Once any spiritual movement becomes a hashtag #spiritualmovement, it can lose its power, and start to feel like the very thing it set out to repudiate.
Thanks for putting words to this. It's wild how this very binary way of thinking in evangelicalism is entrenched in exvangelicalism. It's the horseshoe theory meets Christian subculture. The scrambling for hot takes and being *reactively against* instead of *proactively for* has to be exhausting. It's definitely exhausting to watch.
It’s absolutely all or nothing thinking. I wrote about it that just a couple weeks ago—how it’s still fundamentalism to tell someone “you haven’t deconstructed enough”, and that persists in the exvangelical community. And being against instead of for, which Sarah Bessey wrote about in her latest book.
Yeah. I teach an online class in stages of faith, and the model we lean on the most heavily is actually St Teresa of Ávila's *Interior Castle.* (Her "stages" are illustrated as mansions or dwellings.)
I frequently make the point about the distinct demarcation between her third and fourth "dwellings" (where I think I see deconstruction mostly happening) and note that often people think they have matured out of the third dwelling and into the fourth one when they change their beliefs. But in fact what has often happened instead is that they have just taken all the same toys and moved them to a different corner of the "room."
So agree, and it's exhausting too in the "construction" of Christian nationalism in evangelical spaces entrenched in evangelicalism. Each have the same scripts we hear over and over again.
This resonates so strongly with me. I entered the "deconstruction" space 4 years ago and I haven't always loved how I let it form me or how I showed up. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about where I fit right now. I can't go back to "happy clappy", but I'm uncomfortable with the new deconstruction industrial complex.
Well-said! I also feel the nuance between "deconstructing" from problematic enangelicalism while working hard to maintain a place within "classic" (for lack of a better word) Christianity, which still means a lot to me. I've learned Mainline Christianity won't save me, either. I suppose there are no reliable short-cuts. And yet the Spirit moves, and I remain compelled. Thanks for this thoughtful piece!
I keep seeing people go from the evangelical industrial complex to something that I can see looks like the exvangeical industrial complex. I’m at a place where I’m just backing away from anything that glorifies group think even if it’s in name of “community.” It can be lonely but hearing my own thoughts (even if they can be A LOT) is kinda nice!
I agree many exvangelicals recreate the same abusive patterns and hierarchies they escaped from in evangelicalism. However, I completely disagree there is a "deconstruction industrial complex." There is very little money or power in deconstruction compared to evangelicalism.
Maybe we have different metrics wrt the amounts of money and power on offer, but ISTM that figures like Josh Harris, Jen Hatmaker et al offer at least argument that there's money/power to be made in those spaces.
I don't deny there is money and power in deconstruction, but I object to the “industrial complex” language for several reasons: First, industrial complexes refer to military or prison industries flush with billions, even trillions, of dollars, and who use that money to perpetrate systemic suffering and human rights abuse. Comparing Josh Harris or Jen Hatmaker to that is like a white person comparing working for a California minimum wage with chattel slavery. Just… no. Use a different comparison. Second, evangelical celebrities and leaders have infinitely more money and power than deconstruction celebrities ever will, and are the only group in this conversation that could ever come close to reaching “industrial complex” status. (But even still, I wouldn't use that language here.) Third, yes, Harris and Hatmaker have money and power, but the amount they have is meaningless compared to, say, James Dobson or Michael Farris or Franklin Graham. Grifters making money and power inappropriately or abusively don't make industrial complexes or industries. Not saying Harris and Hatmaker are necessarily grifters, but if they are something bad, it wouldn't be leaders of industrial complexes, is the point.
Thanks for this. It also strikes me that so many exvangelical influencers have little interest in history before evangelicalism. Purity culture, for instance, is treated as an evangelical invention when it has very obvious roots in Catholic mythology surrounding virgin martyrs. When it comes to racism, influencers often take the slaveholding SBC as their starting point, when racism has deep roots in theological antisemitism in Europe. There’s a lot of “main character syndrome” in this community. Not all the world’s problems begin and end with your enemies!
