion to the contrary is the corrosive influence of a hostile, anti-christian, “woke” culture. There is so much more that I would love to say about this but I’ll leave it there. I hope that this does not come as overtly-hostile. And Gavin, if you are reading this, I’ve really enjoyed much of your work on Protestantism. Keep it coming!
You said “what the evangelical church stands for on social and political issues is a major driver in leading young Christians to deconstruct, or deconvert” So I say and? Our convictions have to align with the Bible/Jesus not culture. Since none of us created the universe we don’t get a say.
@@whiskeredtuna In the context of this video, deconstruction and deconversion are being treated as negatives which need to be addressed in some manner or another. I agree that our convictions have to align with Christ, but I am also inclined to think that mass deconversion is indicative of some internal problems, and I suggest that if evangelicals wish to curtail this, a biblically minded reassessment of the church's stances on some of these hot-button socio-political topics (christian nationalism, egalitarianism, immigration, etc.) is in order. Speaking anecdotally, these appear to be the principal reasons that young people are leaving the faith.
I believe I have recently arrived at what I believe is the root of the problem for me; the whole of my spiritual troubles of late. Having been deconstructing of late with an eye towards shoring up and reconstructing, I'm left questioning many aspects of my faith. Having grown up going to church my whole life, I'm strongly familiar with Christian terminology and periphery. I know how people who purport to be Christian behave in church as well as how they behave outside of church (for better and for worse). I have no trouble believing in Jesus, who he is, what he's done (with some aspects of it changing, depending on who you ask). My faith in God is more firm than it ever has been. What's more, I am strongly familiar with many aspects of apologetics. It's made it easier to place my faith firmly in our Lord. What's more, I have been granted the gift of teaching and can make all of these things easy to digest for others, too. Yet, it's dawned on me what it is that I lack so badly. See, I struggle with autism (high functioning). All of the assumptions that people normally can make, I do not. I am, at heart, someone who pretends to look like others. Much like a False Lilly looks like a Lilly or a hover fly looks like a bee, so do I look like a normal person. I have been so okay with that that it does not trouble me at all. Being able to blend in is a skill, after all. Yet, therein lies the issue at hand. I know how to LOOK like a Christian. But what exactly do I look like? I wouldn't be able to tell you. I do NOT assume that God's ways our like ours. I don't have such a way to compare against as I don't understand "our" ways. I do NOT assume that what I imagine is right, either. I presume my way is wrong out of the gate which is a part of my own pretending to look like you. So, then, here is the crux of the issue: How, exactly, does one Christian? I don't know how to Christian. Yes, yes, I know it's a noun and not a verb. Except that it is now! I know how to engage in certain Christian acts and believe certain Christian things ... but what does that even mean? I don't have an answer and I don't have anyone who has discipled me properly. What's more, at this stage, I don't know who to trust with said discipleship. It's a taxing place to be. I can't imagine ignoring this issue as it's a core problem. Because it's such an issue, I must ask what ought I do to learn and why? Where should I look and how can I evaluate what I've found? Who should I trust and why? Do you have any resources or advice on this subject set: How to Christian
Interesting that you brought up big Eva considering that on the other side they are heavily criticised for leaning left and punching right which has led to them also deconstructing.
Loved watching this. I was looking for some clarification. Does God only love a chosen few and hate the rest? Does he predestine those he’s chosen to hate before the beginning of time to hell?
Hi Michael. I didn't see any answer to your question and didn't know if I could be helpful but wanted to touch in it in case you haven't gotten any answers to that question. From what I have understood from the whole od scripture God loves the world and sent Jesus to die as sacrifice for anyone that would put their faith in Him. ANYONE. John 3:16. The Bible says he also doesn't wish for anyone to perish but wants anyone to be saved but throughout scripture there is this drumbeat to choose life or death, blessing or curses... and a warning not to harden your heart once you've heard the truth. So the holy Spirit works in a life and they are given revelation of truth and they have to respond to it. Does He know who will choose him and who doesn't? Well since he is past eternal and outside of time and the alpha and the omega and the beginning and the end He knows the beginning from the end so in that sense you are predestined, but not in the sense that you are damned against your will. The provision is there for your salvation. He provides it. He provides the revelation. He provides you with life and works in your life and you respond to him or you dont
Dr. Ortlund, I would like to hear a response (or several) to the channel Mindshift. He’s a Christian apostate who may be just as literate as you in church history and apologetics, yet he is highly critical of the core tenets of Christianity. He even calls you out specifically in some videos.
It actually is though. It’s in Isaiah 53, and is referenced throughout the NT as fulfilled in the death of Jesus. It may not be the ONLY concept behind our redemption (Christus Victor is a major part too), but substitutionary atonement IS a key part of the biblical and historical teaching of the apostolic faith. The wrath of God was poured out on Jesus on the cross, the One who became sin for us and was accursed on our behalf, according to Paul. Substitutionary atonement is non-negotiable for that reason. It’s Scriptural in both OT and NT, and it is also patristic.
@@MACHO_CHICO sure. Isaiah 53:4-6, 10 talks about the Lord crushing the Servant for the sake of others. Jesus speak of a dreaded baptism and cup that was coming His way in Matthew 20:22, and references this again in the Garden of Gethsemane. Paul speaks about being saved from the wrath of God by Christ’s death in Romans 5:9, and how Jesus became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21) and was cursed for us (Gal 3:13). Honestly, I reacted as strongly as I did because I was not sure if he was going in the direction of “Jesus’ death doesn’t matter, as I’ve actually heard that before.
ok so Americans have apparently created a new religious term during the past year called "deconstruction" and throw it in many RUclips videos but never giving any definition for the word. any chance one can be given? asking from Canada.
I noticed that too. Clicked the link and his name is John, so maybe he's using a relatives Zoom account since the last name is the same. Maybe a brother or something
My problem with evangelical christianity is its nihilism. It rejects the goodness of being in this world by turning it's back on this life and focusing on some imaginary "eternity in heaven ". Plato is the real prophet of evangelicalism and Jesus is squeezed in as the means of achieving escape velocity. Hence the ubiquitous apocalyptism of the movement.
