What do you think?
Rate this book
The Church and Postmodern Culture #2
What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church
This provocative addition to The Church and Postmodern Culture series offers a lively rereading of Charles Sheldon's In His Steps as a constructive way forward. John D. Caputo introduces the notion of why the church needs deconstruction, positively defines deconstruction's role in renewal, deconstructs idols of the church, and imagines the future of the church in addressing the practical implications of this for the church's life through liturgy, worship, preaching, and teaching. Students of philosophy, theology, religion, and ministry, as well as others interested in engaging postmodernism and the emerging church phenomenon, will welcome this provocative, non-technical work.
160 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2007
73 people are currently reading
891 people want to read
About the author
John D. Caputo
95 books147 followersJohn D. Caputo is an American philosopher who is the Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion Emeritus at Syracuse University and the David R. Cook Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Villanova University. Caputo is a major figure associated with Postmodern Christianity, Continental Philosophy of Religion, as well as the founder of the theological movement known as weak theology. Much of Caputo's work focuses on hermeneutics, phenomenology, deconstruction and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
May 15, 2015
The author gives you just enough theory of deconstruction for you to deconstruct the latter half of his book with a massive eye roll.
April 19, 2011
I appreciated this quote near the conclusion of Caputo's book:
Idolatry comes in many forms. Literalizing the truth of the Scriptures is idolatrous in a way that parallels the idolatry of the church in Catholicism...Orthodoxy is idolatry if it means holding the "correct opinions about God"--"fundamentalism" is the most extreme and salient example of such idolatry--but not if it means holding faith in the right way, that is, not holding it at all but being held by God, in love and service. Theology is idolatry if it means what we say about God instead of letting ourselves be addressed by what God has to say to us (iconic). Faith is idolatrous if it is rigidly self-certain but not if it is softened in the waters of "doubt." (p. 131)
The gospel is not a set of doctrines, Caputo claims, but a way of life. The church, he says, should be about the business of making the truth happen. Wherever love is implemented, there is the church. (p. 124)
Too often we seem to get in the way of the gospel through our idolatrous activity. So Caputo calls for a "deconstruction," or a remaking of the church. Deconstruction is about affirming that the (seemingly) impossible--that God's truth is able to transform the world.
I personally enjoyed his comments about the power of God at work through politics. Yes, I agree, politics must be about love, mercy, generosity, forgiveness--the things of God. However, what I don't agree with is what I perceive to be a great deal of "right-bashing" without an adequate critique of the left as well. Our current political system is in need of complete deconstruction--the left as well as the right.
This aside, Caputo has written a very worthwhile book. Jesus would indeed ask us (the church) to rethink, rework, deconstruct, much of who we are, and what we do (and do not do).
Idolatry comes in many forms. Literalizing the truth of the Scriptures is idolatrous in a way that parallels the idolatry of the church in Catholicism...Orthodoxy is idolatry if it means holding the "correct opinions about God"--"fundamentalism" is the most extreme and salient example of such idolatry--but not if it means holding faith in the right way, that is, not holding it at all but being held by God, in love and service. Theology is idolatry if it means what we say about God instead of letting ourselves be addressed by what God has to say to us (iconic). Faith is idolatrous if it is rigidly self-certain but not if it is softened in the waters of "doubt." (p. 131)
The gospel is not a set of doctrines, Caputo claims, but a way of life. The church, he says, should be about the business of making the truth happen. Wherever love is implemented, there is the church. (p. 124)
Too often we seem to get in the way of the gospel through our idolatrous activity. So Caputo calls for a "deconstruction," or a remaking of the church. Deconstruction is about affirming that the (seemingly) impossible--that God's truth is able to transform the world.
I personally enjoyed his comments about the power of God at work through politics. Yes, I agree, politics must be about love, mercy, generosity, forgiveness--the things of God. However, what I don't agree with is what I perceive to be a great deal of "right-bashing" without an adequate critique of the left as well. Our current political system is in need of complete deconstruction--the left as well as the right.
This aside, Caputo has written a very worthwhile book. Jesus would indeed ask us (the church) to rethink, rework, deconstruct, much of who we are, and what we do (and do not do).
February 5, 2021
This book started off positively, using the 1896 saccharine classic "In His Steps" as a launching point for John Caputo's discussion of Jacques Derrida, deconstruction and postmodernism in the contemporary Church. I am appreciative of Caputo's use of "In His Steps" because it is a popular and beloved novel among the laity. Caputo commends the social gospel - he believes the Church should support efforts to expand the health care system, protect the environment, and many other causes advocated by the political left (some of these, like providing universal public health care, I would support). There are other points of agreement I have with Caputo, including the ordination of women.
Caputo winks and quips across the pages but the more the book goes on, the more irascible and irritable Caputo becomes. Granted, I lean conservative and Caputo launches his most sustained attack on the Religious Right (in the quaint, pre-Trump days of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq); some of these critiques are indeed valid but they are largely arranged against straw men and assume the worst of conservatives rather than critically engaging with why they might object to this or that liberal policy. More troubling, this same attitude leaks into Caputo's approach to Christianity overall; he lauds papal encyclicals in one breath while denouncing biblical views on sexuality in the next. He ultimately thinks he is being a radical revolutionary for separating the spirit of Jesus from Scripture itself (the spirit of Jesus also just happens to be a champion of ever liberal cause that Caputo also holds to). Caputo ends with an excitable commendation of Peter Rollins' Ikon community with its provocative but ultimately evanescent liturgical experiments and other radical endeavours. As another reviewer (Scott) has already pointed out, thanks to the first half of the book's distillation of deconstruction, orthodox readers are well-equipped to dissect and unmask Caputo's own thought.
Caputo winks and quips across the pages but the more the book goes on, the more irascible and irritable Caputo becomes. Granted, I lean conservative and Caputo launches his most sustained attack on the Religious Right (in the quaint, pre-Trump days of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq); some of these critiques are indeed valid but they are largely arranged against straw men and assume the worst of conservatives rather than critically engaging with why they might object to this or that liberal policy. More troubling, this same attitude leaks into Caputo's approach to Christianity overall; he lauds papal encyclicals in one breath while denouncing biblical views on sexuality in the next. He ultimately thinks he is being a radical revolutionary for separating the spirit of Jesus from Scripture itself (the spirit of Jesus also just happens to be a champion of ever liberal cause that Caputo also holds to). Caputo ends with an excitable commendation of Peter Rollins' Ikon community with its provocative but ultimately evanescent liturgical experiments and other radical endeavours. As another reviewer (Scott) has already pointed out, thanks to the first half of the book's distillation of deconstruction, orthodox readers are well-equipped to dissect and unmask Caputo's own thought.
April 2, 2012
(Adapted from a longer review submitted for class)
The question of how postmodernism will impact the church is one that has troubled theologians and laymen alike for several decades. Although many have rejected then ideas of postmodernism outright, some people, such as Dr. John Caputo, have begged the church to embrace this controversial rejection of modernism. In his work, Dr. Caputo not only advocates that Christians should conform to postmodern philosophy, but also that even Jesus embraced deconstruction in His actions and teachings.
Through relating postmodernism to the social gospel, Caputo advocates for the church to deconstruct how it operates in much the same way that he feels Christ did. Caputo instructs the reader to reject the conservative "right wing" Christian perspective through the process of deconstructing the church culture that has been built up and has choked out the radical love that should be intrinsic to those in the Kingdom of God.
Although Caputo expects the reader to take his work as an academic text, it falls far short of this goal until halfway through the work (at which point it becomes at best acceptable). Dr Caputo feels the insatiable urge to draw political lines in a way that not only fails to support his presuppositions but also that manages to bully a straw man of his opposition. In fact Dr Caputo cannot even get one page into the first chapter before he belittles the ambiguous “Right” (19). Although I even agree with Caputo on some of his ideas, his petty slander and rhetorical banter - which he considers critique - of the right wing position is obnoxious even to a moderate, surely swaying few outside of his own political camp. Quite honestly, if it had been a conservative writing the statements that Caputo makes in his first three chapters I would expect liberals to tear that author to shreds.
