Category: Theology

Vampires, Myth, and Christianity

Posted on

So we made it to Texas and it has been a crazy week. I finally have my laptop connected to the internet and am stealing a few minutes to sit down and write. But as I considered what to blog about (usually whatever is on my mind at the time…), I realized that I’ve spent a lot of time recently thinking about vampires. Yes, vampires. But bear with me here.

I actually bloged about my encounters with vampire (books) three years ago (here), so it’s not a new subject on this blog. But after reading through Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series recently, vampires have once again been on my mind. If you haven’t heard of the series that means you are most likely not a teenage girl (or a huge fantasy geek). I was intrigued by any book that merited a midnight release for it’s fourth installment and had been following the debates as to if the books were sexist or not (I personally think not). So I decided to give the books a go and ended up throughly engaged.

As you probably gathered at this point the books are about vampires (sorry for the spoiler). But the main characters in the books are “good” vampires – they feed off animal blood, not humans. What I found most intriguing though was the process by which these characters became vampires. Each of them had been at the brink of death and were at that point transformed into vampires – immortal, perfect creatures (at least in this series). Given the author’s expressed religious devotion, I can’t help but see the spiritual parallels there. The chosen ones being essentially resurrected into strong, beautiful, gifted, eternal (yet physical) beings. Interesting concept.

But the obvious spiritual connection in the books reminded me of other conversations I have had relating Christianity and vampires. The whole concept of blood being shed to give another eternal life mirrors vampire lore. There are of course those that recognize that with derision as this quote demonstrates –

“Almost two billion people on the face of this planet are Christians,” he said. “That means every Sunday you’ll find hordes of these creatures lining up to drink the blood of their god in a ritual called communion.

“And what does their god and his church offer them in return? “Everlasting life …

“If that is not the promise of a vampire religion, then I don’t know what is …”

Sinton said Christianity was the only religion that worshiped a corpse and one of a handful that still engaged in blood rituals.

“Visit one of their churches and you’ll often find a huge statue of their vampire Christ looming over the congregation,” he said. Instead of blood dripping from fangs, Christ’s blood drips from his hands, feet, side and crown.

“1.9 billion people believe this immortal god is their salvation and that his blood can redeem and protect them. “Listen to some of the hymns they sing,” he said, “as they sway hypnotically before this eerie preternatural creature …”

Are You Washed In The Blood?
Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness
Nothing But The Blood
Saved By The Blood
The Blood-Washed Throng
The Bloodwashed Pilgrim
There Is A Fountain Filled With Blood
There Is Power In The Blood

“With all this blood imagery,” Sinton said, “no wonder the congregations descends like vampires when the priest calls them up for communion …” The Christian Bible states that Jesus actually said “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).

By drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his flesh, Christians believe they die and are reborn as immortals.

But others see those same elements and embrace the similarities. I’ve heard of goth oriented churches that play up the vampire connection especially related to communion. I guess it’s just another form of cultural contextualization. Some churches reach yuppies by presenting Christ as the ultimate CEO, other churches reach the goths by comparing Christ to vampires. (I think I’d rather attend the vampire church…)

The connection of shed blood and immortality is an ancient one – one of the oldest religious beliefs around. Some dismiss Christianity for dwelling on it. Others (like C.S. Lewis) believe that in Christ myth became fact – making it all resonate with our deepest cultural longings. As he wrote in God in the Dock –

The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.

In Christ in a way we have the fulfillment of legend. An interesting concept if nothing else.

But I’m sure that’s not the reaction most have to the books. Obsessing over Edward Cullen seems more the norm…

Read more

Questioning God

Posted on

I’ve almost found it amusing recently the amount of “advice” I’ve been given about my relationship with God. It seems that friends and family hear about my recent health problems and our issues selling our house and they assume I must be bitter and angry at God. I’ve been reminded over and over how I just need to trust that God always has my best interests in mind and that I should never question him. Others comment that God promises that life will be difficult so one shouldn’t feel entitled to things going right.

While I agree that bitterness sprung from misguided feelings of entitlement is dangerous, I am disturbed by the underlying assumption present in most of this advice – that one can never question God. This is an assumption that I’ve been taught my whole life. To many, faith simply involves unthinking trust and acceptance of God, the Bible, and the basic vicissitudes of life. To question any of those things is to demonstrate at the very least a weak faith, if not a blasphemous heart. The story of Job was always the standard lesson for this no questioning rule. The reality of Job’s questions was ignored and Job’s choice not to curse God was interpreted as a choice not to question God. The moral of the tale was that we shouldn’t question God either.

