Brilliant essay. What I've observed so far about the deconstructionists is that they seem never to have encountered the real personal Lord and Saviour. The slope into unbelief is quite a lot more slippery when "belief" begins, and is based, in a system of "rules" rather than in a Person.
So many things drive me back to the root: self. I am the authority. I am the source of truth. I am, that is, specifically, my feelings. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (Trueman) indeed. There truly is nothing new under the sun.
I really appreciate this, because typically the deconstructionists appear to have the weight of emotional advantage on their side. "I could NEVER tell this really nice [Muslim/Atheist/Agnostic/Buddhist] they're going to HELL! So, hell probably doesn't exist." It's like arguing with atheists over the problem of evil.
I'm not at a point where I think I could stand to read a book like this, because I would get too frustrated and angry at the subtle manipulation into lies that it presents. I remember when Joshua Harris left the faith, but he didn't just leave Evangelicalism, he left everything. Divorced his wife and then apologized to the homosexual "community" for the bad behavior of the Really Bad Evangelical Christian People who persecuted "sexual minorities." Then decided he really felt just fine without God existing, and he was going to make his own journey into Enlightenment, so he doesn't make the same mistakes those Bad Evangelicals did.
What I re-learn from McCammon and Harris are that there are those who are going to insist on being their own gods, regardless of their background. For me, it seems to only provide more clarity on everything that Jesus said about human nature and behavior. I have to agree with Dan Yost here: while I can argue the merits of McCammon's book, what strikes me the most about her and so many others like her is hubris. No one else is allowed to question their conclusion: Evangelicals Bad, Bible Bad, You Are Your Own God.
Since McCammon’s book dropped, I’ve had a number of people ask me if I’ve read it, or have I listened to her interview here or there, and can I relate, or I thought of you when I read her book. Of course, I have to let them know that I don’t read those kind of books. Perhaps the more horrible thing than discovering that no matter whether I liked it or not, I believed in Jesus, was the simultaneous realization that I was a liberal Christian. Scrolling through the comments, I’ll also have to admit to being one of those deconstructionists too (but, come on, I did all that in the 90’s when we had to af least try to read Of Grammatology before laying claim to the self description). Reading your review reminded me that I am by default part of the sort team McCammon in a sort of way but also not really at all. There is a sort of privilege that exists in calling belief in hell “trauma” that truly rankles me, but also, like reading Crime and Punishment, I have to accept the sort of realization that while I scoff at such hyperbole and odd sense of self-absorption, I’ve probably said something similar at least more than once. Anyways, I thought you dealt with her writing rather gently, perhaps in a more mournful way than say with Sheila Gregoire. Perhaps I’m just more critical because being part of the exvangelical camp, it seems a bit cringe to read the “testimonies” of others, and I have to ask myself, “goodness, is that what is sound like too?”
Brilliant essay. What I've observed so far about the deconstructionists is that they seem never to have encountered the real personal Lord and Saviour. The slope into unbelief is quite a lot more slippery when "belief" begins, and is based, in a system of "rules" rather than in a Person.
So many things drive me back to the root: self. I am the authority. I am the source of truth. I am, that is, specifically, my feelings. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (Trueman) indeed. There truly is nothing new under the sun.
Thanks for this review, Anne. This part caught my attention:
"How could he be “lost” when he was so happy ..."
It's the wrong metric. Lots of wicked people are happy.
The whole article was great, if sad.
"I’m always a little afraid a deconstructer will say something new that I’ve never heard before, but so far that still hasn’t happened."
Ha! And you have more patience with that than me.
But I am enjoying reading and listening to your take.
I really appreciate this, because typically the deconstructionists appear to have the weight of emotional advantage on their side. "I could NEVER tell this really nice [Muslim/Atheist/Agnostic/Buddhist] they're going to HELL! So, hell probably doesn't exist." It's like arguing with atheists over the problem of evil.
I'm not at a point where I think I could stand to read a book like this, because I would get too frustrated and angry at the subtle manipulation into lies that it presents. I remember when Joshua Harris left the faith, but he didn't just leave Evangelicalism, he left everything. Divorced his wife and then apologized to the homosexual "community" for the bad behavior of the Really Bad Evangelical Christian People who persecuted "sexual minorities." Then decided he really felt just fine without God existing, and he was going to make his own journey into Enlightenment, so he doesn't make the same mistakes those Bad Evangelicals did.
What I re-learn from McCammon and Harris are that there are those who are going to insist on being their own gods, regardless of their background. For me, it seems to only provide more clarity on everything that Jesus said about human nature and behavior. I have to agree with Dan Yost here: while I can argue the merits of McCammon's book, what strikes me the most about her and so many others like her is hubris. No one else is allowed to question their conclusion: Evangelicals Bad, Bible Bad, You Are Your Own God.
Thanks for this, Anne. Such a sad story. Grateful for your guidance on parenting.
Since McCammon’s book dropped, I’ve had a number of people ask me if I’ve read it, or have I listened to her interview here or there, and can I relate, or I thought of you when I read her book. Of course, I have to let them know that I don’t read those kind of books. Perhaps the more horrible thing than discovering that no matter whether I liked it or not, I believed in Jesus, was the simultaneous realization that I was a liberal Christian. Scrolling through the comments, I’ll also have to admit to being one of those deconstructionists too (but, come on, I did all that in the 90’s when we had to af least try to read Of Grammatology before laying claim to the self description). Reading your review reminded me that I am by default part of the sort team McCammon in a sort of way but also not really at all. There is a sort of privilege that exists in calling belief in hell “trauma” that truly rankles me, but also, like reading Crime and Punishment, I have to accept the sort of realization that while I scoff at such hyperbole and odd sense of self-absorption, I’ve probably said something similar at least more than once. Anyways, I thought you dealt with her writing rather gently, perhaps in a more mournful way than say with Sheila Gregoire. Perhaps I’m just more critical because being part of the exvangelical camp, it seems a bit cringe to read the “testimonies” of others, and I have to ask myself, “goodness, is that what is sound like too?”