What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

We all remember the crazy fad, "What Would Jesus Do?" that became more of a fashion product than a real gospel-centered question. I was a student at the time and can remember some of the most godless, anti-Christian persons wearing the bracelets. Sadly, what began as a good idea became corrupt.

But as our culture continues to transition from modernity into postmodernity, a new question is being asked: What Would Jesus Deconstruct? Thankfully, (I am being sarcastic) John D. Caputo has answered that question in his book, "What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church". So, what would Jesus deconstruct today? To Caputo, the answer seems to be: Everything!

I will not take the time to trace Caputo's entire argument, but I do want to provide a few illustrations of what a deconstructed Jesus might look like. Caputo is uncomfortable with two things: (1) the Religious Right and (2) literal interpretations of the Bible. A deconstructed Jesus rises above and beyond these two problems with the modern church.

First, Caputo is no fan of the Religious Right. We must say from the beginning that criticism of the Religious Right is well taken. There is much to criticize. My problem, and I am speaking as one that perhaps Caputo would consider part of the Religious Right, although I do have my problems with the movement, the Religious Right is the misplaced values. That is, Christians must understand that no politician, party, or government can ever solve human nature or save a soul. Rather, that is the work of the gospel, of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. If Christians worked as hard to evangelize the lost as they do to elect a politician, our culture would be much better off.

But that is the problem. Postmodern Christians, like Caputo and the Emerging Church (Brian McLaren wrote the forward to this book and emphatically endorses it), believe that the paragraph above is too modernistic. Being rooted in the modern culture, I put all of my cards on "spreading the gospel" and "making converts." To the Emerging Church, evangelism isn't about saving souls, but joining a conversation. However, I must add, my problem isn't with dialogue, but where that dialogue is taking the Emerging Church. Dialogue is good, until it moves us away from Christ.

As for criticism for the Religious Right, one of my biggest frustrations from many who want to criticize is the hypocrisy on the other side. Many who attack the Religious Right are nothing more than the Religious Left. The very things they accuse the other side are the very same things they themselves are doing, only for a different party, for a different politician, and for a different understanding of the role of government. So although criticism might be valid, it is often hypocritical.

Caputo is openly critical of the Religious Right. One of his major criticisms regards war, namely, the support of the Right for the War in Iraq. He writes:

Not only is the Christian Right's bumper-sticker Jesus a cheerleader for lowering the taxes of the wealthy, but their Jesus is also a militarist. If we ask, "What Would Jesus deconstrcut?" about many Christian churches, my own guess is that he would not know where to start - with their militarism and imperialism or with their greed and indifference to the poor. The closest thing they represent to anything Jesus encountered in his own lifetime was called "Rome." he simply would not recognize himself. But you can count on it,k if he reappeared in their midst protesting the war in Iraq, he would be spotted and denounces as a left-wing radical, a deconstructor; who has come back, uninvited, to make trouble for the church, and then subjected to a vicious smear campaign by wealthy right-wing "Christians." -103

Truth is, this statement can just as apply to the Religious Left as it does the right. I am tired of hearing people say that the right does not care for the poor. The opposite is true. The difference is not who cares about the poor and who doesn't. Rather, the difference is what is the best way to help and serve the poor. If we are truly Christians, we will find the answer in serving the poor ourselves, rather than expecting the government to do it for us. For whenever the government does it, they steal and rob what is not there's and rather than helping the poor, they serve themselves. The system set up in the New Testament is charity, not taxes. It is a valid debate over how to help the poor politically, and I am tired of hearing the left say that the right doesn't care.

Regarding the war, Caputo offers caricatures. Caputo acts like the Religious Right loves war and is always biting at the bit to go to war. That is not the case at all. That does not mean that at times the right supports causes that they shouldn't. At the same time, it seems that perhaps the left doesn't support causes that they should. The shoe fits on both feet. To picture the right as blood-thirsty war mongers is simply wrong and nothing more than a caricature. Just as it is equally wrong to caricature the right on wimps who think that all the worlds problems can be solved by hugging one another.

Can we move beyond this? It should also be said that Jesus said very little regarding politics and government. He rather said much, and primarily, about the gospel.

Secondly, Caputo is strongly against literal interpretations of the Bible. To him, literal interpretations of the Bible are stupid. This belief plays heavily in the issue of homosexuality. Caputo raises the point that Jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality, however, he adds, "we can guess what he thought" (108). Caputo is willing to assume that if Jesus were asked what He thought about homosexuality, He would probably condemned it as Paul did.

But then Caputo adds these words, "in my view . . . " Caput admits that Paul condemned homosexuality, the Jews condemned homosexuality, and even assumes that Jesus would have condemned homosexuality meaning that the author himself acknowledges that Scripture unanimously condemns homosexuality, and yet, Caputo sets himself apart from the unanimous testimony and conviction of Scripture. His reasoning:

In my view, even if there is a dominant view against homosexuality in the Scripture and tradition - and as a deconstructive reader, I would always insist on a full hearing for all the nondominant views, of which there are plenty - I would argue that on this point the Greeks were right and the dominent tradition among Jews and Christians is wrong, just as the Scriptures are wrong to underwrite slavery and the oppression of women . . . Were Jesus alive today and familiar with the pros and cons of the contemporary argument, his centeredness on love would have brought him down on the side of the rights of what we today call the "homosexual different." -109

This is perhaps one of the most honest and telling arguments put forth by Emergents. There is no ambiguity in Caputo's words here. He makes it emphatically clear that at some points "the Scriptures are wrong." Not only does Caputo allow Scripture to evolve to fit the times, but he also allows Christ Himself to evolve. If Jesus were alive today, he argues, he would be presented with the pros and cons of the modern argument regarding homosexuality, He would embrace the movement because of His emphasis on love and because "Jesus systematically took the side of the outsider, of those who are excluded and marginalized and made to suffer for their marginalization by the powers that be" (109). Caputo defines Jesus' teachings not as what is right and wrong, but who is in and out. That is, Jesus did not look at sinners, He saw the marginalized, the outsider, the impoverished, and the excluded while at the same time, condemned those who ignored such persons.

Caputo believes that Christians use of the slogan "What Would Jesus Do?" "as a club to pound what is different, to smash anything that falls outside the tolerances of the powers that be or the historical prejudices of the day" (110). We must rather, be like Jesus and love the outsider regardless of whether or not Scripture condemns their actions as sin and worthy of judgment. We are not to judge, only to love.

This raises the question, what is the hermeneutic of Caputo? Clearly he has laid outside the Biblical text in favor of a view that is reminiscent with the culture. He argues:

I am not an idolater . . . I take the second commandment very seriously and I do not put false gods - like books (biblical inerrantism) . . . - before God, who is the "wholly other." I treat scriptural literalism . . . as idolatry. To protect myself against the idolatry of the b(B)ook, I embrace the distinction . . . between the Bible as a "timeless archetype" and the Bible as an historical "prototype." The former views the Bible as something that can be directly and decontextually copied and pasted into the present, while the latter understands the Bible to be something that must be hermeneutically interpreted, inserted with hermeneutic sensitivity into a contemporary context. -110-111

A literal hermeneutic, then, is quintessentially idolatry to Caputo, it is as godless as worshipping Baal. And with the stroke of a pen, Caputo cuts down the idolatry of the Religious Right and Biblical literalist like Elijah did the prophets of Baal and Asherah (1 Kings 18).

So if you looking for a book that cares about the gospel undiluted, look elsewhere. If you looking for the philosophical underpinnings of postmodern Christianity and what it looks like, here is a good place to start.