A Review of John Caputo by Wes Widner

After listening to John D Caputo’s interview by Luke Mulenhauser on commonsenseatheism.com (mp3) I decided to get John’s book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, and see what sort of case he could build for postmodern Christianity that would compel emergent pastors like Brian McLaren to endorse it.

I first encountered JackCaputo’s writings in the introduction to God, the gift, and Postmodernism, which he edited with Michael Scanlon (Indiana University Press, 1999). Since I’m not a professional philosopher, a number of the book’s chapters (sur)passed the reading comprehension capacities of my bald layman’s head, but not the introduction. There Caputo and Scanlon spoke in down-to-earth terms of our need to become “enlightened about the Enlightenment” (meaning, for my fellow less-philosophical laypeople, the eighteenth-century movement that eventually reduced reality to phenomena that could be measured and dissected by “objective” human reason).
-Brain McLaren, pg 9

McLaren goes on to provide a very brief outline of the book which I find rather helpful,

First you’ll notice that Jack flies you into a “zone of intertextuality,” meaning that he is going to suspend you between several texts, notably Sheldon’s In His Steps (the unlikely inspiration of the WWJD craze), the writings of Jacques Derrida, and the New Testament. This may strike you as an unlikely combination, but it will make perfect sense by the time you’re halfway to the last page.

John does rely heavily on Sheldon’s book to, ironically, provide some structure for his book which deals mostly with deconstructionalism. In fact, if you haven’t read Sheldon’s book you might find it worthwhile to put John’s book down and read Sheldon’s work before returning.

• To finish the review click here.
• Check out Reason to Stand - click http://reasontostand.org/

Post modern poison - part 3

A group that is often looked to as buying into the post modern poison is the Emergent Church. Not all within the movement would buy into the reletivizing of truth. Many young people have gravitated toward the movement simply because so many in the Church have presented a judgmental and legalistic code. Nevertheless, aspects of the Emergent movement seem to espouse that the grand metanarritive of the Christianity can't exist.

By far the most prominent leader of this group is Brian McLaren. Philosopher John Caputo has this to say about the Emergent movement and Brian McLaren, " I try to be a philosophical consultant for them whenever they ask my advice. Brian McLaren is a good friend of mine, and a lot of people I’m quite close to and really help as much as I can."[1] McLaren is at the forefront of what seems to be an acceptance of postmodern philosophy. McLaren states, "I think that most Christians grossly misunderstand the philosophical baggage associated with terms like absolutism or objective....Similarly, arguments that pit absolutism verses relativism, and objectivism verses subjectivism, prove meaningless or absurd to post modern people."[2] What's interesting is that the statement by McLaren is one that is objective in nature. McLaren consistently dodges clear statements in the Bible, concerning truth claims of the gospel writers. What appears to be McLarens road, is to present watered down truth, so as not to offend others.

Staying away from offending others seems to be the thrust of the Emergent post modern philosophy. John Caputo nicely sums up the philosophy by saying, "There’s a group of young evangelicals who are restless with the elders. They think the elders are racist and sexist and homophobic and xenophobic, and they’re sick of it. And they don’t think that the point of the New Testament is to ban gay marriages, it must have some broader point than that. It must mean something more than that. And they’ve gotten much more interested in peace and justice issues and in the spirit of the Kingdom of God, and they look to progressives like Brian McLaren to show them some alternative, what Brian calls “more generous orthodoxies”.So the orthodoxy is bad news. The orthodoxy means beating people over the head, blackmailing them with the fear of eternal damnation, making them get in line. There’s a group of mostly young people, younger evangelicals who are sick of that, and they want to hear something else. So there’s an opportunity."[3]

While it is true that Christians should not beat individuals up, it is also true that God's Word is offensive to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 2:15-16). If the post modern philosophy is embraced by McLaren or others, the poison KoolAid of post modern philosophy is taken by denying God's grand metarrative of truth.

[1] John Caputo interview
[2] Christianity Today (November 2004), p. 42-43
[3] John Caputo interview
* Interesting Brian McLaren interview

The Stepford Christian

There was an old show called, '"The Stepford Wives" where a family moves into a neighborhood only to discover that the wives within the neighborhood are all robots. There seems to be some "Stepford games" taking place within the emergent movement. What I mean is that all views within the emergent movement don't seem to be tolerated. For example, speaking the truth on matters such as the moral climate, politics, and orthodox Christianity seemed to be shunned by some. All of this is being done so as not to offend the outsider (non-Christian). In the end it is relativism that is accepted at the expense of truth.

In his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren makes this statement, "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either."[1] What exactly does McLaren mean by this? If he is saying that the Christian should not forsake his previous culture so as to win them to Christ, I'm all for it. Paul even said, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.(1 Cor. 9:22)" In this context Paul adapts to the culture in order to relate to them and win them to Christ without participating in a life of sin.

One of the problems that McLaren and others within the emergent movement have with the Church today is the notion of Christian colonialism. Brian has this to say about how he perceives the church of history's past, "Part of what goes along with a colonial approach to Christianity is a very control-oriented approach to things. One way to describe colonialism is that the people of Europe or people of European descent know how things are and the rest of the world needs to conform to their way of thinking."[2] Again, is McLaren relativizing truth, by saying that we just need to be kinder, gentler Christians without stepping on peoples toes? Is orthodoxy on trial in McLaren's view?

