Deconstructing the Deconstructors of Christian Faith

Introduction: The Academy and the Altar—A Modern Contest of Narratives
Part I: The Secular Re-Enchantment: Academia’s Adoption and Repurposing of Christian Symbolism
Part II: Appropriation or Appreciation? A Critical Analysis of Academic and Cultural Borrowing
1. Defining Religious Appropriation: Power, Harm, and Ultimate Concerns
2. The Academy as Appropriator: A Postcolonial and Theological Critique
Part III: The Naturalistic Fallacy and the Scientific Claim to Moral Truth

Introduction: The Academy and the Altar—A Modern Contest of Narratives

The relationship between the modern secular university and the Christian faith is often depicted as a straightforward conflict between reason and revelation, science and superstition. This portrayal, however, belies a far more intricate and subtle dynamic. The contemporary academy’s engagement with Christianity is not characterized by simple dismissal but by a complex process of subsumption and redefinition. It positions itself not merely as a critic of Christian claims but as a rival interpretive authority, one that systematically deconstructs the theological foundations of the faith by re-contextualizing its narratives, symbols, and moral precepts within secular frameworks such as mythology, psychology, and political theory. This process of re-contextualization serves as the intellectual groundwork for both the cultural appropriation of Christian heritage and the philosophical subversion of its moral authority.

This report will argue that these phenomena—the repurposing of Christian symbolism, its appropriation by a dominant secular culture, and the philosophical undermining of its ethical system—are not disparate events but interconnected facets of a single, overarching project. This project seeks to neutralize the transcendent claims of Christianity by explaining them away in immanent, naturalistic terms. The academic gaze, therefore, is not a neutral or objective lens; it is the instrument of a competing worldview, complete with its own metaphysical commitments and ethical projects.1

The modern university is the primary arena for this contest of narratives. Christian scholars within these institutions frequently report an atmosphere dominated by worldviews like naturalism and postmodernism, leading many to self-censor their faith commitments for fear of professional risk.1 The experience of theologians like Thomas Oden, who found his move toward traditional Christianity met with professional marginalization rather than intellectual tolerance, underscores the reality that the academy is not always a neutral marketplace of ideas but a community with a prevailing, and often dogmatically secular, orthodoxy.2 The very notion of a “culturally and religiously neutral education” is increasingly understood to be a myth.1 Consequently, the academic analysis of Christianity is not a dispassionate, objective inquiry but an interpretation performed from within a rival worldview. This reframes the entire engagement from a simple critique to a profound collision of comprehensive, and often incompatible, visions of reality. This report seeks to map the contours of that collision, examining the methods, justifications, and consequences of the academy’s secular gaze upon the Christian tradition.

Part I: The Secular Re-Enchantment: Academia’s Adoption and Repurposing of Christian Symbolism

The secular academy’s initial and most decisive maneuver in its engagement with Christianity is to methodically detach the faith’s narratives, symbols, and figures from their theological moorings. Once unmoored, these elements are re-inscribed with new, secular meanings, transforming them from components of a revealed religion into artifacts for historical, psychological, or literary analysis. This section will explore the primary methods of this re-contextualization: the recasting of sacred history as mythology, the psychologizing of theology through Jungian archetypes, and the instrumentalization of Christian narratives for political and literary ends.

From Sacred History to Christian Mythology

The foundational academic move that enables the secular repurposing of the Bible is the reclassification of its content from “sacred history” or “revelation” to the category of “mythology.” This is not a neutral act of scholarly categorization but a profound philosophical shift. By labeling Christian scripture as “myth,” academia places it on a continuum with the legends of Sumer, Greece, and Rome, implying a shared, human-made origin and a common, non-transcendent function. This act shifts the locus of interpretive authority from the divine author to the academic analyst, who becomes the new high priest, explaining what the ancient stories really mean.

The academic field defines “Christian mythology” as the body of myths associated with Christianity, encompassing a broad variety of legends and sacred narratives.3 This framework immediately invites comparative analysis, identifying recurring mythological themes within Christian literature. These include archetypal stories such as ascending a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the underworld, a dying-and-rising god, and a universal flood myth.3 By highlighting these parallels, the academic approach suggests that biblical narratives are not unique historical accounts but local expressions of universal human story patterns. The New Testament’s cosmology, with its three-storied structure of heaven, earth, and underworld, is presented as an essentially mythical worldview, the abode of God and angels above and a place of torment below.3

This historical-critical method extends beyond general themes to specific doctrines, tracing their development through syncretism with older traditions. For example, some anthropological research proposes that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was not a unique revelation but was partially influenced by triadic god-forms from the ancient Assyrian region, long predating Hellenistic philosophy.4 This scholarship argues that Mesopotamian subcultures and their philosophical concepts, such as a triadic singular god, were assimilated into Semitic Jewish traditions, which then served as a bridge to Christianity.4 This perspective directly challenges the uniqueness of Christian doctrine, recasting it as an evolutionary product of cultural and religious borrowing.