So I was intrigued recently as I started reading Peter Rollins’ new book The Fidelity of Betrayal which proposes the necessity of questioning God for the truly faithful. As with Jacob wrestling with the angel, the faith of the Israelites is paradoxical in that “absolute commitment to God involves a deep and sustained wrestling with God” (p.32). The idea is that faith grows not through unthinking submission but through the process of questioning and understanding. And this was something the Israelites felt they could engage in. As Rollins points out, when Abraham pleads with God to save Sodom, Abraham not only felt able to question God, but that God didn’t seem to mind either.

This perspective on questioning presents a different take on our relationship with God. Instead of presenting God as an impersonal master we must submit to and obey, God is presented more as a good teacher. The sort of teacher that not only allows but encourages discussion and debate in the classroom knowing that the best sort of learning occurs when students are able to think through and discover things for themselves. Needless to say, I prefer this perspective. I never enjoyed feeling guilty growing up if I wanted to ask questions. And these days I am understanding that suppressing questions can be just as unhealthy as allowing questions to lead to bitterness. Blind trust and submission feels hollow to me – like I am worshiping an idea instead of a reality. Wrestling with God in some ways makes him more real – more tangible so to speak. I feel more assured in my faith as a result of those struggles.

So to all who are wondering and making assumptions – no I am not feeling bitter. But, yes, I am questioning and hopefully strengthening my faith in the process.

Read more

Jesus and Compassion

Posted on

I read something in the comments the other day over at Eugene Cho’s blog that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about. The post was in relation to the whole Seeds of Compassion event. I’ve been slightly disturbed by the outcry from some sects of the faith as to why Christians (Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell specifically, apparently Desmond Tutu doesn’t count to evangelicals) would participate in an event with the Dalai Lama and other non-Christians. Then after the fact the complaints turned into certain voices getting their panties all in a bunch because those guys didn’t give the four spiritual laws or something. I tried to ignore those fringe voices trying to cause trouble, the whole idea of not being in dialogue with people of all faiths is so farcical that it hardly deserves comment. But then I started hearing other issues raised – ones I found infinitely more disturbing. This comment illustrates the issue well –

Christ does not call Christians to ‘make the world more compassionate and a better place’. Christ calls us to proclaim the Gospel message of Christ Crucified for sinners. This message is not compatible with any other religion or spirituality.

The idea was that Christians have no place at an event discussing compassion since that has nothing to do with Jesus. I don’t deny that we are called to proclaim the Gospel (although I have a feeling that I might differ with the commenter on what exactly that involves), but to say that Jesus didn’t call us to spread compassion? Has this person read the Bible? Ever? Does she ignore the story of the good Samaritan and the subsequent command to “go and do likewise.”? Or ignore Jesus’ call to give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and care for the least of these? Or Jesus’ proclamation that he came to set the oppressed free? Or his commands to love, bless, and pray for even our enemies? Or his response when he witnessed the lack of compassion in the Temple?

Often when some of us talk about the full Gospel, or about reclaiming the message of Jesus, we are told “but everyone believes that anyway” (implying we should stop talking about it).  The idea is that just because it isn’t talked about, or takes a secondary place to preaching a doctrinal formation doesn’t mean that people have forgotten about it. But here I see the full extent of the dichotomy between doctrine and the Bible in action. When some can claim that being a Christian has nothing to do with making the world more compassionate I know petty prejudices have usurped scripture.

Perhaps since such commenters refuse to engage with people of other faiths, they may not have heard how many people see Christianity as utterly irrelevant because of this dichotomy. I’ve heard numerous people dismiss Christianity because all we care about is converting people to our club and not about meeting their real needs. They have not heard of Christ’s call to love, to give aid, and to make disciples who do the same. This truncated Gospel not only distorts scripture, it hurts our message. I would prefer truth to be discussed and demonstrated, but sadly that doesn’t always happen.  But even more disturbing – are there really people who think compassion is a bad thing? how has the church let this happen?

Read more

God and Gender

Posted on

A couple of days ago, Mark Oestreicher posted his thoughts on gender pronouns for God. He described his lengthy journey into understanding that solely using male pronouns limits God and alienates many women. It is an open an honest reflection on how seeking to understand God and scripture better brought him to a place of seeing how he needs to be careful about how he speaks of God. First, I want to thank Mark for being one of the first men I have encountered who not only thinks this way, but believes it is important enough to discuss. This is a huge issue for a lot of women and a significant issue regarding truth and idolatry (my thoughts on that here). I appreciate men being willing to acknowledge that and challenge taboos to actually discuss it.

