Skillet Frontman Angry About Deconstruction, Misconstrues It

Skillet’s John Cooper unleashes an unfocused rant at current and former Christians who dare to think for themselves.

 
 
John Cooper is Big Mad. Concertgoers at this year’s Winter Jam captured the lead singer for Skillet mid-rant as he let loose some disordered thoughts aimed at those in the process of deconstructing their faith. Fed up with current and former believers with the audacity to think for themselves, Cooper urged his fellow Christians to “declare war against this deconstruction movement.” Over the course of some two minutes and change, he sputtered through a jumble of uninformed appraisals, betraying an acute misunderstanding of the object of his rage. “I don’t even like calling it deconstruction Christian,” he roared. “There is nothing Christian about it. It is a false religion. It is a whole nother religion.”

There’s a whole lot wrong with this take, which we’ll get to in a moment, but for now I’m imagining all his fundie fans suddenly googling ‘deconstruction’ for the first time. Dearly hope they find help leaving the cult. For those who may not know, Cooper has been a celebrity of sorts in the Christian rock scene since the late 90s. I probably saw his band Skillet in concert almost as many times as DC Talk. Feel free to judge, though in my defense I didn’t discover Smashing Pumpkins or Foo Fighters until college.

Zooming out, I can’t help but observe that this is such a common response by fundie Xians to any talk of deconstruction or skepticism directed at beliefs they see as sacred and unnegotiable. That is, they give in to anger, a natural human impulse that bubbles to the surface when confronted with threats to one’s identity or sense of self. And they allow that simmering rage to overpower any latent desire to hear out the other side or actually engage the relevant issues. Too afraid to ask questions and so cocksure they have a lock on truth, they unwittingly commit themselves to a lifetime of self-perpetuated delusion. It’s plain from Cooper’s quasi-coherent tirade here that he’s spent exactly zero minutes thoughtfully reviewing the reasons one might step out from the canopy of organized religion or, indeed, seeking to understand what ‘deconstruction’ even means.

He proclaims deconstruction a “false religion.” It’s…well, not that. Cooper is guilty of what we call a category error, or what a philosopher might label ‘not even wrong’ to indicate levels of wrongness that escape rational analysis. The term ‘deconstruction’ can mean lots of different things to different people. For me it refers to the concerted reconsideration of one’s (typically ‘inherited’) religious beliefs with the intent of reconciling them, to the extent possible, with one’s amassed knowledge and experience. In short, it’s looking at your faith-based worldview with fresh eyes and a questioning mind. For many of us, it entails a lifelong process of unwinding or dismantling a lot of the doctrinal, sectarian, and psychological baggage embedded in the associated subculture. Deconstruction serves as a necessary counter-discourse to the dominant and singularly toxic forms of organized religion whose power structures resist accountability.

Contra-Cooper, asking sincere and probing questions about the affirmations of your youth, skeptically interrogating your faith and beliefs you always took for granted, is not a religion. It’s a process that arises out of religion and the culture that sustains it, but it’s not a religion. It’s turning a critical eye on religion itself, in this case evangelical Christianity, casting a wide Socratic net that encompasses its dogmas, rituals, and sacraments to discern which are worth preserving and which you’re better off without. Deconstruction is simply a formalized way to refer to this process.

It’s precisely the elevation of skeptical inquiry and rational deliberation above tradition and dogma that incenses reactionaries like Cooper steeped in the evangelical ways of thinking. But beneath the surface anger is fear at having to cope with the cognitive dissonance that goes hand in hand with deconstruction — fear of the discomfort that inevitably comes with anatomizing a longtime belief system that has anchored you. Much easier is it to puff yourself up and double down than to roll up your sleeves and take an honest, more panoramic look at the various assertions that have been force-fed to you your whole life.

In accordance with the high-control environment that characterizes fundamentalist communities, most evangelicals are systematically taught to avoid entertaining their doubts, no matter how genuine, and told to keep the faith, whatever the cost to their intellectual integrity and psychological health. They’re counseled to push challenging questions aside and to simply accept that God ‘works in mysterious ways’. For all his demagoguery, Cooper should at least come to terms with the fact that such non-answers will prove unsatisfying to some people, many of whom go on to deconstruct.

Strange as it may seem to agitate against earnest seekers looking to live out a more authentic faith or worldview, the reality is that evangelical hardliners perceive deconstruction as a threat. What Cooper and other figures who espouse his variant of Christianity fail to realize is that it’s attitudes and behavior like this that validate the criticism of the culture they represent. A confused diatribe from someone who’s clearly never even bothered to ask anyone what deconstruction is simply furthers the narrative that evangelical Christians are unyielding and closed-minded. And failing to address the kinds of questions and concerns that prompt deconstruction only makes those wrestling with them more likely to find answers elsewhere. Unless and until the John Coopers of the world understand this, they will continue to be part of the problem.

