In recent years, evangelism as a church practice has come under scrutiny. Certain Western-centric, patriarchal, racially and culturally insensitive expressions of evangelism have been mistaken as the norm in church life and are now being eschewed as no longer practical nor applicable in 21st-century US culture. While the practice of evangelism has been challenged, the need for communicating the evangel has increased. Many are leaving the church while still claiming faith in Jesus. Others are abandoning their faith altogether. Still others are questioning aspects of evangelism and Christian faith.
These expressions of disconnecting with Christian religion have been popularly labeled as “deconstruction.” Often seen as hostile and potentially destructive to the church, the work of “deconstruction” may actually serve as a necessary expression of evangelism in a post-Christendom era. When “deconstruction” is more clearly identified and expressed as a theological and ecclesial process, it becomes a necessary prelude to move towards acts of “re-construction” or “re-formation” that could signal a more biblical, relevant, and applicable expression of evangelism in the contemporary context.
A question that drives our conversation: “Is evangelism passé—a remnant of a previous generation’s efforts to spread its particular iteration and expression of Christianity?” The cultural and generational particularity of evangelism may result in the rejection of the basic idea of evangelism by the next generation of Christians. These challenges require the church to do the hard work of self-examination to discern what evangelism could look like. For some, addressing these issues has been defined as deconstructionism. But the challenge offered in this work is not simply to deconstruct but to reconstruct evangelism. In order to effectively address these challenges, we need to better understand these terms, which are often used haphazardly and require deeper academic reflection and insight.
Defining De-Construction
“Deconstruction” is the current in-vogue term used for any conversation critiquing the current state of Christianity. Applied to Gen Y and Gen Z, who are leaving the faith in large numbers and considered de-churched, the term has links to postmodern philosophy, which is often associated with an extreme anti-Christian, secular worldview. Deconstruction, therefore, has a strong negative connotation as a form of modern apostasy.
However, deconstruction as currently applied in the Christian context differs from deconstruction as it is technically defined in postmodern philosophy. The specific postmodern idea of deconstruction emerges from semiotics, the study of signs. Postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida (whose academic discipline is semiotics and linguistics) offers seminal reflections on the postmodern project of deconstruction. Derrida captures the postmodern definition of deconstruction by stating, “The absence of a transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of significations infinitely.”1 Using technical language specific to the discipline of semiotics, Derrida explains how a sign (words and symbols) signifies a specific meaning based upon a system of language that assigns a signification (meaning) to the sign. Deconstruction removes or devalues the system of language, thereby, removing the limits to a definition of a specific word. In other words, words can mean whatever we determine them to be, not what an external language system determines them to be.
Derrida’s academic definition reveals the specificity of the term “deconstruction” and its specific usage in semiotics and postmodern philosophy. Stanley Grenz summarizes deconstruction by asserting, “Derrida thus holds that meaning is never static, never given once-for-all. Instead, meaning changes over time and with changing contexts. . . . For Derrida, there is no ‘outside the text.’ All we have is the text itself, not some external meaning to which the text points. The ‘book’ is actually our ‘reading’ of the text. . . . But this means that the text is fluid. It has no fixed origin, identity, or end.”2 Deconstruction in its postmodern iteration, therefore, has a specific usage in a specific context. Postmodern philosophy removes authorial intent from the equation of meaning and interpretation and allows for the reassignment of meaning through removing specific signification of texts.
The specific and maybe extreme usage of the term “deconstruction” in postmodern philosophy is not what is happening with Gen Y and Gen Z. While there is great anxiety around the negative influence of postmodern philosophy on these generations, their acts of “deconstruction” do not emerge from an application of extreme postmodern principles. To associate the reflections and questions of younger generations (and others) with a catchphrase that has a specific meaning and usage is inaccurate and inappropriate.
Emerging and current generations are not deconstructing their faith, they are “de-constructing” their faith, which is more reminiscent of a “re-forming” of their faith. They may not simply be questioning the meaning of specific evangelical practices and ideas; they may be tearing down dysfunctional Western constructs that may be obstructing the work of evangelism. De-construction in its current expression among evangelicals, therefore, may be a necessary practice that opens the door for contextual applications of Christian faith that could positively re-form Christian faith in a relevant and applicable manner for the next generation of believers.
