Bad apples exist, but that doesn’t mean we must set fire to the entire apple orchard. Unfortunately, this is precisely what many attempt to do regarding the church community. They highlight extreme examples of narcissism or hand-select leadership or ministries who lack exegetical awareness, then agitate those seeking agitation and work from these extremes to burn down the apple orchard.

In the world of fallacies, it is called the Fallacy of Composition; if it is valid for one or a few parts, then it must be valid for the whole. Take, for example, a situation involving a verbally abusive leader who is caught on a livestream constantly berating his congregation and twisting scripture to support his tirades. If this individual is a part of a collective group or organization, it could be argued, based on the Fallacy of Composition, that everyone in that group or organization is just like him.

Now, in some cases, after meeting twenty pastors in the group or organization who hold positions of influence and all adhere to the same practices, you are likely justified in your opinion that the group or organization as a whole is likely of similar composition. However, while I have met religious groups in my lifetime that qualify as this example, I have to say that this is not the normative experience for the collective whole of groups or organizations that I have collaborated with, fellowshipped with, or have been associated with in some fashion or form.

Looking over the Orchard

As I write this article, I am not licensed with any organization, though I have been in the past. I am, as some would describe, independent. Yet, I would take issue with that because I am not associated or connected on a certain level with a “group of independent churches.” Instead, I speak of being independent as one who cannot be defined by any given collective group or organization due to my agreements, similarities, and alignments with many groups or organizations.

In the organizations, fellowships, or groups that I have been a part of and am still circling and connecting with, there have always been and always will be extreme instances or personalities with which I am deeply uncomfortable. The danger of human connection must always factor in the larger a collective body becomes, the more it risks attracting outliers. A prime example of this is found politically in the Republican and Democratic movements. As key figures or political organizations grow in influence, they inevitably find “spots in their feasts.”

Extreme groups espousing extreme ideologies are attracted to some feature(s) of the party or persons they begin to gravitate around, and suddenly, if we are not careful, we can easily define the collective whole by the extreme minority. This becomes the fallacy of composition, but how well we play into this fallacy! How often do we find influential figures on both sides of the parties being faced with agreement from outliers? In other words, when being interviewed, the influencer is asked, “Do you denounce the viewpoint of this certain follower of yours?”

Never mind that the individual being questioned has never endorsed the beliefs of the outlier who has joined the “periphery” of the influencers group. Never mind that the outlier’s beliefs are completely at odds with almost everything the group stands for and against. Instead, others seeking to burn down the orchard are quick to try and associate the whole with the ignorance and bigotry of the outlying minority who donates to the group’s efforts or is found speaking positively of the group’s leader. Again, bad apples will always be connected to groups, but don’t burn down the orchard because of a few bad apples.

That said, eyebrows likely should rise if one of these outliers speaks at a campaign rally. However, we are quick to declare guilt and demand a public lynching of personalities when we fail to consider that, sometimes, even intelligent people can be unaware of issues with individuals they associate with or collaborate with. Does this excuse the collaboration, and should a public response be given following the poor decision and poor research that frontline the said extreme outlier? No, to the first and maybe to the second.

Why maybe? Leaders can be placed in a lose-lose situation with wolves out for blood. Wolves are never out for an apology; they are out to kill. For many wolves, the apology is the ammunition to pounce upon the prey and capitalize on airtime that engenders more vitriolic conversation that seeks to burn the entire orchard. Hence, this is why some leaders in the political arena ignore the controversy, clearly not aligned with the beliefs or specific opinions expressed by the said individual, and move on without giving airtime to the situation.

If we have learned anything about cancel culture, right or wrong, it is simply that you cannot play into the demands of that culture. Why? They do not care about what is right; they only care about destroying the target they don’t like. This is much the same when it comes to fringe groups who are out to attack the church community, and that is what I wish to close this article discussing.

Dealing with the Mob

I am not talking about the mafia, although the character assassination of many of these groups or individuals crying for blood would make many of the infamous mob hitmen proud. No, I am talking about the mob of deconstructors who operate overtly and covertly. What is deconstruction in a religious sense? It is simply the systematic “critical rethinking” of religious beliefs by taking everything apart piece by piece.

Now, the challenge with these movements is that the idea of deconstruction can mean a myriad of things. For some, it means abandoning the faith altogether. For others, it can mean rejecting 99% of everything they once believed and saving only 1% of what they think should remain. The primary issue with deconstruction is that it still bleeds the blood of postmodernism; the destination always boils down to personal preference.

This is why deconstructionist groups are cautious in avoiding anything that operates in the objective realm of truth that demands confrontation. It boils down to a “faith alone, grace alone” theory that refuses to engage in the specifics since it will inevitably cause friction among fellow deconstructionists whose preferences or beliefs have already tossed aside those objectives. Instead, they must circle, like vultures over dead carcasses, groups and peoples they dislike or disagree with and consistently find fodder from the extremes to continue their daily dose of deconstruction.

They become addicted to the deconstruction. They need new material regularly. They need teams of the angry, the enraged, and the bitter to scour the internet for salacious new finds. They spend hours fielding video clips via DM, message, or email. They doom scroll the pages and resources of groups and people they despise. After hours upon hours of reading hundreds of comments, scrolling through videos or pages to find clips or damning moments, in or out of context, they dive back into the fervor of deconstruction.

So, how exactly do you deal with this mob of deconstructionists who often represent a mind-bending conglomerate of ecumenism? I don’t have time to discuss this, but this is usually one of the most alarming trends of these groups. They engage, find support, and have camaraderie with individuals who agree with the specifics of what is being deconstructed. However, those same individuals have parted ways with other beliefs espoused as salvific or doctrinal truths by the groups or individuals engaging in the deconstruction. The syncretistic blender of religious beliefs among these groups is staggering! The postmodern stench is very real.

So, to get back to how to deal with them, don’t. As Douglas Murray describes in The Madness of Crowds, “The madness of crowds is fueled by the desire for consensus, even at the expense of truth.” Indeed, crowds of deconstructionists are seldom interested in context, rarely desire to fact-check, and are often negligent in engaging in the slow burn of rationality and objectivity. Some of the very things they claim to be deconstructing are being rebuilt in a different context.

Finally

Could the mob have meandered into this article? Very possible, but I do not think myself so important as to merit that certainty. Is the mob dangerous in that, if you cross its path, everything you have ever said, taught, preached, or written comes under the scrutiny of deconstructing eyes? Yes, that is the case, but the certainty of judicial reciprocation is at play, and it is pressed down, shaken together, and running over.

Love Jesus. Love your neighbor as yourself. Pursue Truth. Be kind. Be quick to admit your humanity. Remind all that to err is human, and to forgive is divine, and make sure to avoid the mobs.