It’s takes concerted effort after evangelicism not to replicate the same patterns that we left. I began deconstructing before there was language for it, and my growth arc somewhat matches the arc of the movement, so that today, we have thought leaders, vocabulary, and resources—but we also have celebrities, gurus, platitudes, and social norms that feel a lot like imposed rules for inclusion. Ex: the crowd that “deconstructed but kept Jesus” and the judgement implicit on those who choose not to. Can we really deconstruct if we’re predetermining a limited outcome? Can we avoid fan base mentality when social platforms push creator/follower formats? What about support groups and community—which can be vulnerable to the same pitfalls as congregations? What about toxic leaders and therapists who are high control or grifters?
I navigate these questions in my work every day. It’s why I decided to remain spiritually private and avoid labels, boxes, and trends so I can protect fluid belief and avoid rigidity. I lean toward ongoing questioning, which keeps curiosity high and shifts with current events and culture, over settling into positions. Urge introspection over slogans and catch phrases. I clarify the numbers are humans following my work—not my personality. I deliberately keep production value low on my content to keep what I do approachable and warm.
I didn’t want deconstruction as a “brand” and choose to see much of it as a topic filter that helps those seeking information connect with the content they seek. But the Internet forces marketing, as does publishing, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sharing our stories helps spread ideas, support, and resources for a net good. We survivors built a movement; if the internet shapes culture, so do we.
If we haven’t done the work around fundamentalist binaries, trauma and trauma responses, bandwagons and groupthink, historical patterns, gender, race, identity, ETC… we will replicate what we left, and I’ve had enough experience in this arena to agree it’s happened.
I have to put in a plug for Lore Wilbert (whom you know, but for others who don't yet!), K.J. Ramsey, and Lauren Cibene (whose book I worked on, full disclosure) as authentic, genuine writers in the deconstruction space who are thinking long and slow about what they produce and refusing to give easy or straightforward answers--or, in most cases, any answers at all. Thanks for writing this post!
I appreciate the thoughtful way you have approached this subject. My husband and I served in Christian higher ed for 30 years, ending when he was demoted as academic vice president because donors found out he never would and never could support DJT, but that's a story for another day. (We are not alone we know.) But in our evangelical world, we had contact with hundreds of students. Especially over the last several years of our tenure, we saw many of the students who had been raised as fundamentalists of the right become fundamentalists of the left--not searching to better know or understand but simply as reaction to anger at the way they had been raised. Though I cannot know each heart and certainly church hurt is real, this observation is based on actual conversations and interactions and so much of it was to "get on the bandwagon" as it were. Not all, certainly, but many. I have found AJ Swoboda's book "After Doubt" quite helpful in trying to assess these dynamics. I wish I had more answers.
Hi, Tammie. I so admire and respect your and J’s integrity here. I understand the students’ knee-jerk reactions against anything that represents the church trauma they grew up with. And, it’s reactionary. I find more peace “walking the middle path” and finding a healthier expression of faith, but not all do.
This piece brings up alot of questions for me. The main two I think are, how has the constant temptation to commoditize of our faith corrupted our witness and compromised our integrity? And, how do faith leaders resist the enticing reality of platform building, growth, subscribers, and a new income stream?
My team just finished an analysis of various "christian organizations" that occupy this space and what I noticed about the leaders is that for most of them, the larger the audience, the smaller the marketable local connection. My Granddaddy would say that we all only have 24 hours in a day so the potential that these folks are actually addressing the 1000's of people engaged with their content while doing deep discipleship with a core group of people engaged with their materials is highly unlikely. It's just more sustainable, if you get graced by the algorithm or grow organically over time to become a spiritual pez dispenser. OR maybe that's just what we're being sold. Either way, I've appreciated those able to occupy the pastoral and prophetic spaces easily, the platform and sitting among the people well, and prioritizing who is right in front of them rather than choosing to engage an audience that is forever elsewhere. And, all of this may be off because “public theology” and our personal faith are often different “markets” and “strategies” so it just may not be what we – consumers of christian content in a social media feed, conference or podcast – will ever get to see.
Comments seem to reveal that the evangelical brand is a specter that haunts those on the path of deconstruction, whether they refer to themselves as exvangelical, post-evangelical, or something else altogether. It is rather difficult to decenter the power of the evangelical brand. There is an earnest search for something that captures the sentiment of “classical Christianity” without naming it “evangelical.”
