Deconstructing My Christianity! Jay Dyer & David Patrick Harry Cover This New Trend

bunch of Marvel soy gears. So this is going to tell you, right, this is going to tell you right away like the sort of personalities that we're dealing with, but also one of the big YouTubers, if you know, Rhett from reht and link is one of the big YouTubers and now TikTokers who's promoted this trend of quote deconstructing my Christianity. So today we're going to cover that, and this is an introductory stream. We're going to actually deal with the more in depth theological challenges in the

second stream, which will be over on Cotel's channel. I've got him linked in the show description and in the title, so be sure and follow David Patrick Harry over at his channel, and we'll do that part two probably next week. But today we're going to introduce the topic. And again it seems to right now be sort of confined to the evangelical world, is apparently spilling over into Mormonism with

this McClellan guy. It's a lot of emergent church, non denominational people doing this, and so what's what's your initial assessment of this? When did you first hear about deconstructing my Christianity and what's your initial assessment?

views they get. I mean, there are multiple videos that have millions of views on TikTok where they really bring the most basic criticisms of Christianity and act as if they have uncovered these hidden, hidden jewels and secrets that nobody's heard about.

author itself and therefore you move into infinite interpretations. And so it's ironic that they're using deconstructionism to highlight how biblical readings scripture are inaccurate. Meanwhile, their own methodology has been criticized throughout scholarship is being relativistic and really is it's deconstructing, but it never constructs anything. It's just constant criticism, and they themselves are guilty of relativism and subjective interpretations

of reading. So's the what's the ultimate conclusion?

to deconstruct all of my narratives, my grand narratives. So it's a very contradictory philosophical nonsense position from the outset. But I'll briefly read a little bit here just to give an introduction to the topic. Faith deconstruction is an evangelical movement within particularly American evangelicalism, and it's closely related to what's called the ex evangelical movement. And this is a very adjacent to Reddit's, you know, the soy atheist sphere of Reddit. Of course, it can have a range

of meanings. Alyssa Childers, So here we have it's beginning with a woman defines deconstruction as a process so systematically dissecting and rejecting the beliefs that you grew up with. Now people are finding this to be some like groundbreaking thing. But it's like, I mean, pretty much everybody who becomes a teenager at some point, I know I did. I'm sure like everybody questions their belief. Why is this some

like new phenomenon first question about Christianity. It's like I realized, this is a system of oppression, as if no one ever questioned their faith when they become you know, seventeen year olds or whatever. Right from the outset. It's kind of silly. And like you said in my notes, I put this is a sued movement. This is like it's

a bunch of SuDS. It goes on to say that Tyler Huckaby, who wrote for Relevant magazine, and you have to keep in mind a lot of these emergent church movements, a lot of these non denominational strip mall churches there, a lot of these are tied to NGO's, are tied to foundations that fund them to push these kinds of ideas, particularly all who was one of the founders of or early on if I remember, he's one of the early emergent church people, and this was an idea to kind

of pick and choose from everything from Catholicism to evangelicalism to classical Reformation theology to kind of create your own evangelical church movement called the emergent Church back in the two thousands, and this kind of was a big It played a role in a lot of the megachurches that popped off during that time period. But it goes on to say that John, it's a process of re examining

your faith. John stone Street, Timothy Paget note that it is both used descriptively, covering everybody from Kevin Max to Derek Webb to Rob Bell or the prescriptive recommendation that you question. The term, as David noted, derives loosely from Jacques Garry does philosophical consts the deconstruction, and the idea is that eventually you uh learn to erode the structures that you were raised with because you figure out, oh, well,

I don't know Saint Paul's intention. I don't know the you know, the basis for uh, you know why the church fathers made this? This this the Bible? Like, so I don't know, So why do I believe in you this? It's just because I was raised with it.

dare it up. Builds upon some Sour's linguistics, and then adds Martin Heideger's phenomenology, which is essentially a critique of Western metaphysics and his focus on the fluid nature of being, which influenced Dardo's approach to questioning traditional philosophical concepts. So you can see this fluidity and the idea of categories and being mixed with meaning is now in the in

between space, it's not within symbols itself. And then of course Nietzsche's critique of truth, which he is skeptical about the existence of objective truth itself, which again is ironic because the people presenting this as if they're presenting an objective form of truth undermining Christian faith and so so sore Heidiger and Nietzsche are really the core inspirations for Dereduck sort of combining this into a deconstructionist philosophy that

is really in opposition to at that time structuralism and building linguistic structures and understanding cultural phenomenon and all this different stuff and then underneath it, and then we'll probably discuss those more in part two, because they use a lot of vaki and cognitive science of religion, and it's because deconstructionism, because it was kind of a linguistic movement. The way they rooted themselves in science is through psychoanalysis

and so lacan Freud. These are then inspirations for emphasizing the unconscious and sort of evolutionary understandings of why religion exists and why people are religious. And when we watch some of the more tiktoks probably in part two, we'll see that they always moved to a sort of evolutionary understanding of why people believe certain things or why the Bible says this or that.

You can see how this is adjacent to Marxism. There is a very clear demarcation though between postmodernism and Marxism, and so this is an area where Jordan Peterson typically kind of gets things wrong, even though there is some overlap. So because many of the postmodernists did like elements of Marxism. Postmodernism, though, was utilized by the CIA actually to fight against Soviet

realism and cosmism. So it's actually the CIA that went and met with Dairy Daw and various deconstruction is to try to try to incorporate and utilize this form of liberalism. And it's a form of liberalism because it's it's radical in its deconstructing process, right, so that for example, there's no objective meanings, that there's no you know, universal narratives, then sovietism cosmism is not true. And so it's part of the arsenal of the Western liberal project, even though

it's a deconstruction even of Western liberalism. So people get confused over this and they don't understand sort of these differences. But I'm glad you mentioned semiotics. I had quite a few classes that dealt with semiotics and in underground in grad school, So this is an area I know decently.

