There’s been a lot of chatter the last couple years over “de-conversion” stories. Most recently, of course, is the story of well-known pastor and author Joshua Harris, as well as the Youtube comedians Rhett and Link.
I’ve written on this phenomenon myself in a number of places, including my recent book, The 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity, as well as my my article, “The Power of De-conversion Stories: How Jen Hatmaker is Trying to Change Minds about the Bible.”
So, what exactly is de-conversion? In short, it’s when a person who is deeply committed to the Christian faith ends up leaving the Christian faith and abandoning their prior beliefs. Sometimes this involves a wholesale rejection of Christianity (e.g., Bart Ehrman), but in other cases it involves embracing an altogether different version of the faith (e.g., Rob Bell). So, not all de-conversion scenarios are the same.
The key feature of de-conversion, however, is that the individual was once on the “inside” of the faith, and later ends up on the “outside.”
In theological parlance, this is called apostasy. And the Bible is filled with examples of apostasy, the most famous, of course, being Judas Iscariot. He was the consummate “insider” who abandoned Jesus and effectively left his old life behind.
We can also find examples of apostasy—symbolically and figuratively—in the world of literature and film. Most obvious is the story of Anakin Skywalker, once a Jedi but later wooed to the dark side of the force, becoming Darth Vader. But there are many others (think Cypher in The Matrix).
But, perhaps one of the most remarkable (and often overlooked) examples of apostasy is Saruman in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. I’ve been re-reading the books lately in my coronavirus quarantine, and I was struck anew by the role he plays in the overall story.
In many ways, Saruman has always been an odd part of the plot line. With a bad guy like Sauron to occupy the reader’s attention, why does the story even need a character like Saruman? Besides, as my kids always complain, his name actually sounds a lot like Sauron’s which makes everything very confusing.
My hunch, though, is that the name similarity is intentional. Tolkien’s world is more nuanced than just the good guys and the bad guys. Instead, there are actually good guys that become bad guys—which makes things very complicated. It’s a perfect picture of de-conversion.
As such, we can learn a lot about the way de-conversions work through stories like Saruman’s. So, here are a few quick observations:
1. Saruman was very much on the “inside” before de-converting. As the chief of the Wizards and head of the White Council, he was a leader among those who were opposed to Sauron. He was a trusted advisor and friend to many, including Gandalf.
Lesson: You can’t always see de-conversion coming. Before a person de-converts, they can look as solid as can be.
2. Saruman became enamored by the ways of the enemy. Saruman became an expert in the rings of power, which made him a great asset. But, it was his interest in ring lore that led to his downfall because he eventually lusted after the power that the rings could bring him.
Lesson: De-conversion is sometimes preceded by a desire for the power and prestige offered by the world.
3. Saruman mocked his old allies, insisting they were uneducated simpletons. As Saruman became more open about his new direction, he was quick to criticize the world he left behind. A fellow wizard, Radagast the Brown, takes the brunt of Saruman’s mocking: “‘Radagast the Brown!’ laughed Saruman, and he no longer concealed his scorn. ‘Radgast the Bird-Tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool!'”
Lesson: Those who de-convert often criticize (sometimes in a virulent manner) the evangelical world they left behind.
4. Saruman presented his de-conversion as a step toward enlightment. As the head of the council, Saruman always wore a white robe. But when Gandalf confronts him at Orthanc, he notices that he has changed to a robe “woven of all colors.” This symbolized as shift away from absolute truth towards pluralism; towards what is progressive. This is evident in Saruman’s next words, “‘White!’ he sneered. ‘It serves as a beginning.'”
Lesson: Those who de-convert present their shift as one towards progress and enlightenment. In their mind, it is forward not backward.
5. Saruman tries to convince others to join him in his de-conversion. When Saruman first confronts Gandalf, he is not out to destroy him, but to “evangelize” him. He tries to convince Gandalf to join him in this new pathway. Incredibly, Saruman even tries to convince Gandalf that they can accomplish more good if they take this new direction: “Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish.”
Lesson: Those who de-convert are often evangelistic in recruiting others to join them.
In the end, Saruman functions as a remarkably accurate picture of what de-conversion is like. Tolkien was onto something. In the real world, it is not as simple as the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” Sometimes things are more complicated than that.
Thankfully, there are people like Gandalf who resist them. When discussing Saruman’s shiny new robe, Gandalf’s response is refreshingly simple: “I liked white better.”
