All Comments for: You Have Heard It Said | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > February (Web-only)

Christianity Today, February (Web-only), 2008 |

Review

You Have Heard It Said

Caputo's What Would Jesus Deconstruct? sends us to take another look at Jesus.

Review by Bruce Ellis Benson | posted 2/11/2008 08:41AM

It's a nice idea to think you're doing what Jesus would do — until you start to think about what Jesus actually would do — and did. Would you really want your child ditching you without so much ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 39 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Daryl

Posted: February 25, 2008 2:11 AM

The reservation I have with Caputo's approach is that he moves the focus away from the experience of Salvation, from the Lordship of Christ Jesus, and worship of the Living God, to personally endeavoring to think cleverly and originally about Scripture. Being clever and original may be good for artists and professors, but it has little to do with Christian life. The Sun's power remained an enigma beyond all knowledge of Physics from Adam until the 1920s. But that didn't make people doubt its existence or to stop relying on it. So it is with God. We rely on His Mercy, Power, and Love while unable to comprehend our experience. But we do not doubt our own experience. If we did began to doubt, we would be at risk of madness. Paul was transformed on the way to Damascus. But he did not understand his experience until Ananias had explained the Gospel to him. (Act 9:1-19.) But until he had met Christ, he was blind and deaf to the Gospel message. Is it not the same for all of us?

Barbara Crawford

Posted: February 23, 2008 5:14 AM


But Jesus was NOT a "Deconstructor" as you put it. He came to fulfill the Law, not to deconstruct it.

David Jacobs

Posted: February 20, 2008 10:50 PM


Worst conception of deconstruction ever...

Wheaton '08

Posted: February 20, 2008 12:49 AM

If Christ is not our moral exemplar, then i don't know who is. We ask the question WWJD because we recognize that whenever we think that we are following Christ, we are always necessarily following a certain conception of who Christ is. There is nothing nihilistic about this. Rather, this view recognizes that "Christians" have done things in the name of "Christ" for two thousand years--some evil some good. And, for us to properly love God and others, we must be self-critical and constantly submit to the authority of the Holy Spirit so that we might follow a more true Christ, instead of an idol that reflects our own desires and to whom we mistakenly label the "Christ." ...the heart is deceitful above all things, no? I commend Prof. Benson's review (and WWJDeconstruct to some extent) for challenging us to take responsibility in our faith, realizing that we are finite AND fallen, and as such, must work out our salvation with fear and trembling before the gaze of the loving God.

Sharon Bobb

Posted: February 18, 2008 8:49 AM

I haven't read Caputo's book, but his ideas don't seem new to me. One of my professors in seminary, F. Scott Spencer, wrote "What DID Jesus Do? Gospel Profiles of Jesus' Personal Conduct" (Trinity Press International, 2003) which shed the bright light of honest examination on the words and actions of Christ, rather than letting the reader wallow in sentimentality. I am eager to compare Caputo's and Spencer's books. I'll let you know what I think afterwards! In the meantime, Spencer's book comes highly recommended.

Jason Dye

Posted: February 17, 2008 9:35 PM

Steve B., You do realize that the author(s) were merely talking about deconstructing our understanding of Jesus and the Bible, not actually deconstucting Jesus himself, no? And that the author (and reviewer) seem to have a tremendous respect for Jesus and the Holy Word. I think what is questioned here are our Westernized - 20th/21st Century assumptions about who Jesus (and indeed the Trinity) is and how we should respond to him. I believe that the argument here is that there is a tremendous amount of "Biblical genuineness" in the way the authors approach their worldview.

Jacques

Posted: February 16, 2008 10:58 PM

Caputo's first error is to take an idiomatic rhetorical question as an empirical entity and investigate it when the question is posed with the implication of scripture to complete it it is not the question but the interpretation (Barthes had much to say on interpretation sui generis) morally of the question and on this deconstruction can offer nothing because: it is not an ethical procedure French philosophy is absent on moral philosophy, unlike English philosophy Deconstruction is concerned with meaning, significance, and the creation off meaning in and through language Because he fails to deconstruct the rhetorical question but instead looks at the morality of truth he mistakes his targets, because he does not understand what deconstruction is. Deconstruction is strategy of argument not of revelation, and certainly not of truth

j. inglis

Posted: February 14, 2008 3:43 PM


Abortion protesters are following their call, let them get on with it. Those called to protest deaths due to starvation, are either unaware of the problem, [the media rarely covers this issue, its an ever present, ongoing problem, thus regarded as boring and un-newsworthy] or are disobeient to their call.

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: February 14, 2008 3:50 AM


"Deconstruction": what a redeeming thought! When and whereever the mystery and power still present in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is revealed in terms of cause and effect, Christianity will be either completely deconstructed or be a thing of the past. Thank you Benson for a long overdue review.