Once Christian narratives are established as “myth,” their legacy is then traced through the development of secular thought, positioning them as precursors to modern political and philosophical ideas. The “myth of Progress,” central to the Enlightenment, is described as a “secular, Enlightenment counterpart” or a “rationalized version” of the Christian myth of salvation.3 Similarly, ideologies like Marxism are analyzed as secularized forms of Judeo-Christian eschatology, taking up the “messianic” and “redemptive” myths of the Mediterranean world, with the proletariat playing the role of the “elect” or “anointed”.3 In this framework, the ultimate significance of Christian narratives is found not in their theological truth claims but in their contribution to the formation of secular modernity. The power of this mythological framework is so potent that even Christian educators often adopt a defensive posture, recommending that mythology be taught only after a firm grounding in Genesis, in order to “inoculate” children against the allure of false religion and highlight the supposed foolishness of pagan gods.5 This implicitly concedes the interpretive power of the mythological lens and the perceived need to guard the biblical account from being subsumed by it.

The Archetypal Christ: The Jungian Project of Psychologizing Theology

Among the various academic projects to repurpose Christian symbolism, none has been more systematic or culturally influential than the work of psychologist Carl Jung. Rather than dismissing religion, Jung approached Christianity’s “rich symbolic tapestry” as a “vital reservoir of collective human experiences and archetypal patterns”.6 This approach, however, effectively transforms theology into psychology, reinterpreting the central figures and concepts of the faith as manifestations of a universal “collective unconscious.” This project represents a paradigmatic shift from a theological framework of sin and redemption to a therapeutic model of fragmentation and integration, replacing the priest with the therapist, confession with analysis, and salvation with self-realization.

The cornerstone of the Jungian interpretation is the recasting of Jesus Christ. No longer the unique, historical Son of God who offers salvation from sin, Christ becomes the supreme embodiment of the “Self” archetype—a universal symbol representing the potential for psychological wholeness and integration within every individual.6 In this framework, the life of Christ is not a redemptive act for humanity but a “blueprint for us to achieve individuation and reach our higher self”.7 His struggle against temptation is seen as the integration of the “shadow” (the unacknowledged, darker aspects of the psyche), and his submission to God’s will (“Not my will, but Thy will be done”) is interpreted as the ego aligning with the higher self.7 The Gospel narrative is thus reduced to a case study in psychological development, a map for the journey toward self-realization.6

This psychological reduction extends to all key Christian concepts. The very idea of God is re-contextualized as a symbolic projection of the psyche, an emergent property of the collective unconscious rather than an objectively existing being.6 Christian rituals and sacraments are similarly reinterpreted as transformative psychological acts. Rites such as baptism and the Eucharist are seen as symbolic enactments of psychic death, rebirth, and the necessary integration of the shadow self.6 This framework allows for an appreciation of Christian motifs, but only by stripping them of their theological substance and revaluing them for their therapeutic utility.

From this new vantage point, the Jungian analyst is empowered to critique and even “improve” upon Christian theology. Jung himself critiqued Christianity for what he perceived as its “one-sided emphasis on light and goodness,” which he believed led to a dangerous neglect of the shadow.6 He famously hailed the 1950 Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary as “the most significant religious event since the Reformation” because, in his view, it corrected a theological deficiency.10 Jung argued that the Trinity was an “incomplete” symbol of wholeness; by elevating Mary to a divine status, the Catholic Church had tacitly abandoned the Trinity in favor of a “quaternity,” a more psychologically complete symbol that integrated the divine feminine (often associated with the Gnostic figure of Sophia).10 This is a clear instance of an academic framework judging, and claiming to perfect, a core doctrine of the faith based on an external, psychological-Gnostic standard.

Followers of Jung have continued this project, systematically mapping Christian figures onto psychological archetypes. Jesus is seen as expressing the four primary male archetypes: the Warrior, the Lover, the Magician, and the King.9 Figures like the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene are interpreted as representing different stages of the anima, the feminine aspect of the male psyche.7 By transforming the objective claims of theology into the subjective language of psychology, the Jungian project creates a version of “spirituality” that is highly compatible with a secular, individualistic culture. It makes the “benefits” of Christian symbolism—a sense of meaning, wholeness, and transformation—accessible without any of the corresponding theological commitments, such as faith, repentance, or submission to divine authority. This provides the intellectual justification for the kind of commodified, “pick-and-mix” spirituality that is prevalent today, where religious practices are adopted for personal growth and therapeutic goals.11

The Literary Christ-Figure and Political Allegory

Beyond the realm of psychology, the disciplines of literary and political studies have also instrumentalized Christian narratives, appropriating their profound symbolic power to serve secular artistic and ideological ends. This process ranges from co-opting sacred stories for nationalistic propaganda to employing biblical archetypes as tools for subversive social critique. In each case, the theological significance of the narrative is subordinated to its new, worldly purpose.