The Need for Re-Construction
The proper de-construction and subsequent re-construction and re-formation of evangelism is an appropriate response to our current social reality, both in the church and in the world. The subsequent generations’ desire and need to de-construct the previous generations’ expressions of evangelism (which may actually prove to be dysfunctional and irrelevant to the current iteration of Christianity) could be a positive step in the appropriate re-formation and reformation of our faith.
Evangelism as specifically expressed in US evangelicalism over the last 50 years has had a specific application because it spoke to a specific context: the modern, Western worldview. In a modern worldview that
emphasized reason and rationality expressed in specific Western philosophical assumptions, such as Scottish Common Sense philosophy and linear and dialectical models of development, the modes and expressions of evangelism felt appropriate and relevant. The “Four Spiritual Laws” and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” emerged from this linear and Western philosophical mindset. Such expressions of evangelism were contextual and had an underlying structure. While built on a foundation of Scripture and theological reflection, the contextual expression of reason and rationality as an open door to the gospel was specific to a cultural context. De-construction examines the false constructs here. In order to better understand these false constructs, context must be examined.
If the modern construct of reason and rationality drives our current evangelistic efforts, then the problematic elements of the modern construct can and should be called into question by subsequent iterations and expressions of Christianity. If the modern construct of rationality and reason resulted in the oppression of one race over the other because it seemed reasonable at the time, then the construct that led to these “rational” assumptions needs de-construction. If the modern construct makes certain patriarchal assumptions, then de-construction is necessary for the gospel message to be impactful for the next generation. The work of the church is not to reassign meaning without context (deconstruction) but to better understand context (de-construction) in order to better form relevant and applicable expressions of evangelism (re-construction).
De-construction of the dysfunctional expressions of evangelism and the re-construction of evangelism, therefore, is part of the necessary reformation of the church. As social contexts change, the church adapts to the changes. When Western society moved from the centrality of European empire to more democratic and republican forms of governance, the church adapted accordingly. As Christianity moves from a Western-centric demographic to a much larger global demographic, then the church adapts accordingly. It was an act of re-formation that renewed the church through the Protestant Reformation, de-constructing the dysfunctional expressions of the dominant religious powers and offering new paradigms for the spread of the gospel. It was an act of re-formation that renewed the church through the growth of global Christianity and the subsequent new paradigms that continue to emerge from this reality. The practice of de-construction is a necessary part of redefining and re-forming the church.
New models of evangelism are not necessarily a categorical rejection of the old models but rather an acceptance of the new realities in which evangelism now operates. New models of evangelism must move beyond cultural captivity and build on the historical and theological foundation of the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel message.
In a previous issue of FULLER magazine, I posited the challenge of a church that shares the gospel through a “truth possessed” versus “truth pursued” paradigm—where “truth possessed sets up boundaries that create a battle of ideas where the powerful prevail” while truth pursued “does not minimize the reality of truth . . . but calls for a humility that says that we don’t own the truth but that God is the author of truth.”3 Old models of evangelism focused on a truth possessed approach: the church owns the truth and therefore the task of evangelism is simply downloading our version of truth upon the other. This approach, given the cultural context of modernity, resulted in severe dysfunction in the church. The truth pursued approach acknowledges the frailty of human existence. It acknowledges that the church’s task is not to own the truth but to pursue the truth. And the pursuit of truth requires the humility of the church to de-construct, re-construct, and re-form.
Soong-Chan Rah is Fuller’s Robert Boyd Munger Professor of Evangelism. An ordained pastor in the Evangelical Covenant Church, he has spoken widely on the topics of the witness of the church, cross-cultural ministry, and social justice at conferences, seminaries, Christian colleges, churches, and denominational gatherings on both the domestic and global level. He is the author or coauthor of over a half dozen—and many award-winning—books, including The Next Evangelicalism, Many Colors, Prophetic Lament, Return to Justice, Unsettling Truths, and Forgive Us.
