Well, I'm back from my trip to North Carolina, and I have been busy reading as much of John D. Caputo's book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct (Baker Books, 2007). This has been a really interesting (and thought provoking) book to read. I am just about finished with chapter 3, so here are my thoughts on the first couple chapters.
As I have already pointed out, Caputo uses the book, In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do?, written by Charles Sheldon, for candid reflection on the question itself, while also making an assessment of how the Christian mainstream has appropriated it. In chapter 1 he sets the stage for a discussion on deconstruction by suggesting that perhaps the Christian right has not given enough gravity to the question of what Jesus would do. More specifically, Caputo suggests that what often happens is that the church attempts to 'institutionalize' Jesus, making him out to be one who represents our particular view, as opposed to actually asking what Jesus would do if he did in fact show up. He basically suggests that we may need to deconstruct our version of Jesus to see if our conceptions are consistent. Caputo also makes a call for social action by pointing out the social message implicit in Sheldon's message; he accomplishes this by giving some context to Sheldon's own life in order to point out that perhaps the Christian right's appropriation of the question "what would Jesus do?" is not consistent with how Sheldon himself would have wanted to see it appropriated. Ironically, for Caputo, postmodern deconstruction does entail a postmodern regression into nothingness, but rather a decontruction of what the church has created in order to offer a better vantage point on the kingdom of God. Caputo calls it the 'hermeneutics of the kingdom of God.'
For me, chapter 2 was a bit more difficult to swallow at points. First, Caputo speaks very broadly about faith, describing it as a spiritual journey in a very open-ended sort of way; like moving into the unknown. In fact, he says that the unknown element is a key element because if one knows where they are going before they start, then its not really a journey. Caputo also speaks about the "radical contingency of our situation", meaning that the perspective of the individual is so specific to that person, that not only can we never fully appreciate the comprehensive vantage point of another, but that this explains why people have radically different views about all aspects of belief and tradition. He seems to use this argument to undermine the assured perspective on all things by the conservative right wing arm of the church, which I think has value to extent that it gets people to question themselves; I'm just not sure one has to take such a radical epistemological perspective in order to accomplish that objective.
The one problem that was not only very upsetting to me, but was, in my opinion, also rather un-academic of Caputo, was his view of Scripture. On one hand he suggests, as he has before, that our individual, historically contingent perspective is a factor when we read Scripture or experience church tradition itself- this in itself seems reasonable enough to me, and seems to be more a question of degree than one of simple affirmation or denial. His second assertion was much more problematic in my opinion, largely because of my own expertise in the area of New Testament theology and historical criticism. He basically casts the integrity of Scripture into question with a very popular, but questionable assertion. Caputo states, in regard to Derrida's views on literature and objective readings (found in Derrida's book, "The Post Card"):
"On one level, Derrida meant that a text- say, one of the letters written by St. Paul- is a physical object and it may get lost (as were most of the letters of Paul and all of the first manuscripts of the Gospels) or misquoted or altered over several centuries of editing (which has also happened to the Scriptures). He also meant that a text simply may not be understood by its recipients, who never "get" what is "sent". Finally he meant that even when it is not and even when it is understood, a text remains structurally and in principle capable of being understood differently-by different communities of readers at different times, in other times and places- so that it is always happening (arriver) but never arrives (arriver) decisively at just one final destination (I will come back to this point below) that would be authorized to pronounce its meaning once and for all."(pg. 47)
Now, among the many things said here, the one that I take particualr contention with is the point where Caputo suggests that Scripture, as a text, has been 'altered over several centuries of editing'. If you look at Caputo's footnote, the only source he uses to substantiate such a radical claim is Bart Ehrman. First, anytime you put forward a debated claim, you must use more than one source. Second, it is clear that while Ehrman is clearly a reputable scholar, it is also fair to say that he has relatively "liberal" (if I can use this term) presuppositions about the text. Ultimately, the point is that the integrity of the Scriptures is a debated topic, and there are scholars who make strong arguments for its integrity on reasonable text-critical grounds. Thus, I thought it was rather problematic for Caputo to offer such dogmatic claim, when it is clear that this is not a settled issue. This was also important because of how he used the claim to advance a postmodern reading. In my opinion, it is not virtuous or scholarly to advance such a claim with adequate research and qualification.
One separate, but intimately related question, is what does Caputo think about revelation? More specifically, in Christian terms, to what degree is God capable of revealing himself to man in an objective way? I think he needs to discuss this in terms of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptural text itself, particularly if he does in fact want this project to be an inclusive venture as he claims.
More to come...
0 COMMENTS...:
Post a Comment