It's an illusion if we think we're deriving the author's meaning, and so it's a breaking down of first books and literature. You could see the same thing mirrored, for example, in the higher critical studies of breaking down the Bible in the higher the German higher criticism schools after Luther the

same thing's going on in philosophy. If I can't know the Bible, if the Bible's deconstructed, you know, generation or two after Luther, then it seems to follow, Well, wait a minute, I don't really know anybody book, do I. I can't. There's no book that I can actually derive, So I'm just importing all of my personal presubsisitions and meanings into the book. So that's kind of the setting

for this. But as David pointed out, most of the people I think involved in this don't really they don't know anything about all that they don't.

eighties that it became a very dominant. This is why even today within the humanities, you know, Michelle Fuco is the most cited scholar in the world, and of course he died from activities at bathroomme hous Is in the Bay Area. But I just wanted to point out that this isn't a new phenomenon. Even though these TikTokers are

acting like they just discovered the sun or something. This is kind of old hat stuff and they really don't even know what they're engaging in, especially with their verritical claims about what scripture says or what It's funny because even the Dan McClellan glag, he will argue for what he believes the intent of the author is, even though his own deconstructionist movement rejects, like you said, a thorial intent within textual scripture itself.

or radical empiricism in the very same way. We can actually take the some of the critiques that postmodernists have and they're very useful, and they're they're very adjacent to transcendental argumentation. Just the critiques though, So be very be very clear with what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that I want to adopt postmodern philosophy. There is no answer. I mean, the whole point is everything is destroyed and deconstructive because there are no grand narratives. So now, obviously,

if we believe in Christianity, that's our grand narrative. But the postmodernists have a very good insight when it comes to deconstructing language from an atheist empiricist perspective. So any time you're talking to say, you know, enormy Reddit level atheist who doesn't know this stuff, kind of the Dawkins Dinnet, you know, Hitchins sphere, those kinds of people, they will not have any significant answer to postmodern critiques of their

Enlightenment assumptions. So that's why they're very useful to us if you're very careful. So exactly as somebody said in the chat there more says you can deconstruct you deconstructionism, absolutely, but they have very valid critiques of the presuppositions of

the Enlightenment. In other words, I could use, say, some of the postmodern critiques against somebody like James Lindsay, right, Doctor James Lindsay would not be able to I'm not saying that the postmodernists are correct in their answers, but their critiques can be valid critiques of Enlightenment assumptions. And that will I don't want to yap too long, but that will get into the very interesting questions that are raised when we get into linguistic philosophy. And so for those

of you that one last point here. For those of you that have seen me, for example, in a lot of debates with atheists, you'll see me at times bringing up linguistic issues. That's because I had enough of a uh instruction in semiotics in my classes to know that most atheists aren't aware of how nuanced and complex languages and how nuanced and complex the philosophy of signs and

symbols is. And so if you know that stuff, that could be it could be very powerful AMMO against sort of the normy atheists.

We're not supporting postmodernism or deconstructionism. But as you said, when it when really all this stuff is coming out of post enlightenment and really post contient critiques of rationalism, you can utilize these things as AMMO from a theistic orthodox perspective and undermine people that are your perceived intellectual rivals.

And that's what that's why this stuff is useful for us, even though we would ject again postmodernism or deconstructionism as an ultimate methodology or endpoint for philosophy.

He's actually not just a famous author and kind of weirdo anti Catholic, but he left Catholicism and Tomism actually because of postmodernism and his atheism and became like a committed super duper like hardcore you know, postmodernist and his but his, his novels are actually really interesting critiques of a lot of say, Roman Catholic metaphysical assumptions and things that we would agree with without accepting the end result. Because I mean he's a totally kind of wicked dude,

kind of like Fuco Right was totally wicked. But I mean there are some really fascinating people. Uh and and I mean I had to read Charles Sanders purse uh and for for this domain as well as a you know sorcerer that you're talking about back in the.

why this is hitting Christianity right now? It says after preaching a sermon in which he equated deconstructions in with leaving the faith. Matt Chandler clarified that it doesn't mean necessarily doubting or theological wrestling through church hurt. John Cooper stated, I don't even know who these people are. These are like famous evangelicals. It is time that we declare war against this deconstruction movement. It is anti christian, it is

a false religion. On the other hand, other evangelicals like Tyler Huckabee argue that it can result in deconversion out of Christianity and most often that it leads you into something somewhere in between, to a form of progressivist Christianity.

So I think, from the vantage point of maybe the power elite, why this would be pushed so hard in these circles is maybe if they can't even necessarily get people to be full on atheists, it at least gets the evangelical world to be more progressive and more cocked. And this is something that you and I were talking about beforehand. There's an interesting pattern which we'll cover when we get to your channel. With a lot of the guys involved in this, what are some of the patterns?