 
Addendum, 2.15.2022: After posting similar thoughts to Facebook, an extended exchange ensued with a committed Skillet fan. Perhaps because I tagged John Cooper’s official page in my post, a small number of Skillet stans came to his rescue upon seeing the post in his page’s feed. Though the exchange was more respectful compared to many I’ve had in the past, I think it further illustrates how steeped in misconceptions the rhetoric around deconstruction really is among evangelicals as well as their penchant for using the pretext of theology to, among other things, distort and deny science that challenges their narrow view of the world, cover up personal prejudices, and further bigotry against marginalized groups. I’m reproducing it here for posterity. The comments from the Cooper stan are in italics, with my responses below each.
 

“I believe he is angered with the deconstruction movement because so many of the reasons for deconstructing often seem weak. It’s one thing to ask tough questions about the faith, pray to God for wisdom, and come out of it with a deeper understanding and appreciation, and quite another to reject the faith because of questions that have already been grappled with and sufficiently answered by countless theologians.”

 
Care to share which reasons in particular you find “weak”?
 

“Why does God allow evil, why did God order the destruction of the Canaanites, why will God send many to Hell, why is Jesus the only way, etc.”

 
Right so we might want to widen the circle to include the social ills prevalent in and perpetuated by Christian (particularly evangelical) culture. To reduce deconstruction simply to theological dilemmas would be a mistake. Both can contribute in their own way to the process of deconstruction. Any one issue can act as a catalyst for deeper inquiry, which can ultimately lead to any number of ‘destinations.’ It’s — and I can’t stress this enough — not a one size fits all phenomenon.

I think more concerning are the evangelicals who naively assume they’re in possession of tidy, impervious answers to each and every challenge to their faith and ignore good faith objections to the culture of which they’re a part. There’s a unique blend of piety and unfounded confidence that emerges in groupthink-laden fundamentalist movements that often manifests in a failure to self-reflect and confront the toxic and more problematic elements stitched into the culture (e.g. anti-intellectualism, dogmatism, sexism, racism, heteronormativity, gaslighting, hypocrisy, and so forth). In the present case, it tends to lead people away from genuine engagement with the core issues behind deconstruction and the like.

Lastly, it’s not clear what purpose enmity and resentment as responses to deconstruction are supposed to serve. It’s both odd and counterproductive. If someone comes to you with sincere hang-ups with respect to their faith-based worldview, lashing out and responding with indignation while altogether neglecting to address the issues raised gets no one anywhere, it seems to me. A lot of these occasions arise out of a felt insecurity on the part of rigidly anti-intellectual evangelical m-e-n who lack the necessary resources to meaningfully respond to the relevant arguments and engage with the other side. It’s much easier to puff themselves up and pander to their fellow clansmen than do the difficult work of engaging in a mutually respectful dialogue attentive to the concerns of those of us who walked away.
 

“As for the social ills you think are prevalent in and perpetuated by evangelicals, of course some individual churches and people are corrupt, have a dearth of intellectualism, etc., but I don’t see social ills endemic to the evangelical church. And we all know that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing who have infiltrated the church.

I’m not saying that every answer to every theological question is ironclad. Of course there still are questions I have as a Christian and things about God I don’t understand, but they aren’t faith-shaking questions. I think that many theologians and apologists have great answers to many of the tough questions, and for the answers that seem to elude Christian after Christian throughout the generations, I trust that it’s because those are the answers for which we’re not intended to have access. And I think the purpose of that is at least twofold: unlike God, we’re not omniscient, so we shouldn’t have all of the answers to any particular subject in life, and faith requires that we step out with slight uncertainty to some degree. I do think that the faith has to be grounded in solid reasons for believing and that the Holy Spirit convicts of the truth on a spiritual level, but faith is needed to be at rest not having every answer to every question. The Christian journey is a marathon.

Waging war on a movement that is harming people’s faith should not be conflated with enmity for them; rather his fervor is grounded in a genuine concern and love for people and desire for them to come to the truth. I think John is getting the sense that people’s hang-ups are more than just intellectual ones. I believe he thinks the growing deconstruction trend is a heart issue, not just a mind issue. I can’t speak for every person deconstructing and I truly am grieved for those who have been hurt by the church, but as for a number of the celebrities who have deconstructed, their reasons seem to start as intellectual but morph into a devotion issue because the concerns that shake their faith are relatively standard theological questions with sound answers. So it appears that they didn’t do the work of earnestly searching for answers to their questions and crying out to God for wisdom and truth. John is well-acquainted with the likes of Spurgeon and other intellectual giants, so I can assure you that intellectualism is not a stumbling block to him. I’ve listened to many of his Cooper Stuff episodes and can attest to the fact that he regularly addresses concerns of various detractors.”