I have not read your book yet but the Christian urge to be a celebrity is a human urge and maybe in some ways a spiritual urge because it’s borne out of the desire for value and worthiness. Some of us have felt ignored dismissed belittled and shamed for so long that it forms us into a distorted monster prowling these streets looking for something to validate us and feed our crushed egos. That rush of seeing something we say or create go viral can be a drug that awakens a beast in our souls that has been starved for affirmation and even compassion. It makes me think of Te Fiti in the movie Moana. She just needs to be given back her heart.
Great piece. I've been quietly deconstructing since 2009 and have stayed mostly in the proverbial closet during that time. For the longest time, indeed not until I began writing about it, I didn't know deconstruction was a "thing."
I process things by writing and when I started writing about my deconstruction back in 2022 it was mostly to help me figure out what had been happening in my life for the last decade and also to be honest with others about where I am.
However, let me add my own cliche slogan to the ones you listed: "I was deconstructing before deconstruction was cool." :)
Something about deconstruction language has always rubbed me the wrong way even though in most ways I agree with what people are trying to do. It could just be hipster dislike for what has become popular but I hope that I am not entirely this shallow.
I do know that I don't love when academic jargon gets adopted by a movement as it often feels alienating and smug. We have a lot of words that just seem clearer to explain the process people have gone through or are going through that have the advantage of being easier to grasp. You can learn, grow, mature, understand, question, work through, develop, changed your mind, learned and a many more things.
Deconstruction as an exvangelical seems like it is often a very self-improvement individualistic idea "I deconstructed" or "I did the work" which I think is just picking up and centering in unhealthy way one of the less healthy obsessions that evangelicalism has. Deconstruction is a hero's journey or mythic quest people are engaging in making themselves the protagonist in the story.
Ultimately it may just be because the primary "brand" of deconstruction appears to be defining itself in opposition to evangelicalism. It feels less interested in how we should live, think, worship than it is with explaining how evangelicals are doing it wrong
I had to read this post because I have "exvangelical" branded in my name and I have been searching for months on how to navigate exactly what you wrote about here. I want the focus of my content to be about human flourishing through aligned spirituality and self attunement. Less about the actual workings of deconstruction. I want to focus on healing, not another form of labeling. But I also wanted people to have a quick way to know that flourishing after religious trauma is what I am about. I see it as a clarity catch 22 here because the label exvangelical helps identify who I'm talking to but it also has the same cringe effect of when I used to tell people I was a Christian to evangelize. I'm open to some suggestions.
What about “flourishing spirituality” or “flourishing after religious trauma”? I find it’s often wordier to say things with nuance, which doesn’t please the algorithm or SEO, but feels truer to me.
Thank you for putting words to some jerk reactions I've had with the word "deconstruction", even noticing my 🙄 rolls, of late, both of which I'm just now articulating.I think it's the over-used word and branding that irks me, perhaps the branding has caused the word to lose its initial impact? I still think what the deconstruction writers say actually matter a great deal. . #hashtags, trendy headlines, etc.Words like deconstruction loose power after a while. It's the nature of Internet I think that makes many brand & cluster both to get attention above the noise and find like-minded communities. This seems to perpetuate division and either or thinking & dialog. So whats the alternative?
I love the connections you draw between Evangelicalism, #exvangelicals, branding, and capitalism. One of the difficulties with branding (especially on social media) seems to be that the brand has to always be the same, whereas deconstruction is definitely a process.
The other bit you mentioned about needing time and space to process is making me wonder: do you think the individuals in this space need more time to individually process, or do you think it's going to take more time for us as a society to draw bigger conclusions about this moment?
Thanks for putting words to this. It's wild how this very binary way of thinking in evangelicalism is entrenched in exvangelicalism. It's the horseshoe theory meets Christian subculture. The scrambling for hot takes and being *reactively against* instead of *proactively for* has to be exhausting. It's definitely exhausting to watch.
Yes, I completely agree about the binary thinking! And yes, reacting all the time does seem exhausting. Thanks for reading, Kayla!
It’s absolutely all or nothing thinking. I wrote about it that just a couple weeks ago—how it’s still fundamentalism to tell someone “you haven’t deconstructed enough”, and that persists in the exvangelical community. And being against instead of for, which Sarah Bessey wrote about in her latest book.