But of course his post has stirred much controversy. There are those fearful that Youth Specialties will take a similar stance (to which my reply is – “what? actually be biblical?”). They claim that they (as youth pastors) would not be allowed to attend YS events if YS said that God isn’t strictly male. I personally find it depressing that a church would promote idolatry over unity or truth. Others there though claimed that if one doesn’t believe God is male then one therefore doesn’t believe the Bible is inerrant (which I think they are inappropriately using as a synonym for true). I was just fascinated by the whole thing. I’m used to this topic being taboo, I’m used to being told that it’s just easier to use male default language, I’m used to people being uncomfortable with including female metaphors in their God talk, but I haven’t heard such extreme “God has a penis” rhetoric in a long time. Do these people really think they are being biblical? (have they studied the Bible???) Do they just really hate women? Are they so narcissistic that God can only exist in their own image? I know those are harsh questions, but have they ever really thought about it?

I thought I’d ramble on here with my questions since I didn’t want to jump into the mess over there. I know this whole topic has been a journey for me, and I still often default to male pronouns for God. But I’m convinced that if I want to be respectful to God, this is an issue I can’t ignore. I don’t want to limit God by the smallness of my biases and God is constantly pushing me into a deeper relationship. I can’t go back now.

Read more

N.T. Wright for Children?

Posted on

I finished reading N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope recently and have been pondering its implication the last few days. This is one of those must read sorts of books if one cares about defining and developing a biblical view of salvation and Christian hope. Wright explores here the concept that the hope for Christians is in the bodily resurrection – not in the gnostic “our souls go heaven when we die” mythology that consumes the imagination of most Christians. He not only reminds readers of that hope, but examines the implications that hope should have on how we think about Christian life, mission, and the purpose of church. Many of us in the emerging church have talked recently about how the gospel is bigger than individualistic decisions for heaven or against hell, and Wright here demonstrates that such limited conceptions of the gospel aren’t even biblical anyway. This of course gets us all labeled heretics, but at least the idea is getting out there that what most people think is orthodox Christian belief is actually not. So it’s a good read – helpful and inspiring in many ways. But I really wish it had more practical suggestions for everyday life.

It’s all well and good to intellectually rethink how we conceive of Christian hope and even start living differently because of that, but I am finding that the popular conceptions are so ubiquitous that they are nearly impossible to escape. In the face of all that I wish Wright had provided more positive examples of how to integrate the biblical view into our everyday encounters. How does one comfort the grieving? Explain death to a child? We’ve been conditioned to be comforted by common cliches even if we no longer believe the theology behind them. New language doesn’t yet exist – much less new books or new hymns (although a few good old ones are still around). But what good is my theology if I can’t convey it to my children? Or how effective is my theology if my children are constantly exposed to false conceptions? If we don’t consider how to convey these scriptural concepts to children all we are doing is allowing the myths to flourish into the next generation.

The world of popular conception is strong. I’ve been there. I’ve lead 5-Day Clubs, AWANA, and VBS. I’ve been trained by CEF and know all the kid songs. I’ve taught the flannelgraphs making promises about heaven the Bible only makes of the New Creation. I remember the Sunday School lessons (complete with charts) on the difference between body, soul, and spirit. I have a toddler and read her Bible storybooks and watch movies with her. I hear the dualistic/gnostic language she is indoctrinated with. Sure I change the language when I read her certain books, but it’s in there. Do I throw away all those books because of a few phrases that promote a Platonic rather than biblical understanding of the world? Do I ban every cartoon that portrays heaven as full of disembodied spirits floating on clouds? Do I never allow her to attend 5-Day Clubs, or VBSs, summer camps, or Sunday Schools because I know the individualistic spin they put on salvation (without any emphasis on community or what we have been saved for)? These are the practical questions that I wrestle with.

I want my children to choose to follow Christ not be manipulated into saying a prayer because they fear hell or want the reward of heaven. I don’t want John 3:16 reduced to “for God so loved Emma…” I want my kids to have better lyrics to sing in church than “Good news, good news, Christ died for ME” or “STOP! and let me tell you what the Lord has done for ME” or “Somewhere in outer space, God has prepared a place, For those who trust Him and obey…” (oh the memories). These things don’t reflect biblical truth so why would I teach them to my children? I want better options.

