What do you think?
Rate this book
The Folly of God: A Theology of the Unconditional
Inspired by Paul Tillich’s suggestion that atheism is not the end of theology but is instead the beginning, and working this together with Derrida’s idea of the undeconstructible, Caputo explores the idea that the real interest of theology is not God, especially not God as supreme being, but the unconditional. The Folly of God continues the radical reading of Paul's explosive language in 1 Corinthians 1 about the stand God makes with the nothings and nobodies of the world first introduced in The Weakness of God (2006) and The Insistence of God (2013).
113 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 17, 2015
25 people are currently reading
212 people want to read
About the author
John D. Caputo
86 books146 followersJohn D. Caputo is an American philosopher who is the Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion Emeritus at Syracuse University and the David R. Cook Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Villanova University. Caputo is a major figure associated with Postmodern Christianity, Continental Philosophy of Religion, as well as the founder of the theological movement known as weak theology. Much of Caputo's work focuses on hermeneutics, phenomenology, deconstruction and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 17, 2020
The Divine ‘Perhaps’
I first read this book when it was published in 2015. It was important to me then because it formulated a stance on theology - what Caputo calls theopoetics - which I had been struggling with for some years. Inspired by his earlier works on the weakness of God, I had sought a way to understand theology as literature, and literature as what theology was trying to emulate as an ideal.
Upon re-reading the Folly of God, I find that in some ways I have left the book behind. Caputo has penetrated my thinking so thoroughly that it seems he is reminding me of the obvious. This is a reflection of his simple, direct, and witty style. On the other hand, there is much in this short book that I had missed completely or simply forgotten about. The density of Caputo’s ideas is often masked by the clarity of his prose. I now find many of these hiding in plain sight.
I suppose that many who enter into Caputo’s oeuvre may have a similar experience. He is easy to understand but not so easy to comprehend. I doubt anyone is adequately prepared to ‘get’ him completely until he or she has been prepared by his work itself. This is not so much a matter of logic as it is experience in thinking through the import of what he has to say. In other words, Caputo’s real effect is to change one’s values, that is, what one takes notice of in the world.
This ‘transvaluation’ can be an emotional as well as an intellectual trauma. I’ve noticed my own response to be a sort of PTSD which takes time to settle down. This was especially acute while I was still in an academic environment in which more ‘traditional’ theological concepts reigned. Since my retirement, the tensions I felt in being unable to discuss Caputo’s concept of divine weakness and its implications have miraculously dissipated, proving if nothing else that sometimes it’s advantageous not to have anyone to talk to.
Central to Caputo’s theology is the idea of the ‘unconditional.’ This is not an idea that is meant to triumph over other ideas, or to solve problems in existing theological narratives. As Caputo says, “The unconditional is not a winning strategy and theology is not about winning.” In a sense, therefore, Caputo is delightfully anti-evangelical, not out to convert or to convince, or to score doctrinal points but to help people like me figure out the meaning of the unconditional in our own circumstances.
Caputo makes a claim which has historical connotations: “... the best interests of theology are to be found deep down in the depths of our experience.” This claim can easily be mistaken for a call to return to a Romanticism of the early 19th century, to a God of emotion, feeling and subjectivity. It is however a simple reversal of a metaphor - God is not to be found in the heights but in the depths. And the experience he’s talking about is not individual but collective. The more of us whose experience is recognised, the deeper we go.
Evangelicals, indeed most believers, attempt to make God into an object and then to argue the existence of that object. This is patent blasphemy, an attempt to control the meaning of God for the purpose of exercising power over others. “A Supreme Being causes supreme problems” is how Caputo summarises theology of the Heights.
Not the least of these problems is political, namely that we are lead to believe that power has a source outside of humanity and that this power is distributed in a sort of cascade down through governments, and organisations, and families (historically mostly male) to the lowliest of the low. Indeed, this has been the standard line throughout the history of political theology, long before the politics of theology was seen for what it was - a method of justifying the powers that be.
Echoing the German-American theologian Paul Tillich, Caputo points out that atheism is “the best religious and theological response to such an idea of God.” Tillich, in turn, had been brought up in the Lutheran tradition of the so-called ‘theology of the cross,’ a tradition that emphasizes the self-debasement of God, not in order to conquer but to submit to the needs of others. Caputo, therefore, although radical, is radically Christian in his respect for atheism. I imagine that he accepted everything Christopher Hitchens ever said about the absurdity of most religious claims.
“Theology begins with atheism,” but it doesn’t end there for Caputo. The point is that it is a waste of time arguing for or against anything called a Supreme Being. He quotes a great European mystic, Meister Eckhart, to demonstrate the significance of a theologically sensitive atheism. Eckhart claims in his memoirs that he “prays to God to rid him of God, to make him free of God.” This is precisely the point of what is called ‘negative theology’, the elimination of constructions, almost always self-serving, of what we want God to be. The atheistic presumption is a quick intellectual root to the same starting point.