Martin

Posted: February 13, 2008 8:57 PM

Surely, the "WWJD" question should be preceded by the "WDJM" (what did Jesus mean, in his actions and in his words) question. And, surely, we need to discern, as far as humanly possible, what he actually did mean, and allow his 'interpretation' to take precedence over ours. A degree of deconstruction is a good thing; we need to test our basic assumptions. I believe that allowing one's faith to be audited in this way is a sign of its strength, not of its weakness.

truthfulwitness

Posted: February 13, 2008 6:09 PM

This article is full of lies. It reminds me of the serpent in the garden. "Has God really said...". This man does not believe in what he calls Biblical Literalism. That's a way of saying he rejects the authority of Scripture. When he says that Christians are "less moved by the 10 million children who die of world hunger" he could not be more wrong. Christians have done more to ease suffering in this world than any of the world's other religions combined. Here is an article with specific examples to prove Caputo's argument is ridiculous. http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=defining_evangelicalism_down&ns=PaulEdwards&dt=02/12/2008&page=2

Howard Pepper

Posted: February 13, 2008 2:54 PM

This is a helpful article. It rightly looks at the deeper issues involved and the positive intentions (and often results) of scholars with whom it is easy for Christians to find fault, such as Derida. It is also a good reminder that Jesus is recorded as having done numerous things that drove toward justice and mercy in ways that often did not sit well with either religious or civil authorities (which were generally wedded in his context more than they are today).

Leroy

Posted: February 13, 2008 11:36 AM

What's clear is that the author of this book and the writer of this article are far more steeped in the works of Derrida et al than that of the Gospel writers or St. Paul. As Robert points out in his comments, to ask WWJD is absurd. It's also indicative of the reality that those who proclaim to know and follow Jesus don't know anything about him or what was said about him. Jesus is a unique personality, who provided not an example to be followed (how do people not know this), but the means of salvation. Yes, yes and yes again, Jesus did say that his followers would be known by their love, but this is strikingly different than asking WWJD. If you ask WWJD you will end up in a quagmire of confusion, as evidenced by this book being reviewed, the reading of which would be worse than a complete waste of time, unless of course it's as potentially as amusing as it is absurd. Honestly, it saddens me that CT has haplessly clueless folks like Benson writing reviews like this.

Linda

Posted: February 13, 2008 8:40 AM

We should not be asking WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Jesus is God in the human flesh, and God already gave His standard to follow - The Ten Commandment. Thou shall not lie, steal, take His name in vain, commit adultry, covet, kill, etc. The problem is we cannot keep the commandments of God. We have all broken God's holy law and will be punished eternally in hell for not following it. But God in His mercy sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for sinners - to pay our sin debt and He rose from the dead. So we should be asking WHAT HAS JESUS DONE!!! If you repent (turn from sin) and trust in Jesus alone as your Lord and Savior, God will pardon your sins and grant you eternal life.

Rick Smith

Posted: February 12, 2008 2:44 PM

When Jesus says to his disciples, "whoever has my commands and obeys, he is the one who loves me," (John 14:21) how does that not place some priority of Jesus' expectations upon our lives and actions? I would agree with Robert that we look at Paul's writing as well, but to get to the heart of Jesus' example and expectations is a vital task for his followers. At least as this article portrays deconstruction, it seems accurate to consider the overwhelming ways Jesus spoke, and how we in the church today, water it down into something less demanding. Yes, one of Jesus' role is to be the rescuer, but he is also a messenger of God''s love and concern for mankind, even as he exhorts his own followers to be noted for their love for one another (John 13:34-35). Discerning the impact of such a call on a church that finds more ways to divide than unite is humbling and convicting. WWJHMD (John G above) begins in each of our hearts, as we apply rediscovering Jesus' call.

Troy Nunley

Posted: February 12, 2008 8:38 AM

Hmm...I am concerned that books such as these can be questioned on grounds of their sincerity. The invitation to "take another look" at Scripture or Jesus appears to be a quest for truth and authoratative answers...but isn't it often an attempt just to dodge apparent truths and undermine authority? Worse, if the reader can pretty well anticipate what conclusions the book will reach, how sincere does the reexamination appear? Even some of the arguments appear contrived...the seeming exposure of Christian hypocrisy on the abortion vs. world hunger concerns rests upon comparing the 1.3 million U.S. abortions to the 10 million starvations worldwide. But wouldn't the fair comparison be between worldwide abortions and worldwide starvations? The Center for BioEthical Reform puts worldwide annual abortions at a whopping 46 million. Similarly, U.S. abortion rates dwarf U.S starvation rates. But we are given a comparison that undermines rather than highlights the churches moral authority.

John H. Pavelko

Posted: February 12, 2008 8:26 AM

This is a very helpful article. It explains the value of deconstruction without advocating for complete allegiance to its methodology. The author also has given us enticing tidbits into the Caputo's book. Even those with whom we disagree have much to offer us and we must remember that the boundaries of the Kingdom of God are more expansive then we might think. Yes the way is narrow. It only is through Jesus but our understanding of who Jesus is and what he has called us to do is not limited to one narrowly defined view. Jesus would startle all of us by taking his wipe to our sacred cows. That is why we need to continually read books with which we may disagree. Thanks Bruce for this review. I am going to put this book on my To Be Read list.