I'm so happy for higher criticism. Before understanding it I will be moved by all the old testament affirmations from Jesus and feel confused. But there are big red flags that conservatives miss. Ever notice that almost all the OT affirmations from Jesus come from Matthew? It is the only place where Jesus says that the entire Torah is valid forever. Matthew's Jesus has been recognized by scholars for decades to be the most "Jewish Jesus" in a way that is not never matched by the original gospel Mark or John. Matthew edits mark to make Jesus much more Torah observant and anti Pauline. These are most probably not the words of Jesus but the agenda of the evangelist. And that's why the gospels are not reliable. The 4 gospels are an tit for tat fight about who Jesus was from the view of different communities and evolving theologies. Unfortunately, we in the present just do not know with any confidence what Jesus actually believed. Only what communities believed about him. Once you understand redaction criticism as the reason for the difference in the gospels there's just no going back to a conservative high view of scripture.
That said I think the guests here nail the main reasons for deconstruction and deconversion and the approaches mentioned here are thoughtful and helpful.
@@wingedlion17true - the search for the "historical Jesus" largely failed but you'd be ill advised to disregard the philosophical background of the German higher criticism. I'm currently reading David Friedrich Strauß "The Life of Jesus" and I plan on reading Reimarus. I already read Bultmann, Drewermann, Lüdemann and more conservative scholars like Martin Hengel, Carsten Peter Thiede, John A. T. Robinson, Klaus Berger and many others. And many of the redaction criticism or the search for "Quelle Q" wasn't really much more successful than the search for the authentic true words of Jesus. Like Albert Schweitzer put it, "they tried to understand Jesus and keep him here but he refused and went back into his time" (from memory). So, yes, the gospels are as much kerygma as they are history but one can try to understand the mindset of the first followers and at least find some ground in history. I mostly found Jewish scholars much better at this, like Pinchas Lapide or Shalom Ben-Chorin or Joseph Klausnitzer.
What? The other gospels contain many OT allusions/references. And many of the differences are due to the different audiences for the different gospels. Matthew speaks to the Jews. Mark spoke to the Romans. Luke was a Greek speaking to the Greeks. John wrote to everyone. So it's unsurprising that Matthew's gospel is much more concerned with Jesus's Jewishness.
@@MrSeedi76 it seems to me that higher criticism has moved past the early work by the Germans and critical scholars continue to realize that the gospels are nearly all literature. Too well crafted narratively for oral tradition and too contradictory to be part of some memory of Jesus’ teaching. The only thing they have in common is that Jesus was a righteous man who said some controversial things and ran afoul of the Jewish and Roman authorities and was executed. Beyond that, what can we know of the man himself? Paul never met him and speaks of the risen Christ in vision. The Christ of revelation is a horseman of bloody vengeance.
@@toddthacker8258 yes even mark quotes the OT , Paul quoted the ot all the time but was not Torah observant. Matthew though wants Jesus to be way more Torah observant and his birth narrative to the sermon on the mount, he is the new Moses. Anyone who tells you not to follow the law and the prophets (every last word) would be called least in the kingdom. less about faith and more about works.
Speaking of politicizing Christianity too much, I am reminded of the fact that there is not even a hint of politics in the New Testament. And the only time a politician is named in a personal context was when Jesus called Herod a "fox".
Russell Moore talks about pastors telling him about members of his congregation telling them that he should not preach on the Sermon on the Mount, because those are left-wing talking points.
Jesus made it pretty clear: "“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you.** " John 6:53 Sooooo many crucify Jesus again and again with abotrifacient contraceptives "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" Matthew 25:40 no wonder so many have 'deconstructed' the meaning of life!
Your comment points to the I think valid criticism that people have of the Catholic religious political right. The end goal of the Catholic right-to-life movement isn't banning abortion, it's banning all forms of contraception.
@@joeoleary9010 at a minimum requiring full disclosure of abotrifacient inducing contraceptives that their use can lead to the death of a living viable life - so that consumers can make a fully informed decision - and yes outright banning of any physical infanticide procedure!
@@garyr.8116 People should also be fully informed that 50% of all conceptions are naturally aborted by the female reproductive system. If God so designed females to lose half of all the lives within them....
What if you aren't deconstructing "faith", itself, but deconstructing "the faith"? I know Jesus is real, but I cannot find a coherent message in the New Testament--ie, I have an issue with having to do good to be saved, but also having to have the right motivation for doing good (ie, not out of fear, as if God is threatening me--which He seemingly is--but out of "love"), but also having to believe I cannot be saved by doing good.
The prevailing premise of this conversation between Gavin, and Co. is that genuine believers would not de-convert. I humbly submit that this is precisely the kind of answer I would expect from the cults. But John, (I think it was John..) does say something similar..a verse that reads "they went out from us to demonstrate they are not of us". A classic expression of the cult mind. I'm sorry..but that's how it seems my lights. Bless
Good point. Also, I'm not quite sure in what way believe even plays a role in what church to follow. Many who deconstruct don't lose their faith, only the faith in the particular church they're in. For often very good reasons. Maybe the churches should think about whether they're the ones who changed and not the people leaving them. I'm not American but I certainly wouldn't stay in a church where the pastor preached that Trump is the savior 😂.
@@jdoe97 Yes..I understand your point. But truth claims (which by and large are reasons why people de-convert) are not determined by pre-destination, or supernaturally inspired faith. Which again is why I say McDowell's comment only adds fuel to the question of whether Christianity is a cult the reality of which exists only in the mind of the believer, or reflects truth
@@thuscomeguerriero My fault. I wasn't clear to which sower parable I was referring (although the parable of the wheat and weeds is also instructive here as you pointed out). I was meaning the one with the different soils.
McDowell says the majority of de-converted Christians he's encountered never had what he would call a real conversion.. but rather an experience emotionally, or psychically driven. Imagine the faculty at M.I.T. (The most prestigious technical school in the world) arguing that conflicting conclusions argued for by a rival technical college only demonstrate a failure of true conversion? I mean, of all things to say McDowell's first lob against the opposition is "Well, you weren't really Christian"? Its so silly..
I think that's a fair point, as the "you were never really a believer/one of us/did the work" etc criticism is a common criticism that all movements throw at apostates. But it can be a valid criticism as well.
@@joeoleary9010 I dont see how really. That was the point I was trying to make in my post positing two rival technical institutes coming to different conclusions. Truth has nothing to do with loyalty, devotion..or a religious experience. People de-converting have Reasons for doing so..whether or not those Reasons hold up to scrutiny is another question. McDowell, however seems to believe that a real, and right supernaturally instigated conversion would mitigate against any possibility of such a thing happening. Imagine a debate..two opposing view points being represented..and one posits a failure of being born again as the source of their opposition. The other will look across the table and ask just what in the world they're talking about. Nobody converts to truth!! They see it, or don't is my point
@@thuscomeguerriero The truths of faith don't fall into the same category as the truths of engineering. People gain and lose faith for all kinds of reasons, and some gain faith not from "reason" at all but from compelling mystical experiences that defy unraveling.
