Emergent Reading 5: Deconstruction and Orthodoxy

Chapter 3 of John D. Caputo’s book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct (Baker Academic, 2007) is entitled: “A Prayer for the Impossible: A Catechumen’s Guide to Deconstruction” In this chapter Caputo begins to outline some of the basic tenets of deconstruction in a more substantive way. I also felt that this chapter finally gave me a window into how the philosophy of the Emergent movement is brought to bear on the notion of orthodoxy- we will see the degree to which that is the case. Bearing in the mind the fact that my exposure to this area of philosophy is still relatively limited, I will do my best to insert some of the key quotes from this chapter alongside my own commentary in order to diminish the possibility of gross misconceptions.

Very early on in chapter 3 Caputo offers the following description:

“I said in the first chapter that I am presenting the New Testament as a “poetics” of the kingdom of God, a theo-poetics- as opposed to a “theo-logic,” an ethics, or a church dogmatics- as a complex of narratives, parables, and paradoxes of which Jesus is the centerpiece. From a work such as that we cannot simply and straightforward “derive” a course of action. We need instead to” arrive” at an instantiation, a concretization, a way to translate it into existence, all the while letting it happen (arriver) to us, allowing ourselves to come under its spell and be transformed by the event it harbors. For that we require a delicate style of interpretation, a “hermeneutics,” which is the role played here by deconstruction, which I am presenting as the hermeneutics of the kingdom of God.” (Pg. 57-58)

In the process of outlining his ‘hermeneutic of the kingdom of God, Caputo repeatedly challenges the reader to distinguish between “events” and “names”; between the “deconstructible” and “undeconstructible”; between the manifestation of something imperfect that was driven into existence by the effort to attain a perfect notion or idea that can never quite be reached. Stated more simplistically, this is basically a recognition, or an effort to highlight the fact that there is always a degree of tension between what has occurred, and the perfect notion that a particular occurrence is intended to embody or capture.

Here is an example:

1. The distinction between the “deconstructible” nature of the law versus the “undeconstructible” nature of justice.

• Laws are the imperfect attempt to uphold the perfect notion of complete justice.
• Our efforts to consistently deconstruct the imperfect law are what drive the law closer to the ideal of justice.
• If the law was “undeconstructible” it, ironically, would make true justice impossible because the application and manifestation of perfect justice changes as circumstances change.
• Despite the constant deconstruction of the law, there will always be a gap between the imperfect law and ideal of justice.
• Living in the tension of this gap between the ideal and imperfect are what drive us constantly toward renewal, even though it will never be achieved perfectly. This is the ‘delicate hermeneutic’ that Caputo refers to in the quote above- the ‘hermeneutic of the kingdom of God.’

The process implies constant change, constant renewal as time, tradition, and circumstances progress.

Here is another key quote from the chapter (bear with me just a little longer):

“To “deconstruct” is on the one hand to analyze and criticize but also, on the other hand, and more importantly, to feel about for what is living and stirring within a thing, that is, feeling for the event that stirs within the deconstructible structure in order to release it, to set it free, to give it a new life, a new being, a future.” (Pg. 68)

‘One must live in the constant tension between the “deconstructible” and “undeconstructible”, which is itself the potential for constant renewal, in order that constant renewal be made manifest.’

In light of all of this, let me offer what I have come to understand that deconstruction implies with regard to orthodoxy. Let me also preface this that it is still an impression; an explanation of what I believe deconstruction implies based on a rather narrow examination. It seems, to me, that deconstruction has been made to question the possibility of orthodoxy because of how it would have to first define the term. Allow me to suppose that those who question the possibility of orthodoxy would accept the following definition of the term.

Orthodoxy: a term denoting the perfect representation of Christian belief and action as prescribed by God, delivered to us via his own self revelation to mankind.

With this definition in mind, orthodoxy is the “undeconstructible,” while the church’s efforts to crystallize Christian belief through the creeds, dogmatic theology etc., are the “deconstructible” (imperfect) attempts to attain orthodoxy. Thus, recognizing the insurmountable tension between these two poles is the path, not to procurement of orthodoxy (per se), but the path of constant change that brings us closer to orthodoxy while never attaining it.

Hence, a postmodern reading of the biblical text….

While Caputo does talk about a number of other examples and details in this chapter, he does not talk specifically about a number of issues that, I think, are relevant.

1. Caputo does not talk specifically about the biblical text as revelation.

2. He also does not deal specifically with the impact that his views have on a reading of the biblical text, by applying his approach to particular sections of the Bible.

3. In addition, I think that the issue of sanctification has to be addressed at some point; is his view the rationalization of sanctification. In other words, is this type of contemplative action the driving force for his view of sanctification?

Perhaps these questions are not the best questions, or even the right questions, but they are the questions that come to mind for me at 1:44AM, so please, feel free to share your thoughts and clarifications as you feel inclined. I’m hoping that the remaining chapters of this book will address some of the questions I have posed throughout this series, but that remains to be seen.

More to come…