And I think with the women too, what some of the patterns you've noticed with the.

them have millions of views. And in her office where she sits there in films these if that's not in her car, she has Funko pops all over the background. And I thought that that is iron It never fails.

but you could tell. So he was super pro LGBTQ, pro everything progressive, and it's a way for them to have a foothold in quote unquote Christianity. But rationalizing this is the modern person's religion. This is something that's deconstructed. We're taking away all the fictitious aspects of Christianity and now we're coming to for them a fuller realization, a

rational understanding of the Biblical God. And how you know, all these criticisms of texts and discrept and sees what they perceive to be between Old Testament prophecies and the Messiah in Christ, this type of stuff. But it really just seems a way for them to present themselves as intellectually sound and hyper rational. And I think that's why we're seeing it in like evangelical and Pentecostal charismatic circles is one, you know, well in the charismatic circle is

kind of irrational, but they're anti intellectual movements. So yeah, right, But I've made the argument because of the lack of sacraments and Protestantism, it really is an ideology. And so when you hear Protestants worry about the world, it's communism, it's it's you know, undermining capitalism, it's it's ideologies that

are in competition with Protestantism. This is why, you know, if somebody's possessed, even I know somebody here in the local town, they went to a Catholic priest to get an extracism because their Protestant church doesn't deal with that sort of material realm of mystery and the sort of super spiritual reality within the world. So I think Protestantism is already lean because it's really an Enlightenment or early

pre Enlightenment creation. It is a hyper it's ironic because they're anti intellectual, as you said, but at the same time, it's an ideology itself. It's fundamentally about rational apprehension of beliefs.

persons who's a promoter of it. For examp sample, they say, you could look at Martin Luther himself as somebody who was a deconstructionist. He deconstructed his own Catholic upbringing to come to a new revolutionary paradigm which didn't wholly abandon Christianity,

but was something new and progressive. So that Luther there, even the proponents of were saying, well, we're not doing anything different than what Martin Luther was doing, which I think is kind of true, and I think from orthodized perspective, I could say, yeah, the pope too, like the pope in the eleventh century of the grigoyin Reforms was, as Saint Justin Popovich says, another kind of he was the

first Protestant revolutionary, was the pope at that time. Now, one thing that immediately pops into my mind too, from a philosophical perspective, is that the videos that I've watched in these pseudo intellectual guys and I just I remember this McClellan guy. I've actually people have sent me his videos before. I didn't realize he was a Mormon dude.

But that makes sense because one thing you'll notice that people who say utilize a lot of these deconstruction elements and these postmodern ideas, these that's a filosophy where there is no neutrality, there's no privileged position from which you

can judge. That's not theory lating. Yet every one of the people who does these critiques in the evangelical or even Mormon world here like they're assuming that they actually do have neutrality, because they're saying that, oh, the Bible has these systems of oppression, the Bible has these you know, bad arguments and has these falsehoods. Well, all of that relies on you having some kind of position from which

you can make those critiques. But the problem is that if you're actually a postmodernist, there is no privileged position, there is no theory neutral position, So they're inconsistent the application of this philosophy.

of his Mormonism. He wants him to take on as sort of aryan Christology and promotion of his Mormon worldview, and so his deconstructionism and constantly undermining what we would consider foundational Christian beliefs is part for him to elevate his Mormon theology as being in his view, more consistent with the Old Testament than you know, Orthodoxy or Catholicism or mainline Protestantism.

It's not obviously not talking about Mohammed and some bother coming of the Holy Spirit. Well, Joseph Smith went one step further and actually added eleven verses to Genesis to predict himself in Genesis. So I'm curious what Dan. If Dan was going to do some linguistic constructions right and figure out if that's actually part of Genesis.

But there's a there's something that's a problem I've noticed with a lot of people who are linguists, which is that they oftentimes assume, I don't know, if you remember the debate that either was a JF a long time ago, but Jay have kind of assumed that because he's studied a lot of you know, neuro whatever neuroscience, that basically he knew everything else, Like I don't have to know anything about logic or philosophy because I've studied you know, neurology,

so I know I know what's going on. It's like, that doesn't mean that you're gonna know anything in the domain of logic, you didn't know basic you know, logical fallacies, the exact same mistake, the sort of like boxed in, you know, mono vision that they have is is definitely the case with a lot of linguists, and so they will assume that because they've deconstructed language, that that's all

that you need to know. And then most most of the time they're absolutely they're absolutely totally inept when it comes to philosophy. They have no idea what fallacies are, They have no idea the historical discussions and disputes of philosophy. They don't even know the history of linguistic philosophy. But they've studied linguistics, and they think much like a physicist, Right, you and I would know if we critiqued you know, somebody like you know, Dawkins or somebody or or Nilda

grass Tyson. Right, they think that, well, I've studied a lot of physics. That's the key to understanding and knowing everything. Well, that's your assumption. So that doesn't mean you know everything. In fact, you know very little of what's actually going on. And most I mean every I mean, maybe Dan's a unique exception to the rule. But I mean, most of the time linguistics people, they're so like one sided, they have no idea what's going on.

Christianity associates with Christ. He's looking at certain words and highlighting that it's not taking on the full divinity of the Father, and therefore it's not He's leading them to the argument that Jesus Christ, then isn't one with the

Trinity himself, at least according to the Old Testament. And then he ends the book by claiming that logos philosophy theology wasn't articulated till like the fourth century, and therefore wasn't even available for early Christians, and that this is a later innovation in Christian the I.

logos apologists. So that's just on the on its face, preposterous, right.