On top of the straw man arguments, Caputo's early chapters are riddled with informal logical fallacies. Caputo makes numerous tu quoque, red herring, ad populum, post hoc, and appeal to authority arguments that I caught in my quick read-through of the text. For example, in one sentence Caputo attempts to demonstrate how letters can be corrupted by saying that the original text, “…may get lost…or altered or misquoted over several centuries (which has happened to the Scriptures),” (47). Where someone would expect justification for such an obscure parenthetical claim as this, Caputo gives no more than an endnote in which he cites not only a portion, but the entire book of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman as his infallible source for such a weighty assumption, leaving the reader with no more than an appeal to authority as justification for his statement (142). One of his most pointed arguments on the topic of abortion is that conservatives are just as wrong for preemptive strikes in battle and supporting capital punishment as liberals are for supporting abortion (113). In fairness to Dr Caputo he does present abortion as despicable – a necessary evil of sorts – and as a shade of gray instead of merely supporting it as acceptable, but one would expect such tu quoque arguments to be recognized as such in a philosophical work if presented at all. One interesting observation the text is that at one point the author even asserts that he is writing this book philosophically and proclaims himself to be a philosopher. Right after making this claim, he tacks on, “…you may have noticed!” (117). Dr. Caputo seems to be a brilliant and distinguished professor, and I desire not to question his intellect, his character, or his status as a philosopher. Ignoring this self-proclamation of status and critiquing his arguments alone for fairness to the author, Dr. Caputo's book fails to present an overall argument that is either logically valid or that even attempts to be objective or fair to his opposition.
I think that Dr. Caputo had something worth saying, but it did not come out well. Once he stopped attacking his opponents on nearly every page and started making actual arguments at around chapter four, the book proved valuable. Even though they still had numerous fallacious arguments, Caputo’s last three chapters proved to be closer to the level one would expect in an academic text. Where Caputo feels that deconstruction is the answer, I think he goes too far in his conclusions, and I believe that his Gospel has been neutered by Schleiermacher. I personally feel that Caputo's idea of deconstruction in the context of Christianity has a lot in common with the idea of repentance from hardheartedness and hypocrisy, and that being the case, one could simply argue that the church just needs to repent of its blatant ignorance of social issues in the world around it and leave out the whole deconstruction idea altogether. But this surely would not support Caputo's political goals which seem so crucial to the text; therefore, we have received a work that leans heavily on a controversial philosophy in order to divisively oppose those who disagree with its political presuppositions. Nonetheless, many of his concerns on social justice issues are very legitimate concerns that should be addressed. If Dr. Caputo wants to convince his opposition, however, he must change his tactics, for even those on the fence find many of his statements to be nothing more than bitter and biased ramblings.
The question of how postmodernism will impact the church is one that has troubled theologians and laymen alike for several decades. Although many have rejected then ideas of postmodernism outright, some people, such as Dr. John Caputo, have begged the church to embrace this controversial rejection of modernism. In his work, Dr. Caputo not only advocates that Christians should conform to postmodern philosophy, but also that even Jesus embraced deconstruction in His actions and teachings.
Through relating postmodernism to the social gospel, Caputo advocates for the church to deconstruct how it operates in much the same way that he feels Christ did. Caputo instructs the reader to reject the conservative "right wing" Christian perspective through the process of deconstructing the church culture that has been built up and has choked out the radical love that should be intrinsic to those in the Kingdom of God.
Although Caputo expects the reader to take his work as an academic text, it falls far short of this goal until halfway through the work (at which point it becomes at best acceptable). Dr Caputo feels the insatiable urge to draw political lines in a way that not only fails to support his presuppositions but also that manages to bully a straw man of his opposition. In fact Dr Caputo cannot even get one page into the first chapter before he belittles the ambiguous “Right” (19). Although I even agree with Caputo on some of his ideas, his petty slander and rhetorical banter - which he considers critique - of the right wing position is obnoxious even to a moderate, surely swaying few outside of his own political camp. Quite honestly, if it had been a conservative writing the statements that Caputo makes in his first three chapters I would expect liberals to tear that author to shreds.
On top of the straw man arguments, Caputo's early chapters are riddled with informal logical fallacies. Caputo makes numerous tu quoque, red herring, ad populum, post hoc, and appeal to authority arguments that I caught in my quick read-through of the text. For example, in one sentence Caputo attempts to demonstrate how letters can be corrupted by saying that the original text, “…may get lost…or altered or misquoted over several centuries (which has happened to the Scriptures),” (47). Where someone would expect justification for such an obscure parenthetical claim as this, Caputo gives no more than an endnote in which he cites not only a portion, but the entire book of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman as his infallible source for such a weighty assumption, leaving the reader with no more than an appeal to authority as justification for his statement (142). One of his most pointed arguments on the topic of abortion is that conservatives are just as wrong for preemptive strikes in battle and supporting capital punishment as liberals are for supporting abortion (113). In fairness to Dr Caputo he does present abortion as despicable – a necessary evil of sorts – and as a shade of gray instead of merely supporting it as acceptable, but one would expect such tu quoque arguments to be recognized as such in a philosophical work if presented at all. One interesting observation the text is that at one point the author even asserts that he is writing this book philosophically and proclaims himself to be a philosopher. Right after making this claim, he tacks on, “…you may have noticed!” (117). Dr. Caputo seems to be a brilliant and distinguished professor, and I desire not to question his intellect, his character, or his status as a philosopher. Ignoring this self-proclamation of status and critiquing his arguments alone for fairness to the author, Dr. Caputo's book fails to present an overall argument that is either logically valid or that even attempts to be objective or fair to his opposition.
I think that Dr. Caputo had something worth saying, but it did not come out well. Once he stopped attacking his opponents on nearly every page and started making actual arguments at around chapter four, the book proved valuable. Even though they still had numerous fallacious arguments, Caputo’s last three chapters proved to be closer to the level one would expect in an academic text. Where Caputo feels that deconstruction is the answer, I think he goes too far in his conclusions, and I believe that his Gospel has been neutered by Schleiermacher. I personally feel that Caputo's idea of deconstruction in the context of Christianity has a lot in common with the idea of repentance from hardheartedness and hypocrisy, and that being the case, one could simply argue that the church just needs to repent of its blatant ignorance of social issues in the world around it and leave out the whole deconstruction idea altogether. But this surely would not support Caputo's political goals which seem so crucial to the text; therefore, we have received a work that leans heavily on a controversial philosophy in order to divisively oppose those who disagree with its political presuppositions. Nonetheless, many of his concerns on social justice issues are very legitimate concerns that should be addressed. If Dr. Caputo wants to convince his opposition, however, he must change his tactics, for even those on the fence find many of his statements to be nothing more than bitter and biased ramblings.
April 2, 2017
In all honesty it's a 3.5 for me, only because I felt like his critique of specific political administrations felt a little too biased, and almost like a commercial at times, though I don't necessarily disagree with him.
March 25, 2021
CORRECTION: I didn't here John D. Caputo on the Bible for Normal People. His book is mentioned in episode 139. Because I read the book slowly, I remembered I heard about his book from the podcast, but not in what capacity. I've left the review unchanged below.
I have heard the word deconstruction thrown around a lot. I have thrown it around a bit. So, when I hear John D. Caputo on The Bible for Normal People, I decided I would read (one of) his book(s). I'm glad I did.
I can't claim to have followed everything written, nor to be an expert in deconstruction—the bit about step/not step, lost me pretty quickly (it may also have been my level of focus/mood/whatever)—but this book made sense of some of my and my peer's experiences. The subtitle gives away the theme (earnest joke?) at the center of this book: that deconstruction is a good and right thing for Christianity/the Church/ the individual Christian. In fact, deconstruction is nearer orthodox Christianity than deconstruction's opponents can admit.