In recent years, evangelism as a church practice has come under scrutiny. Certain Western-centric, patriarchal, racially and culturally insensitive expressions of evangelism have been mistaken as the norm in church life and are now being eschewed as no longer practical nor applicable in 21st-century US culture. While the practice of evangelism has been challenged, the need for communicating the evangel has increased. Many are leaving the church while still claiming faith in Jesus. Others are abandoning their faith altogether. Still others are questioning aspects of evangelism and Christian faith.
These expressions of disconnecting with Christian religion have been popularly labeled as “deconstruction.” Often seen as hostile and potentially destructive to the church, the work of “deconstruction” may actually serve as a necessary expression of evangelism in a post-Christendom era. When “deconstruction” is more clearly identified and expressed as a theological and ecclesial process, it becomes a necessary prelude to move towards acts of “re-construction” or “re-formation” that could signal a more biblical, relevant, and applicable expression of evangelism in the contemporary context.
A question that drives our conversation: “Is evangelism passé—a remnant of a previous generation’s efforts to spread its particular iteration and expression of Christianity?” The cultural and generational particularity of evangelism may result in the rejection of the basic idea of evangelism by the next generation of Christians. These challenges require the church to do the hard work of self-examination to discern what evangelism could look like. For some, addressing these issues has been defined as deconstructionism. But the challenge offered in this work is not simply to deconstruct but to reconstruct evangelism. In order to effectively address these challenges, we need to better understand these terms, which are often used haphazardly and require deeper academic reflection and insight.
Defining De-Construction
“Deconstruction” is the current in-vogue term used for any conversation critiquing the current state of Christianity. Applied to Gen Y and Gen Z, who are leaving the faith in large numbers and considered de-churched, the term has links to postmodern philosophy, which is often associated with an extreme anti-Christian, secular worldview. Deconstruction, therefore, has a strong negative connotation as a form of modern apostasy.
However, deconstruction as currently applied in the Christian context differs from deconstruction as it is technically defined in postmodern philosophy. The specific postmodern idea of deconstruction emerges from semiotics, the study of signs. Postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida (whose academic discipline is semiotics and linguistics) offers seminal reflections on the postmodern project of deconstruction. Derrida captures the postmodern definition of deconstruction by stating, “The absence of a transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of significations infinitely.”1 Using technical language specific to the discipline of semiotics, Derrida explains how a sign (words and symbols) signifies a specific meaning based upon a system of language that assigns a signification (meaning) to the sign. Deconstruction removes or devalues the system of language, thereby, removing the limits to a definition of a specific word. In other words, words can mean whatever we determine them to be, not what an external language system determines them to be.
Derrida’s academic definition reveals the specificity of the term “deconstruction” and its specific usage in semiotics and postmodern philosophy. Stanley Grenz summarizes deconstruction by asserting, “Derrida thus holds that meaning is never static, never given once-for-all. Instead, meaning changes over time and with changing contexts. . . . For Derrida, there is no ‘outside the text.’ All we have is the text itself, not some external meaning to which the text points. The ‘book’ is actually our ‘reading’ of the text. . . . But this means that the text is fluid. It has no fixed origin, identity, or end.”2 Deconstruction in its postmodern iteration, therefore, has a specific usage in a specific context. Postmodern philosophy removes authorial intent from the equation of meaning and interpretation and allows for the reassignment of meaning through removing specific signification of texts.
The specific and maybe extreme usage of the term “deconstruction” in postmodern philosophy is not what is happening with Gen Y and Gen Z. While there is great anxiety around the negative influence of postmodern philosophy on these generations, their acts of “deconstruction” do not emerge from an application of extreme postmodern principles. To associate the reflections and questions of younger generations (and others) with a catchphrase that has a specific meaning and usage is inaccurate and inappropriate.
Emerging and current generations are not deconstructing their faith, they are “de-constructing” their faith, which is more reminiscent of a “re-forming” of their faith. They may not simply be questioning the meaning of specific evangelical practices and ideas; they may be tearing down dysfunctional Western constructs that may be obstructing the work of evangelism. De-construction in its current expression among evangelicals, therefore, may be a necessary practice that opens the door for contextual applications of Christian faith that could positively re-form Christian faith in a relevant and applicable manner for the next generation of believers.