that they didn't have those philosophical terms. There you can see the terminology of even Trinitas and Tertullian and is it ignacious? Not ignacious? Yeah, the Aphulus, the Apulus of Antiocho all so very early uses the term trinity. So triad and Trinitas are used prior to and not i Sea. But even apart from the terminology and the philosophical toolkits, we don't it doesn't matter because we don't believe that it's ultimately dependent on the philosophy terms. It's dependent upon

what's revealed in those texts. And as you guys know, we've done multiple videos and streams where we've In fact, a few months ago, I did a three hour stream just in the Torah, just the references to the Triad and the Torah, and it took three hours to get through all those and I still missed one. So that's not even counting all of the minor profits and the psalms and so forth. So and that's the whole other

thing itself. We'll talk about more of that in the part two that we will do with Kotel, But again, I just wanted to stress this notion of the limitations of linguistics. And it's odd too, because it's curious for me to hear somebody who's a postmodern influenced person to then think that they then have a key through linguistics. I mean, the whole point of this is deconstructing linguistics. So it's just it's just absurd.

assumptions of solo scriptura. And I think this is a great point to highlight that none of these people are ever self aware of their own presubpositions. That's so key all right, now we have let me read a little bit more a lot of this. Uh so, what does it exactly mean to do this process? So we got the idea of where it comes from, its origins and post modern philosophy and linguistics. This is just like stuff

I found, just sort of normy stuff online. And this is important to be Why are you going to normy stuff? But because this is what all the TikTok people are gonna search and find. This is where they're gonna go. So the normy websites and everything said, this is involves quote, first you break down the components of your faith. So I believe in the trinity, I believe in the deed of Christ, I believe in the salvation through Jesus and his blood and so forth. And then it says you, next,

you have to examine your beliefs in God. Why do you have those beliefs? Do you perhaps have presuppositions or biases? It's interesting that that terminology is coming up. Here's a key point. Do you have these beliefs because of your privilege? Wait a minute, privilege? So now they're bringing in like the critical race there crt right, the woke stuff is starting to first, what would privilege have to do with with my beliefs? But they don't even realize that they're

caving to a separate paradigm already. So they think they're achieving neutrality, but they're adopting a leftist, woke paradigm to begin to make these critiques. Do you see what I'm saying? Because there's like the articles will start to sneak in this idea that perhaps you believe in something because of your privileges, which is all like classical Marxists is speak right.

metaphysical categories themselves. So all this stuff is embedded within deconstructionism.

first thing they'll say is skittle stuff. They'll say, I didn't realize that, like, you know, there's nothing wrong with like, you know, being skittles, And Christianity is the thing that told me that it's wrong to be this, which is odd because it's like you never obviously Christianity told you, Like what, how is that some new revelation in your deconstructing process, Right, It's.

is this hegemonic force that's oppressing us. And and she was responding to a Christian who said that basically was criticizing her continual criticisms of the Church, and she was arguing, well, we have to because this is this is the how we liberate people, how we liberate women from again this patriarchal dominating force. And it's exactly what you just said.

And of course it's a woman who goes to graduate school and all of a sudden, now she's enlightened about how you deconstruct Christianity and Lily roo.

similar to renovating a house. It can involve removing, adding, modifying, and rearranging the various structural elements that make up your belief in, your lifestyle and your worldview to make it more livable. Thus, deconstructing your faith is not abandoning your faith wholesale, but rather looking for a more coherent and

consistent way without inventing a new religion wholesale. So in other words, it's sort of like they're offering, like, look, you don't have to totally abandon Christianity, just get a bit rid of all the things that are you know, goes against the modern world, like being opposed to skittle stuff. Right, So that's all that it is. Right, So yeah, I

call yourself a Christian. Just scale it down to you know, not talking about Jesus being the only way to have it, kind of like Pote Francis the other day, Right, all the religions are paths to God. The deconstructionism is a

relatively new idea that originated in textual criticism. So this is again making my point, it's not just the deconstructionists and the postmoners philosophers actually goes back to the post Luther movements of higher textual criticism, deconstructing these texts down to well, we don't really know what Jesus taught, and we don't really know who the authors of these gospels are.

And so if you remember, there used to be this thing called the Jesus Quest, and this was this, you know, globalist promoted thing of scholars who are a bunch of skittles people, shocker, who decided that we only know about two to three percent of what Jesus actually said. The rest of what's in the gospels are these accretions of traditions. So what do we get this idea that there's these accretions of traditions. Well, it sounds a lot like the Protestants,

doesn't it. Yeah, So in other words, it's the same idea of Protestantism. And you'll notice that a lot of the deconstructionists in the Christian world, they keep linking themselves to Luther. They're like, we're just the next phase of Luther's deconstructing and getting rid of the traditions of men and the accretions. How often do you hear evangelicals say, I don't follow traditions of men, I follow the Bible of Jesus's word, and you believe in the traditions of

men and your adults and your acons. This is just the next level of that by assuming that higher criticism can now be applied to every aspect of your own life. In other words, higher criticism was in academia. askTel said, this is doing deconstructing and higher criticism in your own personal walk in life. To say, you don't know what these words mean. You don't know what the original Jesus was. Nobody knows what the original Jesus taught, if he even existed, right.

when you read about this will that pop up. They really like this house analogy, which is interesting because we kind of agree with that from a presubpositional, you know, perspective, like, yeah, you have these foundational beliefs and then the rest of your beliefs are kind of built on those presubpositions, those foundations that you have that make up your worldview. But what they'll always say in these articles and these explanations

is to deconstruct is actually a process. It can be different, but it is taking a part every idea, practice, tradition, and belief into smaller components. So you basically break everything down into these parts, and then you try to figure out, how do you know that little part is true? How do you know this little part's true? And so it's ironically it's like an evil version of what we do when we presupt people, right, where we're actually getting them

to question their presubpositions. The difference is that this is like atheist presup where they're trying to get people to become atheists right because they say, oh, it's a painful process, but you may have to do this because you don't really know. And now here's another thing I want to come to, which is this is actually a fallacy. I've noticed in a lot of these people when they describe

their journey, they commit the genetic fallacy. They will think that when they deconstruct and they get to this point where it's like, well, I just realized, like I got that from my mom, like my mom raised me with this. Well, first of all, that it came from your mom is just the origin of the belief. That has nothing to do with whether it's true or false.