@@joeoleary9010 Thats probably right..tho I'm not sure about the "defy unraveling" part. Religious Experience is unibiquitous..every tradition historically has had its mystical element (If in fact that mystical element is not actually the essence of the Religion..🤔.) Some people have the experience of past lives..or so they say..but who knows. Nevertheless, people who de-convert do so by and large after testing the claims of faith against counter evidence which leads to..or demands a different conclusion.
So sick of using Trump as an example of being a horrible person. Yea he’s immoral. He’s a historic figure and there’s various other reasons ppl choose to look past his wrongs. Not like if evangelicals had zealously voted for Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush it would’ve made them less hypercritical. Those politicans’ faults are just less visible than Trump’s. I hate even having to bring Trump’s name into this but it’s so annoying and it’s why I wish people would stop doing that. It’s like dragging nails down a chalk board. Otherwise great topic and video.
These 3 intelligent men are woefully under estimating our enemies. This chat has no substantive value. They should be specifically discussing preparation for the battle that is coming. You must fight for Trump or you won't have a country left to discuss faith, let alone Christianity.
I don't think this discussion needs to have anything to do w/ Trump. They are talking about deconstruction of faith, which is a danger w/ the very opposing of truth these days. This lie is making young people crazy, and undermining the foundation of our very Christian culture now.
So Christianity relies on who is the president? Someone should tell God about this troubling information because he birthed and raised the church in the middle of paganism.
I myself "deconstructed" from Christianity and fully embraced rational materialism.
But my skepticism didnt just "turn off" when I deconstructed. As a rational materialist, I still tried to discover the truth about the origins of the universe, the meaning and purpose of life, and see if pure logic could truly lead to sound morality.
As a rational materialist and an atheist I must accept that the universe and all its energy created itself out of nothing in a single moment for no reason.
Accept that life has no higher meaning or purpose outside of biological reproduction, life is just tiny particles randomly colliding in space.
That love is not a supernatural or transcendant force, but simply a chemical reaction in the brain.
That human life is in no way sacred or divine, and we are not children of God made in His image, but rather we are just barely sentient chimpanzees.
That I have no free will, that the universe is deterministic based on physics, and therefore my free will is an illusion and Im not a person with agency actively living life but rather a robotic automaton that reacts to stimuli passively experiencing life happening to me.
That there is no such thing as objective "right" or "wrong" and "good" and evil" , just a collection of subjective experiential values.
That even things like "men and women" are no longer true or real, and a man can become a woman by simply declaring he is one like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy! LOL
In the end I discovered that I'm actually just way too skeptical to be an atheist or a rational materialist. I went all the way with worldy wisdom, studied what the great atheistic minds like Sam Harris have come up with, and I discovered that the wisdom of the world is truly, truly folly. And it is a deeply alienating worldview that asks me to set aside all the parts of my life that are most true and relevant to my experience as a human.
Eventually I found my way back to the Truth.
And when I returned to Him, sheepish and ashamed, He ran to me and did not reprimand me but scooped me up in His arms and covered me with His love.
That is awesome-thanks for sharing 👍🏻
Dawkins: problem??
That is fantastic. God is good!
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/ than are dreamt of in your philosophy ".
Shakespeare cuts both ways. Tho I am a Christian its very easy to see the world thru the eyes of atheism.
I had a very similar path as you. Learning to be skeptical of my skepticism was a turning point for me.
I ultimately learned how little materialism had to support it philosophically (it’s almost incoherent; materialists say that only the material exists, yet often can’t even define what they mean by ‘material.’)
Philosophers like David Bentley Hart really woke me up to the subject of Ontology and the Hard Problem of Consciousness, and how Materialism tends to sidestep these issues. I learned about “scientism” and the circular arguments that materialist atheists make, and became able to spot it.
The historical evidence for the resurrection was a lynchpin for me. I was shocked with how much difficulty atheist scholars had in explaining the origin of Christianity in secular terms. While I don’t think it’s foolproof, the evidence got me close enough that I could make the leap of faith.
(Faith, of course, no longer meaning ‘believing something for no reason,’ but rather ‘what you can reasonably put your trust in once you’ve exhausted the evidence.’)
Funny enough, I watched a bunch of 'deconstruction'/'deconversion' videos (there're so many out there) yesterday. John and Sean are right, all these people have broadly the same set of sometimes ridiculously shallow reasons to deconvert that repeat over and over again throughout all of their videos. Lot's of experience/emotion based ones + basic level Biblical doubts that could have been easily cleared out with a tad of research or a brief convo with a competent pastor/bible teacher. I agree with the fact that there's a bit of a lack of willingness to solve the problems, probably propelled by an already embraced predisposition to find a way out, instead of a desperate, agonising search for what is true in order to remain in lurking behind the scenes. I don't say this in a judgemental way. I struggle with mental health myself since I was little and I've faced the temptation to justify my dismissal of the tenets of faith in order to escape many times in the past. I do understand the pain and the anxiety of these situations, but praise God, he has never left me wanting when I wholheartedly searched for the reasons to believe. Thanks for this interview and looking forward to read the book!
Excellent observations, and another one I see is the need to "live out loud," because a man of convictions would tend to keep his thoughts to himself, turning them over as a gardener, looking for what might sprout next.
I pray for progressive healing for your mental health. As a disabled vet, I know a little about that.
A lot about that.
Something about depression, though, it brings you to your knees, amen?
@@duncescotus2342 thank you, much appreciated
@@ClauGutierrezY My pleasure.
Top comment.
In the postmodern philosophical literature from which the term originated there is no "positive" deconstruction. Decon is a process of historical and linguistic techniques for subverting meaning.
Woohoo! Sean McDowell and Gavin Ortlund!
I know, right?
And John Marriott!
@@chaddonal4331 Hey, whassup @chaddonai, I believe we've crossed RUclips paths before. Hope you are well and blessed, and your fam.
Thanks! Great discussion of a glaring yet simultaneously very nuanced topic area of our cultural moment!
Thanks so much!
@@TruthUnitesI'm encouraged to see Robert's generous donation. As an outside observer it's obvious that:
1. You understand & appreciate science.
2. You have exceptionally good critical thinking skills & are consciously aware of sound & valid argumentation.
3. You can operate within different [even contrary] paradigms, with epistemic humility.
PS. Hi Robert W.. Gavin didn't pay me to.say, any of the above. lol =D
I'm an 'ex-christian' who loves theology, philosophy, metaphysics etc.