Yeah. I teach an online class in stages of faith, and the model we lean on the most heavily is actually St Teresa of Ávila's *Interior Castle.* (Her "stages" are illustrated as mansions or dwellings.)
I frequently make the point about the distinct demarcation between her third and fourth "dwellings" (where I think I see deconstruction mostly happening) and note that often people think they have matured out of the third dwelling and into the fourth one when they change their beliefs. But in fact what has often happened instead is that they have just taken all the same toys and moved them to a different corner of the "room."
So agree, and it's exhausting too in the "construction" of Christian nationalism in evangelical spaces entrenched in evangelicalism. Each have the same scripts we hear over and over again.
This resonates so strongly with me. I entered the "deconstruction" space 4 years ago and I haven't always loved how I let it form me or how I showed up. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about where I fit right now. I can't go back to "happy clappy", but I'm uncomfortable with the new deconstruction industrial complex.
DECONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX -- you hit the nail on the head, Amy!
Well-said! I also feel the nuance between "deconstructing" from problematic enangelicalism while working hard to maintain a place within "classic" (for lack of a better word) Christianity, which still means a lot to me. I've learned Mainline Christianity won't save me, either. I suppose there are no reliable short-cuts. And yet the Spirit moves, and I remain compelled. Thanks for this thoughtful piece!
I keep seeing people go from the evangelical industrial complex to something that I can see looks like the exvangeical industrial complex. I’m at a place where I’m just backing away from anything that glorifies group think even if it’s in name of “community.” It can be lonely but hearing my own thoughts (even if they can be A LOT) is kinda nice!
I agree many exvangelicals recreate the same abusive patterns and hierarchies they escaped from in evangelicalism. However, I completely disagree there is a "deconstruction industrial complex." There is very little money or power in deconstruction compared to evangelicalism.
Maybe we have different metrics wrt the amounts of money and power on offer, but ISTM that figures like Josh Harris, Jen Hatmaker et al offer at least argument that there's money/power to be made in those spaces.
I don't deny there is money and power in deconstruction, but I object to the “industrial complex” language for several reasons: First, industrial complexes refer to military or prison industries flush with billions, even trillions, of dollars, and who use that money to perpetrate systemic suffering and human rights abuse. Comparing Josh Harris or Jen Hatmaker to that is like a white person comparing working for a California minimum wage with chattel slavery. Just… no. Use a different comparison. Second, evangelical celebrities and leaders have infinitely more money and power than deconstruction celebrities ever will, and are the only group in this conversation that could ever come close to reaching “industrial complex” status. (But even still, I wouldn't use that language here.) Third, yes, Harris and Hatmaker have money and power, but the amount they have is meaningless compared to, say, James Dobson or Michael Farris or Franklin Graham. Grifters making money and power inappropriately or abusively don't make industrial complexes or industries. Not saying Harris and Hatmaker are necessarily grifters, but if they are something bad, it wouldn't be leaders of industrial complexes, is the point.
I love that last phrase - "deconstruction industrial complex."
Thanks for this. It also strikes me that so many exvangelical influencers have little interest in history before evangelicalism. Purity culture, for instance, is treated as an evangelical invention when it has very obvious roots in Catholic mythology surrounding virgin martyrs. When it comes to racism, influencers often take the slaveholding SBC as their starting point, when racism has deep roots in theological antisemitism in Europe. There’s a lot of “main character syndrome” in this community. Not all the world’s problems begin and end with your enemies!
It’s takes concerted effort after evangelicism not to replicate the same patterns that we left. I began deconstructing before there was language for it, and my growth arc somewhat matches the arc of the movement, so that today, we have thought leaders, vocabulary, and resources—but we also have celebrities, gurus, platitudes, and social norms that feel a lot like imposed rules for inclusion. Ex: the crowd that “deconstructed but kept Jesus” and the judgement implicit on those who choose not to. Can we really deconstruct if we’re predetermining a limited outcome? Can we avoid fan base mentality when social platforms push creator/follower formats? What about support groups and community—which can be vulnerable to the same pitfalls as congregations? What about toxic leaders and therapists who are high control or grifters?