Lois Westerlund says
Thank you, Dr. Kruger, for this entertaining and acutely-observed piece. But would you care to go a step further and share your thoughts on why the de-converted are so bound and determined that others, also, need to de-convert? What drives the de-converted? And what light does it shed, if any, on their de-conversion?
Eugene F Douglass, MS, MDiv, PhD says
He will respond more fully perhaps, but Matthew 13:1-9, the parable of the sower kind of gives reasons for the appearing to fall away. And also, in the case of some “christian” superstars who “fall away”, 2 Peter 2 refers to them, wolves in sheep’s clothing, essentially false prophets desiring to even “deceive the elect”.
Gene
Kathy says
I agree with you, Gene. If God calls us under a new covenant in Christ, who in his own human power can essentially “de-coventize.” In my opinion, anyone who falls away from faith never had the faith that is produced by grace, because they were not called by God in the first place. To suggest otherwise would insinuate that we contribute to our salvation that was bought by the blood of Christ, & therefore can decide we no longer accept that “concept” because we have become more enlightened than God himself. That surely would be apostasy!! But the Lord declares in Romans 9 that He is sovereign over all. The elect are converted by the saving grace of God & cannot de-convert. Romans 8: 28-30, 35-39.
May His truths unite us all! ❤️
John Burkitt says
My thoughts only, yet: Perhaps the virulent anger can’t be vented simply by saying, “To heck with this,” and walking away. They need to relive that sense of revenge they got turning away from the faith in the turning away of others. The mental image I get here is of some woman with an ice pick going through the family album jabbing out the eyes of every photo of her ex-husband in a frustrated attempt to get out what the divorce alone did not shed. And since divorce and losing a relationship with God are more alike than different, that might be a very appropriate mental image.
Jackie says
Just like Satan’s first sin, it’s driven by pride.
Jeff says
I have a simpler take. Friends and loved ones are still friends and loved ones. To leave them is not an intellectual exercise but real life pain. So, they try and bring those they love with them to avoid the pain of separation. Of course, this is just one of many possible reasons.
Lois Westerlund says
Thank you, Jeff, for this “simpler take”. It is a gentler one, and a good reminder of the need for love.
George Lee Southard says
I am glad to hear that you are addressing reconversion. I think the Bible is clear on that possibility and it carries dire consequences. Of course many Christians have the view that once-saved always saved.
Coburn says
I always thought the bible speaks of de-conversion more in the hypothetical. Like ‘if it were possible’ There’s Verses like
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Show that someone who turns away was never fully converted. After all.. do we think God is surprised when someone turns their back on their faith? Surely not! He sees it and knows it since the beginning of time. Why would God bestow the holy spirit on someone who isn’t in it for the long haul?I don’t believe he does.
One verse that’s a bit troublesome with that and suggests someone being saved and fallen away is
Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Is it more the hypothetical? I used to get caught up on the word ‘enlightened’. I thought they used that word for a reason, someone not saved, but aware of the gospel… but it does say partakers of the Holy Ghost and crucifying Son of God afresh….’
Maybe I’m wrong?
Eugene F Douglass, MS, MDiv, PhD says
Good point, as I think those passages refer to people who APPEAR from the outside to be faithful Christians, and yet because God knows the true condition of one’s heart, they APPEAR to fall away. While, the elect, are the one’s who persevere, and do not. However, those who appear to fall away, tasted of the Holy Spirit, and then depart, are often in a process that God knows will one day bring them to true faith in Jesus Christ, as ADULTS who are fully responsible for their choices. As that would explain the many children who come to faith at early ages, and then in college drift away, when they leave the nest. Outsiders just are viewing the process, the present, God’s knows what He plans for them.
Lois Westerlund says
Thank you, Dr. Douglass for this very helpful reminder that we see only the outside. God sees the heart. I think what you describe fits those who go quietly, struggling with questions they cannot answer. And so we pray with confidence that God, who hears our prayers, is reeling out a long line, to draw them in at the right time. (An image from Evelyn Waugh’s “Bridehead Revisited.”
Kathy says
Exactly, Eugene! Many people who are saved by grace can fall into sin that places them in non-communion with God. But that is thankfully a temporary state. If we are the beloved of the Lord, we shall always be His beloved. There is thankfulness & peace in that. And, we are His beloved because He paid for us with His blood & it is absolutely nothing we do or don’t do. The Parable of the Prodigal Son displays this truth perfectly. The wayward son was the son before he left & remained the son throughout.
Sarah says
Reconversion? Did you mean deconversion? (Although I’d love to hear reconversion stories)
Byron G. Curtis says
Yet another Tolkien re-reader during Corona-19!