@@TruthUnitesIf 'Creationists' attempt to burn you at the stake, we'll do our best to beam you back up to the Starship Enterprise before it's too late.
Been enjoying Sean McDowell's videos a lot recently. What a blessing to have this Biola professor willingly share his knowledge. And also wonderful to have the 3bof you on together 😊
How does this video only have 435 likes?!
Super helpful video as I myself am going through some deconstruction of my Baptist views. Pastor Ortlund's videos have been super helpful for me in providing the right questions to ask myself. He always centers the discussion around Christ and the Bible. Loving the content!
It's so true that a lot of people who end up deconverting were never really christians to begin with, they never had the revelation in their life that Jesus is King they never had that moment where they fell on their knees.
Great interview. Well done Gavin as the host!
Great conversation and very informative and helpful from men who know what they are talking about.
34:34 ....I have been working on my presentation of the Gospel recently and these few sentences will help me greatly improve the way I have been wording things. Thank you!
Thank you for the book tip. I have been fascinated by this deconstruction topic and have been looking for a book about it that explains it but doesn’t just encourage people to leave the faith.
I would add, as parents, it’s good to pre-emptively discuss this with our children and teenagers for sure. Like Sean said, they can’t ride on the parents’ faith. Tell them that at some point, they will need to investigate for themselves and you will be there to help them along the way in the search for truth! Maybe explain why you believe what you do, and how you got there. Just having this “out in the open” helps our kids have the latitude they need to reach out and find their own real faith.
Yes yes yes my friend. I agree
I went through my desert period. I am far more confident and calm when challenged.
At a Christian Union QnA I was on the panel for I was asked a fairly standard question, "Do you ever question your faith".
My slightly smartie pants answers: "yes, I question all the time. And the more I question and search for answers, the stronger my faith gets."
Because Christianity is the truth
That is a great response.
@philippbrogli779 thank you my friend 😊
@@ProfYaffle 😊
Yes good perspective
Good conversation to be having. I am struck by the poverty of faith in the deconstruction stories. One's faith is not in being a Christian, that is your own identity, but in Christ's identity. The first duty of a Christian is to believe and receive:
1. "This is the work of the Father, that you believe in the one He has sent."
2. "If you do not allow me to do this (wash your feet), you can have no part with me."
So, there's a common narrative in all deconstructions/apostasies. That could be addressed.
How many were put in leadership positions too early.
How many had a fruitful prayer life.
How many ever had a personal answer to prayer.
How many understood that the Church is the body of Christ on earth.
How many were oversold ideas about the Bible, about their soteriological position, about the goodness of their tradition, etc.
How many were concerned with a worldview but not a heavenly view.
and a million other questions, which are valid to all of us.
We all need the freedom to ask questions, and good apologetics to provide some answers.
I applaud brothers Ortlund and Mc Dowell for their continuing commitment to ecumenical dialogue.
Unity is the Lord's express will, and in fact the Church suffers a tumultuous infancy in her present state:
'1. "I would that you be one, that the world might believe."
2. "...until we come to the unity of the faith, in the knowledge of the Son of God, unto the mature man, unto the measure of the fullness of the stature of Christ."
But while the book is timely, and therefore necessary, it can hardly be probing. This is a tip of an Evangelical iceberg. The Titanic here is the soft Calvinism which always pervaded the American Protestant landscape. Brother Ortlund is proof enough. Though he understands many things, he remains (technically) a congregationalist. Where is our authority structure in a truly ecumenical sense?
RUclips serves as the forum of theological debate and accountability. But as much as I like RUclips, it suffers from an inherent confirmation bias. It feeds you what you want to hear. And we humans suffer from tribalistic instinct. We want to be part of choir which amens the choirmaster.
So, the willingness to engage across denominational barriers is doubly needed.
To brother Ortlund, I would ask that you soften the blow to Catholics. You are correct in your conclusions, but your appreciation for the reasoning which lead to Catholic innovations is poor. Ancient obsessions are not easy to appreciate. The Theotokos was seen as a necessary corollary to several paradoxes-- the hypostatic union, the stain of original sin.
Perhaps start at the beginning and teach some history. Give God's people the facts and let the truth prevail.
I hope that you read this. Your comments section usually fills up fast. Again, the amens go right to the top, diluting the effectiveness of this platform.
Maybe Roman Catholics should stop the use of language of calling Evangelicals heretics !
Always funny you just blaming Protestants for the divide!
@robertstephenson6806 Thank you for that amazing reply, my lovely brother in Christ.
I think the Trinity is troublesome, but essentially sound in this:
Whatever Jesus is is as good as God, at least as we are capable of apprehending, and as worthy of worship as any concept of God we are likely to have.
Whatever the Spirit is, is of God in some essential way, or it's something else, and scripture simply doesn't support the "elseness" of the Spirit. ("The spirit is the Lord.")
So we're left with a paradox, and Greeks being attuned to such things, as well as trinities of gods, lets be honest, saw a pathway out of the more ridiculously heretical versions that were going around, and the rest is
History.
Which you know a lot about, perhaps too much. I say this, because it's essential to pray everything through.
"All things are sanctified by the word of God...
and prayer."
Without the second one, we will never access the meaning of the first. I'm not accusing you of not praying, but you might not have the word of the Lord on these matters, at least not all of them.
So, your theory that those who disobey the Lord's teaching and will be judged is sound,
but only to a point.
For He teaches:
"I do not condemn you. You have one who condemns you:
1. Moses (the law) in whom you have put your trust
2. Your own words
3. My word which is not my word but
4. the word of the Father who sent me
Ok. Digest all that and get back to me. I really admire your story and I think you have a lot to offer the body of Christ. One of the best RUclips comments I've ever received. Top 10 for sure.
Love to you and your family of faith:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."
@robertstephenson6806 Ok, brother, thanks for the Greek lesson.
But, you're not taking into account the personhood of Christ who is the express "image of the godhead."
And you're not taking into account Genesis, in which man (Adam) is made in God's image.
Note how Paul appeals to the connection between the first Adam and "the last" or the second Adam, Christ. He does this in Romans 5:
"He is a pattern of the one to come."
and again in 1 Corinthians 15:
"So it is written the first Adam became a living being; the last Adam a life giving spirit."
This very verse is one that Augustine used to defend the Filioque, and his belief that all three members of the Godhead could be thought of as the Holy Spirit.
I'm not so convinced. As you point out, spirit has a meaning, and holy spirit has a meaning. It is further complicated by the fact that in a couple of instances it lacks the definite article, "holy spirit," vs "the holy spirit."