 
“Waging war on a movement that is harming people’s faith should not be conflated with enmity for them…”

This framing is suspect, and for the reasons previously stated. It isn’t the “movement” that’s harming the faith, it’s the moral and intellectual failings of Christian culture, rhetoric, and dogma that give rise to deconstruction. The harm that stems from gaslighting women into believing their place is in the home and must be subservient to their husbands, regarding the LGBTQ community as having chosen a life of sin, or the cult-like predation by preceptors who push creationism and enjoin one’s children to oppose science — stunting the intellectual growth and curiosity of America’s youth in an often irrecoverable way — is where our locus of concern should be, not over people deconstructing. Conversations around deconstruction are healthy to the extent they prompt others to rethink beliefs and assumptions previously taken for granted and lead to a more ethically and intellectually robust worldview that takes into account a larger set of considerations, whether one still situated within the theistic paradigm or otherwise.

“I think John is getting the sense that people’s hang-ups are more than just intellectual ones. I believe he thinks the growing deconstruction trend is a heart issue, not just a mind issue.”

I don’t know what’s meant by “heart issue,” but this notion that deconstruction is a ‘hip’ celebrity trend that people cop to because it’s what’s ‘in’ right now is reductive at best and offensive at worst. It papers over the organic, yearslong process that occasions those raised in the evangelical mindset to rethink assumptions about their faith, about the Bible, about how humans ought to relate to one another, and so forth. And importantly it avoids contact with the issues fracturing and reshaping the Christian community writ large today. You’re not going to change the discourse by bitterly airing your resentments at people leaving or walking away or choosing a different life path, but by actually addressing the longstanding resentments and intellectual challenges behind deconstruction. That’s great that Cooper has responded to certain concerns on his podcast, but content-free rants like these solve nothing and only push people who’ve gradually dissociated further away.
 

“I’m not saying the movement is harming the Christian faith; I think it’s leading some astray under the pretense of faith-shattering questions. When I say that I think the root of deconstructionism is a heart issue, I mean that people who have completely renounced the faith have done so because they don’t want to follow the God of the Bible. Most of their questions could be satisfactorily answered, but it still wouldn’t help because they don’t want to submit to God’s authority.

Additionally, I’m not saying that deconstruction is merely a cool trend that people are latching onto; I do think that it starts with legitimate questions, but I think a lack of trust in God leads people to then not earnestly search for answers to those questions or to hastily dismiss them because they don’t comport with what they think should be true.

The Bible doesn’t say that women are subservient to their husbands. That word denotes that they are inferior to them, which is not so. Husbands and wives are equal in worth but have different roles. The verse you are referencing is the one in which women are called to SUBMIT to their husbands. Submission is yielding willingly; subservience is not. Submission doesn’t mean that the husband gets to make all of the decisions or that the wife has to accept his views, opinions, etc.–far from it. It means that the husband should be submitted to for decisions in which the two can’t agree so long as he is acting in accordance with the Bible. The rest of that verse calls on husbands to love their wives even as Christ loved the church, meaning that they need to be loving to the point of self-sacrifice, if need be.

I don’t think Christianity says that every or even most married women with children need to stay home with their kids, as we all know that’s not even a viable option for many, but I do think that it can be great for many families and that more women would stay home with their kids at least while they’re young if they could.

I think that the evangelical consensus on the LGBTQ community is that there are legitimate issues that such people struggle with but that such entrenched issues don’t give license to sin. When it comes to homosexuality, evangelicals don’t see gay people as any more broken than anyone else. We’re all broken, sinful people struggling with different things. Some struggle with anger, some with lust, some with homosexual proclivities, etc. and some with all of the above. Having homosexual proclivities isn’t a sin unless they’re leading to lust. Homosexual behavior is the sin. It’s a rejection of what God has ordained for sex. I think many recoil at that notion because they think it isn’t fair and that everyone should have romantic love and a sex life, but that’s an entirely human notion. What’s best for everyone isn’t the same. As for those who are transgender, I don’t think that altering one’s body will solve a psychological issue.

As for the false dichotomy of creationism versus science, that subject is too much for a FB post, but suffice it to say that God is the one who established the scientific laws and order of the universe, so science is one of God’s tools for discovery and a reflection of his nature.