Glad to know I’m in good company, Michael.
I started April 1, have now covered all the major works, and am into some of the lesser ones, plus a bit of Tolkien criticism, such as _Following Gandalf_ by Matthew Dickerson (Brazos, 2003), which I finished this morning.
Amid the wheedling and the angst, I needed something familiar, beautiful, and heroic.
Thanks for your brief essay.
Mark Corbett says
Good article!
Perhaps it resonated in a special way with me for two reasons:
1. I happen to be rereading the Lord of the Rings right now (something I do perhaps once every 4 or 5 years).
2. I have written and spoken on the issue of deconversion a bit myself. I had a lot in common with Rhett and Link (graduated from NCSU in engineering, worked as an engineer, then moved into full time ministry) and this motivated me to write a blog post on their deconversion. I think what I wrote complements this article:
https://parresiazomai.blogspot.com/2020/03/deconstructing-deconstruction-biblical.html
Allacin Morimizu says
Well done! “Tolkien’s world is more nuanced than just the good guys and the bad guys. Instead, there are actually good guys that become bad guys—which makes things very complicated.” C.S. Lewis, in his LOTR book review, made a similar point: https://allacin.blogspot.com/2015/11/jrr-tolkiens-lord-of-rings-reviewed-by.html
Kevin Wells says
Tolkien seems to set Gandalf against Saruman in a similar way as C.S. Lewis does with his 2 deceased theologians in The Great Divorce. They both endured similar temptations, but one fought to keep his faith, and the other did not.
Lois Westerlund says
Thank you, John Birkitt. I wonder if behind that anger is a profound disappointment with God. Your image of the angry divorced woman is apt–people go into marriage expecting happiness, if not bliss. So perhaps some of the de-converted left because the happiness that Christianity promised was shattered on the rocky shore of reality. But of course, we are not promised happiness by Christ Jesus. Just the opposite.
dean says
I have read somewhere that on the surface Christianity is messy & the older I get the truer or clearer it becomes. As a kid its the goodies and the baddies, police good, criminals bad.
Why some are driven and fanatical about seeking to turn Christians from their faith reminds me of the temptation of Jesus and the devious tactics Satan employed to undermine God in the flesh. Herod the great was very threatened by the prophecy of Scripture and did all that was within his power to eliminate the threat. There is no sitting on the fence is there. If you are not with Him, you are against Him, from the most overt or covert act from the human heart and will, from the extremely wild to the most mild. Each in their own way seek to ignore and undermine the Saviour.
Lois Westerlund says
Thank you, Dean. If some only appeared to have faith, then they are still in the Kingdom of Darkness and serve the purposes of God’s Adversary, Satan. Thanks for a helpful comment.
Joel Furches says
The entire article casts deconverts in a negative light, which I don’t think is helpful to the discussion. In the end, if the reader is a Christian, he or she is likely to alienate the deconvert as a “traitor”, contributing to the deconversion crisis
Now to address his points in turn:
1.) I agree you can’t always see deconversion coming. I think deconversion fits a specified pattern, but it would be easy enough to read this pattern into someone’s life when it isn’t there, or to only recognize things in retrospect. Overthinking a person’s position out of paranoia is likely to be damaging.
2.) This idea that deconversion is motivated out of a desire for power or prestige seems baseless. It seems to me that in most of the cases, deconversion is sincere, and potentially reinforced by the high premium the church places on truth. I can’t recall any cases I’ve studied where a person immediately benefited from deconversion. In most cases, the deconversion hurt the individual who loses their community, identity, and in some cases, job (if they are in the ministry).
3.) It seems fair enough to say that deconverts criticize their previous religious community. I have yet to encounter a case where they didn’t. There are multiple reasons for this, but the most obvious is that their previous religious community still believes and acts in the ways they have rejected.
4.) Yes, deconverts believe they have made progress. If they didn’t see deconversion as progress, they likely wouldn’t have done it.
Deconverts either make the move for intellectual reasons – in which case they believe they have taken steps away from that which was false at the very least. Or they have moral or emotional reasons, in which case they believe they have made moral progress by moving away from what they perceive as a morally questionable practice.
5.) Again, the observation that deconverts are evangelical in nature naturally follows from the process itself. They have stepped away from that which they believe is wrong. It is fair enough to wipe the dust from one’s feet, but if one’s friends and family remain in a practice you reject, you may want to bring them with you. Or otherwise, as is often the case, you believe the religion is damaging, and you want to do your part in curbing the damage.
