What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

Taken from chapter 1 of John D. Caputo’s What Would Jesus Deconstruct:

a good book

Posed in the subjunctive, what would Jesus do or deconstruct, the question turns on the structure of the archive, of memory and repetition.  How does the New Testament preserve the memory of Jesus?  I prescind from all historical-critical questions here, which open up another abyss (about the arche itself).  One abyss at a time!  I treat the New Testament as an “archive,” a depository of memories, which presents a certain way to be, a certain “poetics” —  not a politics or an ethics or a church dogmatics — that I like to call a “poetics of the kingdom,” which lays claim to us and which calls for a transformation into existence.

How are we to translate this soaring poetics into reality?  Were this figure of Jesus, who is the centerpiece of this poetics, or theo-poetics, to return today, what would he look like?  An illegal immigrant?  A child dying of AIDS?  A Vatican bureaucrat?  And what do we imagine he would expect of us here and now?  The question calls for a work of application, interpretation, interpolation, imagination, and self-interrogation, and all that is risky business.  To interpret is always a high-wire act, balancing oneself on a line stretched across an abyss and in constant danger of constructing idols of its own imagining.  The name of “Jesus” is too often a mirror in which we behold our own image, and it has always been easy to spot the sliver in the eye of the other and miss the two-by-four in our own.  The question presupposes the inescapable reality of history and of historical distance, and it asks how that distance can be crossed.  Or better, conceding that this distance cannot be crossed, the question resorts to the subjunctive and asks how that irreducible distance could be made creative.

cracks let the light in

How does our distance from Jesus illuminate what he said and did in a different time and place and under different historical circumstances?  And how does Jesus’ distance from us illuminate what we must say and do in the importantly different situation in which we find ourselves today?  The task of the church is to submit itself to this question, rather than using it like a club to punish others.

The church, the archive of Jesus, in a very real sense is this question.

It has no other duty and no other privilege than to bear this memory of Jesus and ask itself this question.  The church is not the answer.  The church is the question, this question, the gathering of people who are called together by the memory of Jesus and who ask this question, who are called together and are put into question by this question, who stand accused, under the call, interrogated and unable to recuse themselves from this question, and who come to understand that there are no easy, ready-made, prepackaged answers.

hurley!

The early church is a lot like the characters in the hit TV series Lostthe title is appropriate!-– waiting to be “saved,” which is the soteriological significance of that show where everyone is given a new being, a fresh start.  At first, the survivors hang around on the beach waiting to get “picked up” (in a cloud, St. Paul said).  After a while, they conclude that the rescue is not going to happen anytime soon and so they reluctantly decide to dig in and prepare for the long haul.  Hence the existence of the church is provisional – like a long-term substitute teacher – praying for the kingdom, whose coming Jesus announced and which everyone was expecting would come sometime soon.

But this coming was deferred, and the church occupies the space of the “deferral,” of the distance or “difference,” between two comings.  (I just said, in case you missed it, the church is a function of différance!) In the meantime, and it is always the meantime for the church, the church is supposed to do the best it can to bring that kingdom about itself, here on earth, in a process of incessant self-renewal or auto-deconstruction, while not setting itself up as a bunch of kings or princes.  The church is by definition a call (kletos) for renewal.

deconstructable

That is why the church is “deconstructable,” but the kingdom of God, if there is such a thing, is not.  The church is a provisional construction, and whatever is constructed is deconstructible, while the kingdom of God is that in virtue of which the church is deconstructible.

So, if we ask, “What would Jesus deconstruct?” the answer is first and foremost: the church!

For the idea behind the church is to give way to the kingdom, to proclaim and enact and finally disappear into the kingdom that Jesus called for, all the while resisting the temptation of confusing itself with the kingdom.  That requires us to clear away the rhetoric and get a clear picture of what “deconstruction” means, of just who “Jesus” is, and of the hermeneutic force of this “would,” and to do so with this aim:  to sketch a portrait of an alternative Christianity, one that is as ancient as it is new, one in which the “dangerous memory of Jesus” is still alive – deconstruction being, as I conceive it, a work of memory and imagination, of dangerous memories as well as daring ways to imagine the future, and as such good news for the church.

–Post any thoughts or comments below–

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

  1. Hi, Its me again.
    Jesus of course was not in any sense a Christian, nor did he create the religion (or rather the power and control seeking ideology) about him, namely Christian-ISM. He certainly could not have created ANY of the “death-and-resurrection” dogma that became the center-pole of Christian-ISM.
    He was an outsider, a radical Spiritual Teacher who appeared and taught on the margins of the tradition of Judaism as it was in his time and place. While he was alive he taught and demonstrated a universal, non-sectarian, and non-Christian Spirit-Breathing Spiritual Way of Life.

    Jesus would begin his necessary de-construction project/process right at the beginning as it were, with the fabricated origins, and Political purposes of the Bible. Purposes which consolidated the power of the church “fathers” who won the inevitable culture wars of their time and place. Who thus had the power to define “official” Christian-ism, and simultaneously to define “heretics” and “heresies”. And to thus make “toast” out of the said “heretics”.

    http://www.beezone.com/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

    Plus how to live Right Life
    http://www.beezone.com/up/criticismcuresheart.html
    http://www.adidam.org/teaching/truth-life.aspx

    Like

  2. Wow! Another incredible post. You brought in some great lyrics… “Ring the bell, that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in” Leonard Cohen. And on top of that, LOST, the show that unveils truth on many levels….

    Since the beginning, as I see it, we humans have been invited to partner with God in some cosmic/earthy way that somehow brings shalom, or a greater reality of God’s kingdom/reign. All too often we get too familiar with what that means that we lose its meaning. Of course our egotism doesn’t help. Somehow we have migrated from the reality of the Kingdom of God here (yet not fully realized but called to partner with) to one of creating a ego-centric reality that focuses on “in or out,” or “heaven or hell.” Or we abandon the idea of partnering with God altogether and become little gods and define what reality should be like.

    On the one hand we have one theory of atonement that focuses on justification through some penal subtsituion. We get let off the hook so to speak and it’s our mission to communicate the simplicity of that message encouraging people to be re-born and join those who will share eternity with you. It is a very private exchange between you and God and the moment of decision opens the door for you. (Of course who knows exactly what the right combination of words or creeds are needed to allow the door to open…it depends on who you listen to).
    On the other hand, maybe we call it the “left.” I’m not speaking of those who see inherent value in this world and others based in the reality of a transcendent spiritual being. Ironically, I’m speaking of those who do good, and live in ways that often reflect what we might attach to the Way of Jesus. Yet they rob any reference to that Substance and they hold themselves out to be soley responsibly to direct others how to live and how to love. Of course becoming little gods.
    So how can the marriage of the left and right manifest? Should they? I can attach myself to those who good, who reflect the Way of Jesus, even if he’s robbed as being the source, yet, what is lost? Ultimately is there anything lost? I can appreciate the simplicity of forgiveness of the cross, yet does it make me a better person? What are the dangers of self-focused decisions, if any? Does it make me partner with God bringing shalom to a very messy world?
    How then do we deconstruct liberalism and conservatism and embrace what is blowing in the wind today… yet has been around since the beginning?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s