“Conversations around deconstruction are healthy, to the extent they…lead to a more ethically and intellectually robust worldview that takes into account a larger set of considerations, whether one still situated within the theistic paradigm or otherwise.” This assumes that there can be multiple morally sound outcomes to the deconstruction process. Truth is truth. If one person deconstructs the Christian worldview and becomes an atheist and another does so and remains a Christian, both views on morality cannot be correct.”

 
This is where we’ll have to end the conversation. I’ve no interest in reenacting debates I’ve had countless times before, particularly on issues that carry tangible consequences for people I care about. It’s clear you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker the fundagelical posture with respect to the topics I raised, and diving into each would occupy too much of my time and energy. Nor can I allow you to use my wall as a soapbox to spread the kind of toxic apologetics Skillet stans are selling. Feel free to defend complementarianism, heteronormativity, and creationism on your own page, but such unyieldingly narrow conceptions only serve as a reminder of the great harm that can be accomplished when insulated communities are inculcated to otherize minority groups and distort settled science under cover of theology. I draw a line at rhetoric I perceive as instrumental to the furtherance of bigotry and hate, whether under theological pretext or otherwise.

A few parting comments:

“When I say that I think the root of deconstructionism is a heart issue, I mean that people who have completely renounced the faith have done so because they don’t want to follow the God of the Bible. Most of their questions could be satisfactorily answered, but it still wouldn’t help because they don’t want to submit to God’s authority.”

I think those are clear straw men and suggest limited interaction with people in the camp with which you seem so preoccupied. These are the kinds of reductive takes you’re likely to hear on pop-Christian blogs and evangelical media that someone who defends John Cooper would frequent. I’d encourage you to branch out more and engage communities with stronger belief diversity than you have to this point.

“I’m not saying that deconstruction is merely a cool trend that people are latching onto; I do think that it starts with legitimate questions, but I think a lack of trust in God leads people to then not earnestly search for answers to those questions or to hastily dismiss them because they don’t comport with what they think should be true.”

It’s ironic you would level this charge at deconstructionists when it more accurately describes the behavior of fundamentalists like yourself who viscerally reject inconvenient facts and evidence that don’t comport with your pre-programmed view of the world. In fact, sometimes we earnestly search for answers and dismiss what we find not because it doesn’t comport with what we think should be true but because it conflicts with what is true. Key difference. And the mature response to the latter situation is to proportion your beliefs to the evidence, not sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist or twist and misrepresent the parts of it that cause distress.

The reality is there are tons of examples to date of people enmeshed in evangelical life for decades who went on to discard the very belief system you’re espousing in this thread. People like Dan Haseltine of Jars of Clay. People like Kevin Max of DC Talk. People like Phanatik of The Cross Movement. To suggest that such preeminent voices of contemporary evangelicalism merely lacked “trust in God” or were somehow derelict in their pursuit of answers is risible if not borderline nonsensical and betrays an unfamiliarity with their stories. Your eagerness to make blanket assumptions (rooted in misconceptions) about a phenomenon you’ve spent little time exploring says more about the reflexive dogmatism central to the fundamentalist ethos than the people you’re critiquing.

“Truth is truth. If one person deconstructs the Christian worldview and becomes an atheist and another does so and remains a Christian, both views on morality cannot be correct.”

Atheism isn’t a “view on morality.” It refers merely to the proposition that no personal gods exist. The proposition makes no claims with respect to morality, so what we have here is a category error, or what a philosopher might label ‘not even wrong’. You’re once again reasoning from faulty premises and misconceptions. At this point, it’s hardly a coincidence that the Christians MOST vocal and opinionated about what other people believe are the MOST likely to have labored under gross misperceptions pertaining to the object(s) of discussion.

“Having homosexual proclivities isn’t a sin unless they’re leading to lust. Homosexual behavior is the sin. It’s a rejection of what God has ordained for sex. I think many recoil at that notion because they think it isn’t fair and that everyone should have romantic love and a sex life, but that’s an entirely human notion. What’s best for everyone isn’t the same. As for those who are transgender, I don’t think that altering one’s body will solve a psychological issue.”

Strange how it’s only a “proclivity” or “psychological issue” — despite protestations to the contrary by every refereed piece of science available — when it applies to the group you’re dehumanizing and persecuting but “natural” in the context of your own orientation. Maybe that’s what thinking people find unfair? Most Christians around the world reject the perverse conceptions of human nature and biology articulated above, while Christian scholars like Dale Martin and Matthew Vines have made profound, cogent cases for reconciling Christianity and same-sex relationships — pick up Vines’ 2014 book ‘God and the Gay Christian‘ if you’re interested. At any rate, these are precisely the toxic heteronormative attitudes I don’t allow on my wall.

While I appreciate the dialogue, any further comments will be removed.