Nemo says
Joel Furches,
Thank you for the thought-provoking comment.
You wrote, “2.) This idea that deconversion is motivated out of a desire for power or prestige seems baseless.”
Power and prestige come in different forms. You write that some people deconvert for intellectual reasons. I also read deconverts saying science proves Christianity wrong, although it does no such thing. But, having science on one’s side, or at least, being perceived as such, gives one prestige and power in our culture.
You wrote, “4.) Yes, deconverts believe they have made progress. If they didn’t see deconversion as progress, they likely wouldn’t have done it.”
Quite true. Having converted from atheism to theism, I’d like to think that I’ve made progress too. But, progress implies a standard of the good. What standard are we using to measure our “progress” against?
I don’r know any deconverts personally, but only read about them in the news and occasionally in online forums. So I’m very much interested in learning from your experience.
Nemo
Joel Furches says
Hello Nemo,
While I am not myself a deconvert, I am a researcher who studies conversion and deconversion as a process – which is what attracted me to this article in the first place (you can follow my research on twitter @sidesswitching)
To answer your points: what one sees in deconversion is that the individual tends to come from a religious background in which they have had little direct exposure to views outside of the religious environment in which they have been immersed.
The individual is then exposed to “stressors.” This typically includes direct exposure to ideas outside of the religious environment from which they come. It also typically includes various questions or doubts related to their religious ideas. Sometimes the stressor is a difficult life situation which their religion fails to address to their satisfaction (marital problems for instance).
Following the stressors, the individual encounters a “trigger,” which is some specific objection which gives the individual intellectual permission to begin questioning the religion in earnest.
This begins the process which eventually results in them rejecting the religion.
After the deconversion, the individual suffers a “deconversion crisis” wherein they have to find a new identity and community to replace what they have lost – which is usually a very stressful and emotionally difficult period for them.
I really have never found an example of deconversion wherein the individual seems to be motivated in some sort of power or prestige. They may seek these things as a resolution to the deconversion crisis (frequently deconverts are welcome into the atheist community as “wins” for the atheist side), but this seems to be a post-deconversion process rather than a motivation for the deconversion itself.
I’m glad for the opportunity to share my findings. And I am interested in encountering individuals who have moved from atheism to theism, given that this is also an avenue that I research. Happy to continue any correspondence,
Joel
Nemo says
Joel Furches,
You wrote, “The individual is then exposed to “stressors.” This typically includes direct exposure to ideas outside of the religious environment from which they come.”
Yes, and often times the stressor comes in the form of a celebrity, best-selling author, or college professor, i.e., people with power and prestige in our culture. Their arguments against Christianity would be far less persuasive if espoused by an average joe. But, when coming from positions of prestige, they can cause tremendous stress: on the one side is power and prestige, on the other side is one’s (unexamined) religious beliefs.
In my very limited online experience with deconverts, they always assert they are in the right, yet their ideas are just as unexamined as the ideas they reject. I suspect they derive their confidence not from a position of truth but from a position of perceived power.
Just out of curiosity, what is the goal or purpose of your research?
Nemo
Joel Furches says
Hello Nemo,
The individuals definitely are susceptible to outside influence. Bart Ehrman famously met his trigger experience when a New Testament professor suggested the Bible contained errors, and Leo Behe was actually influenced by the writings of Richard Dawkins.
But I’ve found that in most instances (including the two men named above) the deconversion experience is very private, even if triggered or informed by external influences.
This is not a point I care to argue, though. I would love to see any concrete examples you could provide me. If there are holes in my research, I definitely want to know what they are.
As regards a deconvert’s confidence, there are several things to be said.
The first is that this individual has a high level of commitment to their current position, given the amount of work and sacrifice they have put into it.
The second is that deconverts more frequently than not come from a religious position that puts a high focus on confidence, and a low value on intellectual humility.
While switching sides, the individual typically retains the same mindset, and just exerts it from another position.
Deconverts tend to reject the exact flavor of religion they left, and they are rarely very ecumenical in their views on religion, tending to see all religion as reflective of the specific beliefs and values they came to reject.
When one deconverts, one forms a “deconversion narrative,” which reframes one’s religious past in a very different perspective than they had prior to deconversion.
The individual now sees their religious journey as a story of lies and manipulations, whereas before they would have had a much more positive perspective.
Consequently, this is how they approach religion and religious people in general: not as people who are mistaken, but rather as people who are deceptive.
As to the purpose of my research, at current it is academic interest. While the field of study on religious conversion is extensive and has a long history, relatively little research has been done on religious deconversion, and it is a much more salient topic in the current era.