I’m sick though of waiting for better language and resources. Theology shouldn’t take decades to trickle down to children while we continue to feed them misguided lies. I spend a lot of time thinking about stuff like this, and I still struggle with altering my default language or with catching bad theology/philosophy in Emma’s picture books. We needed better resources yesterday as it were. Forget the N.T. Wright for Everyone devotional guides, I want N.T. Wright for toddlers. I want to see practical theology accessible to all ages. If we can’t be bothered to teach this stuff to our kids in the cradle then why bother believing it at all?

Read more

Life of the Mind – Part 3

Posted on

The most common critique of “the life of the mind” that I hear is one for which I have the some sympathy. This critique states that the life of the mind takes the focus off of just living for Jesus. I understand the sentiment behind it, but get frustrated with the “all or nothing” way in which it is generally presented.

I most often hear this accusation in somewhat awkward situations. I can be involved in a good theological discussion (online or in person) and someone uncomfortable with conflict or intellectual discourse will jump in and shut down the conversation by asserting that all that really matters is loving Jesus. We need stop all this talk and get our focus back onto loving and serving Jesus. Of course no one can continue the discussion because then we obviously don’t love Jesus. The moderator feels pious and holy and the rest of us sheepish and frustrated. But honestly I think this objection asserted this way is completely wrong and somewhat dangerous. Theology does matter and in fact has everything to do with loving Jesus.

What we believe determines how we act. Theology has institutionalized racism and sexism. Theology has justified rape, slaughter, and torture. Theology has encouraged greed and spread poverty. Theology has pillaged lands and destroyed ecosystems. Don’t tell me it doesn’t matter. It determines exactly what it looks like for a person to follow Jesus. Unless we take a good look at what we believe and realize that “all Christians at all times” have NOT believed as we do, dangerous theologies will continue to flourish. I discuss theology, read books, and study scripture because I love Jesus and want to follow him. Understanding his commands, how his words would have been understood by his audience, and how the church over time has interpreted his words is important to me. Blindly following or not questioning why or what I am following seems highly irresponsible to me. If I love Jesus then I will take the time to intellectually understand what I believe.

Sure it is a problem if all I ever do is discuss or read about Jesus’ commands and never actually obey any of them. To put it bluntly, that’s just dumb (and suggests that I seriously failed in my understanding of scripture). Many intellectuals have failed to live out their faith and actually do the things Jesus commands us to do, so I understand the fear in this accusation against the life of the mind that intellectualism could result in just words and no action. But living for Jesus isn’t an either/or between the two. Sure faith without works is dead, but unexamined actions can be harmful and can actually stand in the way of living for Jesus. Both are necessary for the Christian who wants to “live for Jesus.”

So I’m done with being told to shut up and just serve, or to stop thinking and just get to know Jesus. Those aren’t dichotomies; both are required while neither should be privileged. I love Jesus and so I will engage my faith intellectually. That is living for Jesus.

Read more

Life of the Mind – Part 2

Posted on

To continue my commentary on Christianity and the life of the mind I want to address another anti-intellectual stance I’ve often encountered. This is the “it’s so easy a caveman could do it” line that I’ve been fed my whole life. Granted it’s usually phrased along the lines of the bible being easy enough for a child to understand, but the general effect is still insulting and a bit disturbing. Yes, I know the verses about needing to have faith like a child, but the practical outcomes of believers never getting past the moralized version of the Bible have serious consequences. This particular interpretive stance not only often prevents the average Christian from engaging in lifelong learning and growth, it creates a fear and distrust of those who do seek to engage in such things.

If understanding the moral of the story, reducing the gospel to a soundbite, and being “spiritually formed” through fill-in-the-blank worksheets work for the kids then it must be sufficient for the adults as well – or so the theory goes. The ideas presented don’t really go deeper, just broader. So I can encounter adults who can parrot answers to me on the exactly right interpretation (read moral) of every Bible story out there. To suggest alternative interpretations or to attempt to place the story in it’s historical context is not permitted because it complicates the simple message of the Bible. Similarly hundreds of women’s groups across the nation believe that filling in blanks as to every occurrence of a certain word (in English) in the Bible and then reflecting on how that makes them feel counts as “in-depth Bible study.” Try to dig deeper or challenge the workbook’s assumptions and you are either given blank stares or labeled a trouble-making heretic. So I can have Beth Moore tell me that because the Psalmist mentions rising early in the morning to pray that God is more capable of hearing prayers in the morning (so don’t ever sleep in!) and not be allowed to question “what the Bible plainly says.” And yes, I’m sure I’m painting such studies in broad strokes but I’m just speaking from my experience with such studies.

