With this said, I’m going to let myself off the hook by arguing that this is not the issue that Caputo is addressing directly. This does not mean I’m any less implicated, though, because it makes me wonder about my local church community and what it is doing corporately for people in my wider community.

If there is a homeless problem, is the church actually devoting a substantial part of it’s money, time, and energy to addressing it? Do we welcome outsiders to be a part of our community? Do we do anything for the rest of the world without strings attached?

These don’t seem to be a top priority for many churches I’ve been a part of. Most of us seem interested in institution building, i.e. generating more programs, members, and money. I’m not saying this is unimportant, but Caputo calls this being “the big church”, and for him, this is not ultimately, the church, which should exist to love and serve the rest of the world.

I agree with you Zane that Caputo’s vision of church causes discomfort, but so does the gospel. Earlier this week in LA and this past Friday night in downtown New Haven I was approached by homeless men asking for money. While I at least acknowledged them, I did little more and basically blew them off. In LA I was with friends and didn’t want to bother. In New Haven I was with my wife and didn’t want her to feel uncomfortable. Or was it me that didn’t want to feel uncomfortable?

I am obviously thinking out loud here, but really, what have I become? I’m so busy preaching the gospel that I don’t have time to live the gospel! While I talk to my neighbors, we’ve yet to have one of them over for dinner. And here I am the church, I am the temple of the Holy Spirit and yet all too often my doors are closed.

God forgive me of the times when I have misrepresented you to those around me. Lead me to be more like you.

It almost seems that he’s using deconstruction as a powerful hammer to break up the religious right. He’s outright condemning and almost vitriolic in his critique. Is this method really going to advance the dialogue and get us closer to what the kingdom is about or just lead everyone to dig their heels in even more? I guess you could say he’s standing strong with a prophetic voice but I don’t see how this kind of writing and attack will really produce positive change. Is there a way to maybe be “softer” with deconstruction?

I do like his hermeneutical framework and reminding us that we need solid, independent arguments. I like to think that this is what Jesus was doing with his parables. He was teaching important lessons about the kingdom by using everyday, real illustrations that weren’t overtly religious in nature. Having Scripture texts and quotes from spiritual leaders is great for convincing fellow believers about an issue but it takes more to convince those who don’t have the same faith.

In light of Caputo’s comments above, Hauerwas (same page) wrote, “Our task is not to understand the story that Matthew (or any other bible writer I would assume) tells in light of our understanding of the world. Rather, Matthew would have our understanding of the world fully transformed as the result of our reading of his gospel. Matthew writes so that we might become followers, be disciples, of Jesus.”

The bible points us to Jesus, not to itself. Jesus transcends any culture and incarnates within all cultures. Caputo appears to see Christianity imprisoned by an erroneous hermeneutic. The kingdom of God lifts us out of the gate-keeping, narrow-mindedness that would interprete such texts as 1 Tim 2:8-15 literally, into the very life of Jesus who frequently and intentionally ‘used’ the scriptures as a Rorschach that spoke into whatever circumstance he found himself in.

The scriptures point to Jesus. Jesus only points to the scriptures in that they point to him. Every construction of scripture that doesn’t incarnate the living, compassionate Lord within us obfuscates Jesus rendering our perspective of today’s world unnecessarily biased. Thus, Jesus might remind us of the context of 1 Tim 2 – which is found in 1 Tim 1:5 “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart”.

I think the emergent emphasis on putting into practice the things Jesus said, following Jesus example, and living out the present good news that the Kingdom of God is here leads to a more liberal take on things. I have a theory that in a perfect world where the Kingdom of God is fully realized we will all be liberals. That is not because being liberal leads to the Kingdom of God but because the full realization of God’s Kingdom makes it safe to be liberal.

Conservative ideology is a response to an imperfect world. Liberals want to give money to the poor, lay down our weapons, and take care of the least of these. Conservatives reply, if we give money to the poor we all get poor, if we lay down our weapons the bad guys who won’t will win, and we have enough trouble taking care of ourselves to worry about the least of these. Do away with poverty, end war, and alleviate the suffering of the least of these and there is no more need for conservative political ideologues. Then, we can all be happy liberals, lay down our various weapons, and love one another without fear. Until then, as Caputo admits conservative inventions like “just war” may be misnomers but are never-the-less necessary “lesser evils.” In addition, when we no longer need to worry about evil influences, new ideas and change will no longer be such a threat.

The other thought I had while reading chapters 4 and 5 of Caputo’s book has to do with the postmodern critique of meta-narratives. Christians steeped in modernity fear that postmodernity and its methods such as deconstruction will oppose and for some even destroy the meta-narrative of Christianity. The assumption is that the Christian world view is a meta-narrative and unfortunately, since the time of the infamous Constantine they are probably right. Christianity (or at least its anglophilic permutation) is now the largest and arguably the most powerful religion in the world.

On the other hand, the majority if not all of the books in the Bible were written by, in favor of, and from the perspective of the oppressed. The Biblical narrative is a cry against oppression, a critique of power, and a call to love. Therefore, the story of the Bible is in no way a modern meta-narrative meant to consolidate power in the hands of a few. So, the Bible has nothing to fear from deconstruction. Rather, the books of the Bible and the prophets in particular demand and utilize deconstruction if not in name then in action. (As Caputo says, deconstruction is the hermeneutic of the Kingdom of God.) As such, deconstructing the meta-narrative of Christendom is an act of profound faithfulness to the very scriptures on which it is ostensibly founded.

I also have realized that I’m squeamish about power. I am very attracted to the idea of the weakness of God. God’s power is a weak power…Caputo has convinced me. In our community organizing work we say “power speaks to power.” It’s just the way our world is wired up. So we talk openly about “building power” for our organization because it is made up of people in our society who have no power. Their voices can’t be heard because they are weak and powerless in our world. Together, the weak can speak truth to power. But I still struggle with this. Samir’s comment helps a lot too.