This post aims to discuss my experience of learning about theology. I took Religious Studies as an A-Level student, however this is the first time I have engaged with this topic in a while. As a theist and a postmodernist at the same time, I am seeking a theology or philosophy to align my values together. This post will explore this and shall therefore look at John Caputo’s Postmodern Theology, as well as the movement of Radical Orthodoxy. The discussion will centre around two books ‘What Would Jesus Deconstruct?’ by Caputo and Stephen Shakespeare’s ‘Radical Orthodoxy: A Critical Introduction’. I will not try to give a full overview of each book, but instead discuss the ideas that I find most interesting.

I will start by discussing the ideas of Caputo. ‘What Would Jesus Deconstruct?’ begins by examining the 1896 novel ‘In His Step’ by Charles Sheldon. Caputo uses it as an example of what a Christian should be. In the novel, a man, out of work, shows up at a Sunday sermon and raises issues of social justice and then exclaims ‘but what would Jesus Do?’. Subsequently, the congregation respond to this message and actively challenge social injustices more. A Christian, according to Caputo, should be someone who campaigns for social justice or acts out what they preach.

This theme of how a Christian should act cotinues throughout the book. Later Caputo denounces militarism, approaches economic injustice, argues against patriarchy, before commenting on abortion and homosexuality. Mostly, Caputo is thankfully fairly liberal on these issues, however he shows a degree of hesistance regarding abortion, arguing that Jesus’ message of peace complicates the issue. In the final chapter, Caputo also provides, what he calls, exemplarly Christians. The first is John Mcnamee, a working priest who runs St Malachy’s Church in North America and works in a deprived neigbourhood with problems such as drug addiction and crime. The second is Ikon, an assembly of young laypeople, intellectuals, church and community activists that is inclusive. It contains Catholics and Protestants, liberals and conservatives and runs in Belfast. As Caputo puts it ‘Ikon is not so much a church as an experimental group in which an alternate church and a paraliturgy are being reinvented in a postmodern mindset.’

However, Caputo also goes beyond moral behaviour in his theology. In particular, he heavily relies on the Continental philosopher Jacques Derrida to make many of his points. He uses Derrida’s idea of deconstruction in particular. Caputo states deconstruction ‘is organised around the idea that things contain a kind of uncontainable truth, that they contain what they cannot contain’. This is an acceptable approximation of what the concept means, even if it is hard to define. Caputo also describes ‘deconstruction as a hermeneutics of the kingdom of God’ arguing that it can radically alter the Church by forcing into contact with the other.

Caputo also argues the name of God is also like an event- a ‘simmering potency’ in a name’ that is trying to express something, but never quite does. Here Captuo refers to Derrida’s work on democracy. Democracy is like a promise which is never quite realised, no modern democracy ever lives up to its name. The promise of God is never quite realised, but it is an event that stirs up desire and faith that never quite reaches its destination. Caputo also refers to the Church as a substiution- the early disciples believed the kingdom of God was imminent, but when it did not arrive the Church was required provisionally. I was suprised here to find that Caputo did not refer to Derrida’s idea of the supplement here in more depth, especially given this point. The supplement is a key theme in Derrida’s Of Grammatology and takes into consideration a variety of forms of substitution, such as a wet nurse for a mother. It would have been interesting for Captuo to discuss more the supplementarity of the Church.

Another interesting point in Caputo’s work is his focus on the powerlessness of Jesus. As Caputo himself puts it ‘whenever one would expect an excercise of power from a classical hero, Jesus displays the stunning power of powerlessness- of nonviolence, nonresistance, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, generosity.’ The Son of God, a title which Caputo disputes, reveals his power through his lack of power. Likewise, God displays his strength through the absence of his power.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about Caputo’s approach. I like the idea of the name of God being an event that stirs up feelings and I also agree with the mostly liberal inclinations of Caputo. However, I am divided about the ideas regarding the weakness and non-presence of God. My inner postmodernist likes how Caputo argues against the metaphysics of presence, with his focus on Jesus’ and God’s weakness. It prevents a dangerous dominant metanarrative about Christianity from arising. However, Caputo does not spend much time in ‘What Would Jesus Deconstruct?’ discussing the traits of God. Is God still omnipotent and omniscient in his theology? If he is, does he simply choose not to intervene to display the power of being absent? Is God simply nothing more than a word that stirs an event? Caputo offers some persuasive ideas, but I certainly do not agree with him completely.