A stark historical example of political repurposing is the 18th-century revival of Mary Rowlandson’s 1682 Puritan captivity narrative, The Sovereignty and Goodness of God. Originally a theological testimony to God’s providence during her captivity among Native Americans, the story was strategically reprinted and reframed by pre-revolutionary propagandists between 1770 and 1776.12 Her narrative was transformed into a “totem meant to represent the oppressive struggle between England and her most coveted colony”.12 Through altered titles and new woodcut illustrations, Rowlandson herself was recast from a pious Puritan woman into a “violently independent” American Daughter of Liberty, musket in hand, ready for battle.12 This deliberate appropriation drained the story of its original religious meaning and redeployed it as a powerful piece of political propaganda, conflating the original “savage” enemy with the new English one to stoke revolutionary fervor.12

In literary studies, a more subtle but pervasive form of appropriation occurs through the identification of the “Christ figure.” This is a common analytical tool in high school and university literature classes, where characters who exhibit traits of self-sacrifice, moral purity, or profound suffering are labeled as Christ-like.13 While this practice can illuminate important themes, it often has the effect of domesticating the figure of Christ, reducing him to a mere literary trope or a “sacrificial lamb” archetype. As one analysis notes, comparing a character to Christ becomes akin to comparing them to Holden Caulfield or Atticus Finch—a useful literary parallel, but one that strips the comparison of its unique theological weight.13 This ubiquity in literary pedagogy can simultaneously alienate non-Christian students, for whom the reference may be exclusionary, and trivialize the radical claims of the Gospel for Christian students by presenting Jesus as one archetype among many.

Furthermore, this literary device can be used subversively. Authors like Zora Neale Hurston have employed Christ-figure imagery to critique the failures of institutional Christianity, particularly its role as a “religion of colonialism” imposed upon African Americans.13 In her story “John Redding Goes to Sea,” the protagonist’s death visually echoes the crucifixion, but his sacrifice ultimately fails to improve his community’s lot. This use of the Christ figure subverts the traditional redemptive arc, turning the symbol’s power back against the tradition from which it originated to highlight its perceived shortcomings.13

This practice of narrative appropriation is not a modern invention but has deep historical roots. A powerful classical parallel can be found in Virgil’s Aeneid. Scholars recognize the Aeneid as a deliberate and masterful appropriation of Homeric epic. Virgil consciously borrowed themes, characters, and narrative structures from the Iliad and the Odyssey, but did so to create a “dramatic reversal” of their historical meaning.14 Where Homer’s story ended with the triumph of the Greeks, Virgil’s epic reframes the Trojan refugee Aeneas as the hero of a new, divinely ordained mission to found Rome. This act of literary appropriation created a new “epic of national origins and eschatological promise” that served the political ideology of the Augustan regime.14 This ancient example provides a clear precedent for how a powerful culture can absorb and repurpose the narratives of another to serve its own ends, a dynamic that mirrors both the Christian appropriation of the Hebrew Bible and the secular academy’s subsequent appropriation of Christian narratives. While some scholars point to the Bible’s own internal tradition of “reworking” earlier texts for new contexts 15, theologians draw a sharp distinction between this kind of inspired, intra-canonical reinterpretation and the external, secularizing repurposing performed by the modern academy.16

Part II: Appropriation or Appreciation? A Critical Analysis of Academic and Cultural Borrowing

Having detailed the methods by which academia repurposes Christian symbolism, this report now turns to a critical evaluation of this practice through the lens of cultural appropriation. This framework, which emerged from postcolonial and critical race studies, provides a powerful vocabulary for analyzing the ethical and political dimensions of cultural borrowing. This section will argue that many of the academic and cultural uses of Christian heritage, even when not maliciously intended, constitute a harmful form of appropriation. This is because they are enacted within a power dynamic where a dominant secular culture strips sacred elements of their meaning, causing offense to faith communities and reinforcing their marginalization within elite institutions.

Defining Religious Appropriation: Power, Harm, and Ultimate Concerns

Cultural appropriation is broadly defined as the adoption of elements from a minority or subordinated culture by members of a dominant culture, often without understanding or respecting the original significance of those elements.17 The act is rooted in an assumption of entitlement and becomes particularly problematic when it trivializes sacred traditions, commodifies cultural heritage, or perpetuates existing systems of injustice and power imbalance.17

Religious appropriation is a uniquely potent and often more harmful subset of this phenomenon. As scholar of religion Elizabeth Bucar argues, it is uniquely vexing because it deals not with mundane cultural artifacts like food or fashion, but with symbols, rituals, and narratives tied to “ultimate concerns” and “sacred truths”.11 To borrow these elements is to engage with the deepest values and existential commitments of a community. When this is done superficially or disrespectfully, it can “communicate contempt for the deeply held values of religious communities” and “instrumentalize religion for political, educational, or therapeutic goals”.11