I navigate these questions in my work every day. It’s why I decided to remain spiritually private and avoid labels, boxes, and trends so I can protect fluid belief and avoid rigidity. I lean toward ongoing questioning, which keeps curiosity high and shifts with current events and culture, over settling into positions. Urge introspection over slogans and catch phrases. I clarify the numbers are humans following my work—not my personality. I deliberately keep production value low on my content to keep what I do approachable and warm.
I didn’t want deconstruction as a “brand” and choose to see much of it as a topic filter that helps those seeking information connect with the content they seek. But the Internet forces marketing, as does publishing, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sharing our stories helps spread ideas, support, and resources for a net good. We survivors built a movement; if the internet shapes culture, so do we.
If we haven’t done the work around fundamentalist binaries, trauma and trauma responses, bandwagons and groupthink, historical patterns, gender, race, identity, ETC… we will replicate what we left, and I’ve had enough experience in this arena to agree it’s happened.
Yes to that list of topics to deconstruct! And also power hierarchies.
I have to put in a plug for Lore Wilbert (whom you know, but for others who don't yet!), K.J. Ramsey, and Lauren Cibene (whose book I worked on, full disclosure) as authentic, genuine writers in the deconstruction space who are thinking long and slow about what they produce and refusing to give easy or straightforward answers--or, in most cases, any answers at all. Thanks for writing this post!
I also like Kristen LaValley. Sometimes the ones who don’t scream “deconstruction” have the most nuanced and thoughtful takes on it.
I appreciate the thoughtful way you have approached this subject. My husband and I served in Christian higher ed for 30 years, ending when he was demoted as academic vice president because donors found out he never would and never could support DJT, but that's a story for another day. (We are not alone we know.) But in our evangelical world, we had contact with hundreds of students. Especially over the last several years of our tenure, we saw many of the students who had been raised as fundamentalists of the right become fundamentalists of the left--not searching to better know or understand but simply as reaction to anger at the way they had been raised. Though I cannot know each heart and certainly church hurt is real, this observation is based on actual conversations and interactions and so much of it was to "get on the bandwagon" as it were. Not all, certainly, but many. I have found AJ Swoboda's book "After Doubt" quite helpful in trying to assess these dynamics. I wish I had more answers.
Hi, Tammie. I so admire and respect your and J’s integrity here. I understand the students’ knee-jerk reactions against anything that represents the church trauma they grew up with. And, it’s reactionary. I find more peace “walking the middle path” and finding a healthier expression of faith, but not all do.
Thank you so much, Camden. That means a lot to me, to us.
And yes to the middle path.
This piece brings up alot of questions for me. The main two I think are, how has the constant temptation to commoditize of our faith corrupted our witness and compromised our integrity? And, how do faith leaders resist the enticing reality of platform building, growth, subscribers, and a new income stream?
My team just finished an analysis of various "christian organizations" that occupy this space and what I noticed about the leaders is that for most of them, the larger the audience, the smaller the marketable local connection. My Granddaddy would say that we all only have 24 hours in a day so the potential that these folks are actually addressing the 1000's of people engaged with their content while doing deep discipleship with a core group of people engaged with their materials is highly unlikely. It's just more sustainable, if you get graced by the algorithm or grow organically over time to become a spiritual pez dispenser. OR maybe that's just what we're being sold. Either way, I've appreciated those able to occupy the pastoral and prophetic spaces easily, the platform and sitting among the people well, and prioritizing who is right in front of them rather than choosing to engage an audience that is forever elsewhere. And, all of this may be off because “public theology” and our personal faith are often different “markets” and “strategies” so it just may not be what we – consumers of christian content in a social media feed, conference or podcast – will ever get to see.
Amen. Thank you for this.
📍Sticking a pin in this one.
Comments seem to reveal that the evangelical brand is a specter that haunts those on the path of deconstruction, whether they refer to themselves as exvangelical, post-evangelical, or something else altogether. It is rather difficult to decenter the power of the evangelical brand. There is an earnest search for something that captures the sentiment of “classical Christianity” without naming it “evangelical.”
"Who are writers and content creators in the post-evangelical space who you think are doing this well? I’d love to hear."