While the book is framed as evangelism to the church, it could also be a balm and reassurance to those who've gone through painful deconstructions themselves. I know plenty of people (brag) who have gone through deconstructions and felt lost and guilty. Caputo reveals it to be the necessary, constant restructuring of belief at the breaking through of what's really true.
(I've probably misrepresented and mangled terms important to talking about this properly. I said I didn't follow everything! Give me a break. Or, come at me postmodernist Goodreads.)
I have heard the word deconstruction thrown around a lot. I have thrown it around a bit. So, when I hear John D. Caputo on The Bible for Normal People, I decided I would read (one of) his book(s). I'm glad I did.
I can't claim to have followed everything written, nor to be an expert in deconstruction—the bit about step/not step, lost me pretty quickly (it may also have been my level of focus/mood/whatever)—but this book made sense of some of my and my peer's experiences. The subtitle gives away the theme (earnest joke?) at the center of this book: that deconstruction is a good and right thing for Christianity/the Church/ the individual Christian. In fact, deconstruction is nearer orthodox Christianity than deconstruction's opponents can admit.
While the book is framed as evangelism to the church, it could also be a balm and reassurance to those who've gone through painful deconstructions themselves. I know plenty of people (brag) who have gone through deconstructions and felt lost and guilty. Caputo reveals it to be the necessary, constant restructuring of belief at the breaking through of what's really true.
(I've probably misrepresented and mangled terms important to talking about this properly. I said I didn't follow everything! Give me a break. Or, come at me postmodernist Goodreads.)
July 26, 2011
I sensed a lot of bitterness in this book.
March 13, 2023
I first heard about WWJD in my first semester of philosophy. This book is phenomenal. Caputo writes with bite, and doesn't hide the fact that he's writing a polemic against the evangelical right.
I was fascinated by his analysis of Derrida's deconstruction, applying it to Christianity. The popular encounter with the label "deconstruction" is very much unrelated to Derrida's project. For Derrida (and for Caputo) deconstruction is about analyzing words, what they signify in the real world, and what they promise which will-for all we know-never get here.
Christianity is one such word. It labels a religious body (and innumerous religious bodies), but in no place on earth does Christianity ever signify what it ought to. Each Christianity in this world falls short of what we long for when we say, "Christianity."
I loved Caputo's bringing to bear deconstruction to the real life current state of things, especially with the religious right's ideas of family values, homosexuality, abortion, etc.
My criticism is that Caputo, in discussing sexual ethics and abortion, becomes a little inconsistent. He makes little effort to provide a biblical case *for* homosexuality (or any other queer sexualities)-indeed, he recognizes that such a case cannot be made, unlike many Christians on the theological left. He also directly contradicts himself regarding abortion. If the right choice is hard to make, if love is dangerous, then surely the refusal to abort one's offspring should be justified. But instead, Caputo says that the choice to keep the child is simply too hard to make (and indeed it is).
Overall, I'm very impressed and refreshed by such an engaging and energetic text.
I was fascinated by his analysis of Derrida's deconstruction, applying it to Christianity. The popular encounter with the label "deconstruction" is very much unrelated to Derrida's project. For Derrida (and for Caputo) deconstruction is about analyzing words, what they signify in the real world, and what they promise which will-for all we know-never get here.
Christianity is one such word. It labels a religious body (and innumerous religious bodies), but in no place on earth does Christianity ever signify what it ought to. Each Christianity in this world falls short of what we long for when we say, "Christianity."
I loved Caputo's bringing to bear deconstruction to the real life current state of things, especially with the religious right's ideas of family values, homosexuality, abortion, etc.
My criticism is that Caputo, in discussing sexual ethics and abortion, becomes a little inconsistent. He makes little effort to provide a biblical case *for* homosexuality (or any other queer sexualities)-indeed, he recognizes that such a case cannot be made, unlike many Christians on the theological left. He also directly contradicts himself regarding abortion. If the right choice is hard to make, if love is dangerous, then surely the refusal to abort one's offspring should be justified. But instead, Caputo says that the choice to keep the child is simply too hard to make (and indeed it is).
Overall, I'm very impressed and refreshed by such an engaging and energetic text.
August 23, 2020
3.5 stars.
January 19, 2018
I tried to give this book a fair shake, but it's just abysmal. I read the first 40 pages or so and came across some helpful bits, like his definition of deconstruction as "uncontainable truth" that bursts forth under its own power. That makes more sense than some of what I was told in grad school.
I noticed things starting to get squirrely when Caputo said that Jesus had nothing to do with the founding of the church. If Jesus were around today, Caputo says (as though Jesus were absent), He would dismantle the whole darn thing. Hmm. I thumbed around a bit towards the end and came across this passage where Caputo elaborately shrugs over the question of homosexuality. Sure, the Bible is against it, but Jesus's message of love reaches beyond the Bible:
"An interpretation like this raises the question of the status of the Scriptures for me. My answer is that I am not an idolater. In deconstruction, the Scriptures are an archive, not the arche (which means they are not God). I take the second commandment very seriously and I do not put false gods - like books (biblical inerrantism) or the Vatican (papal infallibility) - before God, who is the 'wholly other.' I treat scriptural literalism like papal infallibility, as idolatry."
Why on earth would Caputo take the second commandment seriously? It's in the Bible! I thought following Scripture was idolatry. And after throwing out the Bible, where does Caputo get his information about "what Jesus would deconstruct?" Apparently (skimming ahead), Caputo judges everything in Scripture by his own personal idea of good and bad. "It seems to me that Jesus would..." After all, God is too "wholly other" to be accurately represented by messy things like books and rituals. Thankfully we have Jesus's message of love to guide our hearts. A message, let's not forget, that we find in the pages of the Bible...
Yeesh. One-star as a reminder to myself and a warning to others.
I noticed things starting to get squirrely when Caputo said that Jesus had nothing to do with the founding of the church. If Jesus were around today, Caputo says (as though Jesus were absent), He would dismantle the whole darn thing. Hmm. I thumbed around a bit towards the end and came across this passage where Caputo elaborately shrugs over the question of homosexuality. Sure, the Bible is against it, but Jesus's message of love reaches beyond the Bible:
"An interpretation like this raises the question of the status of the Scriptures for me. My answer is that I am not an idolater. In deconstruction, the Scriptures are an archive, not the arche (which means they are not God). I take the second commandment very seriously and I do not put false gods - like books (biblical inerrantism) or the Vatican (papal infallibility) - before God, who is the 'wholly other.' I treat scriptural literalism like papal infallibility, as idolatry."
Why on earth would Caputo take the second commandment seriously? It's in the Bible! I thought following Scripture was idolatry. And after throwing out the Bible, where does Caputo get his information about "what Jesus would deconstruct?" Apparently (skimming ahead), Caputo judges everything in Scripture by his own personal idea of good and bad. "It seems to me that Jesus would..." After all, God is too "wholly other" to be accurately represented by messy things like books and rituals. Thankfully we have Jesus's message of love to guide our hearts. A message, let's not forget, that we find in the pages of the Bible...
Yeesh. One-star as a reminder to myself and a warning to others.
March 1, 2010
This little volume sums up some things I think about post-modernism and the church, but the arguments are a little inconsistent, as if the author had written the book in pieces and then stitched them together. Definitely worth reading and thought-provoking, but Caputo should concentrate on making one coherent argument.
March 9, 2013
Great and thought provoking book about postmodern theology and philosophy. Caputo's book is much easy to read, considering him being a continental philosopher, he wears his philosophical "cap" lightly, its a book I would recommend to many people interested in postmodern conversation about God(Jesus) and culture. Thank you John!!
August 7, 2014
Awesome little book. Caputo is brilliant, and funny, as he sets out to deconstruct some sacred cows of evangelical faith. For any who think that postmodern or deconstruction are enemies of the church, give Caputo a read. Some of his examples are already a bit dated, but for the most part the ideas in this book are helpful in any ministry context today.