It is also neuter in gender but takes the masculine pronoun, at times, i'm not sure if this is the case always.
So, those are some of the textual difficulties. If you are scholar you are free to ruminate at length. A disciple must be more rigorous in piety but less rigorous in knowledge.
Admittedly, Paul is loathe to call Jesus God directly but he is not ashamed to call him Lord, and his usual pattern of speech goes:
"One God and Father and one Lord Jesus Christ."
Note well, it's not two Lords, but one, though no one would dare deny the lordship of the Father.
And salvation is vested in the name of the Son alone:
"There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby they might be saved."
One may argue the Father's name isn't "under heaven," but that's beside the point, as we certainly are.
Ok, digest all that and get back to me. Be brief. I don't need lots of cut and paste scripture. "Where many words are, sin is not wanting."
@robertstephenson6806
1. "Where many words are, sin is not wanting."
2. You see ME stringing scripture out of context?
Give me the context, whatever you like, and I can bombard you ad nauseam. But this is not a game, my brother. You are toying with dark entities.
Are you delusional enough to think the scripture speaks of YOU?
@robertstephenson6806 RE: context. Jesus wrestled Micah's lament that a house was divided against itself into a Messianic manifesto. Totally out of context.
Excellent!
Good interview.
So good…..thanks guys.😎
This video is unlisted. Not many people can see it.
Edit: it isn’t anymore. :)👍
Just showed up on my front page so presumably not any longer
If I did not receive Jesus in the Eucharist regularly, I would have dried up spiritually like all these de-constructors and left faith long ago. Who can bear to live in a spiritual desert?
May I suggest some improvements on "Look at Wilberforce"?
The problem with "Look at Wilberforce (or other historical evangelicals)" is that we remember those guys *because* they were successful in changing society. And changing society simply isn't always going to be successful. We need to be able to accept that our society may fail despite our faith (challenging) but also that our faith doesn't depend on our society (liberating).
Instead of Wilberforce, lets go back to Scripture. Let's talk about e.g. Isaiah and Jeremiah. During their time, Judah deconverted and became completely pagan and lawless.
Did Isaiah and Jeremiah manage to stop it? No.
Was society getting lost a proof that their faith was unjustified? No.
Did anyone manage to turn Judah around? Yes....and that was Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon's soldiers.
Are Jeremiah and Isaiah heroes of the faith? Yes!
Or let's look at 1 and 2 Peter. They are *manuals* for not only surviving but thriving as a church in the face of persecution. Or Psalm 73. Or Psalm 37. This stuff isn't new, and we can go straight to the source on this topic, we have far better things than a few recent exemplars.
We do need to stop linking our faith so strongly with the sinking ship that is the West.
What John stated about our political system in Canada is 💯% truthful. The vast majority of Canadians are “centrist” and are fortunate to have multiple parties representing centrist morals, values, and ethics. This certainly permits flexibility (ie: A Liberal or one belonging to the NDP, who holds very conservative views, has the benefit of finding various parties that represent/reflect one’s perspective on important issues - even though they do not belong to said party.)
It was a brilliant end to this discussion! I remember how a 14 year old friend confided in me about having an abortion! I certainly was shocked due to her age…and…my Biblical view on the value of life certainly framed my perspective. However, I wish I had listened and supported her even more than I had at the time, as she was devastated following the abortion. Her mother forced her to have the procedure. It was extremely difficult for me understand how a mother would do this to her own child, for she had been a teenage mother. Obviously, her own personal experience influenced her reasoning as to why she thought she was doing the right thing in making her daughter terminate her pregnancy. If only, I had my Psychology degree and insight at 14! Perhaps I could have been an even more compassionate friend. Sadly, the daughter continues to struggle with forgiving herself 30+ years later. Fortunately, I’ve found ways in which to be a better listener with a more compassionate heart, for both my dear childhood friend, and many other teenagers throughout the years via my career.
Ending the video as you did was very uplifting and true to how Christ lead his time on earth. Truly, a beautiful and appropriate ending!☺
May the Lord bless all those in this online community - along with you, your family, and ministry Gavin!🇨🇦xx❤xx🇺🇸
The people who are turned off by big E evangelicalism are not all young (I am 83). A lot of this discussion focuses on the individual. But I am not deconstructing my faith. rather I am deconstructing from a lot of churches who are sold out on big-E. It is very difficult to fellowship with others in church who on the other side and it is pervasive, such as the SBC. Kristin Kobes du Mez has written a geat book on the corrumping of the faith by Evangelicals. Gavin, thank you for this show which is becoming a very reliable source for me. Would love for you to interview Kristin du Mez. She shows that evangelicalism has already been corrupted BEFORE Trump came along, so it should have been no surprised that he was enthusiastically endorsed by Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Robert Jeffress of FBC Dallas. The goal of many Big E "Christians" is to turn America into a theocracy, run by white men.
Great discussion! Thanks for hosting this Gavin! I don’t understand this being a concern though if you’re coming from a reformed pov on soteriology. Also, like the Republicans or not (I certainly don’t), voting for a Democrat (that supports abortion, LGBT, etc) is simply not an option for a Christian
@robertstephenson6806 They’re all lovers of money, ‘equality gone too far’ is an interesting way to say satanic, and third parties are not feasible. I vote for the GOP even though they are far too liberal
@robertstephenson6806There are no great options. All options have deficiencies. So, we pray and trust God to work in a fallen world.
🙄
I certainly went through this phase in my formation, only I destructed my faith while the engine was still running, so it was different.
12:45 to 13:25 - Interesting observation about sin and grace experiences for those who left Christianity.
Studiously following 1 Peter 3;15 to become a better witness for Jesus Christ often leads to deconversion. ruclips.net/video/12rP8ybp13s/видео.htmlsi=G9hdKf4U5M0g1jKf
Dr. Tony Evans book, “Kingdom Politics” is very helpful to discussions related to Christian activism in the context of the American political system within a constitutional Republic.
I don't consider these type of YT videos as a waste of time. I learn to think biblicalky and theologically.
This is a very fascinating discussion. While I appreciate some of the nuances that Mr. McDowell and Mr. Marriott bring to this topic, I fundamentally disagree with a significant portion of what was said here, and with some of the implicit assumptions that I think are being made. As someone who has both undergone something of a “deconstruction” (I prefer the term “reconstruction”) process, and is also a young Christian in the generation which McDowell and Marriott seem particularly concerned with, I would like to voice one particular concern I had.