PETE	Posted: February 12, 2008 7:23 AM


WWJD HAS A ANSWER IN HIS WORDS, BUT AS SAID PREVIOUSLY WE ARE NOT holy as our lord. as we immerse in the holy spirit with his words, we come to a true undrestanding of the path we are to follow and a shield against all the false teachings of this world, we are not perfect but we have a perfect guide.

deconstruct human tradtion and modern community

Posted: February 12, 2008 6:27 AM

jesus would deconstruct human traditions and show it to be the flim-flam it is. He would then replace it with his own living water and his own rock-solid foundation upon which we can safely build. Every so often the church builds itself beyond its limits with its own human tradtions and we are in that stage. Even the most conservative bible-adhering bible-thumping conservative has not freed himself/herself from the tradtions of men and so flies of the handle. The gospel is sacred to teaching humilty, poverty and sincerity above all things. But every conservative teaches that we should have the riches of a materialist tradition. They are hawks not doves; whereas the way of the scripture is the way of the Dove. Modern communities should be intimate like Acts Chapter 2 and we should all love and know our fellow christians from the most pure and humble perspective. But our psyche is like one who attends a movie: All we do is watch the world and have secret thoughts about it. Some hateful.

danwillcc

Posted: February 11, 2008 9:10 PM

well, a stone thrown into a herd of swine and only one pig squealed. I once worked with a peer on his Doctoral project, to, in part, determine what happens when parishoners hear information in a sermon that significantly challenges their beliefs/prejudices. What we found is they either "miss it", distort it, or determine it doesn't apply to them. It was amazing, preaching to the converted seems to be the only available option, actual conversion appears unlikely.

Greg Chase

Posted: February 11, 2008 8:04 PM

I don't think we have to go as far as deconstruction to see how radical the actual words of Jesus were. We only need to look at him and we see eternity's values manifested in time. We are not plugged into the Sermon on the Mount let alone the rest of Jesus' teachings. As far as Jesus is concerned, He would probably deconstruct the entire Western church. "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests buth the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." Materialism and consumerism are the gods of the Western church. He also said, "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on the earth?" He may not find it in America.

J Balconi

Posted: February 11, 2008 7:59 PM

I studied Deconstructionism as it was quite the rage among communication studies and my j-school in the '80s and '90s. I've seen the Parable of the Good Samaritan deconstructed in such a way to show that Jesus meant nonJews should go into debt for the greater good of the Jews, among other cynical interpretations of the Gospel. And yes, I do emphasis cynicism. Much of deconstructionism reads like the invention of a cranky high school sophomore, determined to reinterpret the meaning of what his parents or teachers say by taking apart the words and assigning different meanings or motives to them. I remember a hilarious deconstruction of the phrase "John F. Kennedy was not gay" that ended with the endictment of the writer as a "homophobe" and possibly an Irish-American. :)

Robert

Posted: February 11, 2008 7:38 PM

The central problem in this discussion is the question WWJD. To ask this question is both non-biblical and absurd. Jesus' incarnation, as John tells us, was not to provide an example for us to follow (ie, WWJD), but to make God known to us (otherwise we could not know God) and, as Israel's Messiah, to consummate God's "rescue operation" commenced to deal with the result of man's rebellion or, if you will, the results of the fall. If we want to know what we as a believer should do, we should not look to Jesus, but rather to his interpreter St. Paul, who provides the answers to such questions. We do not need to "deconstruct" Jesus or to ask what Jesus would "deconstrcut" since neither are Biblical imperatives and as this article points out, only leads to more confusion, not less. Jesus is a category of one, who became man for the singular purpose of setting right God's creation as God's Messiah, not a religious leader whose life we are called upon to emulate.

TrutoJC

Posted: February 11, 2008 6:08 PM

There seems to be another slant on most words of wisdom. This application to Sheldons WWJD Is a bit of eye opener to me. In years long past I have given out and recommended to others many of those books. I still do not hesitate to get people to read it. But I see now it does not always simplify the best action on political problems. Thank you Scott C. for your view. I will continue to use WWJD inmy decisions but try to think through it more carefully. I doubt that God would have me take a whipinto a false cult and beat them and overturn their money tables. Yet it is possible I might land injail sometime doing what I believe Jesus would do. If so would you come to my rescue?

John Shearer

Posted: February 11, 2008 4:54 PM

Deconstructionist thought, in so many instances, amounts to nothing less than contextual assualt on the direct meaning of examined scripture. Do no murder and remember the poor are not mutually exclusive admonitions. There are no greater organizations caring for destitute children than Christian charties, nor is there greater resistance to infanticide by legalized abortion than is exihibited through the universal Christian Church. To equate the two admonitations is entirely reasonable but to contrast the two as though Christians stand against infanticide while being willingly uninvolved in feeding starving children is not only intellectually dishonest it is a false contrast. If it is unintentional, through ignorance, the deconstructionist's opinion immediately becomes disqualified from legitimate consideration. If it is a knowingly dishonest contrast inserted to influence the reader it becomes an out and out lie. In either case deconstructionist opinion is at odds with contextual intrepretation. When it comes to Biblical interpretation the old path of contextual interpretation is still the safest to travel and is paved with far fewer stones of error.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment