Was Jesus Really “Invisible” in Your Grandmother’s Church?

I just read Scot McKnight and Tommy Phillips, Invisible Jesus: A Book About Leaving the Church and Looking for Jesus (Zondervan, 2024). I will not do a chapter-by-chapter review, but I want to share my thoughts.

The Argument

I decided to read this book for two reasons. First, one of the authors Scot McKnight wrote a very kind endorsement for my book, God, Freedom & Human Dignity (2013), and he is an insightful author. Second, I am also interested in the subject it addresses. A student in my current (Fall 2024) theology class brought to my attention his own process of “deconstruction” and return to faith. At first, I was confused because to me “deconstruction” refers to the French theory of literary interpretation, which assumes that works of literature never merely tell the truth or a good story but always construct a fictional world designed to preserve the power structures that advantage the author. The job of the interpreter is to sniff out (deconstruct) the ways the text seeks to deceive and dominate the reader. But I learned from the Invisible Jesus that the term “deconstruction” is now being used of people rethinking their Christian faith in critical ways. I suppose the term “deconstruction” fits what this group is doing because much of their critique focuses on exposing narratives that preserve abusive power structures within (mostly) evangelical and fundamentalist churches.

McKnight and Phillips paint a sympathetic picture of the “deconstructors.” They do not portray them as rebels, heretics, and anarchists. Deconstructors ask legitimate questions of their evangelical and fundamentalist churches. They challenge the hypocrisy of church leaders and question legalistic morality. They object to the church’s lack of concern for the poor and silence on racism and sexism. To them, the church seems too focused on money and right-wing politics. It’s too hierarchical, patriarchal, middle-class, and White. The deconstructors question the truth or importance of such doctrines as six-day creationism, male headship, ever-lasting punishment in hell, and the rapture.

McKnight and Phillips see deconstruction as a prophetic movement impelled by the Holy Spirit and in search of a Jesus-centered faith. Deconstruction is the negative side of many believers’ longing for a Jesus-shaped community of intimacy, generosity, equality, and inclusion. Deconstructors cannot see Jesus amid the institutional structures and activities of typical churches; hence the title of the book Invisible Jesus.

Analysis

Agreements

There is much to applaud in Invisible Jesus. Indeed, I made some of the same observations and critiques in my book Rethinking Church. Many churches are too clergy-dominated, stage-centered, and money-driven. We need to focus more on the Table of the Lord and small groups. Let every voice be heard. And let the way of Jesus, not corporate America, set the agenda. Amen! McKnight and Phillips are right to say that we ought to listen carefully and patiently to the deconstructors and learn from them.

Critical Observations

However I do have some concerns. (1) Over the last 5 to 10 years, exposing the evils of evangelicalism has become a cottage industry and a good strategy to get a book published by a major publisher.* I detect in McKnight and Phillips a mood that troubles me. Is it Uncharitableness? I don’t know how to characterize it. But there are many gratuitous barbs directed toward evangelicals. Perhaps this sharpness is related to the negative church experiences of the authors. Readers of the book will discover in the first chapter that both McKnight and Phillips think of themselves as deconstructors. They tell their own stories of deconstruction (pp. 5-10), which strikingly resemble the stories of many other deconstructors told in the book.

(2) In the opposite direction, McKnight and Phillips construct an almost wholly uncritical, even heroic, picture of the deconstructors. I don’t share their view. Do the deconstructors measure the faith of the churches they are leaving by the teachings of Jesus? Did they learn these lessons from Jesus alone? To the contrary, many of the deconstructors I know absorbed the values of progressive secular culture before or simultaneously with their departure from the evangelical church. And the Jesus they admire seems to champion secularized versions of toleration, peace, love, inclusion, equity, and diversity.

(3) It strikes me that the picture of a Jesus-centered church painted by Invisible Jesus is utopian or at least unhelpfully abstract. The real living church has always been imperfect and impure. The weeds always mix with the wheat. There will be disagreements even within a “Jesus-centered” church about what it means to be Jesus-centered! The authors leave the nature of this ideal church underdeveloped. Yes…we must love God and our neighbors, be kind, tolerant, take care of the needs of the hungry, naked, and homeless. But does doctrine, that is, the full range of biblical teaching, matter at all? Are there any rules for making sure that the powerful force of sexual attraction is used for good and not evil? What about marriage and divorce and abortion and LGBTQ+ ways of living? Is there any type of authority in the church?