I think McDowell and Marriot are both correct in their conclusion that perceptions about what the evangelical church stands for on social and political issues is a major driver in leading young Christians to deconstruct, and in many cases to deconvert. However, I think they are both incorrect in their framing of this issue. It is not that the church is too political, or that it overstates the importance and relevance of political issues - Gen z is, on the contrary, a politically hyperactive generation. We are very politically conscious and very politically outspoken. Rather, the issue is that the evangelical church is inextricably linked to the wrong kind of politics. The churches we were raised in were institutionally conservative, and so to deviate on any given social or political issue (abortion, homosexuality, transgender identity, capitalism, etc.) was not merely to disagree on a secondary issue, but to deviate from the true faith. One does not need to dig particularly deep to see just how significant the relationship between conservatism and American evangelicalism truly is.
Russell Moore, a formerly high-ranking official within the Southern Baptist Convention, recently made headlines for some of his comments about what was going on in a lot of SBC churches. Some of these churches have become so deeply entrenched in conservative politics - particularly, the reactionary, populist flavor of conservative politics presented by Donald Trump - that when pastors would preach from the Sermon on the Mount, their congregants would confront them and accuse them of preaching “liberal talking points”, or otherwise suggest that these sorts of teachings are “weak” and ought to disregarded. As another anecdotal example, Redeemed Zoomer, an influencer that Mr. Ortlund has interacted with in the past, and who has become very popular among young, conservative Christians online, has an Instagram bio that reads “From Leftist to Christian,” wherein faith in Christ is being directly counterposed to a politically left-wing outlook. Republican politicians across the country have covered their campaigns and political agendas with the language of evangelical Christianity - we saw Mike Pence do this on the Republican debate stage a few weeks ago. Major far-right pundits such as Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh (who is a self-described “theocratic fascist”) and Michael Knowles (who called for “transgenderism” to be “eradicated from public life”) among many others, seem to have been widely embraced in evangelical circles. Mr. McDowell himself, has made a not-insignificant amount of videos pertaining to conservative political issues on ideas such as transgender identity, homosexuality, abortion, and the like. He has made plenty of videos in which he combats so-called “progressive Christianity;” in which he makes it clear that taking progressive stances on any number of issues is not merely secondary, but heavily indicative of the state of one’s faith. Alisa Childers, whom Mr. McDowell has collaborated on this very topic of deconstruction, has gone out of her way to publicly declare that Christians who lean progressive on certain issues - like the late Rachel Held Evans - are actually unsaved. These are just a few examples that I think demonstrate a wider, and very important point about evangelicalism that is relevant in discussions on deconstruction and deconversion.
For many of us who came to think differently on these topics, it became clear that, whether evangelicals knew it or not, conservatism and evangelicalism had become nearly synonymous with one another. And because of that, our thinking differently about homosexuality, or about abortion, or capitalism, or egalitarianism, or whatever the case may be, became not simply a change in perspective, but a crisis of faith. Think of it as a house of cards. Taking out one card about, led to the collapse of the entire structure.
If conservative Christians are afraid of losing young people, they need to isolate the extent to which conservative politics is explicitly and implicitly baked into their faith, and be more open to reviewing the biblicality of those ideas, as opposed to simply insinuating that those are defaults of good Christian faith, and that any suggestion to the contrary is the corrosive influence of a hostile, anti-christian, “woke” culture.
There is so much more that I would love to say about this but I’ll leave it there. I hope that this does not come as overtly-hostile. And Gavin, if you are reading this, I’ve really enjoyed much of your work on Protestantism. Keep it coming!
You said “what the evangelical church stands for on social and political issues is a major driver in leading young Christians to deconstruct, or deconvert” So I say and? Our convictions have to align with the Bible/Jesus not culture. Since none of us created the universe we don’t get a say.
@@whiskeredtuna In the context of this video, deconstruction and deconversion are being treated as negatives which need to be addressed in some manner or another. I agree that our convictions have to align with Christ, but I am also inclined to think that mass deconversion is indicative of some internal problems, and I suggest that if evangelicals wish to curtail this, a biblically minded reassessment of the church's stances on some of these hot-button socio-political topics (christian nationalism, egalitarianism, immigration, etc.) is in order. Speaking anecdotally, these appear to be the principal reasons that young people are leaving the faith.
I believe I have recently arrived at what I believe is the root of the problem for me; the whole of my spiritual troubles of late. Having been deconstructing of late with an eye towards shoring up and reconstructing, I'm left questioning many aspects of my faith.
Having grown up going to church my whole life, I'm strongly familiar with Christian terminology and periphery. I know how people who purport to be Christian behave in church as well as how they behave outside of church (for better and for worse).
I have no trouble believing in Jesus, who he is, what he's done (with some aspects of it changing, depending on who you ask). My faith in God is more firm than it ever has been.
What's more, I am strongly familiar with many aspects of apologetics. It's made it easier to place my faith firmly in our Lord. What's more, I have been granted the gift of teaching and can make all of these things easy to digest for others, too.
Yet, it's dawned on me what it is that I lack so badly.
See, I struggle with autism (high functioning). All of the assumptions that people normally can make, I do not. I am, at heart, someone who pretends to look like others. Much like a False Lilly looks like a Lilly or a hover fly looks like a bee, so do I look like a normal person.
I have been so okay with that that it does not trouble me at all. Being able to blend in is a skill, after all. Yet, therein lies the issue at hand. I know how to LOOK like a Christian. But what exactly do I look like? I wouldn't be able to tell you.
I do NOT assume that God's ways our like ours. I don't have such a way to compare against as I don't understand "our" ways.
I do NOT assume that what I imagine is right, either. I presume my way is wrong out of the gate which is a part of my own pretending to look like you.
So, then, here is the crux of the issue:
How, exactly, does one Christian?
I don't know how to Christian.
Yes, yes, I know it's a noun and not a verb. Except that it is now! I know how to engage in certain Christian acts and believe certain Christian things ... but what does that even mean?
I don't have an answer and I don't have anyone who has discipled me properly. What's more, at this stage, I don't know who to trust with said discipleship. It's a taxing place to be.
I can't imagine ignoring this issue as it's a core problem. Because it's such an issue, I must ask what ought I do to learn and why? Where should I look and how can I evaluate what I've found? Who should I trust and why?
Do you have any resources or advice on this subject set:
How to Christian
The solution is, "The Empty Set". Alan W. Watts (1915-1973), The Void ruclips.net/video/7vuFBP8apGQ/видео.htmlsi=4ZI-5O2AILdM4lox
Interesting that you brought up big Eva considering that on the other side they are heavily criticised for leaning left and punching right which has led to them also deconstructing.