June 15, 2013
Fantastic look at deconstruction and it's place in Christian theology.
October 28, 2017
It will challenge your faith to rethink how you live like Jesus ... or not.
May 23, 2024
Deconstruction. Now there’s a spicy word – especially if you’ve been around Christian church circles in the last 10 or so years. So let’s start off with some definitions.
‘Deconstruction’ is a postmodern philosophical movement – largely the work of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Wikipedia tells us it’s ‘a loosely-defined set of approaches to understanding the relationship between text and meaning... proposals of language’s fluidity instead of being ideally static and discernible’. Well, that doesn’t tell you much. Better to see it in action, but suffice to say that it’s the philosophical form of the word that John Caputo’s book primarily deals with.
Meanwhile ‘deconstruction’ has also come to mean a process whereby a person re-evaluates their inherited faith, or the faith as it was originally parcelled for them. It’s been going on since day dot – it’s not a new process in the faith journey, but it’s recently become known by this name. To borrow a quote from the early 20th century evangelical minister and author, Frank Boreham: ‘A man might as well try to wear his father’s clothes as try to wear his father’s faith. It will never really fit him’ (Mushrooms on the Moor). By this, Boreham means our faith has to become our own.
It’s a necessary process. But it is often very painful. And a lot of people are afraid of it, because it questions the status quo, potentially rocks the boat and threatens systems of control. It involves moments of doubt – which can freak out fundamentalism(s). But doubt, to quote Boreham again, ‘is a very human and a very sacred thing...’
The personal process of deconstruction can be sparked by various events, or accumulations of events, and the outcomes are various... including, but not limited to: a deeper, more nuanced and mature faith; a less certain (perhaps read, humble) faith; a more radically inclusive (perhaps read, loving) faith; a faith that is less confined to just one enclosed faith system; and for some, the loss of faith, as things seem to be irreconcilable/impossible – at least for now. All these outcomes are understandable.
Knowing deconstruction (the life event), I noticed some common ground in Caputo’s discussion of deconstruction (the philosophy) – you might too, in what follows. They’re not the same thing, but their contemporary forms arise from, and take place in, the same milieu: postmodernity.
Philosophies of postmodernism deal with the current epoch: postmodernity. If you’re a Christian who has been influenced by the thinking of the mid-20th century philosopher Francis Schaeffer (you may not know you have been – he was very influential), you might assume that postmodernism created postmodernity. But that’s too simplistic – in reality there’s a complex interweaving between philosophy and culture, and in many ways postmodernism is simply describing the epoch, rather than creating it. Anyway, I’m getting a bit off the main point.
It’s actually not a coincidence that the word ‘deconstruction’ is found in the two forms already mentioned. It entered the vernacular of the Christian church via the Emergent Church movement that occurred from (I guess) about the early 2000s. Some of the influential thinkers in this area, keen to discover what the church might look like in postmodernity, were interested in things like deconstruction as a philosophy. So in the atmosphere of re-evaluation that was taking place, the word morphed across from the philosophy to the life event.*
Postmodernism was talked about a lot, and the concepts of postmodern philosophies were taken seriously – especially by people like the thinker Pete Rollins. Within the wider church, people got scared of the Emergent Church and of postmodernism – again largely due to an approach bequeathed to the evangelical church by Schaeffer, which fuelled the ‘culture wars’, fostered a siege mentality and a highly guarded approach to philosophy, and which (sadly) undermined the possibility of many fruitful discussions.
But, to borrow James K.A. Smith’s rhetorical title for the first book in the series of which this one by John Caputo is a part: ‘Who’s afraid of postmodernism?’ Not me. I studied some postmodern approaches as part of an English degree at university as a zealous evangelical kid; and just relying on my own intuition (thankfully not too damaged by Schaefferian-style attitudes), I sensed potential points of connection with the Christian faith. I didn’t know much, but I knew discussions could be had, and I found that very exciting.
Anyway, this all seems like a massive divergence, but I’m getting there... because this book by John Caputo (American philosopher, emeritus Professor of Religion at Syracuse University and the emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University), and his work in general, inhabits that very philosophical/theological space. He loves a bit of Derrida and a bit of deconstruction (the philosophical approach), and he loves putting that stuff in conversation with theology. Good man.
In this book, he uses deconstruction as a hermeneutic for examining Christianity. (‘Deconstruction can wear many hats and travel under many names. Calling it the “hermeneutics of the kingdom of God” is what happens when it sets up shop in biblical religion’ Notes, p140... whoa, he calls it the ‘hermeneutics of the kingdom of God’!)
As I mentioned in my recent review on the book Phenomenology by Donald Wallenfang, there is an element of ‘play’ in this. But it’s serious work. I can’t say how true to Derrida’s intent Caputo’s application of deconstruction is. I’m sure there are plenty of atheist deconstructionists who would take exception to it. (It can probably be deconstructed.) I don’t know if I’ve even grasped Caputo’s version of deconstruction (deconstruction, by the way, is inherently elusive).
There’s more, but my own brief summary takeaway is something like this...
For Christians, the seeds of deconstruction are already inherent in the Text / text(s) we adhere to (revere). They sit there waiting to deconstruct our systems of power, privilege and exclusion (‘deconstruction isn’t something that we do to things; deconstruction happens’, p16; ‘Things are auto-deconstructed by the tendencies of their own inner truth’ p29; ‘When something is deconstructed, it is not razed but reconfigured and transformed in response to inner and uncontainable impulses’ p135). The Sermon on the Mount, for example: full of ideas that deconstruct. And it’s often those people or groups perceived by the system (any system, but read, ‘church’ if you like) as ‘outsiders’ who bring this to attention / activation (feel free to consider who such groups and people might be, at this point). Jesus was all about that. Deconstruction in this sense is an on-going process / work.
Caputo takes all sorts of aspects of deconstruction and puts them in conversation with Christianity. For example: ‘Prayer is prayer when prayer is impossible; otherwise it is a convenience. Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani is a perfectly auto-deconstructing prayer: it is addressed to God – which presupposes our faith that we are not abandoned – and asks why God has abandoned us.’ (p127)
If I may, rather than trying to summarise (or indeed review) further, I’ll finish by attempting a quick ‘Caputoesque’ deconstructionist reading (as I understand it).
Today I read the Auckland Church Leaders’ Easter Letter, which was this year excellently penned by my good friend, Lyndon Drake. It contains this paragraph:
‘Many people are cynical about the church. We get that. But we hope that, as society watches us, it will see the church increasingly cross-shaped as God’s resurrection power transforms us, and that we are giving up our rights and privileges – even “our” land and money – to empty ourselves of what we have so that we can better serve others. We hope you will see us look more like Jesus.’
Whoa. This is jam-packed with ideas that can deconstruct power systems and stati quo.
First, it acknowledges cynicism – maybe even claims to know why people are cynical... The phrase ‘We get that’ may or may not have yet reached its full dynamism. Once we make the claim ‘We get that’, that claim sits there asking a question – do we get that? Do we understand the full ramifications and reasons for cynicism? By saying ‘We get that’, we’ve signed up to something – and that something will linger there with potentiality – a deconstructive event – niggling away with its question.
Next comes the notion of hope... and with it the Christian/deconstructive idea of hoping against hope. Is the thing possible? Maybe the thing is impossible. We hope for the impossible even if it appears ardently impossible. Things like resurrection.
In this case, the hope is for the world to see the church as less than what we often tried to portray. Or is it more than? It’s hoping for humility – a deconstructive turn that undermines status, and the strange dynamic of the least being greatest and the greatest least.
The death of Christ on the cross is a deep event of deconstruction – all the texts get shaken. The letter signs up for this kind of deconstruction – mapping the shape of the cross onto us and our rights and privileges – calling them into question and asking us to give them up as gift, or relinquishment, or recompense, or contrition – ‘even “our” land [sparking away in the post-colonial context of Aotearoa New Zealand] and money’ ... ‘empty ourselves’. ‘We hope you will see us look more like Jesus...’ Be careful, warns the deconstructive turn, what you hope for!