For Caputo, as for Tillich, God is the Unconditional. That is, God is not an identifiable entity; God is no-thing. God is not great. God is not a cause, much less the First Cause. God is, however, that which allows us to say ‘there is a God,’ whether such a statement is true or not, or has meaning or not:
At this point, I think that I go further than Caputo and Tillich are willing to go. I see no difference between the citation above and a statement that God is language itself, or perhaps more precisely that God is all of the potential literature which can be produced through language. Language, in other words, is the Unconditional, that which is without limits.
Not that there is any lack of things which are temporarily beyond (or below) our ability to express in language at any moment. We have no language, for example, with which to express coherently the instantaneous action at an infinite distance of quantum mechanics; or the phenomena of black holes. But we shall. At which point other ‘beyonds’ will have surfaced (probably by penetrating more deeply into the physics of what is near at hand).
So language itself has no limits. We couldn’t even express the Unconditional without it. Language, of course, doesn’t exist as a perfect Platonic entity in some metaphysical heaven. It is always ‘embodied’, primarily in that cultural artifact called literature. But the existence of that literature as an artifact, does not mean it is controllable or can be conditioned by the artificers.
Literature has its own life which is affected by us and which affects us. It surrounds us. It puts itself at our abuse as well as use. We seek its wisdom, counsel, and assistance. Some of us devote our lives to its proliferation. All of us carry parts of it deep within us which inspire and constrain what we do and what we want. It does this meekly and without any overt or directed intention of its own. In short, it serves, as a gift of grace.
And yet existing literature, God with us as it were, is not the entirety of the Unconditional. There is a deus absconditus, a hidden God, who waits and calls from an unknown we call the future. That literature of the future has no form whatsoever, even abstractly. It, unlike quantum mechanics and black holes, is permanently beyond our comprehension or ability to describe. We might be able to anticipate technological developments but we are blind to the directions language and its literature will take.
This, for me, is theopoetics. I don’t want to claim that theopoetics is God, that would be obviously self-contradictory. But I do want to suggest that theopoetics is what has traditionally been called the Word of God, God revealing himself to human beings. The distinctive feature of that Word is its authentic inclusivity. In fact inclusivity is the definition of authenticity, not some claim to antiquity or revelatory authority. This is a Word that is always tentative, always changing, but always pointing to the ‘divine perhaps.’
I first read this book when it was published in 2015. It was important to me then because it formulated a stance on theology - what Caputo calls theopoetics - which I had been struggling with for some years. Inspired by his earlier works on the weakness of God, I had sought a way to understand theology as literature, and literature as what theology was trying to emulate as an ideal.
Upon re-reading the Folly of God, I find that in some ways I have left the book behind. Caputo has penetrated my thinking so thoroughly that it seems he is reminding me of the obvious. This is a reflection of his simple, direct, and witty style. On the other hand, there is much in this short book that I had missed completely or simply forgotten about. The density of Caputo’s ideas is often masked by the clarity of his prose. I now find many of these hiding in plain sight.
I suppose that many who enter into Caputo’s oeuvre may have a similar experience. He is easy to understand but not so easy to comprehend. I doubt anyone is adequately prepared to ‘get’ him completely until he or she has been prepared by his work itself. This is not so much a matter of logic as it is experience in thinking through the import of what he has to say. In other words, Caputo’s real effect is to change one’s values, that is, what one takes notice of in the world.
This ‘transvaluation’ can be an emotional as well as an intellectual trauma. I’ve noticed my own response to be a sort of PTSD which takes time to settle down. This was especially acute while I was still in an academic environment in which more ‘traditional’ theological concepts reigned. Since my retirement, the tensions I felt in being unable to discuss Caputo’s concept of divine weakness and its implications have miraculously dissipated, proving if nothing else that sometimes it’s advantageous not to have anyone to talk to.
Central to Caputo’s theology is the idea of the ‘unconditional.’ This is not an idea that is meant to triumph over other ideas, or to solve problems in existing theological narratives. As Caputo says, “The unconditional is not a winning strategy and theology is not about winning.” In a sense, therefore, Caputo is delightfully anti-evangelical, not out to convert or to convince, or to score doctrinal points but to help people like me figure out the meaning of the unconditional in our own circumstances.
Caputo makes a claim which has historical connotations: “... the best interests of theology are to be found deep down in the depths of our experience.” This claim can easily be mistaken for a call to return to a Romanticism of the early 19th century, to a God of emotion, feeling and subjectivity. It is however a simple reversal of a metaphor - God is not to be found in the heights but in the depths. And the experience he’s talking about is not individual but collective. The more of us whose experience is recognised, the deeper we go.