Here are a few post-evangelical creators I respect, who build and not just criticize:
Chrissy Stroop
Emily Joy Allison
Cindy Wang Brandt
Marissa Burts and Kelsey McGinnis
Crystal Cheatham
Austen Hartke
Rick Pidcock
Abbi Nye
Christa Brown
Tori Glass
D.L. and Krispin Mayfield
Rachel Coleman
I have not read your book yet but the Christian urge to be a celebrity is a human urge and maybe in some ways a spiritual urge because it’s borne out of the desire for value and worthiness. Some of us have felt ignored dismissed belittled and shamed for so long that it forms us into a distorted monster prowling these streets looking for something to validate us and feed our crushed egos. That rush of seeing something we say or create go viral can be a drug that awakens a beast in our souls that has been starved for affirmation and even compassion. It makes me think of Te Fiti in the movie Moana. She just needs to be given back her heart.
Great piece. I've been quietly deconstructing since 2009 and have stayed mostly in the proverbial closet during that time. For the longest time, indeed not until I began writing about it, I didn't know deconstruction was a "thing."
I process things by writing and when I started writing about my deconstruction back in 2022 it was mostly to help me figure out what had been happening in my life for the last decade and also to be honest with others about where I am.
However, let me add my own cliche slogan to the ones you listed: "I was deconstructing before deconstruction was cool." :)
Something about deconstruction language has always rubbed me the wrong way even though in most ways I agree with what people are trying to do. It could just be hipster dislike for what has become popular but I hope that I am not entirely this shallow.
I do know that I don't love when academic jargon gets adopted by a movement as it often feels alienating and smug. We have a lot of words that just seem clearer to explain the process people have gone through or are going through that have the advantage of being easier to grasp. You can learn, grow, mature, understand, question, work through, develop, changed your mind, learned and a many more things.
Deconstruction as an exvangelical seems like it is often a very self-improvement individualistic idea "I deconstructed" or "I did the work" which I think is just picking up and centering in unhealthy way one of the less healthy obsessions that evangelicalism has. Deconstruction is a hero's journey or mythic quest people are engaging in making themselves the protagonist in the story.
Ultimately it may just be because the primary "brand" of deconstruction appears to be defining itself in opposition to evangelicalism. It feels less interested in how we should live, think, worship than it is with explaining how evangelicals are doing it wrong
I had to read this post because I have "exvangelical" branded in my name and I have been searching for months on how to navigate exactly what you wrote about here. I want the focus of my content to be about human flourishing through aligned spirituality and self attunement. Less about the actual workings of deconstruction. I want to focus on healing, not another form of labeling. But I also wanted people to have a quick way to know that flourishing after religious trauma is what I am about. I see it as a clarity catch 22 here because the label exvangelical helps identify who I'm talking to but it also has the same cringe effect of when I used to tell people I was a Christian to evangelize. I'm open to some suggestions.
What about “flourishing spirituality” or “flourishing after religious trauma”? I find it’s often wordier to say things with nuance, which doesn’t please the algorithm or SEO, but feels truer to me.
Nuance is definitely not often SEO friendly. Thank you for the suggestion. It is encouraging me to lean into the nuance more.
I feel this. And have felt it for a while. Thanks for articulating it so clearly.
Thank you for putting words to some jerk reactions I've had with the word "deconstruction", even noticing my 🙄 rolls, of late, both of which I'm just now articulating.I think it's the over-used word and branding that irks me, perhaps the branding has caused the word to lose its initial impact? I still think what the deconstruction writers say actually matter a great deal. . #hashtags, trendy headlines, etc.Words like deconstruction loose power after a while. It's the nature of Internet I think that makes many brand & cluster both to get attention above the noise and find like-minded communities. This seems to perpetuate division and either or thinking & dialog. So whats the alternative?
I love the connections you draw between Evangelicalism, #exvangelicals, branding, and capitalism. One of the difficulties with branding (especially on social media) seems to be that the brand has to always be the same, whereas deconstruction is definitely a process.
The other bit you mentioned about needing time and space to process is making me wonder: do you think the individuals in this space need more time to individually process, or do you think it's going to take more time for us as a society to draw bigger conclusions about this moment?