We cannot help then scrolling down to see the literal signatories of the letter – those who have put their names to it and signed up to these niggling little/cataclysmic notions. (As histories go, its hard not to notice connections there with past and present systems of power.) Godspeed you.
And thus the deconstructive turn (a shaking) waits its moment, bides its time. It really all can be for the best. Maybe you can even feel a little glimmer of potentiality here – what might emerge. A world in which something like the Sermon on the Mount comes into its own. Hope. ‘Resurrection power’.
If you want to delve a bit deeper into this kind of stuff, I highly recommend Caputo’s book. Some of the contemporary cultural references are now a bit dated. But excellent, enjoyable, poignant, confronting.
* Since writing this, I listened to an episode (N320) of the Nomad podcast in which David Hayward (aka The Naked Pastor) claimed to be the originator of the use of the word 'deconstruction' as it pertains to the life event / faith journey. Whether or not he did in fact have primacy in this, or he was simply voicing a zeitgeist that was emerging in multiple places at the time, the size of his platform certainly would have helped popularise the term in this way. Regardless, the point remains: he says he was reading the French philosophers at the time he made this connection from philosophy to life event / faith journey.
‘Deconstruction’ is a postmodern philosophical movement – largely the work of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Wikipedia tells us it’s ‘a loosely-defined set of approaches to understanding the relationship between text and meaning... proposals of language’s fluidity instead of being ideally static and discernible’. Well, that doesn’t tell you much. Better to see it in action, but suffice to say that it’s the philosophical form of the word that John Caputo’s book primarily deals with.
Meanwhile ‘deconstruction’ has also come to mean a process whereby a person re-evaluates their inherited faith, or the faith as it was originally parcelled for them. It’s been going on since day dot – it’s not a new process in the faith journey, but it’s recently become known by this name. To borrow a quote from the early 20th century evangelical minister and author, Frank Boreham: ‘A man might as well try to wear his father’s clothes as try to wear his father’s faith. It will never really fit him’ (Mushrooms on the Moor). By this, Boreham means our faith has to become our own.
It’s a necessary process. But it is often very painful. And a lot of people are afraid of it, because it questions the status quo, potentially rocks the boat and threatens systems of control. It involves moments of doubt – which can freak out fundamentalism(s). But doubt, to quote Boreham again, ‘is a very human and a very sacred thing...’
The personal process of deconstruction can be sparked by various events, or accumulations of events, and the outcomes are various... including, but not limited to: a deeper, more nuanced and mature faith; a less certain (perhaps read, humble) faith; a more radically inclusive (perhaps read, loving) faith; a faith that is less confined to just one enclosed faith system; and for some, the loss of faith, as things seem to be irreconcilable/impossible – at least for now. All these outcomes are understandable.
Knowing deconstruction (the life event), I noticed some common ground in Caputo’s discussion of deconstruction (the philosophy) – you might too, in what follows. They’re not the same thing, but their contemporary forms arise from, and take place in, the same milieu: postmodernity.
Philosophies of postmodernism deal with the current epoch: postmodernity. If you’re a Christian who has been influenced by the thinking of the mid-20th century philosopher Francis Schaeffer (you may not know you have been – he was very influential), you might assume that postmodernism created postmodernity. But that’s too simplistic – in reality there’s a complex interweaving between philosophy and culture, and in many ways postmodernism is simply describing the epoch, rather than creating it. Anyway, I’m getting a bit off the main point.
It’s actually not a coincidence that the word ‘deconstruction’ is found in the two forms already mentioned. It entered the vernacular of the Christian church via the Emergent Church movement that occurred from (I guess) about the early 2000s. Some of the influential thinkers in this area, keen to discover what the church might look like in postmodernity, were interested in things like deconstruction as a philosophy. So in the atmosphere of re-evaluation that was taking place, the word morphed across from the philosophy to the life event.*
Postmodernism was talked about a lot, and the concepts of postmodern philosophies were taken seriously – especially by people like the thinker Pete Rollins. Within the wider church, people got scared of the Emergent Church and of postmodernism – again largely due to an approach bequeathed to the evangelical church by Schaeffer, which fuelled the ‘culture wars’, fostered a siege mentality and a highly guarded approach to philosophy, and which (sadly) undermined the possibility of many fruitful discussions.
But, to borrow James K.A. Smith’s rhetorical title for the first book in the series of which this one by John Caputo is a part: ‘Who’s afraid of postmodernism?’ Not me. I studied some postmodern approaches as part of an English degree at university as a zealous evangelical kid; and just relying on my own intuition (thankfully not too damaged by Schaefferian-style attitudes), I sensed potential points of connection with the Christian faith. I didn’t know much, but I knew discussions could be had, and I found that very exciting.
Anyway, this all seems like a massive divergence, but I’m getting there... because this book by John Caputo (American philosopher, emeritus Professor of Religion at Syracuse University and the emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University), and his work in general, inhabits that very philosophical/theological space. He loves a bit of Derrida and a bit of deconstruction (the philosophical approach), and he loves putting that stuff in conversation with theology. Good man.
In this book, he uses deconstruction as a hermeneutic for examining Christianity. (‘Deconstruction can wear many hats and travel under many names. Calling it the “hermeneutics of the kingdom of God” is what happens when it sets up shop in biblical religion’ Notes, p140... whoa, he calls it the ‘hermeneutics of the kingdom of God’!)
As I mentioned in my recent review on the book Phenomenology by Donald Wallenfang, there is an element of ‘play’ in this. But it’s serious work. I can’t say how true to Derrida’s intent Caputo’s application of deconstruction is. I’m sure there are plenty of atheist deconstructionists who would take exception to it. (It can probably be deconstructed.) I don’t know if I’ve even grasped Caputo’s version of deconstruction (deconstruction, by the way, is inherently elusive).
There’s more, but my own brief summary takeaway is something like this...
For Christians, the seeds of deconstruction are already inherent in the Text / text(s) we adhere to (revere). They sit there waiting to deconstruct our systems of power, privilege and exclusion (‘deconstruction isn’t something that we do to things; deconstruction happens’, p16; ‘Things are auto-deconstructed by the tendencies of their own inner truth’ p29; ‘When something is deconstructed, it is not razed but reconfigured and transformed in response to inner and uncontainable impulses’ p135). The Sermon on the Mount, for example: full of ideas that deconstruct. And it’s often those people or groups perceived by the system (any system, but read, ‘church’ if you like) as ‘outsiders’ who bring this to attention / activation (feel free to consider who such groups and people might be, at this point). Jesus was all about that. Deconstruction in this sense is an on-going process / work.
Caputo takes all sorts of aspects of deconstruction and puts them in conversation with Christianity. For example: ‘Prayer is prayer when prayer is impossible; otherwise it is a convenience. Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani is a perfectly auto-deconstructing prayer: it is addressed to God – which presupposes our faith that we are not abandoned – and asks why God has abandoned us.’ (p127)
If I may, rather than trying to summarise (or indeed review) further, I’ll finish by attempting a quick ‘Caputoesque’ deconstructionist reading (as I understand it).
Today I read the Auckland Church Leaders’ Easter Letter, which was this year excellently penned by my good friend, Lyndon Drake. It contains this paragraph:
‘Many people are cynical about the church. We get that. But we hope that, as society watches us, it will see the church increasingly cross-shaped as God’s resurrection power transforms us, and that we are giving up our rights and privileges – even “our” land and money – to empty ourselves of what we have so that we can better serve others. We hope you will see us look more like Jesus.’
Whoa. This is jam-packed with ideas that can deconstruct power systems and stati quo.
First, it acknowledges cynicism – maybe even claims to know why people are cynical... The phrase ‘We get that’ may or may not have yet reached its full dynamism. Once we make the claim ‘We get that’, that claim sits there asking a question – do we get that? Do we understand the full ramifications and reasons for cynicism? By saying ‘We get that’, we’ve signed up to something – and that something will linger there with potentiality – a deconstructive event – niggling away with its question.