Radical Orthodoxy offers an alternative way of thinking about religion to Caputo’s theology. Shakespeare’s book on it is an effective introduction to a theology that takes into account multiple thinkers with multiple ideas. One interesting claim is that all the world can be understood as participating in the being of the God- no part of the world can be understood in isolation from Him. This sounds similar to the medieval philosopher Duns Scotus’ idea of the univocity of being and is an idea that I again was divided over. I like the idea that all beings participate in God and the liberating effect that could have, nevertheless the way Radical Orthodoxy poses it could have negative and actually restrictive consequences. The claim that Christianity offers the only way of understanding the world potentially squashes out other worldviews- an idea that does not go with my dislike of metanarratives. Alternatively, the idea that we all participate in God could be used to encourage openess to the other and to support treating fellow humans more kindly.

Radical Orthodoxy also rejects Enlightenment values and the separation between faith and reason. Again, I like this rejection, but I feel Radical Orthodoxy simply wants to replace one metanarrative with another. Surely, Enlightenment values and ideas can offer us some offer some insight the world, even if they cannot provide full, easy answers- the world is surely more complex than any single thesis. Another interesting idea in Radical Orthodoxy revolves around the Eucharist. It argues that becuase the wine and bread can be literally seen as the body and blood of Christ, the Eucharist acts as a bridge between language and reality. Radical Orthodoxy therefore offers a solution for accessing reality outside of language. I was reminded of William Reddy’s concept of emotives at this point. Reddy claims that emotional utterances act as an anchor on reality because of their potential of failing. It was fascinating to see Radical Orthodoxy trying to offer another answer to the problem of escaping language.

Radical Orthodoxy also emphasises the importance of the Christian community, arguing it is the only true form of worship. However, the the Church is not meant to be a theocracy, instead it resists the violent politics of the modern secular world. This opposition to violence is of course very welcome and it is a valuable addition to Radical Orthodoxy’s message. The claim that the secular world is to blame for violence is also interesting, even if not infallible.

It is also important to note that Radical Orthodoxy is a broad movement, not all thinkers who adhere to it agree with each other. Some thinkers, for example such as Stuart are thankfully tolerant of homosexuality. As Shakespeare puts it ‘Stuart is claiming that Christianity is queer by its very nature. Because it believes in a God who is trascendent, it is not bound by the social conventions of culture’. However, some scholars, like Stephen Long have upheld a more traditional opposition to same-sex unions. Different thinkers in Radical Orthodoxy take different approaches to some critical issues.

Radical Orthodoxy also places desire for God back at the forefront of human life. It argues desire has been corrupted by sin, especially by capitalism and its stimulation of false desires. Christianity, according to Radical Orthodoxy, retargets this desire back to its direction at God. A point of comparison can be made here to Caputo’s theology. Caputo also believes in the importance of the desire for God in faith and believes it stirs up feelings like a ‘promise’ or an ‘event’. Therefore, while Caputo and Radical Orthodoxy may seem at odds with each other to an extent they both place desire at the centre of religion, alongside both critquing Englightenment values.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about Radical Orthodoxy, much like I did when reading about Caputo’s theology. For example, I like the idea that humans participate in the being of God, but feel it could be redirected to an appreciation of the other, rather than as a claim that Christianity is the only ‘proper’ way of understanding the divine being. Likewise, Radical Orthodoxy is also made of numerous thinkers and so it would be wrong to claim that I support or disagree with the movement in its entiriety, when there are so many diverse beliefs within it. I certainly believe I need to read more individual authors who are part of the movement, to understand more their nuances. It seems ‘What Would Jesus Deconstruct?’ and ‘Radical Orthodoxy: A Critical Introduction’ are not going to provide easy answers for realigning my theism and postmodernism.