The harm of religious appropriation manifests in several distinct ways. One of the most common is commodification, where sacred practices are stripped of their spiritual context and marketed for profit. The transformation of yoga, a deeply spiritual and ethical system with roots in multiple South Asian traditions, into “respite yoga”—a secularized wellness product sold in the West—is a paradigmatic case.11 Here, as Bucar notes, “devotion becomes respite, salvation becomes health”.11 A similar dynamic is seen in the commercial sale of “smudge kits” containing white sage by corporations like Sephora and Anthropologie. This practice commodifies a sacred ritual of Indigenous peoples, a ritual that was once brutally suppressed by law, turning an emblem of “deep pain, sacrifice, resistance and refusal” into a trendy consumer good.19

Another form of harm is trivialization. When the Hindu deity Ganesh is used to advertise a beer festival 20 or when Catholic liturgical vestments are re-imagined as high-fashion costumes for the MET Gala 17, believers often experience this as a profound mockery of their faith. Such uses reduce sacred figures and objects, which are objects of veneration and central to a community’s identity, into mere aesthetic props for secular entertainment or commerce.

A third, more subtle harm is distortion. The “Solidarity Hijab” movement, in which non-Muslim women wear the hijab to protest Islamophobia, serves as a complex example. While often well-intentioned, critics within the Muslim community argue that this act appropriates the hijab as a political symbol, bypassing its deep religious virtues of “modesty, shyness, humility, [and] obedience” before God.11 Furthermore, by centering the hijab as the symbol of Muslim identity, it can inadvertently erase the diversity of Muslim women, many of whom do not wear it, thus reinforcing a monolithic and often Orientalist view of the faith.11

Central to all these cases is the issue of power dynamics. Appropriation is not merely borrowing; it is borrowing that occurs across a power gradient. Commentators often describe it as a “by-product of imperialism, oppression and assimilation,” a form of ‘cultural colonialism’ where a dominant Western culture takes ownership of items from a minority or historically colonized community.20 The crucial question, therefore, is whether the appropriated group is a historically marginalized one whose traditions are vulnerable to exploitation.17

This raises a key complexity when analyzing the appropriation of Christianity. As a historically dominant religion in the West, it seems at first glance not to fit the profile of a marginalized group.17 However, this view overlooks the specific context in which the appropriation occurs. The relevant power dynamic is not always between Christianity and other world religions, but between the secular academy (as the dominant cultural-intellectual force in modern society) and traditional Christian faith communities. Within the elite institutions of the West—universities, media, and arts—orthodox Christian belief is increasingly treated as a marginalized worldview. It is often viewed as intellectually unsophisticated, politically regressive, and socially problematic.1 In this specific context, the secular academic, who represents the institution’s dominant ideology of naturalism and critical theory, holds the power. When that academic reinterprets and redefines a Christian doctrine held by believers, they are exercising their institutional power over a viewpoint that is, within that same institution, a minority. The power dynamic of appropriation is therefore present, even if the roles appear reversed in the broader, historical culture.

The Academy as Appropriator: A Postcolonial and Theological Critique

Applying a postcolonial lens reveals that the academic study of religion itself can be framed as an appropriative project. Born in the crucible of 19th-century European colonialism and shaped by Enlightenment rationalism, the discipline established a framework for studying “religion” that was anything but neutral. It is a field deeply embedded in a “colonial matrix of power,” a product of empire whose foundational questions and concepts reflect its origins.23 Early scholars of religion, operating within a context of conquest, often depicted the traditions of “cultural others” as primitive, irrational, or savage, positioning them on a lower rung of evolutionary development than European Christianity.24

The very concept of “religion” as a distinct category of human activity, separable from culture, politics, and daily life, is not a universal given but a uniquely Western construct, heavily influenced by the history of Protestant Christianity.25 When this category is applied globally, it functions as a tool of intellectual colonialism, forcing the diverse spiritual and social realities of non-Western peoples into a pre-defined, Eurocentric box. Scholars like Jonathan Z. Smith have argued that “religion” is a category created by and for academics, not an objective feature of the world waiting to be discovered.26 This act of defining, categorizing, and explaining the beliefs of others from an external, supposedly superior vantage point constitutes a form of “epistemic violence.” It supersedes the self-understanding of faith communities and establishes the secular academic as the ultimate arbiter of what a religion is and what it means.

The claim to academic neutrality is a critical component of this appropriative move. By positioning itself as objective and rational, the academy implicitly de-legitimizes the “insider” theological perspective as inherently biased, reducing its claims to mere “faith statements” or “calls to belief”.27 This creates a clear intellectual hierarchy: the secular scholar’s explanation of a religious phenomenon is privileged as knowledge, while the believer’s experience or testimony is relegated to the status of data to be analyzed.