Next comes the notion of hope... and with it the Christian/deconstructive idea of hoping against hope. Is the thing possible? Maybe the thing is impossible. We hope for the impossible even if it appears ardently impossible. Things like resurrection.
In this case, the hope is for the world to see the church as less than what we often tried to portray. Or is it more than? It’s hoping for humility – a deconstructive turn that undermines status, and the strange dynamic of the least being greatest and the greatest least.
The death of Christ on the cross is a deep event of deconstruction – all the texts get shaken. The letter signs up for this kind of deconstruction – mapping the shape of the cross onto us and our rights and privileges – calling them into question and asking us to give them up as gift, or relinquishment, or recompense, or contrition – ‘even “our” land [sparking away in the post-colonial context of Aotearoa New Zealand] and money’ ... ‘empty ourselves’. ‘We hope you will see us look more like Jesus...’ Be careful, warns the deconstructive turn, what you hope for!
We cannot help then scrolling down to see the literal signatories of the letter – those who have put their names to it and signed up to these niggling little/cataclysmic notions. (As histories go, its hard not to notice connections there with past and present systems of power.) Godspeed you.
And thus the deconstructive turn (a shaking) waits its moment, bides its time. It really all can be for the best. Maybe you can even feel a little glimmer of potentiality here – what might emerge. A world in which something like the Sermon on the Mount comes into its own. Hope. ‘Resurrection power’.
If you want to delve a bit deeper into this kind of stuff, I highly recommend Caputo’s book. Some of the contemporary cultural references are now a bit dated. But excellent, enjoyable, poignant, confronting.
* Since writing this, I listened to an episode (N320) of the Nomad podcast in which David Hayward (aka The Naked Pastor) claimed to be the originator of the use of the word 'deconstruction' as it pertains to the life event / faith journey. Whether or not he did in fact have primacy in this, or he was simply voicing a zeitgeist that was emerging in multiple places at the time, the size of his platform certainly would have helped popularise the term in this way. Regardless, the point remains: he says he was reading the French philosophers at the time he made this connection from philosophy to life event / faith journey.
December 14, 2022
If you were a teenager raised in an Evangelical Christian milieu in the 1990s, then one phrase probably rings terror in your ears like few things: What Would Jesus Do? "What Would Jesus Do?" had a Pavlovian effect on young Evangelical Christians searching for an overarching, non-secular moral principle. Should I open the door for this person? Well, What Would Jesus Do? Should I swear after stubbing my toe? Well, What Would Jesus Do? Should I eat that fifth bowl of ice cream? Well, What Would Jesus Do? So on and so forth. But what we miss with heavily-marketable slogans like "What Would Jesus Do?" in an economic and philosophical system that values the profit motive above all else is the radicality of Christ as a figure. That is to say, the irony of "What Would Jesus Do?" is how it became so central to the Evangelical Christian movement when Christ, by contrast, is best understood as a margin figure.
Jesus is not a fortifying figure for the Christian movement but a profoundly disruptive one. This is precisely what John D. Caputo explores in What Would Jesus Deconstruct? Caputo does this by subjecting Christianity to a deconstructionist reading. Through this reading, Caputo argues that Christ is far from a centralizing force within Christianity; instead, he is a disruptive force. Caputo writes, "In a deconstruction, things are made to tremble by their own inner impulse, by a force that will give them no rest, that keeps forcing itself to the surface, forcing itself out, making the thing restless" (29). Here, the "force" for Caputo is Christ, himself, and the "thing" is Christianity, or more specifically, the church. Therefore, Christ's presence in Christianity behaves as a provocation, a provocation beyond the church's control. But this tension explains why slogans like "What Would Jesus Do?" are so effective. To some degree, they domestic radical figures like Jesus. Domesticating Jesus is essential because, following Caputo's deconstructionist reading, radical figures like Jesus often "deconstruct a very great deal of what people do in the name of Jesus, starting with the people who wield this question [What Would Jesus Do?] like a hammer to beat their enemies" (31).
But what I find striking about Caputo's deconstructionist reading is how he often uses language and concepts that feel psychoanalytically inflected without acknowledging that debt. For example, when Caputo writes, "It is precisely the 'not' that makes the 'path' kick into high gear" (46), is he not describing Freud's death drive? Furthermore, the passage I quote in the opening paragraph of this review feels analogous to Freud's understanding of the unconscious. The idea that "things are made to tremble by their own inner impulse, by a force that will give them no rest," effectively describes how the unconscious influences the decisions we make and the desires we hold. All of this suggests that to deconstruct Christianity and deconstruction properly, we must tarry with what Caputo himself seems committed to disavowing.
I am far from a religious person, but what I like about What Would Jesus Deconstruct? is how Caputo articulates a more palatable theory of Christ's place within a religion that bears his name. For Caputo, Christ must remain a marginal or liminal figure. The Church errors when it fails to see the marginal and the liminal as Christ's proper place. In addition, Caputo succinctly describes what deconstruction is. Derrida, the father of deconstruction, is a notoriously challenging theorist to read and understand, but Caputo does him a great service by presenting the theory he championed in the clearest and most digestible terms imaginable.
Jesus is not a fortifying figure for the Christian movement but a profoundly disruptive one. This is precisely what John D. Caputo explores in What Would Jesus Deconstruct? Caputo does this by subjecting Christianity to a deconstructionist reading. Through this reading, Caputo argues that Christ is far from a centralizing force within Christianity; instead, he is a disruptive force. Caputo writes, "In a deconstruction, things are made to tremble by their own inner impulse, by a force that will give them no rest, that keeps forcing itself to the surface, forcing itself out, making the thing restless" (29). Here, the "force" for Caputo is Christ, himself, and the "thing" is Christianity, or more specifically, the church. Therefore, Christ's presence in Christianity behaves as a provocation, a provocation beyond the church's control. But this tension explains why slogans like "What Would Jesus Do?" are so effective. To some degree, they domestic radical figures like Jesus. Domesticating Jesus is essential because, following Caputo's deconstructionist reading, radical figures like Jesus often "deconstruct a very great deal of what people do in the name of Jesus, starting with the people who wield this question [What Would Jesus Do?] like a hammer to beat their enemies" (31).
But what I find striking about Caputo's deconstructionist reading is how he often uses language and concepts that feel psychoanalytically inflected without acknowledging that debt. For example, when Caputo writes, "It is precisely the 'not' that makes the 'path' kick into high gear" (46), is he not describing Freud's death drive? Furthermore, the passage I quote in the opening paragraph of this review feels analogous to Freud's understanding of the unconscious. The idea that "things are made to tremble by their own inner impulse, by a force that will give them no rest," effectively describes how the unconscious influences the decisions we make and the desires we hold. All of this suggests that to deconstruct Christianity and deconstruction properly, we must tarry with what Caputo himself seems committed to disavowing.
I am far from a religious person, but what I like about What Would Jesus Deconstruct? is how Caputo articulates a more palatable theory of Christ's place within a religion that bears his name. For Caputo, Christ must remain a marginal or liminal figure. The Church errors when it fails to see the marginal and the liminal as Christ's proper place. In addition, Caputo succinctly describes what deconstruction is. Derrida, the father of deconstruction, is a notoriously challenging theorist to read and understand, but Caputo does him a great service by presenting the theory he championed in the clearest and most digestible terms imaginable.
October 28, 2019
Wow, this book is so good. Reading it feels like sitting in university lecture in which the professor examines several texts through a new theoretical lens. It's riveting; the tone is academic but still accessible (although I did have refer to the dictionary more than once). Growing up in a conservative evangelical subculture, I was taught that Postmodernism is the enemy and doubt is from the devil. I don't believe that anymore; reading this book helped me frame the thoughts I've been having for years about postmodernism and deconstruction. This book gives the intersection of Postmodernism and Christianity "teeth" (as Caputo puts it). I could go on forever about his ideas, but I'll let these quotes speak for themselves:
So... yeah. Caputo writes like a Christian mystic, just beyond the grasp of my imagination, and simultaneously just within its reach.