(4) Perhaps I find myself somewhat critical of Invisible Jesus because McKnight and Phillips are writing to a different audience and dealing with a different problem than that with which I am most concerned. I do not deny that the evangelical movement is in trouble, and for many of the reasons treated in Invisible Jesus and other recent books. It’s just that I don’t live there. The people I am pastoring (especially my students) are being crushed not by evangelicals but by progressives. Where I live (the West Coast) the dominant culture is secular and hostile to any form of Christianity that takes the Bible seriously. For me, to write a book critiquing evangelicals would be smashing through an open door, jumping on the band wagon, beating a dead horse. I have no desire to take the devil’s side when the devil is already winning!

(5) Invisible Jesus implies but does not construct an alternative vision of faith and life of the people of God. I suppose we will have to wait for the authors’ next book. But if history is a good teacher, when you reject a Bible-based evangelical theology, an almost irresistible logic carries you all the way to Liberalism.

*See my review of Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (Liveright, 2021) from August 2022.

6 thoughts on “Was Jesus Really “Invisible” in Your Grandmother’s Church?

  1. charlesahanson's avatarcharlesahanson

    It is not the invisible Jesus in the church. It is the invisible Holy Spirit not taught or even understood. Jesus is in heaven. How does a pastor know how to teach the Holy Spirit when he does not know what the Greek word christos means? Found some 571 times in the bible and the epistles have 500 of them. And if he does know he is afraid to teach because most believes in the church stumble at the invisible word Spirit. (christos)

    Like

    Reply
    1. ifaqtheology's avatarifaqtheology Post author

      Great to hear from you Andrew! I do keep up with your work and am always encouraged to see what you are doing.

      I’ve read many analyses and critiques of evangelicalism. I am all for “iron sharpening iron.” That is the calling of theologians, to seek for faithful expression of the faith that meets the needs of our age. But I would hope that we would avoid any hint of personal judgment and caricature and focus on careful analysis of ideas as the basis of respectful critique, all with the hope of dialogue.

      Ron

      Like

      Reply
  2. Dr Jonne Smalhouse's avatarDr Jonne Smalhouse

    Hello Ron

    “neither grace of person, nor vigour of understanding, are to be regarded otherwise than as blessings, as means of happiness indulged by the supreme benefactor, but the advantages of either may be lost by too much eagerness to obtain them. A thousand beauties in their first blossom, by an imprudent exposure to the open world, have suddenly withered at the first blast of infamy and people who might have exposed new regions to the empire of learning, have been lured by the praise of their first productions from academical retirement, and wasted their days in vice and dependance.”

    Johnson, ” The Rambler” vol 2. No 111. First Ed. 1750 Edinb.

    I see that many of these types of publication, as you say, follow a trend. Did this trend start about the time of the publicatiion of the best seller book ” Toxic Faith”?

    I have read this book Ron, and it does provide a start upon a reasoned way forward for all christians, who like myself, see that those authors seeming to demolish treasured and time-honoured traditions or beliefs rarely offer practical solutions.

    As you warn us, and as Dr Johnson says, all is not a bed of roses…

    Was this book ” Toxic Faith” a catalyst do you think?

    Like

    Reply
  3. ifaqtheology's avatarifaqtheology Post author

    Thank you for the wonderful quote from Dr. Johnson! I think I have Toxic Faith somewhere. As I recall it made a big splash when it first came out. But I don’t know how it relates to the current wave of evangelical bashing. Nearly all the one’s I’ve read have been published since 2017 and lament that 80% of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump.

    rh

    Like

    Reply
    1. Dr Jonne Smalhouse's avatarDr Jonne Smalhouse

      It was the first proper book which i read that criticized and questioned church faith, it’s proponents, and it’s weaponization for ‘crimes’ against humanity, if you like. Up and until that book the christian denominations were pretty much untouchable by scandal. Examples not given.

      Nowadays, there are more churches, ministers and bishops and archbishops in the confessional than people (almost)! Something somewhere opened the floodgates. I do however make the distinction that a ‘sound church and a church faith’ is not really the same as the sins of it’s preachers. This particular book was renamed in the second edition for that reason!

      I’m suggesting however that this does bear similarity to what Johnson says above. Being outraged at the behaviour of clergy does not convince anyone, in my opinion, that what the church says or has said or preached is either sensible or true?

      But i do agree with you in the sense that perhaps talk is cheap, and bashing any secular movement because everyone else is doing it, and feels vindicated in doing so purely because they can is a little suspect. I.E. selling books.

      Best wishes

      JS

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to ifaqtheology Cancel reply