I am no scholar. I don’t have degrees in Biblical studies, but I’ve learned over the years the need to go deeper and read a variety of sources and interpretations. I also no pseudo-gnostic to believe that if I just acquire the right amount of knowledge then I will land upon the absolute correct interpretation of scripture. But it never ceases to amaze me at the reactions I get when I offer an interpretation of parts of scripture that rely on history or linguistics that some people have never heard before. The reaction isn’t to test it and explore its validity, but to completely reject it as too complex. Why? One – it differs from what they assumed was the “simple reading” of scripture – which of course fails to realize that said “simple reading” is merely just the interpretive lens they have been exposed to all their life. Two – they are upset that to arrive at my interpretation further study and education is needed. The idea that people need an education to understand the Bible challenges a worldview they didn’t even know they had. (Tony Jones has a good discussion of this reaction in The New Christians).

People who study scripture or theology or even history are then looked upon as dangerous. We challenge the status quo and upset habits of church life. No one ever wants to be told that they are stupid and the idea that there is much more to learn about the Bible comes across as an accusation of stupidity to some. Or even if an individual realizes they have more to learn, they assume you are calling their pastor or Bible study leader stupid just by disagreeing with them. It is easier then to assume an anti-intellectual stance (hidden behind the “easy enough for a child” mantra) than it is to admit that one doesn’t know and may never know. But to me that confession is the beginning of the learning posture. I want to learn more and while at times I am overwhelmed at the amount of stuff I am utterly clueless about theologically, I am thankful for the opportunity that provides me to always be growing in my understanding of faith. This isn’t about being having the correct interpretation, it is about being allow to think critically about one’s faith without being dismissed. I personally am sick of being told that I am corrupted by education, swayed by the liberals, throwing out the Bible, or calling people stupid just because I like to think about what I believe. I don’t want to have to apologize because I enjoy and am grateful for the life of the mind. That is part of who I am and I desire to always have a faith that seeks understanding but which never assumes to have arrived.

Read more

Life of the Mind – Part 1

Posted on

Over the next few days I want to put some thoughts out here on my blog about the life of the mind. And yes, I like to think and read books so this will in many ways be a defense of intellectualism. I’ve just encountered various accusations recently that attempt to ridicule or at least make one feel guilty for being intellectual, so I feel the need to address some of those ideas.

The first topic came up as part of our conversation at up/rooted last night. The accusation what that emerging church leaders are all too intellectual and focused on cognitive ideas. They try to change people’s hearts by presenting ideas instead of helping people have a relationship with with Jesus. It was mentioned that the books and the blogs are heavy on theology and ideas and not on worship and contemplation. These books give theological reasons for why we should say help the poor instead of encouraging us to pray for conviction or just go out and serve. Someone also mentioned that they were really disappointed in how at the Midwest Emergent Gathering last summer all the big name leaders skipped out on every worship session to blog or hang out. In essence, the charge was that the EC is just about ideas and not about being in a relationship with God.

I personally saw some underlying truth in that argument, but disagreed with some of its assumptions. The basic flaw in the argument, in my opinion, is the assumption that people can’t worship or connect with God through books, discussion, and theology. Those things apparently teach one about God, but only prayer, contemplation, and worship can help one actually get to know God. This is an argument that I’ve heard many times before and one I strongly disagree with. I do connect to God through things like books and theology and I find things like singing and contemplation forced and hollow. I’ve been told my whole life that the only real way to connect with God is through those acts and that there must be something wrong with me if it wasn’t working for me. And when I did draw closer to God through intellectual pursuits I was informed that I wasn’t really engaged in worship or true relationship. It all served to make me feel rather inadequate as a Christian. But those assumptions just aren’t true. My experience and the experiences of others I know demonstrate that intellectual paths are just as meaningful and valid ways of relating to God as the more emotional and mystical. Discovering things about God and what he has done does connect us to him. I won’t deny that basic reality any longer and I refuse to let others invalidate my spirituality just because it doesn’t look the same as theirs.