My reason for giving 4 stars instead of 5 is because, although I agree wholeheartedly with what Caputo says about the Christian Right and George W. Bush, the practical (read: political) applications he suggests make me think that conservative-evangelical folks would take offense to his (very valid) conclusions, while missing the excellent points he makes about postmodernism and a more contemplative spiritual practice.
I know I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to conservatives, so allow me to elaborate. While reading, I thought "Hmm, if Caputo was less explicit in his criticisms of the Religious Right, I might be able to give this book to my conservative Christian friends and have fruitful conversations afterwards." My concern, however, is that conservatives will read Caputo's criticisms of the Right and immediately turn their ears off to his over-arching message. I believe Caputo speaks a lot of truth here, but his ideas are packaged so that to really understand what he's saying, you have to have already begun the faith deconstruction process... and started to ask the most difficult questions.
Overall, it's an excellent book, I just don't believe every Christian is ready to hear this message. Which is probably why it's so damn good.
Also: This book was published in '07, but I think it's still deeply relevant in the Trump era. Probably even more so.
"Faith does not subsist in simple polar opposition to doubt but remains embedded in doubt all the way down; it coexists with doubt, which is why it is faith and not some kind of privileged access to a higher knowledge, as if a believer is somebody hardwired to God on high and authorized to speak on God's behalf. A faith insulated from doubt fuels fanaticism and high-handed triumphalism and is in love with itself and its own power... Faith is faith, and not a sword with which to slay the enemies of God (usually a cover for describing one's own enemies!)"
"Deconstruction saves us from idolatry, while scriptural literalism succumbs to the idolatry of a book."
So... yeah. Caputo writes like a Christian mystic, just beyond the grasp of my imagination, and simultaneously just within its reach.
My reason for giving 4 stars instead of 5 is because, although I agree wholeheartedly with what Caputo says about the Christian Right and George W. Bush, the practical (read: political) applications he suggests make me think that conservative-evangelical folks would take offense to his (very valid) conclusions, while missing the excellent points he makes about postmodernism and a more contemplative spiritual practice.
I know I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to conservatives, so allow me to elaborate. While reading, I thought "Hmm, if Caputo was less explicit in his criticisms of the Religious Right, I might be able to give this book to my conservative Christian friends and have fruitful conversations afterwards." My concern, however, is that conservatives will read Caputo's criticisms of the Right and immediately turn their ears off to his over-arching message. I believe Caputo speaks a lot of truth here, but his ideas are packaged so that to really understand what he's saying, you have to have already begun the faith deconstruction process... and started to ask the most difficult questions.
Overall, it's an excellent book, I just don't believe every Christian is ready to hear this message. Which is probably why it's so damn good.
Also: This book was published in '07, but I think it's still deeply relevant in the Trump era. Probably even more so.
November 23, 2018
If one knows this book exists, and considers reading it, it suggests that person has some awareness of or interest in post-modern philosophical thought. No casual reader browsing book titles is likely to give it a second glance. So assuming the reader of this reaction falls into that category let me say I applaud this contribution to making extremely dense philosophical arguments approachable for the interested “average” reader. For me Caputo’s successes in this endeavor exceed the necessary occasional lapses into the mysterious world of confounding philosophical jargon. Whether one agrees with his theological conclusions is another matter I suppose. I think Caputo also succeeds in his attempt to present a way to understand Christian ethics that makes Christianity relevant to the modern world, while being consistent with the teachings of the historical Jesus, and compatible with an ethical humanistic world view. Caputo is clear that his arguments run counter to literal, far right Christian extremism and makes no apologies for that. He presents his arguments based on French post-modern philosophical thought for how one might understand the radical teachings of Jesus and how he might react to the modern world and it’s teachings made in his name and more importantly what that Jesus might actually do in response to what he finds in this modern world. To put it concisely he would likely not be pleased, nor would he be kind to those Church teachers and teachings who put the wealthy, the powerful and the comfortable over and above the poor, the marginalized, the perceived other. And although it might not seem compatible with such a serious topic, Caputo’s humility and sense of humor shines throughout his work.
July 14, 2023
In "What Would Jesus Deconstruct," John D. Caputo explores deconstruction within the context of Christian faith, emphasizing that it is not about tearing down beliefs, but rather a process of loving examination that opens new opportunities for ministry. Caputo argues that churches should be encouraging deconstruction within their membership, rather than fearing it as a threat to traditional beliefs.
Caputo states, "The purpose of deconstruction is not to tear down Christianity, but rather to open it up to new and deeper understandings of our faith" (p. 6). Rather than being a negative or harmful process, deconstruction can be a "loving" practice that leads to greater spiritual growth and maturity. As Caputo asserts, "Deconstruction is actually about engaging with Christianity in a more serious and profound way than traditional dogmatism permits" (p. 23).
The loving aspects of deconstruction can lead to new opportunities for ministry within the church. Caputo writes, "Deconstructionists may have been misled, but they haven't lost their faith. They are seeking a faith that is riddled with difficult questions, but also with greater potential for growth, beauty, and depth" (p. 102). By engaging with deconstructionists and their unique perspectives, the church can discover new and innovative ways to express its faith and ministry.
Overall, "What Would Jesus Deconstruct" presents a compelling argument for why deconstruction is not about tearing down Christian beliefs, but rather an opportunity to engage more deeply and lovingly with them. Churches should embrace deconstruction as a way to encourage growth and understanding within their membership, rather than fearing it as a threat to their traditional beliefs.
Caputo states, "The purpose of deconstruction is not to tear down Christianity, but rather to open it up to new and deeper understandings of our faith" (p. 6). Rather than being a negative or harmful process, deconstruction can be a "loving" practice that leads to greater spiritual growth and maturity. As Caputo asserts, "Deconstruction is actually about engaging with Christianity in a more serious and profound way than traditional dogmatism permits" (p. 23).
The loving aspects of deconstruction can lead to new opportunities for ministry within the church. Caputo writes, "Deconstructionists may have been misled, but they haven't lost their faith. They are seeking a faith that is riddled with difficult questions, but also with greater potential for growth, beauty, and depth" (p. 102). By engaging with deconstructionists and their unique perspectives, the church can discover new and innovative ways to express its faith and ministry.
Overall, "What Would Jesus Deconstruct" presents a compelling argument for why deconstruction is not about tearing down Christian beliefs, but rather an opportunity to engage more deeply and lovingly with them. Churches should embrace deconstruction as a way to encourage growth and understanding within their membership, rather than fearing it as a threat to their traditional beliefs.
November 18, 2020
I was curious what's so interesting in bringing deconstruction into the church. It, however, seems that author is as much interested in worshipping Jacques Derrida as Jesus Christ.
After studying deconstruction and Derrida I am now convinced (just like Chomsky once said) that he was unoriginal and therefore uninteresting. The radical discourse of Enlightenment proceeded spectacularily for over a century with or without Derrida's influence. It has accomplished much more, it has "deconstructed" much more than Derrida's project. Deconstruction does not bring anything new and useful to the table apart from another buzzword. It is quite telling that legacy of deconstruction (and Derrida) had almost zero influence on linguistics, its primary target.
If we erased Derrida from the cards of history this wouldn't absolutely change anything.
But without idolizing Derrida, and labelling oneself as a deconstructionist, you end up being just a progressive Christian liberal. I understand that this might be quite boring and not interesting enough. We have a lot of that around, including some Pope Francis's attitude. We also had some liberation theology around. We also have liberal people that are good Christians.
Why even add Derrida in to the mix? The guy that used to defend his ex-Nazi friend, Paul de Man, using the very deconstruction. There is no middle way regarding some things, neither there is any middle way for dogmatic attitude of the church. Anyway, who cares what Derrida thought or what he felt? It's still a mystery to me, this whole cult of Derrida.