smaller and small and smaller. And so academic critics have highlighted that its primary focus of exposing contradictions and gaps and tensions within texts without providing any sort of constructive alternative response, has led people to describe just deconstructionism as nihilistics, offering offering little in terms of positive or meaningful engagement

with any text, especially scriptural textual scholarship. So to your point, it's just constantly breaking things down into smaller and smaller bits, and of course, because it's ultimately relativisty, that's all you're left with.

it's paid to promote. So I can turn the tables and use this very same argument, which I actually would do, and I actually say that there's actually an agenda and a reason why the scholarship that you're appealing to in this fallacy of authority is promoted in academia, and that's because academia is corrupt, which, by the way, he believes that academia in prior generations was corrupt because it promoted

the patriarchal, fallocentric narratives. Oh, but now it's not corrupt, and we're supposed to just default to these people as if they're not corrupt anymore, when they're actually way more corrupt because they push the most ridiculous, like you know, like even just totally degenerate stuff from academia. They're the spearhead, they're the tip of the spear of all of this

revolution against you know, what is just common decency. Now, this article that I'm looking at here from the Sophia Society about deconstructing your faith, it actually goes on to describe again the breaking down of your paradigm, which is the stuff that you talk about, and it says that as you get older, you will realize that you encounter

situations in life that don't fit with this paradigm. Now that's actually true, I think for evangelicals, right, Evangelicalism, as you said, is an anti intellectual movement from the outset, and so it doesn't really equip people to handle really complex, nuanced situations. For example, evangelicalism can't tell you anything about geopolitics.

They're usually totally ignorant about that. So when they're confronted with geopolitical issues like war, mass immigration, borders, they don't have any coherent answer to that because it's an anti intellectual ahistorical scale down, lowest calm denominator position, oftentimes based on emotionalism. I converted in a big tent revival because I was crying and the preacher made me feel bad.

And so it's a pseudo Christianity that causes people to get angry and doesn't have any grounding or any coherent worldview, and that's why these people are so easily let out of this religion. Is that a pattern you've.

things that they're trying to correct. So deconstructionism is, i mean, really part of these critical scholarship or Marxist theories about paving a new beginning point in history, right, so it has to undermine and flatten everything that came before it, And Evangelical Christianity is sort of ahistorical, and so it's able to sort of bridge that gap even quicker because it doesn't have any long standing traditions to uphold.

the man made traditions. Well, the assumption then is that, well, how do you know there's not man made traditions in this book that men decided to to put together. Oh, I guess there could be could in there. So now I have to scale down all of those things. And even in my own life. Wait a minute, how do I know I'm not believing in man made traditions? You may be. So it's this scaling down process of lowest

common denominator which Protestantism was built on. Ecumenism is also built on the same idea that it's not a holistic thing. Everything is piecemeal, broken down. It's all based on independent, little data points that don't connect in any holistic, meaningful way. So there's a necessary anti holistic perspective that undergirds all this as well.

any reason or cause to believe otherwise? All he or she has ever known is the love, goodness, and warmth of their family. The second child. But the second this child encounters or witnesses someone in the world who is therefore not kind, they begin to doubt this belief that all people are good. Thus their worldview is shattered. How is the child to make sense of this encounter? Often they react by categorizing people then either as all good

or all bad. All that all and that works for a while until until they've encountered someone who is that they previously thought was good, doing something bad, or vice versa. Slowly, then the paradigm must be rebuilt and shift to reflect the reality now that not everyone is good, some people can do good and bad, some people are largely good

or largely bad. As you can see without the ability to deconstruct something that was previously useful in the case of the child, new information then comes in which qualifies this simplistic black and white attitude. Thus they no longer have a dualistic way of seeing the world, because it would only get them so far, so far. Thus this is true also for our faith. When we're young, we believe that whatever we were taught about God, Earth, after life,

and human nature is true. After a while, though, we usually have to develop and reflect upon new information, and thus we go into new stages of beliefs. People don't usually try to explain the doctrine of, for example, total depravity to if you're a Calvinist, to a four year old, but they tell them basic ideas about Adam and Eve and the fall. And thus, for example, a child is taught Calvinistic told depravity and they're raised with this presupposition.

Now that's all well and good, and I would agree that that's a fine example, but none of that actually tells us though, which beliefs are true or false. Again, because we're raised with something, we might actually be raised with a belief that's that's true. Right, So the deconstructing process is in part can be not necessarily, but it can be built on fallacies. It can be built on illogical non sequit or conclusions that we make just because

we're raised with something. And they try to always say that The article goes on to say, deconstruction does not mean that your faith must die. It simply means that you have to update your faith and take into account new information. But whoever said that we didn't do that anyway? Like where was I mean maybe within the realm of

really fundamentalist evangelicalism. This is something that is true. But as you can see, they're they're taking something that we would agree with that you do need to kind of question these presuppositions. Then they're saying, see, you need to become an atheistic liberal is basically what it is. So it does it mean that you become a more coherent version of Christianity? They're said, say, I know, you've got to be like an atheist or like a total progressive cucked Christianity.

getting at by building something on fallacious fallacies. You know, that stuff's really never brought into question within deconstructionism. It's just constantly undermining whatever they can through.

