Emergent Reading 6: In the End, God is Still Reduced to Politics

As I finished chapter 4 of John D. Caputo's book, "What Would Jesus Deconstruct?" (Baker Academic, 2007) I was in a state of shock; not because the material is particularly complex or confusing, but because of the extent to which Caputo did not really seem to say anything. Now I must grant that the chapter was quite short, and perhaps it could have been organized differently, but I was just a little surprised by it all. Up to this point, Caputo has employed a rather creative reading of the book "In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do? by Charles Sheldon as a starting point from which to make deconstruction more accessible to a popular audience, which, in my opinion, is an admirable goal. Then we come to chapter 4, and Caputo turns to a political sales pitch....

Coursing through the pages of Caputo's book are thinly-veiled and scathing critiques of the political actions of the Christian right. To be honest, I agree with many of his concerns about the manifestation of Christianity in the political sphere. More specifically, I think that, as a generalization, its fair to say that the Christian right has taken the Republican offer of the "proverbial bone" when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, while forgetting basically every other important social issue. The result, in my opinion, has been not only moral degradation of the Christian voice in the political sphere, but also, the advancement of a breed of capitalism that implicitly supports the oppression of the weak, which, ironically, is completely contrary to the ethics of the kingdom of God. Caputo rightly points out many of these ills, but unfortunately, he fails to recognize that the version of Christianity he opposes is a caricature; its simply not an accurate picture of the "grass roots" Christianity that is expressed all across the country. Ultimately, I think this causes a bit of blind spot in Caputo's thinking.

Caputo's theological agenda is also problematic; We have already seen in previous posts how he has been willing to deny the integrity of the Scriptures, or at least to cast them into significant question. Consequently, I have raised the question as to what role and authority does this leave for the Scriptures in the life of the Christian. Caputo seems to extend his questioning of central Christian tenets in this chapter; in fact, his suggested reorientation seems to call for one to adjust one's thinking away from the traditional paradigms of the atonement and justification. Consider the following quote below:

"What rises up in majesty from the cross is not a show of might but rather forgiveness, not power but a protest against the unjust execution of a just man, a great prophetic "no" to injustice and persecution, a prophetic death rather than a sacrificial exchange that buys celestial reward." (Caputo, 82)

One problem here is that Caputo presents a false dichotomy; he compares a conception of the cross that considers this work of Christ a simple display of power versus a conception of the cross that embodies a call to forgiveness and social justice. First, Caputo's caricature of the Christian right does not support this dichotomy, nor do I think that Christ's work on the cross as a display of power is consistent with the message of the church today.

A second problem is simply that Caputo offers a trite explanation of the atonement as a rather polemical and uncharitable explanation of the underlying reason for the church's supposed failure to deal compassionately with social issues (Now here it is again important to note that I distinguish between the "Christian" socio-political agenda and the actual work of Christian churches in various communities). Not to mention the fact that he basically seems to deny Christ's atonement, at least implicitly, by virtue of his comment.

In the end, the problem is not that Caputo calls for a reformation of the political agenda as a way to express the kingdom of God in the "here and now" more clearly; its that he suggests that this is a primary issue. It also seems, at this preliminary point for me in my thinking, that his suggestion that deconstruction is a viable way to move the church forward is also a problem. Its not, in my opinion, an issue of using deconstruction as a way to face the tensions, see the impossible (undeconstructible), and aspire to what cannot be achieved as a way of perpetuating our growth toward holiness.


Ultimately, I think its an issue of sanctification....In other words, the reason we fall short is always the same. We desire control and God calls us to surrender. We can only express that type of love that places one's neighbor before oneself once are willing to give up our desire for control. As long as this desire for control remains, it will always be that factor in the equation that causes us to choose ourselves before the other person; before the oppressed, before the sick, before the poor. A renewed political, social, and personal agenda can only be born out of a heart that's been broken by God; its a supernatural act where man's heart is shattered by God in order to make room for the Holy Spirit. Only then can God move in and through us to change the world.

This assessment, in my opinion, makes deconstruction seem superfluous and unnecessary. The problem of the human heart and our unwillingness to surrender to God is dealt with in the Scriptures if we accept them as an unadulterated revelation from God. Perhaps the problem is not that we need to find a new way to actualize change, but perhaps the church has failed to call people to a life of surrender; to a life that begins with death to oneself in order that Christ might live through us. From this vantage point, let me suggest that perhaps deconstruction is yet another attempt by man to manifest change in man's hardened heart by the power of the intellect and will.

Now, as always, I am open to, and invite correction or clarifications. I realize that I am no expert in the philosophy of deconstruction. It is also important to note that the book still has a couple chapters remaining, which means that Caputo made supplement and qualify what he has already said, so perhaps my assessment is premature- we will see.

My simple questions for Caputo that remain after four chapters are primarily:

1. What are the scriptures themselves, and what are some clear examples of how deconstruction is applied to specific passages?

2. What is sanctification and how does it occur?

More to come...