The Need for Re-Construction
The proper de-construction and subsequent re-construction and re-formation of evangelism is an appropriate response to our current social reality, both in the church and in the world. The subsequent generations’ desire and need to de-construct the previous generations’ expressions of evangelism (which may actually prove to be dysfunctional and irrelevant to the current iteration of Christianity) could be a positive step in the appropriate re-formation and reformation of our faith.
Evangelism as specifically expressed in US evangelicalism over the last 50 years has had a specific application because it spoke to a specific context: the modern, Western worldview. In a modern worldview that
emphasized reason and rationality expressed in specific Western philosophical assumptions, such as Scottish Common Sense philosophy and linear and dialectical models of development, the modes and expressions of evangelism felt appropriate and relevant. The “Four Spiritual Laws” and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” emerged from this linear and Western philosophical mindset. Such expressions of evangelism were contextual and had an underlying structure. While built on a foundation of Scripture and theological reflection, the contextual expression of reason and rationality as an open door to the gospel was specific to a cultural context. De-construction examines the false constructs here. In order to better understand these false constructs, context must be examined.
If the modern construct of reason and rationality drives our current evangelistic efforts, then the problematic elements of the modern construct can and should be called into question by subsequent iterations and expressions of Christianity. If the modern construct of rationality and reason resulted in the oppression of one race over the other because it seemed reasonable at the time, then the construct that led to these “rational” assumptions needs de-construction. If the modern construct makes certain patriarchal assumptions, then de-construction is necessary for the gospel message to be impactful for the next generation. The work of the church is not to reassign meaning without context (deconstruction) but to better understand context (de-construction) in order to better form relevant and applicable expressions of evangelism (re-construction).
De-construction of the dysfunctional expressions of evangelism and the re-construction of evangelism, therefore, is part of the necessary reformation of the church. As social contexts change, the church adapts to the changes. When Western society moved from the centrality of European empire to more democratic and republican forms of governance, the church adapted accordingly. As Christianity moves from a Western-centric demographic to a much larger global demographic, then the church adapts accordingly. It was an act of re-formation that renewed the church through the Protestant Reformation, de-constructing the dysfunctional expressions of the dominant religious powers and offering new paradigms for the spread of the gospel. It was an act of re-formation that renewed the church through the growth of global Christianity and the subsequent new paradigms that continue to emerge from this reality. The practice of de-construction is a necessary part of redefining and re-forming the church.
New models of evangelism are not necessarily a categorical rejection of the old models but rather an acceptance of the new realities in which evangelism now operates. New models of evangelism must move beyond cultural captivity and build on the historical and theological foundation of the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel message.
In a previous issue of FULLER magazine, I posited the challenge of a church that shares the gospel through a “truth possessed” versus “truth pursued” paradigm—where “truth possessed sets up boundaries that create a battle of ideas where the powerful prevail” while truth pursued “does not minimize the reality of truth . . . but calls for a humility that says that we don’t own the truth but that God is the author of truth.”3 Old models of evangelism focused on a truth possessed approach: the church owns the truth and therefore the task of evangelism is simply downloading our version of truth upon the other. This approach, given the cultural context of modernity, resulted in severe dysfunction in the church. The truth pursued approach acknowledges the frailty of human existence. It acknowledges that the church’s task is not to own the truth but to pursue the truth. And the pursuit of truth requires the humility of the church to de-construct, re-construct, and re-form.
Soong-Chan Rah is Fuller’s Robert Boyd Munger Professor of Evangelism. An ordained pastor in the Evangelical Covenant Church, he has spoken widely on the topics of the witness of the church, cross-cultural ministry, and social justice at conferences, seminaries, Christian colleges, churches, and denominational gatherings on both the domestic and global level. He is the author or coauthor of over a half dozen—and many award-winning—books, including The Next Evangelicalism, Many Colors, Prophetic Lament, Return to Justice, Unsettling Truths, and Forgive Us.
R. Daniel Shaw, senior professor of anthropology and translation, reflects on the colonial history of Christian mission and on following God toward a faithful new way.