From a theological standpoint, a crucial distinction must be made between this kind of external, secularizing appropriation and the internal, faith-driven reinterpretation that occurs within a tradition. The Christian appropriation of the Hebrew Bible, for instance, was not an act of academic analysis but a theological re-contextualization driven by a world-altering event: the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead.16 The first Christians, as Jews, re-read their scriptures through the lens of this event, seeing it as the unexpected climax of Israel’s story. This was an interpretation from within the covenant community, motivated by a new divine act. This stands in stark contrast to the secular scholar who stands outside the tradition and reinterprets its tenets according to external criteria, be they psychological, political, or literary. While some Christian theologians argue that critical historical scholarship can be a form of “theological adaptation and appropriation” that ultimately deepens faith 27, this is a self-conscious act of engagement by a believer seeking to understand their own tradition more fully. It is fundamentally different from the secularizing project that seeks to explain the tradition away, thereby appropriating its cultural capital while neutralizing its transcendent claims.

Part III: The Naturalistic Fallacy and the Scientific Claim to Moral Truth

The intellectual engine that powers the secular academy’s challenge to Christian ethics is its commitment to philosophical naturalism—the view that only the natural world exists and that all phenomena, including morality, can be explained by scientific principles. This section will analyze the primary philosophical tool used to enforce this view: the naturalistic fallacy. It will argue that this concept is often wielded selectively to disqualify theological moral reasoning while obscuring the fact that secular attempts to ground morality in nature are themselves philosophically fraught and ultimately inadequate. They can describe moral behavior but cannot account for moral duty, a gap that Christian theism is uniquely equipped to fill.

The Is-Ought Problem in Academic Discourse

At the heart of modern meta-ethics lies a formidable challenge known as the “is-ought problem,” most famously articulated by the 18th-century philosopher David Hume. Hume observed that moral arguments often make an unjustified leap from descriptive statements about what is the case to prescriptive statements about what ought to be the case.28 Decades later, G. E. Moore coined the term “naturalistic fallacy” to describe a related error: the attempt to define the moral property “good” in terms of some natural property, such as “pleasurable,” “healthy,” or “evolutionarily advantageous”.29 The core of the fallacy is the assumption that because something is natural, it is therefore morally good.31 Together, these concepts form a powerful critique of any ethical system that attempts to derive values directly from facts.

Within contemporary academic discourse, particularly in fields like evolutionary psychology, this critique is frequently deployed as a defensive shield. When evolutionary theorists propose biological explanations for behaviors like aggression, infanticide, or rape, they often face ethical objections. In response, they invoke the naturalistic fallacy, arguing that to explain a behavior’s evolutionary origins (is) is not to morally endorse it (ought).33 This rhetorical move is intended to “forestall legitimate ethical discussion” and insulate scientific theories from moral scrutiny by claiming that science deals only with value-free facts.35

However, critics point out that this appeal to the fallacy is often inconsistently applied and serves as a gatekeeping mechanism rather than a neutral principle of logic.29 The same scholars who use the is-ought gap to deflect criticism of their own theories are often quick to leap across it themselves. For instance, an evolutionary psychologist might argue that because innate genetic differences between groups of people are a biological reality, social policies ought to reflect these differences.36 Or they might argue that because the notion of humanity as a “blank slate” is scientifically false, social engineering based on this idea ought to be rejected as dangerous and likely to lead to totalitarianism.29 This selective application suggests that the fallacy is often used not as a consistent philosophical tool, but as a rhetorical weapon to disqualify theological or traditional moral arguments from “serious” discourse by labeling them as unscientific.

This inconsistency reveals a deeper dynamic. The naturalistic fallacy is used to erect a boundary between legitimate and illegitimate moral reasoning. Scientific “facts” are placed on the side of objective, value-free inquiry, while theological and metaphysical claims are dismissed as fallacious leaps of faith. Yet, secular ideologies frequently derive their own “oughts” from their preferred “is”—be it evolutionary history, social utility, or a particular vision of human flourishing. This exposes the pretense of neutrality. The debate is not between value-free science and value-laden religion, but between competing moral systems, each with its own foundational “is” from which it derives its “oughts.” The charge of the “naturalistic fallacy” thus becomes a tool for defining the terms of debate, privileging the “is” of scientific materialism while excluding the “is” of divine revelation or a teleological cosmos.

The Secular Moral Project and Its Inadequacies

Stripped of a transcendent foundation, secularism has endeavored to construct alternative frameworks for grounding morality. These systems, such as secular humanism, consequentialism, and freethought, attempt to derive ethical principles from human reason, empirical observation, and the goal of promoting human flourishing in the present world.37 Secular humanism, in particular, builds its worldview on a foundation of nontheism, naturalism, and a belief in unguided evolution, leading to a system of ethical relativism where morals are self-originated and evolve with culture.38

From a theological perspective, these frameworks are fundamentally inadequate because they cannot account for the objective, binding, and normative nature of moral claims. They are critiqued as “idolatrous moral systems” that, by making “man the measure of all things,” inevitably lead from a principled individualism to a corrosive narcissism and ultimately to self-deification.39 The very term “secular morality” is argued to be an oxymoron, an illicit marriage of the temporal (“secular”) with a concept (“morality”) that implies a timeless, transcendent standard of goodness.39 Without an absolute standard—a “lighthouse”—moral systems that shift with cultural tides cannot claim to make genuine progress; they merely wander from one preference to another.40

The most profound critique of the secular moral project is that a purely naturalistic worldview cannot provide a sufficient metaphysical grounding for what can be termed the “Three M’s” of human experience: Mind, Morality, and Meaning.41

Mind: If naturalism is true, then consciousness and free will are illusions. Our thoughts are not the product of free reason but are the determined effects of physical causes in the brain—neural dominoes falling in sequence. This undermines the very possibility of rational deliberation, including the deliberation required to arrive at a moral conclusion.41
Morality: In a naturalistic universe, objective moral values and duties do not exist. What we perceive as morality is merely a set of survival instincts hardwired into our species through evolution. There is no transcendent truth that makes compassion good or cruelty evil; there are only behaviors that proved advantageous for the propagation of our genes. One culture has no objective basis for condemning the practices of another, as each has simply adopted the mores that worked for its survival.41
Meaning: If there is no transcendent author of life, then purpose is not discovered but invented. Meaning becomes a subjective preference, and a life dedicated to playing video games is, on objective grounds, no less meaningful than a life dedicated to serving the poor. Naturalism can offer no objective rebuttal to nihilism or hedonism.41

These conclusions are not merely the attacks of theological critics; many prominent naturalist philosophers have conceded these points. They acknowledge that naturalism lacks the “metaphysical equipment” to account for objective moral values and that science’s role is to describe human behavior, not prescribe it.42 They admit that in a purely material universe, moral impulses are no more “true” than a yawn or an itch.42 The secular moral project, therefore, can describe why we have moral feelings but cannot justify why we ought to obey them as binding duties.

A Theological Rebuttal—Grounding Morality in the Divine Nature

In stark contrast to the inadequacies of secular naturalism, Christian theism offers a coherent and robust metaphysical foundation for objective morality, human dignity, and the normative force of ethical claims. It avoids the is-ought fallacy not by ignoring it, but by positing a reality in which “is” and “ought” are inextricably linked in the nature of God and His creation.

The most sophisticated theological response to the is-ought problem is found in Thomistic Natural Law theory. This framework, rooted in the work of Thomas Aquinas, argues that an “ought” is already bound up in an “is” because every created thing possesses a telos—an intrinsic purpose or end for which it was designed by God.29 Just as a clock, by its very nature (is a timekeeping device), ought to keep time accurately, so too a human being, by his or her nature (is a rational creature made in God’s image), ought to live in accordance with reason and the moral law.44 Morality, in this view, is not an arbitrary set of rules imposed upon our nature, but is the very fulfillment of our nature. To live contrary to God’s law is to work against the grain of our own being, which can only lead to profound dissatisfaction.44

This teleological worldview is grounded in a theistic metaphysic where God, as a maximally great and intrinsically valuable being, is the fundamental reality.45 Unlike naturalism, which begins with valueless matter and struggles to explain how value emerges, theism begins with a source of ultimate value. Human dignity and worth are therefore not accidental properties of complex matter but are direct consequences of humanity being created in the imago Dei—the image of God.45 This theological starting point provides the necessary “metaphysical capital” to ground universal human rights and objective moral duties, concepts that naturalism struggles to sustain.42

This framework also elegantly resolves the classic Euthyphro dilemma (“Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”). The dilemma presents a false choice. The moral law is not good because of an arbitrary divine command, nor is God subject to an external moral standard. Rather, morality is grounded in God’s own eternal, unchanging, and perfectly good character. God is goodness itself, and therefore His commands are necessary expressions of His nature.46 The “ought” of the moral law flows directly from the “is” of God’s perfect character.

Ultimately, naturalism can only offer a descriptive account of morality. It can explain that murder feels wrong because aversions to it were evolutionarily adaptive for our ancestors. It cannot, however, explain why murder is objectively wrong, independent of our feelings or its survival utility.47 Christian theism, by grounding morality in the transcendent character of God and the created nature of the human person as an image-bearer, provides a far more compelling explanation for the reality of objective moral truth that we experience and intuitively recognize.

Conclusion: Toward an Intellectually Robust and Faithful Witness

The analysis presented in this report reveals a complex and deeply philosophical engagement between the secular academy and the Christian faith. This engagement is not a simple matter of intellectual disagreement but constitutes an integrated program of subsumption. The academic project begins by re-categorizing Christian sacred history as “mythology,” an act that strips its narratives of their unique authority (Part I). This re-categorization enables an intellectual and cultural appropriation of Christian symbols for secular psychological and political purposes, a process that often mirrors the power dynamics of colonialism (Part II). This entire endeavor is intellectually justified by a commitment to philosophical naturalism, which employs tools like the naturalistic fallacy to disqualify theological ethics while advancing its own claim to be the sole arbiter of moral truth (Part III). These are not separate phenomena but a cohesive strategy that seeks to absorb Christianity into a secular framework, explaining its power while neutralizing its transcendent claims.