The emergent movement has a hard time taking a stand on anything it seems. One individual who was trying to define the emergent movement said, "It is like trying to nail butter to the wall." And, this seems to be a major problem for the movement, because as the old saying goes,"If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing." The emergent movement's lack of orthodoxical backbone is exactly why many are calling them out today. McLaren and others refuse to answer the questions on issues such as homosexuality, objective truth, inerrancy of Scriptures, and abortion, all it seems so as not to offend others. It would be nice if the movement could take a stand on the S (sin) word, but so far they have failed to make the utterance. I think they have problems with the militant Christian who is always looking for someone to beat up on, I do too! However, when given the opportunity to address the truth question, the emergent movement is often moot.

In the end, the emergent movement is epistemically limited. Unless you are liberal, young, part of an urban church, and unwilling to take a stand on certain issues, then you don't fit. In trying to be open, in many ways, the doors of the emergent movement are shut on the individual who believes otherwise. The conversation that is valued so much in the movement seems to be flowing in only one direction. There is much good that comes from the movement, but the unwillingness to take a stand on clear Biblical principles, teaches others to fall in line and assume your "Stepford Christian" role.

[1] http://http://www.evangelsociety.org/rein/wandering%20orthodoxy.html
[2] http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/mclaren.asp

The empethatic emergent

One of the common themes that surrounds the emergent movement is that of empathy. Empathy is a good thing. All Christians should be compelled as Jesus was to relate to others. The problem, as I see it, is that truth is sometimes compromised at the expense of not wanting to offend others.

Brian McLaren has made this statement concerning the question of homosexuality, "Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality." He goes on to say, "Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements."[1] In one way I can see what I believe McLaren is trying to do. There have been many slanderous statements and fronts put on the homosexual community by those that call themselves Christian; this it seems is what McLaren wants to dodge so as not to come across as offensive. I applaud his concern for his fellow man, though I have a problem with one aspect of this approach. It appears that in his empathy, the truth of scripture is compromised. When Jesus was presented the woman caught in adultery, he offered both grace and truth (John 8:1-11). The truth came in the fact that he asked her to sin no more.

I'm sure Brian and others within the Emergent Movement don't want to compromise the truth of God, but that is exactly what they do when empathy (grace) is leaned on at the expense of truth. We can all agree that following God is not a simple task. One has to constantly deny himself/herself daily, and even at that we trip and fall. We have no business in pointing to specks in others' eyes when we are blinded by the lumberyard in our own eye, but again, we need to be willing to state the truth to others in a loving way.

C.S. Lewis once remarked on the individual who said that Jesus was only a good man by saying, "But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."[2] Similar to this thought is the idea that the message of Jesus is to only show empathy; he didn't leave that option to us as either. Jesus had some harsh things to say to those who were willing to listen. Sure, the Church should be vigilant in reaching out to individuals who have not submitted their lives to Jesus, but never at the expense of truth. Christians need to lovingly present the good news to all in a manner that is not condemning, but at the same time, truth should be defended. Peter states: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)." We all need to be prepared to give an answer concerning truth, but in a gentle and respectful manner.

[1] http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html
[2] Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, P. 40-41

Emerging truth

By far the biggest charge leveled at the "Emergent Movement" revolves around the subject of truth. Is truth relative or objective? According to orthodox Christianity, truth must be objective. If truth is relative, then the grand metanarritive of Scripture cannot be trusted. David Roach summarizes the post modern problem by saying, "The worldview of postmodernism -- complete with an epistemology that denies the possibility of or need for propositional truth -- affords the movement an opportunity to hop, skip and jump throughout the Bible and the history Christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them, like doctrinal post-it notes, to whatever picture they would want to draw." [1]

Other differences prevail within the post modern "Emergent Movement." Some of the issues revolve around the culture of the "Emergent Movement" as compared to the culture of many traditional churches in North America. Some within the "Emergent Movement" see the North American church as being stale and institutionalized, as if the Church has lost its way in what it means to be a community of believers. Community takes on a large role within the "Emergent Movement." Typically, emergent churches tend to be made up of 20 to 30 year old individuals, with very few that are elderly. Emergent churches are found in large urban areas and tend to have a more liberal view than non-emergent churches. For example, some of the points of contention that differ include: different approaches to sharing the gospel, moral views are emphasized in a different manner, especially the subjects of abortion and homosexuality,and political differences that seem to favor the left as opposed to the majority of North American churches.

One of the biggest leaders in the "Emergent Movement" is Brian McLaren.[2] Although his views do not represent the entire movement he is usually mentioned first as the most influential leader within the movement. In the coming blogs the differences of the "Emergent Movement" will be examined. Much of what the movement offers has been a wake up call to many stagnant aspects of churches, not only in North America, but the entire West.



1. For the entire article see: http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20420
2. Brian McLaren's websight: http://www.brianmclaren.net/
* Interesting dialogue between Brian McLaren and Chuck Colson on the post modern push within the emergent church movement: first is Mclaren's response to a Colson article in Christianity today - http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000269.html Second is a response to McLaren by Colson - http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000160.html