Nemo says
Joel Furches,
You wrote, “This is not a point I care to argue, though. I would love to see any concrete examples you could provide me. If there are holes in my research, I definitely want to know what they are.”
Just to clarify, I’m not trying to poke holes in your research, knowing nothing about it. The point I’m responding to is whether a desire for power and prestige can and does cause people to deconvert. You said the idea is baseless, and I tried to explain why I think it is a reasonable observation, viz, some behaviour patterns of deconverts can be explained by such a desire.
People can look at the exact same data, but come away with different conclusions. It never ceases to amaze me how often that happens.
I agree with many other observations you made in your last two comments. Thank you for sharing them.
Nemo
Lois Westerlund says
Response to Joel Furches: I would be glad if you could clarify a sentence in your post: “It seems to me that in most of the cases, deconversion is sincere, and potentially reinforced by the high premium the church places on truth.” What puzzles me is the phrase, “reinforced by the high premium the church places on truth.” I am not sure I understand, since the Church worships the God who is the embodiment of Truth. John 14:6. Secondly, do not the de-converted also place a high premium on truth, defined as the truth they believe they have come to see? I cannot imagine believing in something one does not think is true. Thanks.
Joel Furches says
Hello, Lois,
Perhaps it would clarify a bit if I said “truth-seeking” rather than just “truth.”
For one to be motivated to move toward the “other side,” one must either do so out of convenience or conviction.
Losing one’s faith is not an easy process, and it frequently comes with a loss of friends, family, and community support.
For one to suffer these kinds of inconveniences, they must not merely be convinced that their religious beliefs were untrue, but also that the pursuit of truth trumps the inconvenience of losing one’s identity and community.
The process of deconversion involves a period frequently called “deconstruction,” although more often I would say it is a “rescue attempt.”
During this period, the individual will evaluate their beliefs and then alter or discard them accordingly.
Most often the individual modifies their beliefs to allow for doubts or questions, but still rescue their religion. For instance, they will modify their beliefs about Biblical inerrancy in order to dismiss parts of the Bible they find problematic.
The very fact that they go through this process speaks to the premium they place on truth: they are making a serious attempt at truth-seeking rather than ignoring things they find conflicting their beliefs.
Lois Westerlund says
Thank you, Joel, this is a very helpful clarification. You have written of the cost to the de-converted of their movement away from the faith they once professed, and that is s compassionate response. In my observation and experience, those who no longer profess Christ also experience some desirable outcomes. There is relief from spiritual wrestling, a sense of freedom from the claims of the Biblical Creator and Redeemer upon their lives, freedom from guilt, and acceptance with their peers, as they are free to immerse themselves in our culture. This no doubt, is the “convenience” you mentioned. Every individual’s story is different in the particulars, and we are to leave final judgment to God. My takeaway from your posts is that we who belong to Christ are to view those who once professed faith in Christ and now do not with compassion, but, I would add, also with a winsome, but unswerving adherence to the Truth that God has revealed in His Word.
Joel Furches says
Hello Lois,
You make a good observation in regards to desirable outcomes. About 40% of atheists I have polled report feeling a sense of relief after exiting religion. Religious exiters I have profiled specify that this sense of relief relates to a freedom from various performance pressures placed upon them in the Christian environment from which come – frequently expectations related to sexual restraint (there is also a noticeable increase in the use of profanity).
Also, from the constant fear of hell and of a judgmental or wrathful God.
Religious exiters tend to be the kinds of people who strongly tie their identity to their religious beliefs, so the transition from religious to irreligious requires a period in which they need to find another basis for their personal identity.
The community from which the individual exits – family, friends, and church members – must similarly wrestle with the new identity the individual assumes.
If these relationships are to be favorably maintained, it would probably be most effective for the family member, friend, or church member to respect the process through which the individual is transitioning, and to try to listen and understand the individual’s thoughts and feelings without making assertions or giving advice, or making overt efforts to “win them back.”
When a person transitions from belief to unbelief, it tends to be a very personal process without sharing or access to external influences. The person essentially hides their struggle because they are afraid of the judgement or evangelizing they will receive from others who still hold concrete convictions. They are far more likely to be receptive toward those who attempt to listen and understand than those who will try to convince them one way or the other.
Post-deconversion, the individual tends to be receptive to those who maintain the relationship on other grounds (a mutual interest in sports, for instance), and do not press the religious issues.
Chris Nelson says
There is no such thing, Biblically, as deconversion. Salvation is all of Christ from start to finish.