good recovering from evangelicalism. Jesus is queer. So I feel like like maybe there's an agenda here, Like I don't know what you guys think. Do you see any patterns here? I don't know so, but yeah, but what's where again? Remember this is like this is the domain of evangelicalism, and I guess this Sophia Society is some sort of like hub of deconstructionism. Now, there's another article here that

says what does it mean to deconstruct? Well, here's your guide to doing it, and you're not going to be surprised as to what you will begin to see. Rethinking Christian sexuality, liberation, theology, why it doesn't work to try to be pure in terms of sexuality, making sense of the Bible post deconstruction, reframing your relationship with the Bible. So notice that it's all it's all about the book right now. Wait a minute, it gets better understanding the

divine feminine. Wait a minute, what is patriarchy? Deconstructing patriarchy? God is our mother? Now, wait a minute, why is the goddess gaia narrative not a narrative that needs to be constructed?

what exactly are we getting at here? It's just it's just a it's a it's really a intellectual militaristic attack.

It's again, it's like totally obvious just seeing the article titles that this whole thing is literally just a like I mean, it's probably they're probably getting money from like the d n C Soros, you know what I mean, Like like black Rock is, like it's probably funded by all that. I believe it.

indiscriminately across various disciplines. And so the rigorous philosophical foundation of deconstruction, grounded in Derita's complex theories of language and metaphysics, is often simplified and then even misapplied in ways that lose total philosophical nuance, leading to the superficial sort of misguided readings and interpretations.

This is also connected to again this movement from a couple of decades ago called the Emerging Church movement, which was equated with the Emergent movement, a Christian movement in late twentieth century early twenty first century, so nineties and two thousands. Emerging churches are found all around the globe, particularly though in North America. And if I remember, this had some original origin source coming out of like ex Episcopal Anglican people, so it's being sused from the beginning.

But this is kind of the seedbed from which now the deconstructing movement has grown. The idea is that people were tired of their traditional quote unquote churches. So even Protestanism was getting bored with Baptist hymns and Episcopal hymns, and so they decided to start making house churches. So if you remember in the nineties, this popped off, and I know because I used to go to house church

meetings in the nineties. I was immediately sort of swept up into this stupid house church movement because I thought, well, the New Testament says they met in households, that must mean low church house churches. I don't know if you've heard of this or familiar with this, but the idea being that all of the religious imagery, investments and incense or any of that kind of stuff are the trappings and the traditions of men. We got to get back

down to this like simplified living. But what's interesting is that it's not just about that. It comes out of the home church movement, because some of the people who were in the mergent church movement wanted to have liturgy, they wanted to have these elements. So there's no cohesive like actual doctrine or anything. It's just this sort of like hippiest Jesus idea of like like Jesus was like, you know, against the men or whatever. Do you remember

the Jesus People movement? Yeah, you know that. I had a lot of CIA connections in terms of its word. And this is where you get the Vineyard movement. And this is where you get what's it called the FDA used to be in this. He was raising this the I'm going blank. No, the out of California, the denomination out of California that was burned by by these people, one of whom was actually in the CIA. No, I'm

serious Calvary Chapel. Oh, so the whole Calvary Chapel movement comes out of the Jesus People movement in the sixties and seventies, who were these hippies that converted to Jesus. A lot of them read Late Great Planet Earth by how Lindsay later on in the eighties, and and so a lot of this like evangelical end time stuff was influencing these hippie christian these hippies to convert to this weird evangelical Christianity that unfortunately spawned a bunch of charismatic movements,

the Vineyard Movement and the Calvary Chapel movement. And I'm going blank on the guy who was the Calvary Chapel CIA guy, but he's one of the main early founders. Saddleback also has these connections. I don't doubt that that's it, Chuck Smith. And there's even deeper connections too, because some of the guys were were actual Green Beret CIA operatives

in Vietnam. Now I'm not trying to be overly conspiratorial like they just they may just have been like low tier evangelical, you know, Vietnam guys who thought like Boomers that we gotta fight for America. So we're gonna we're gonna start at Jesus Church. We're gonna call it Calvert Chapel because we're gona get back to the basics. And

do you know what I mean? They might have had good motivations, But what you start to notice is that a lot of these people like exactly Elon, like Rick Warren, Why are they suddenly associated with Obama and the Council form Relations? Are you familiar with that?

transhumanists kind of put forth. So I don't follow Rick Warren super close, but when you said that, it kind of popped out, because if he's associating with those types of groups and people like Obama kind of makes sense then maybe why he's constructing an eschatology for his following that kind of mimics some.

weird website. But but yes, there is those there is that connection there. Again, I'm not saying that that makes that's it. It was the Antipus article exactly, thank you, But I don't think that website exists anymore. So that's the problem is that you can't really find that. No, SII go away. I don't want you go away.

not Rosta, but her name was Barbara ajo Uh. And it goes into a long critique of the Jesus People movement and the odd characters and odd balls behind it. Particularly. Let's see the antipaus papers written by sh R. Shearer identify his intelligence assignments before and during the time of the Jesus People Moving fro nineteen sixty seven nineteen seventy two.