For the Christian scholar, pastor, or apologist, understanding this dynamic is essential for a faithful and effective witness in the contemporary world. A retreat from the academy is not a viable option; rather, what is required is a robust intellectual and spiritual engagement that is clear-eyed about the challenges yet confident in the coherence of the Christian worldview. Such an engagement involves several key postures.

First, it requires a commitment to deconstructing the deconstructors. Christian scholars must become adept at exposing the unstated philosophical presuppositions that undergird secular academic frameworks. This means demonstrating that naturalism is not a neutral, scientific fact but a metaphysical “faith” commitment of its own, one that struggles to provide a coherent explanation for fundamental aspects of reality.

Second, this engagement necessitates a confident effort to reclaim the narrative. This involves more than a defensive posture; it requires articulating the Christian worldview as a more comprehensive and compelling explanation for the world as we find it. This means showing how theism provides a superior grounding for the very things naturalism cannot adequately explain: the existence of conscious minds, the reality of objective morality, and the universal human longing for transcendent meaning.41

Third, this calls for the practice of faithful scholarship. Christian thinkers are called to engage in rigorous critical study not to undermine faith, but to deepen it. This involves a commitment to understanding the historical, cultural, and literary contexts of Scripture, which provides a more robust and defensible account of the faith.27 A faith that is afraid of historical questions is a faith that will not withstand the scrutiny of the modern world. A faith that engages these questions honestly, however, can emerge with a more profound and resilient understanding of its own foundations.

Finally, Christian scholars must recognize the importance of building networks of support and collaboration. While often a minority within their institutions, they are not alone. By connecting with colleagues across disciplines and institutions, they can foster an intellectual community that provides encouragement, sharpens arguments, and amplifies their collective voice.1 The goal is not to “win” a culture war, but to be a patient, intelligent, and winsome witness to the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Christian faith within the very halls of the academy. It is a call to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is not an artifact to be placed in a museum of mythologies, but a living, breathing, and intellectually vibrant reality.

This report was generated by Google Gemini 2.5 Deep Research using the prompt:

“Research 1. how academia has adopted and repurposed the mythology and symbolism of the church and 2. how this might be considered to be a form of cultural appropriation and ideological colonialism”

It was reviewed by Dr. Andrew Sears for accuracy.