Evangelicals, indeed most believers, attempt to make God into an object and then to argue the existence of that object. This is patent blasphemy, an attempt to control the meaning of God for the purpose of exercising power over others. “A Supreme Being causes supreme problems” is how Caputo summarises theology of the Heights.
Not the least of these problems is political, namely that we are lead to believe that power has a source outside of humanity and that this power is distributed in a sort of cascade down through governments, and organisations, and families (historically mostly male) to the lowliest of the low. Indeed, this has been the standard line throughout the history of political theology, long before the politics of theology was seen for what it was - a method of justifying the powers that be.
Echoing the German-American theologian Paul Tillich, Caputo points out that atheism is “the best religious and theological response to such an idea of God.” Tillich, in turn, had been brought up in the Lutheran tradition of the so-called ‘theology of the cross,’ a tradition that emphasizes the self-debasement of God, not in order to conquer but to submit to the needs of others. Caputo, therefore, although radical, is radically Christian in his respect for atheism. I imagine that he accepted everything Christopher Hitchens ever said about the absurdity of most religious claims.
“Theology begins with atheism,” but it doesn’t end there for Caputo. The point is that it is a waste of time arguing for or against anything called a Supreme Being. He quotes a great European mystic, Meister Eckhart, to demonstrate the significance of a theologically sensitive atheism. Eckhart claims in his memoirs that he “prays to God to rid him of God, to make him free of God.” This is precisely the point of what is called ‘negative theology’, the elimination of constructions, almost always self-serving, of what we want God to be. The atheistic presumption is a quick intellectual root to the same starting point.
For Caputo, as for Tillich, God is the Unconditional. That is, God is not an identifiable entity; God is no-thing. God is not great. God is not a cause, much less the First Cause. God is, however, that which allows us to say ‘there is a God,’ whether such a statement is true or not, or has meaning or not:
“God is not a highest being but the very being of beings, or the ground of beings, the light of beings, the deep, boundless, ceaseless, illimitable, unrestricted resource of anything and everything, of every word or distinction between words that we utter. That means that everything we say about God is ‘symbolic.’”
At this point, I think that I go further than Caputo and Tillich are willing to go. I see no difference between the citation above and a statement that God is language itself, or perhaps more precisely that God is all of the potential literature which can be produced through language. Language, in other words, is the Unconditional, that which is without limits.
Not that there is any lack of things which are temporarily beyond (or below) our ability to express in language at any moment. We have no language, for example, with which to express coherently the instantaneous action at an infinite distance of quantum mechanics; or the phenomena of black holes. But we shall. At which point other ‘beyonds’ will have surfaced (probably by penetrating more deeply into the physics of what is near at hand).
So language itself has no limits. We couldn’t even express the Unconditional without it. Language, of course, doesn’t exist as a perfect Platonic entity in some metaphysical heaven. It is always ‘embodied’, primarily in that cultural artifact called literature. But the existence of that literature as an artifact, does not mean it is controllable or can be conditioned by the artificers.
Literature has its own life which is affected by us and which affects us. It surrounds us. It puts itself at our abuse as well as use. We seek its wisdom, counsel, and assistance. Some of us devote our lives to its proliferation. All of us carry parts of it deep within us which inspire and constrain what we do and what we want. It does this meekly and without any overt or directed intention of its own. In short, it serves, as a gift of grace.
And yet existing literature, God with us as it were, is not the entirety of the Unconditional. There is a deus absconditus, a hidden God, who waits and calls from an unknown we call the future. That literature of the future has no form whatsoever, even abstractly. It, unlike quantum mechanics and black holes, is permanently beyond our comprehension or ability to describe. We might be able to anticipate technological developments but we are blind to the directions language and its literature will take.
This, for me, is theopoetics. I don’t want to claim that theopoetics is God, that would be obviously self-contradictory. But I do want to suggest that theopoetics is what has traditionally been called the Word of God, God revealing himself to human beings. The distinctive feature of that Word is its authentic inclusivity. In fact inclusivity is the definition of authenticity, not some claim to antiquity or revelatory authority. This is a Word that is always tentative, always changing, but always pointing to the ‘divine perhaps.’
January 4, 2016
Caputo deconstructs Tillich's ground from under him. Tillich's " depth/ deep/ ground" as more or less mirroring " high/ height/ sky / heaven " as versions of the same thing . Ie most high & most deep not that different. Lots of fluffy language, some pearls of insight. Two point summary:
1- God doesn't exist ( says "God").
2- be a good human being.
Lots of clever sounding yet often empty paradoxes. The kingdom of God matters yet there's no King nor kingdom . It's an " event" where one feeds the starving , heals the sick etc. Ultimately it's theological atheism.