He served as an intelligence officer in Europe during Vietnam the Intelligence Group, the five hundred and twenty fifth Division in the five hundred and fifteenth counter Intelligence Operative Group nineteen seventy two, resign commission to become a pastor for the Jesus People in Washington, d C. This is again kind of the birthing of all this, these weird movements that we're talking about. Now, remember there is this is the deep state connection to just this. This is the

non denominational movement's birth. It comes out of this stuff. You have to understand that. That's why I'm talking about this, because you're not going to be able to separate all this emergent church stuff from the same funding, the same sources, the same origins. And that's why this is where you get the Are you familiar with the Vineyard movement the crazy stuff? Yeah, so that's these people too, Council for National Policy, that's the fake right wing version of the

CFR anyway, so people can go read that there. We're not going to go down that rabbit hole. But but yeah, that's another angle that you have to understand to this, which is that so basically that movement of sixties Jesus People gives you Calvary Chapel, gives you Vineyard Movement, it gives you modern charismaticism, gives you the revivalist movements of the charismatic groups gives you no denominationalism. It all comes out of that, and that's all a bunch of like

literal pentagon deeps day people. Right, all right, well we'll try again.

punk rock music is. He excuse me, he said punk shows are full of skills, pride, and everybody has a colored bathomet statues everywhere. I'm not surprised that sounds exactly what I mean, But I mean, the punk scene was always kind of like adjacent to a lot of that stuff, and so it's weird that what was supposed to be like you know, the most rebellious music is the most establishment now ye anonymous and seven dollars, thank you so much,

Jeffrey Klein. Five dollars. I saw a progressive post that was arguing that immigration law is against scripture and they were using terrible theology. Yeah, I think most of the time they do. I mean, I've seen a lot of attempts by evangelicals to argue that we show totally open borders. I think even Gavin Ortlund was arguing that, which I think is preposterous. I think even Peter Leiheart was arguing that that. But I mean, that's all just I mean,

to me, that's just fundamentally stupid. I mean, when as any orthodox nation ever thought that you're supposed to have totally open borders, just totally This is what I mean, this is what happens when you become a Protestant, you deny all tradition of the church, right right, swim of the capt ten dollars. I know we already did excuse me, Ac since twenty bucks question mark, question mark, Well, thank you, AC.

Appreciate that this is not the only stream. We are going to do more streams over on cotails channel addressing the specific challenges that the deconstructions all bring up. Ortho Dbo three dollars. Who are your favorite saints? And why this is off topic? I know, but just want some of the lore, keep up the basic, keep up the based work.

really philosophically nonsensical. But again, it appeals to a lot of people precisely because of you know, evangelicalism is an anti intellectual movement kind of incipiently, and so people feel like they're getting some intellectual meat when they start to delve into this, you know, kind of sued stuff, and it sounds cool and they can make tiktoks talking about

how they deconstructed everything. That's really what that rat guy does from ret and Link is it's it's super low tire, like it's just really really like so, like, guys, I know that, like you probably haven't seen a lot for me lately, but that's because I've been going through a process of deconstruction and it's very and they do a lot of emotional appeals. They're like, it's gonna be tough

for you, guys, but we can do this together. And one of the things I had to realize is that like my views on Skittle's people like it was totally coming from a place a privilege and oppression. I mean, that's a letter of how it goes. And then he goes on like how he Mendel's podcast to talk about how he's you know, he's basically Laptist Christianity or whatever.

theological claims that biblical texts make. And this undermines the possibility of understanding the text as a coherent expression of faith and tradition, because, as you said, it's constantly breaking things down into smaller and smaller bits, and therefore they never even approach a comprehensive understanding of a larger meta

arc because they reject them. And then number two is the reduction reduction of personal and ideological biases, which we've already mentioned, but because deconstruction allows for multiple, often contradictory interpretations, it can enable individuals to reinterpret scripture in ways that

align with their contemporary biases. This is particularly problematic and religious context where the text is intended to convey a specific teaching of truth rather than a canvas for endless reinterpretation. And then number three is undermining communal and traditional readings, is that deconstruction often dismisses interpretive traditions and communal understandings

that have been built around biblical texts. This can be seen as a form of intellectual colonialism to use their language, imposing modern, individualistic interpretive frameworks onto ancient texts that were meant to be understood within a communal and traditional context.

Old testamenty. I actually wrote an essay ten years ago before I had even read Hangelo or any of these people we are in or any of the Jewish scholars talking about. This was about Wisdom and the Old Testament because I was arguing against EMJ. So EMJ has an incorrect idea that John the Apostle, in John one is using logos in the same sense as Stoics and other Greek philosophers. No, he's pulling from the Hebrew wisdom tradition of the personification of wisdom in the Wisdom text. That's

where John's getting that. It's not getting it from pagan philosophers. Now, pagan philosophers might be groping in the for that, But no, you already have, with the translation of the Hebrew text into Greek, the septuagen in this tradition, So it's exactly right. Mind, haag five dollars, Thank you so much. Mind, I appreciate this storm of the cat. Ten dollars. We already read that one. Pooh pooh McGhee. Five dollars. Can you do

a video? Can you do a video where Gavin Orland talks about a fallible collection of fallible books or have you seen it and quickly explain why it's false. I mean, I've been responding to that for ten years on videos, so I mean it's just again, they're just recycled the same argument. Just watch any debate that I've had with the Protestants where I talk about how if you say that the whole collection is fallible, then it really doesn't

do any good. If you say that the books themselves are infallible because if I can start removing them, and that's exactly what Luther and higher critical scholarship did. The end result is where we are today with today's deconstructioning deconstruction is do not see that like this sets the precedent that there's no normative authority in history in the Church to say, okay, here's the canon. This is it.