Loved watching this. I was looking for some clarification. Does God only love a chosen few and hate the rest? Does he predestine those he’s chosen to hate before the beginning of time to hell?
Hi Michael. I didn't see any answer to your question and didn't know if I could be helpful but wanted to touch in it in case you haven't gotten any answers to that question. From what I have understood from the whole od scripture God loves the world and sent Jesus to die as sacrifice for anyone that would put their faith in Him. ANYONE. John 3:16. The Bible says he also doesn't wish for anyone to perish but wants anyone to be saved but throughout scripture there is this drumbeat to choose life or death, blessing or curses... and a warning not to harden your heart once you've heard the truth. So the holy Spirit works in a life and they are given revelation of truth and they have to respond to it. Does He know who will choose him and who doesn't? Well since he is past eternal and outside of time and the alpha and the omega and the beginning and the end He knows the beginning from the end so in that sense you are predestined, but not in the sense that you are damned against your will. The provision is there for your salvation. He provides it. He provides the revelation. He provides you with life and works in your life and you respond to him or you dont
Come to Biola!
Dr. Ortlund, I would like to hear a response (or several) to the channel Mindshift. He’s a Christian apostate who may be just as literate as you in church history and apologetics, yet he is highly critical of the core tenets of Christianity. He even calls you out specifically in some videos.
what would be a good video or videos to start with?
No way this guy said substitutionary atonement is a non-negotiable and historical Christian belief 💀💀💀💀💀
It actually is though. It’s in Isaiah 53, and is referenced throughout the NT as fulfilled in the death of Jesus. It may not be the ONLY concept behind our redemption (Christus Victor is a major part too), but substitutionary atonement IS a key part of the biblical and historical teaching of the apostolic faith. The wrath of God was poured out on Jesus on the cross, the One who became sin for us and was accursed on our behalf, according to Paul.
Substitutionary atonement is non-negotiable for that reason. It’s Scriptural in both OT and NT, and it is also patristic.
@samueljennings4809 Substitutionary atonement is negotiable because it's not a pillar of Christian belief. We have a sacrifice of propitiation.
@@samueljennings4809Citation for Gods wrath being poured on Jesus?
@@MACHO_CHICO sure.
Isaiah 53:4-6, 10 talks about the Lord crushing the Servant for the sake of others.
Jesus speak of a dreaded baptism and cup that was coming His way in Matthew 20:22, and references this again in the Garden of Gethsemane. Paul speaks about being saved from the wrath of God by Christ’s death in Romans 5:9, and how Jesus became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21) and was cursed for us (Gal 3:13).
Honestly, I reacted as strongly as I did because I was not sure if he was going in the direction of “Jesus’ death doesn’t matter, as I’ve actually heard that before.
I’ll give it a read. I’ve just googled it, and it’s possible that I’m considering elements of propitiation in there as well.@@dman7668
Dr. Robert M. Price's response to Dr. William Lane Craig is insightful.
Beautifully said: ruclips.net/video/cLEBqU3D2TU/видео.htmlsi=6AIjiY3R-dd6Nm_x
Dr. Craig's epistemology: ruclips.net/video/S-fDyPU3wlQ/видео.htmlsi=ArTzQOLDxNPqfOyk
LOL 😆
ROFL🤣🤣
ok so Americans have apparently created a new religious term during the past year called "deconstruction" and throw it in many RUclips videos but never giving any definition for the word.
any chance one can be given?
asking from Canada.
They explained it at the beginning of the video. They gave the definition and explained that it wasn’t invented in the past year.
Is it Jon Marriott or Robert Marriott?
I noticed that too. Clicked the link and his name is John, so maybe he's using a relatives Zoom account since the last name is the same. Maybe a brother or something
John
My problem with evangelical christianity is its nihilism. It rejects the goodness of being in this world by turning it's back on this life and focusing on some imaginary "eternity in heaven ". Plato is the real prophet of evangelicalism and Jesus is squeezed in as the means of achieving escape velocity. Hence the ubiquitous apocalyptism of the movement.
You sound more Eastern Orthodox
I'm so happy for higher criticism. Before understanding it I will be moved by all the old testament affirmations from Jesus and feel confused. But there are big red flags that conservatives miss. Ever notice that almost all the OT affirmations from Jesus come from Matthew? It is the only place where Jesus says that the entire Torah is valid forever. Matthew's Jesus has been recognized by scholars for decades to be the most "Jewish Jesus" in a way that is not never matched by the original gospel Mark or John. Matthew edits mark to make Jesus much more Torah observant and anti Pauline. These are most probably not the words of Jesus but the agenda of the evangelist. And that's why the gospels are not reliable. The 4 gospels are an tit for tat fight about who Jesus was from the view of different communities and evolving theologies.
Unfortunately, we in the present just do not know with any confidence what Jesus actually believed. Only what communities believed about him. Once you understand redaction criticism as the reason for the difference in the gospels there's just no going back to a conservative high view of scripture.
That said I think the guests here nail the main reasons for deconstruction and deconversion and the approaches mentioned here are thoughtful and helpful.
@@wingedlion17true - the search for the "historical Jesus" largely failed but you'd be ill advised to disregard the philosophical background of the German higher criticism. I'm currently reading David Friedrich Strauß "The Life of Jesus" and I plan on reading Reimarus. I already read Bultmann, Drewermann, Lüdemann and more conservative scholars like Martin Hengel, Carsten Peter Thiede, John A. T. Robinson, Klaus Berger and many others. And many of the redaction criticism or the search for "Quelle Q" wasn't really much more successful than the search for the authentic true words of Jesus. Like Albert Schweitzer put it, "they tried to understand Jesus and keep him here but he refused and went back into his time" (from memory). So, yes, the gospels are as much kerygma as they are history but one can try to understand the mindset of the first followers and at least find some ground in history. I mostly found Jewish scholars much better at this, like Pinchas Lapide or Shalom Ben-Chorin or Joseph Klausnitzer.
What? The other gospels contain many OT allusions/references. And many of the differences are due to the different audiences for the different gospels.
Matthew speaks to the Jews. Mark spoke to the Romans. Luke was a Greek speaking to the Greeks. John wrote to everyone. So it's unsurprising that Matthew's gospel is much more concerned with Jesus's Jewishness.
@@MrSeedi76 it seems to me that higher criticism has moved past the early work by the Germans and critical scholars continue to realize that the gospels are nearly all literature. Too well crafted narratively for oral tradition and too contradictory to be part of some memory of Jesus’ teaching. The only thing they have in common is that Jesus was a righteous man who said some controversial things and ran afoul of the Jewish and Roman authorities and was executed. Beyond that, what can we know of the man himself? Paul never met him and speaks of the risen Christ in vision. The Christ of revelation is a horseman of bloody vengeance.