Works cited

The Witness of Christian Faculty: Humble, Bold and Intellectually Rigorous – Lausanne Movement, accessed July 8, 2025, https://lausanne.org/about/blog/professing-faith-in-the-halls-of-the-academy-a-key-witness-for-christian-scholars
Seven Lessons for Evangelical Scholars in the Secular Academy …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://michaeljkruger.com/seven-lessons-for-evangelical-scholars-in-the-secular-academy/
Christian mythology – Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology
(PDF) Religious Symbolism in Relation to Triadic Power Dynamics …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393267486_Religious_Symbolism_in_Relation_to_Triadic_Power_Dynamics_in_Mesopotamian_and_Judeo-Christian_Mythology_ATH-489_Capstone_in_Anthropology
Should Christian Parents Teach Mythology? – Practical Homeschooling Magazine, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.home-school.com/Articles/002-should-christians-teach-mythology.php
Carl Jung & Religion: Exploring Jung’s Perspective on God, accessed July 8, 2025, https://grace-being.com/carl-jung/carl-jung-religion/
The Archetype of Jesus The Christ : r/Jung – Reddit, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung/comments/1grbytj/the_archetype_of_jesus_the_christ/
Archetypal Themes in Biblical Dreams and Legends – assisi institute, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.assisiinstitute.com/archetypal-themes-in-biblical-dreams-and-legends.html
Jungian interpretation of religion – Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_interpretation_of_religion
What’s Wrong with Christianity? — Carl Jung and the Divine Feminine – Graham Pemberton, accessed July 8, 2025, https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/whats-wrong-with-christianity-carl-jung-and-the-divine-feminine-fbb5dca935f4
Religious Seekers, or Cultural Thieves? | Commonweal Magazine, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/yoga-religion-cultural-appropriation-liz-bucar
A REPURPOSED NARRATIVE: MARY … – UKnowledge, accessed July 8, 2025, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=english_etds
Christianity in Literature – Black & Green Atlantic – Notre Dame Sites, accessed July 8, 2025, https://sites.nd.edu/blackandgreenatlantic/2020/03/27/christianity-in-literature/
Symposium – The Gospel Of Rome Vs. The Gospel Of Jesus Christ | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/gospel.html
The Bible and Plagiarism: Repurposing the Stories of Old – YouTube, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnjBgMgR2F8
Pete Enns: “Hey, Get Away from My Bible!“–Christian Appropriation …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://imonk.blog/2013/01/02/pete-enns-hey-get-away-from-my-bible-christian-appropriation-of-a-jewish-bible/
cultural appropriation, religious appropriation – – Language, Please, accessed July 8, 2025, https://languageplease.org/cultural-appropriation/
The Ubiquity of Religious Appropriation — The Revealer, accessed July 8, 2025, https://therevealer.org/the-ubiquity-of-religious-appropriation/
KOCH: People exploring religions must not engage in cultural …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://marquettewire.org/4047394/opinion/koch-people-exploring-religions-must-not-engage-in-cultural-appropriation/
Religious appropriation: The right to be offended? – EARS, accessed July 8, 2025, https://europeanacademyofreligionandsociety.com/news/religious-appropriation-the-right-to-be-offended/
Being a Christian Scholar in a Secular Academic World – Catholic …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://catholicexchange.com/being-a-christian-scholar-in-a-secular-academic-world/
A Christian in the Secular Academy – Reformation 21, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/a-christian-in-the-secular-aca.php
Nye | Decolonizing the Study of Religion | Open Library of Humanities, accessed July 8, 2025, https://olh.openlibhums.org/article/id/4580/
What Are Post-Colonial Theories of Religion? – Bishop’s …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://jamesbishopblog.com/2019/10/11/what-are-post-colonial-theories-of-religion/
POSTCOLONIAL CHALLENGES TO THE STUDY OF … – SH DiVA, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:446249/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Religion after Critique: Decolonial Strategies for the Study of Religion(s) – CSDS |, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.csds.in/uploads/custom_files/1613984005_Religion%20after%20Critique.pdf
Jesus Many Faces – The Tensions Between Faith And History | From …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tensions.html
What is a naturalistic fallacy? The Ethics Centre Article, accessed July 8, 2025, https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/
Naturalistic fallacy – Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Moore, Naturalistic Fallacy – Ethics – Britannica, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy/Moore-and-the-naturalistic-fallacy
What Is the Naturalistic Fallacy? | Definition & Examples – QuillBot, accessed July 8, 2025, https://quillbot.com/blog/reasoning/naturalistic-fallacy/
What Is The Naturalistic Fallacy? | UCLA Student Explains In Under 60 Seconds! – YouTube, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzIgk8UiGw
www.cambridge.org, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-evolutionary-ethics/evolutionary-psychology-feminist-critiques-thereof-and-the-naturalistic-fallacy/005F4C1EFD000B73F9F403231D4C7D24#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%2C%20the%20naturalistic,ethical%20judgement%20about%20that%20situation.&text=According%20to%20Gaulin%20and%20McBurney,explanations%20of%20any%20natural%20phenomena.
On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226509912_On_the_inappropriate_use_of_the_naturalistic_fallacy_in_evolutionary_psychology
1 ON THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF THE … – bingweb, accessed July 8, 2025, https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~dietrich/Papers/EvolutionaryPsy/WrongUseofNatFallacy.pdf
Two logical fallacies that we must avoid. – Psychology Today, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200810/two-logical-fallacies-we-must-avoid
Secular morality – Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality
Critique of Secular Humanism – Spiritual Transformation, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.livestransforming.com/the-critique-of-secular-humanism/
Is “Secular Morality” an Oxymoron? ~ The Imaginative Conservative, accessed July 8, 2025, https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/02/secular-morality-oxymoron.html
The problem with secular humanism’s claim that morality is possible without God… : r/DebateReligion – Reddit, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/q22cl8/the_problem_with_secular_humanisms_claim_that/
Three M’s That Naturalism Can’t Provide | Cold Case Christianity, accessed July 8, 2025, https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/three-ms-that-naturalism-cant-provide/
Morality and Naturalism’s Counterintuitive Claims: Response to …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://credohouse.org/blog/morality-and-naturalisms-counterintuitive-claims-response-to-dawkins-part-v
The Thomistic Conception of Natural Law: Does … – Liberty University, accessed July 8, 2025, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=honors
Christian Anthropology and the Moral Life – Tabletalk Magazine, accessed July 8, 2025, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2022/09/christian-anthropology-and-the-moral-life/
Naturalism, Christianity, and the Best Explanation of Moral …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.liberty.edu/ace/articles/naturalism-christianity-and-the-best-explanation-of-moral-goodness/
Objective Morality, Naturalism, and Euthyphro – Page 2 – Peaceful Science, accessed July 8, 2025, https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/objective-morality-naturalism-and-euthyphro/17184?page=2
Naturalism and morality: The only thing that’s wrong is everything …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://davidvogel.net/2014/06/16/naturalism-and-morality-the-only-thing-thats-wrong-is-everything-you-know/
Becoming a Thoughtful Christian in the Secular Academy: Part II …, accessed July 8, 2025, https://blog.emergingscholars.org/2013/06/becoming-a-thoughtful-christian-in-the-secular-academy-part-ii/