But I digress. 2.5/5 seems about right. I will round up to 3 because Goodreads dont allow halves. It was OK. We could do away without deconstruction, and the book would be 50% shorter, yet equally meaningful.
After studying deconstruction and Derrida I am now convinced (just like Chomsky once said) that he was unoriginal and therefore uninteresting. The radical discourse of Enlightenment proceeded spectacularily for over a century with or without Derrida's influence. It has accomplished much more, it has "deconstructed" much more than Derrida's project. Deconstruction does not bring anything new and useful to the table apart from another buzzword. It is quite telling that legacy of deconstruction (and Derrida) had almost zero influence on linguistics, its primary target.
If we erased Derrida from the cards of history this wouldn't absolutely change anything.
But without idolizing Derrida, and labelling oneself as a deconstructionist, you end up being just a progressive Christian liberal. I understand that this might be quite boring and not interesting enough. We have a lot of that around, including some Pope Francis's attitude. We also had some liberation theology around. We also have liberal people that are good Christians.
Why even add Derrida in to the mix? The guy that used to defend his ex-Nazi friend, Paul de Man, using the very deconstruction. There is no middle way regarding some things, neither there is any middle way for dogmatic attitude of the church. Anyway, who cares what Derrida thought or what he felt? It's still a mystery to me, this whole cult of Derrida.
But I digress. 2.5/5 seems about right. I will round up to 3 because Goodreads dont allow halves. It was OK. We could do away without deconstruction, and the book would be 50% shorter, yet equally meaningful.
January 13, 2022
I hadn't read much Caputo before this book I only knew of him by other authors that spoke highly of his cantor and his mind. I have all of this series of books and as of now (I've read about 3/4 of them) this is by far my favorite and easily the most readable. I loved Who's Afraid of Relativism, but it was a much more difficult book to read ( I enjoy hard reads) and I wouldn't offer it as a primer for most people that I interact with the postmodern and deconstructive application to religion and particularly Christianity. This book I would easily hand over to help anyone understand the process. Caputo is funny, thoughtful, and his writing is filled with clear explication throughout while engaging in large philosophical ideas. I read this book in about a week because I forced myself to put it down and think about it for a day between each chapter, but it is easily digestible in two to three sittings, though the ideas are more than enough to remain in your mind and expand over years. In the middle of this book, I added several of Caputo's books on my wishlist at Amazon and ordered one to go ahead and begin reading right after this one. I highly recommend if you are engaging with some of the bigger ideas that involve- belief, faith, deconstruction, and philosophy of religion.
June 23, 2024
Great topic. Provocative questions. The answers to which any “Christian” should pay due reflection. I think Caputo writes sometimes as if he likes to hear himself speak, so to speak, and this gets in the way of his point at times, especially in the middle of the book thereabouts. But the point itself is robust — inconclusive, which is Caputo’s purpose here — but robust in that it demands us to ask questions we desperately want to avoid. I also think Caputo is harder on the Far Right than he is on the Far Left (which he in any case mentions less, as if doing so is a reluctant acceptance of some unnamed rule from on high to be impartial and nonpartisan), while I think both extremes pose equal problems. But maybe that’s just me. Finally, I disagree with Caputo’s definition of “deconstruction,” although — perhaps counterintuitively — that doesn’t derail the bottom-line value I get from this book. The title says enough: questions are more important than their answers. We’ve sought the latter when it’s the former that provide the real insight. I think that’s Caputo’s basic thesis here.
February 9, 2018
Deconstruction is masterfully shown here to be an un/discipline, and like all un/disciplines, it can lead nowhere but where we had already decided we were going to end up.
This volume offers little in the way of fresh insight. There are a few really lovely bits toward the beginning: affirmations of scripture's delight in paradox and aphoria--none of which are any different than classic, creedal Christianity, which has always found life precisely in those paradoxes, but they are lovely nonetheless.
After the first few chapters, the author settles rather comfortably into his contempt for . . . I guess everyone? Everyone who doesn't love Derrida and quote him incessantly?
Give me medieval scholasticism any day. Thomas was not Thomas because he was too dull to be Derrida. He was not Derrida because he declined to take the intellectual shortcut of merely dismissing his interlocutors as idolatrous idiots. He gave them the gift of taking them seriously.
This volume offers little in the way of fresh insight. There are a few really lovely bits toward the beginning: affirmations of scripture's delight in paradox and aphoria--none of which are any different than classic, creedal Christianity, which has always found life precisely in those paradoxes, but they are lovely nonetheless.
After the first few chapters, the author settles rather comfortably into his contempt for . . . I guess everyone? Everyone who doesn't love Derrida and quote him incessantly?
Give me medieval scholasticism any day. Thomas was not Thomas because he was too dull to be Derrida. He was not Derrida because he declined to take the intellectual shortcut of merely dismissing his interlocutors as idolatrous idiots. He gave them the gift of taking them seriously.
May 4, 2021
Much of the book is written in a style that is very difficult to comprehend. I appreciate the authors challenge to Christians to care for and love the most vulnerable in society. Some of the more political solutions/ideas I certainly can't get on board with as they seem counter to the way that Jesus loved others.
Caputo critiques the conservative right (and rightly so in my opinion). But his support for many well intentioned leftist political policies that have been so economically destructive to the poor and vulnerable seems misguided. Most likely it is just due to a lack of education on economics and unintended consequence of political coercion.
Caputo critiques the conservative right (and rightly so in my opinion). But his support for many well intentioned leftist political policies that have been so economically destructive to the poor and vulnerable seems misguided. Most likely it is just due to a lack of education on economics and unintended consequence of political coercion.
September 7, 2022
An incredibly argued case for why deconstruction of the Christian faith is necessary only to be weakened with strange and insufficient personal deconstructed views.
The first half examining why we as Christians need to deconstruct the Bible was well argued and strongly defended with example and logic.
Then Caputo started to share his deconstructed views which were in stark contrast to the strength of the first of the book. The arguments were empty and weak. It took all the principles laid out in the first half and Insufficiently argued for his personal views of how deconstruction would lead to.
The first half examining why we as Christians need to deconstruct the Bible was well argued and strongly defended with example and logic.
Then Caputo started to share his deconstructed views which were in stark contrast to the strength of the first of the book. The arguments were empty and weak. It took all the principles laid out in the first half and Insufficiently argued for his personal views of how deconstruction would lead to.
July 20, 2019
I wish this book would have been more Derridaian. The beginning is a thoughtful introduction to deconstruction and the major flow of Jacque’s thought; however, the latter half of the book seemed more of a political appeal for progressive politics, with which I found compelling at times, that then took a polemic shape of deconstruction. It is nonetheless a challenging book, asking difficult questions about presuppositions, but I think that there are better texts to go to for a Christian perspective on deconstruction and Derrida.
February 23, 2025
Hard to know what exactly I think of this one. It shows its time and place with frequent comments on at that time contemporary issues. It is also at times repetitive but never to the point of annoyance. Overall its use of deconstruction is a good one, and the humble-not-so-humble way he interprets Jesus is almost undermined and yet is created out of the deconstruction itself.
I'm partial to both the theological direction and the political direction the work takes, but I can imagine this can even be a spectre to haunt those who do not take its conclusion seriously enough.
I'm partial to both the theological direction and the political direction the work takes, but I can imagine this can even be a spectre to haunt those who do not take its conclusion seriously enough.
January 9, 2021
Useful look at how Christians (if they choose to) can include the philosophy of Jacques Derrida into their hermeneutics, or simply put how to find a work around for reading scripture and living as a Christian in the 21st century. I was not sold on all of it, but an easy read and grounded in real life examples.
February 9, 2018
Hard read to begin with but there were a couple of chapters at the end that I found myself vigorously nodding along with to be sure. I wonder what Caputo would write today. He was scathing about a former administration. What would he think of the state of the country now?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews