Emergent Reading 8: Some Final Thoughts on "What Would Jesus Deconstruct"

I just finished reading the final chapter of "What Would Jesus Deconstruct," by John D. Caputo (Baker Academic, 2007). For those of you who have been following my review since the beginning of this series, you know that I began with a posture of openness in light of the fact that deconstruction is a relatively new topic to me. I'm sure that most of you have also taken note of the fact that my comments have become increasingly critical as my reading has progressed. At this point, rather than offer a great deal of summary on this particular chapter, I will make my comments brief and give you my broad impression of what Caputo has asserted throughout the book.

In the last chapter, Caputo basically reinfornces all of his assertions, citing two practical examples as an effort to substantiate his claim that deconstruction is the 'hermeneutic of the kingdom of God.' Much like the rest of the book, Caputo successfully exposes many of social, political, and bureaucratic ills of the church. This is the part of the book that I appreciated the most; his analysis is truly inspiring, as I am also disappointed with the Jerry Falwell breed of Christian political thought in the church. Not because of the fact that the church has taken a strong stand on a few important, but narrow issues, but because their politically one-sided philosophy is often a hypocritical expression of the Christianity. Caputo is right to expose the church's lethargic stand toward social action in the political sphere.

At the same time, Caputo, in my opinion, has done more harm than good. More specifically, Caputo attacks a caracture of the church; sure, I agree that a lack of practical social action has been an identifiable characteristic of the most visible parts of the evangelical church, but even that only succeeds as a generalization. What Caputo fails to reckon with is the grass-roots Christian effort by the traditional Christian right to impact people and communities.

Caputo also showed himself willing to question the integrity of Scripture itself, along with many of the traditional Christian theological paradigms. Now, the point is not to simply defend traditional thought, but if Caputo is going to make such radical claims, I think he has a responsibility to give a more specific methodological and theological accounting of his proposed alternatives. I also found it rather ironic that he was so willing to disparage the integrity of Scripture, while at the same time accusing conservatives of not reacting to a true accounting of Jesus according to the text. Captuo, at one point highlights the historical distance between Jesus and readers of an ancient text, while also claiming to have a clear perspective on the Jesus and the kingdom of God by virtue of a deconstructive reading of the biblical text. How does Caputo salvage any realiable accounting of Jesus in light of his skeptical presuppositions about the text and its readers?

Caputo also gives no accounting whatsoever, or at least nothing more than implicit suggestions on how it is that people actually change. What is it about Christianity that motivates people to embody the love and social action that characterizes the kingdom of God? Traditional Christian readings of the Bible answer that question; Consider a traditional Protestant reading of Romans 1-8, for example, which roots fruitful, empowered Christian living in the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within the heart of man.

In the end, I still feel like I need to spend some more time investigating the philosophy of deconstruction. If, as I said before, to at least be capable of offering substantive critique. At the same time, I do not want to blunt the strength of the criticisms I have already offered. Ultimately, it seems to me that deconstruction cannot bear the weight of sanctification. Or to put it in terms more palatable to emergent folk, I do not think that deconstruction can accomplish the type of heartfelt change that traditional notions about the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit can accomplish.

So my question to John Caputo is, how do people change? How are there hearts changed by Christianity, and how does deconstruction supposedly play a role as key element? From my vantage point deconstruction seems to be a superflous notion, and Caputo fails to offer critique that remains effective beyond a social caracature of the Christian right.