@@toddthacker8258 yes even mark quotes the OT , Paul quoted the ot all the time but was not Torah observant. Matthew though wants Jesus to be way more Torah observant and his birth narrative to the sermon on the mount, he is the new Moses. Anyone who tells you not to follow the law and the prophets (every last word) would be called least in the kingdom. less about faith and more about works.
Speaking of politicizing Christianity too much, I am reminded of the fact that there is not even a hint of politics in the New Testament. And the only time a politician is named in a personal context was when Jesus called Herod a "fox".
@rolandovelasquez135, the Bible isn’t silent when it comes to convictions tho. It lays out what sin is pretty clearly.
Russell Moore talks about pastors telling him about members of his congregation telling them that he should not preach on the Sermon on the Mount, because those are left-wing talking points.
Jesus made it pretty clear: "“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you.** " John 6:53
Sooooo many crucify Jesus again and again with abotrifacient contraceptives "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" Matthew 25:40 no wonder so many have 'deconstructed' the meaning of life!
Your comment points to the I think valid criticism that people have of the Catholic religious political right. The end goal of the Catholic right-to-life movement isn't banning abortion, it's banning all forms of contraception.
@@joeoleary9010 at a minimum requiring full disclosure of abotrifacient inducing contraceptives that their use can lead to the death of a living viable life - so that consumers can make a fully informed decision - and yes outright banning of any physical infanticide procedure!
@@garyr.8116 People should also be fully informed that 50% of all conceptions are naturally aborted by the female reproductive system. If God so designed females to lose half of all the lives within them....
What if you aren't deconstructing "faith", itself, but deconstructing "the faith"?
I know Jesus is real, but I cannot find a coherent message in the New Testament--ie, I have an issue with having to do good to be saved, but also having to have the right motivation for doing good (ie, not out of fear, as if God is threatening me--which He seemingly is--but out of "love"), but also having to believe I cannot be saved by doing good.
The prevailing premise of this conversation between Gavin, and Co. is that genuine believers would not de-convert.
I humbly submit that this is precisely the kind of answer I would expect from the cults.
But John, (I think it was John..) does say something similar..a verse that reads "they went out from us to demonstrate they are not of us".
A classic expression of the cult mind. I'm sorry..but that's how it seems my lights. Bless
Good point. Also, I'm not quite sure in what way believe even plays a role in what church to follow. Many who deconstruct don't lose their faith, only the faith in the particular church they're in. For often very good reasons.
Maybe the churches should think about whether they're the ones who changed and not the people leaving them. I'm not American but I certainly wouldn't stay in a church where the pastor preached that Trump is the savior 😂.
Ok
Recall the parable of the sower...
@@jdoe97
Yes..I understand your point.
But truth claims (which by and large are reasons why people de-convert) are not determined by pre-destination, or supernaturally inspired faith.
Which again is why I say McDowell's comment only adds fuel to the question of whether Christianity is a cult the reality of which exists only in the mind of the believer, or reflects truth
@@thuscomeguerriero
My fault. I wasn't clear to which sower parable I was referring (although the parable of the wheat and weeds is also instructive here as you pointed out). I was meaning the one with the different soils.
McDowell says the majority of de-converted Christians he's encountered never had what he would call a real conversion.. but rather an experience emotionally, or psychically driven.
Imagine the faculty at M.I.T. (The most prestigious technical school in the world) arguing that conflicting conclusions argued for by a rival technical college only demonstrate a failure of true conversion?
I mean, of all things to say McDowell's first lob against the opposition is "Well, you weren't really Christian"?
Its so silly..
I think that's a fair point, as the "you were never really a believer/one of us/did the work" etc criticism is a common criticism that all movements throw at apostates. But it can be a valid criticism as well.
@@joeoleary9010
I dont see how really.
That was the point I was trying to make in my post positing two rival technical institutes coming to different conclusions.
Truth has nothing to do with loyalty, devotion..or a religious experience.
People de-converting have Reasons for doing so..whether or not those Reasons hold up to scrutiny is another question.
McDowell, however seems to believe that a real, and right supernaturally instigated conversion would mitigate against any possibility of such a thing happening.
Imagine a debate..two opposing view points being represented..and one posits a failure of being born again as the source of their opposition.
The other will look across the table and ask just what in the world they're talking about.
Nobody converts to truth!!
They see it, or don't is my point
Jesus told this story about a guy sowing seed...
@@thuscomeguerriero The truths of faith don't fall into the same category as the truths of engineering. People gain and lose faith for all kinds of reasons, and some gain faith not from "reason" at all but from compelling mystical experiences that defy unraveling.
@@joeoleary9010 Thats probably right..tho I'm not sure about the "defy unraveling" part.
Religious Experience is unibiquitous..every tradition historically has had its mystical element (If in fact that mystical element is not actually the essence of the Religion..🤔.)
Some people have the experience of past lives..or so they say..but who knows.
Nevertheless, people who de-convert do so by and large after testing the claims of faith against counter evidence which leads to..or demands a different conclusion.
So sick of using Trump as an example of being a horrible person. Yea he’s immoral. He’s a historic figure and there’s various other reasons ppl choose to look past his wrongs. Not like if evangelicals had zealously voted for Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush it would’ve made them less hypercritical. Those politicans’ faults are just less visible than Trump’s. I hate even having to bring Trump’s name into this but it’s so annoying and it’s why I wish people would stop doing that. It’s like dragging nails down a chalk board. Otherwise great topic and video.
These 3 intelligent men are woefully under estimating our enemies. This chat has no substantive value. They should be specifically discussing preparation for the battle that is coming. You must fight for Trump or you won't have a country left to discuss faith, let alone Christianity.
No one implied it did. God never needs anything. But men do. Be prepared. Spain 1936.
@@EmptyDisc1
Really? Fight for Trump? That shows the shallowness of American evangelicalism! Trump is an unconverted hooligan and criminal.
I don't think this discussion needs to have anything to do w/ Trump. They are talking about deconstruction of faith, which is a danger w/ the very opposing of truth these days. This lie is making young people crazy, and undermining the foundation of our very Christian culture now.
So Christianity relies on who is the president?
Someone should tell God about this troubling information because he birthed and raised the church in the middle of paganism.
Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to the GOP ever. He's not a Christian, and no serious Christian has any business supporting him.