It's established now every individual Protestant can do his own personal research to figure out what he thinks the canon is. And since there's no living historical authority from the time of the Apostles till now, that's all Protestants are united on this. No one can bind anybody else's conscience in Protestantism. That's the Protestant basics, right, No freedom of conscience, freedom

of worship, freedom of private interpretation. Since nobody can communicate anybody, nobody can say anybody's wrong, you end up with this position of anybody can say, well, I prayed and study a lot, and here's my new Testament canon. And who are you to say I'm wrong? You can't bind my conscience. That's what you know protestantsm built on. So it's it's all absurd from the outset, and I've done probably one hundred videos where I talk about a fallible collection of

invaaluable books. But okay, so I know you've got to go pretty soon. Is there anything else in this introductory streaming? Again? Next week we're going to do some more end depth responses to the actual arguments that these people use. What else comes to mind? Any other things that we didn't hit on in this well?

can't defend a coherent meaning because they reject any sort of overarching narrative that connects through history, and then the rejection of the role of tradition and community, and then their constructive theological engagement. Scholars like Stanley Howerwass advocate for constructive approach to scripture, which is obviously an opposition to

the entire agenda of deconstructionism. And therefore they really, as we highlight earlier scholars that point out that because it's constantly deconstructing, it really doesn't give you anything to build upon. It's just constantly taking things apart. And then the last one and really the most really devastating, even though they don't like to deal with it, is relativism that many scholars refuse to use deconstructionism because it ultimately it's inherently relativistic.

And that connects back with the early part of the stream where Dereta is appealing to Nietzsche's rejection of objective truth. Therefore, like Fuco, everything is power structures regarding to the privileging of certain truths and knowledge, and therefore you have to undermine all sources of power, which get back to the article you're reading. With all those titles about BLM and Queer Jesus and all this different stuff, what they're doing

is focusing on the marginal. Again, the foul logo centrism which Dereda wants to destroy and undermine is the privileging of the masculine role in society, a logos theological, metaphysical understanding, and the focus seeing on the centeredness of concepts and meaning. They want to reject all that stuff, and so ultimately

what you're left with is relativism. And so as much as we watched Dan McClellan or all these other people that were in a deconstructing Christianity, the ones that want to appeal to these academics is ironic because those same academics reject objective truth itself.

being about powered. Aynamis That's a key to understand, because that's how you understand that they don't care when you're arguing with them about what's true or false. Every argument, every every debate, every engagement is pure power dynamics. And so it's all about the display, the spectacle, and the dominance, and that is the key to all of it. So remember, you're not engaging with people that believe or even care

about what's true involves. They don't care about you exposing their lives because they see all engagements as pure power dynamics, which is odd because it's Nietzschean, which you wouldn't think the left would be in that motive of of thinking, but that's exactly where they are, right.

They have these they're essentially demonic. Uh and alex Is Alex's playing a clip of today one of these, like when you go out to the Abration march when people are marching against Abrassen and we have the pro Abraution people show up, and then the the pro p E d O people and the tier A and Z people.

for getting healthy, for upping your testosterone. A lot of guys are low te, a lot of pretty much all the dudes that are into deconstructing or low T. I'm serious. I mean, we watched a bunch of these videos. The guys are skittles. The guy it's at degansjecting, they're oppression, and the girls are girls are actually more high T than the dudes that deconstruct.

in the show description. Also, Cootel and I are going to be doing a stream on Eventually, we'll figure out when we're gonna do this, but yeah, a separate stream not related to this stuff on the history of intelligence operations, British intelligence in particular, and Muslim Brotherhood, Radical Islam and the West. A lot of people don't know about this. This is another key insight and angle that's very relevant, especially as the Internet puts a lot of focus on

Islam in the last few years. The Tates, hit Job, Daniel Hikikachu, all these promoters of Islam in the West, all over the Internet and YouTube. They're really calling attention to Islam, and so it's very crucial that we address Islam not just from the theological perspective, which is the most important, but also understanding the Western linkage linkages to Islam in its various forms, and that's an area I

have read quite a bit. In fact, I knew more about that than I did before I'd actually read any of the Islamic texts themselves, or the theological traditions of Islam which had been forced forced into in the last few years.

his Game of Nations book. He says, CEE, we love these people in Egypt because we could get them to do what if we wintered, if we needed a ready made t R R O R event, we could just use them right away, right anyway, So we're looking forward to what made you, what gave you the idea to do that, or what hipped you to this whole issue of Islam in the West geopolitic.

any specific articles or anything to read in preparation. I'd love to kind of grab a hold of that because it's becoming very obvious about the Red Green Alliance, you know how global communism, if you want to coll that globalism, the centralization of power is utilizing utilizing the dialectic of Islam in the West, and it I mean, it's with anybody who has the eyes open to see, it's quite

clear that that's happening. So you've covered that, and I mentioned that to you, and then the fact that I was kind of looking for new stream topics and somebody brought that up.

The neocons, I don't agree obviously with every take that CounterPunch had. I don't know if it's still around, but there was a great article that was off that was pulled because it was so controversial. You can still find it though on academic dot eedu and it's called Shills, Spooks and soufis the case of the Maria Mariami Mariamiya. Here's the article here. It's not very long, but I do recommend people will go take a look at that because it's just one article that's an insight, a window

into particularly the usage of Sufis by Western intelligence. There's obviously a lot more Muslim Brotherhood has a much longer attachment to British intelligence than Soupe's per se. But that's that's one window into this this stuff. That's a good article.

and nasty and vengeful. And yeah, a lot of them take like a sort of Marcian I yeah, the scripture.

carry over at his channel. I've got him linked and anything else you want to promote before we call it a close.

Who else is Leonarda Joni the comedian. She's going to be there. A lot of people are going to be there. They're trying to, I think, secure more and more and more people to come for sure.

event for me. But I will have books and I will have you know, be doing interviews and so forth. So if you want to come get signed books, you can and that will be October twenty fifth and twenty sixth in summer summer Field, Florida, anyway, the link is there anyway, Thank you very much, Kotel