That said, I think there are a lot fewer people who connect to God intellectually than emotionally or mystically. And most of us who do connect intellectually have ended up in positions where our voices are the ones that get heard – pastors, speakers, bloggers, writers… When people hear emerging church leaders, the life of the mind is generally the primary option presented. Add to that the voices accusing us then of not being truly spiritual and problems arise. Unless we want to be utterly ineffective in our message or scare away those with different spirituality languages, more of a balanced perspective needs to be presented. I don’t like the false accusation that I am not spiritual, but I also can’t assume that everyone should connect to God intellectually (although intellectually learning about God is necessary, but that’s another day’s topic).

So what does this mean on a practical level? I think it will take some willingness to accept others by everyone. It might take some leaders affirming practices they might personally find trivial (praise choruses and prayer journals spring to my mind), but it will also take the majority of Christians being willing to expand their conceptions of spirituality as well. Continuing to dichotomize the life of the mind and spirituality is not healthy for the church or the emerging movement. Affirming these different paths to God so to speak may be the only thing that will lead to mutual understanding and appreciation. At least it will acknowledge that God is God and isn’t limited in how he connects with each of us.

Read more

Book Review – What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

Posted on

The terms “postmodernism” and “deconstruction” are popular buzzwords these days.  For some in the church they represent the evil that is trying to undermine the truth of the gospel.  For others they convey a freedom to question and criticize religious traditions they no longer accept.  And, of course, for others they are utterly meaningless ideas that they wish would just disappear.  Yet John Caputo in his latest book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct? (Baker Academic, 2007), attempts to cut through all the confusion as he explores the philosophical roots of deconstruction and why he believes it can offer good news to the church.

In posing the question “what would Jesus deconstruct?” Caputo deliberately evokes the popular WWJD campaign.  He questions the assumptions of moral authority that movement often conveys and seeks instead to place the phrase into its original historical context – Charles Sheldon’s book In His Steps.  Sheldon’s use of the phrase dealt mainly with issues of social justice – issues which Caputo accuses the contemporary conservative church of largely ignoring.  He proposes that a philosophical deconstruction of the church is therefore necessary in order to promote justice and the Kingdom of God.

What follows next is a whirlwind introduction to the postmodern philosophy of Derrida and Caputo’s argument as to why deconstruction can serve as the “hermeneutics of the kingdom of God” (26).  Deconstruction is not, as many believe, an act at destruction, but instead an attempt at understanding – an understanding that seeks ultimately love and justice for the Other.   Laws and systems can be created to promote justice, but believers must always be ready to question them at every step as to whether or not they serve the kingdom of God.  There are no concrete answers defining such things in this journey of faith so believers must continually seek to deconstruct and understand everything they encounter as culture and context shift around them.  It can be an unsettling process, but one that promotes faith and a continual returning to examine the message of Jesus.

From this philosophical basis Caputo then explores the practical outcomes of asking the question “what would Jesus deconstruct?”  In following the tradition of the WWJD movement, he focuses mainly on the areas of ethics and politics.  Keeping in mind Jesus’ call to love others and the upside-down values of the Kingdom, Caputo addresses the controversial issues of economic justice, militarism, patriarchy, abortion, and homosexuality.  In examining these issues he challenges the assumptions of both the left and the right and demonstrates the need for everyone to question sacred cows before they become idols.  As he puts it, “it is time to let a few theological feathers fly.” (90).   Even so, Caputo remains fair and deals honestly with the complexities of all those issues.  He doesn’t propose any easy solutions, and his ideas about how to apply the call to love the Other to these issues will challenge most readers’ preconceived opinions (a significant reason to read the book in my opinion).

In the book’s final section, Caputo provides the reader with two examples of communities which have attempted to deconstruct ideas and assumptions about church.  From an urban Catholic priest who faces the traditions of hierarchy and bureaucracy as he seeks to serve the broken, the addicted, and the poor to an emerging community in Ireland that is rethinking the structure of church gatherings altogether, one sees the effects of a church being able to question how best to serve the Kingdom in its particular context.  Caputo is not proposing that tradition be abolished, just that one should always retain the ability to question and deconstruct any structure.

With this book Caputo succeeds in demonstrating the benefits of postmodernism and deconstruction to the church.  It is in many ways a necessary text for any Christian seeking familiarity with those concepts.  And the philosophically uninitiated shouldn’t fear, Caputo translates these ideas into accessible language and illustrates his points with examples pulled from the daily news and popular television.  This is an offering from which the church can benefit greatly.  The question of “what would Jesus deconstruct?” deserves ongoing engagement, and Caputo has thankfully paved the way for its reception in the church.

Read more