On the plus side he seeks to dissolve the difference ( differance ?) between theists and atheists. Deconstructs the God idea into panentheism view. He is one with Tillich's discarding supernaturalism as incoherent, worthless and almost certainly wrong.
His project seems to do what is in the best interest of theology - maybe he does, ie when he sees theology on the road, he kills it. One the down side, sounds like he's overdosed on Derrida. He's so postmodern that he finds religion / God of no use whatsoever.
The book is bit of a mixed bag. He's widely read, drops lots of gems from Hegel , Nietzsche, Kirkegaarde. His carve up of Tillich borders on amazing. Yet much of the book reads like Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" ( hoax ) article.
Annoyingly quotes bible texts, especially Paul and Matthew yet delightfully disagrees with them at times. Feels like he wants his theological cake and devour it with atheism.
1- God doesn't exist ( says "God").
2- be a good human being.
Lots of clever sounding yet often empty paradoxes. The kingdom of God matters yet there's no King nor kingdom . It's an " event" where one feeds the starving , heals the sick etc. Ultimately it's theological atheism.
On the plus side he seeks to dissolve the difference ( differance ?) between theists and atheists. Deconstructs the God idea into panentheism view. He is one with Tillich's discarding supernaturalism as incoherent, worthless and almost certainly wrong.
His project seems to do what is in the best interest of theology - maybe he does, ie when he sees theology on the road, he kills it. One the down side, sounds like he's overdosed on Derrida. He's so postmodern that he finds religion / God of no use whatsoever.
The book is bit of a mixed bag. He's widely read, drops lots of gems from Hegel , Nietzsche, Kirkegaarde. His carve up of Tillich borders on amazing. Yet much of the book reads like Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" ( hoax ) article.
Annoyingly quotes bible texts, especially Paul and Matthew yet delightfully disagrees with them at times. Feels like he wants his theological cake and devour it with atheism.
March 5, 2017
Caputo calls his theology radical. Compared to Christian orthodoxy he would certainly be right. He tackles the question how could one think about, understand, and relate to a non-theistic God, or would that just be sheer folly?His answer might very well be, "Yes." But that would only be the beginning of an answer. Starting with Paul Tillich, Caputo very carefully walks the general reader through the technical ideas of deconstruction put forth by Derridia. I found the second chapter to be the most dense, and at times difficult to follow. But Caputo takes great pains to make a very technical subject understandable to the general reader. I think he is very successful and by the end of the book puts forth an idea of God that is credible, and for me at least, quite satisfying. Be warned that this is a radical departure from what Tillich called the half-blasphemous mythological God in the heavens to a coherent view of theology and it's subject matter in the 21st century. I say it's about time. His is a bold and courageous statement.
August 23, 2016
Caputo's most recent book is about, among other things, a radical theopoetics of the unconditional (a term he picks up from Paul Tillich and Jacques Derrida). Caputo, in short, wants to rethink the kingdom of God as a weak force that follows the logic of the cross, or the folly of God, and gives unconditionally (without conditions, exchanges, expectations, or "tricks up your sleeve") -- i.e. "without why."
"Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” (Matt 25: 37– 39)
This is the foolish logic of the cross, a giving without return, "in secret," like Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, without letting one's right hand know what one's left hand is doing. Wherever a sick person is given medicine, wherever a hungry person is fed, whenever a naked person is clothed, whenever an imprisoned person is visited -- for the hell of it, without any reason outside the gift itself, without expectation of divine or human reward, or fear of divine punishment, in short, "without why" -- that is the unconditional-in-action, and the folly of God's kingdom is enacted.
Merold Westphal once said that he likes Caputo's politics better than his metaphysics (Caputo rightly passes for an atheist and interprets all classical Christian doctrines like the Incarnation, Trinity, Atonement, etc. as so many "representations" or "pictorial symbols" of the truth) [Hegel]. When it comes to his beliefs he does not believe in a God, or an afterlife, or in the divinity of Christ, or in any other creedal confessions. So, on this front, actual religious believers may find his work scandalous, perhaps.
But Caputo's entire project wants to rethink what religion itself is about. He thinks the real substance of religion is not about cognitive beliefs (atheism versus theism, protestant versus catholic, arminianist versus calvinist, etc.) but about a much more deeper faith in the unconditional that precedes these distinctions altogether. Religion is, to put it in the language of Kierkegaard, about "how" a person believes rather than "what" a person believes. I think that while Caputo is an atheist, and while he thinks atheism is "true," ultimately, he is not concerned to debate or spend much time at all thinking and debating about such things (the "whats"). For him (and this is what he thinks religion is really all about), faith (as distinguished from mere conceptual belief) is a way of being in the world [Heidegger] that lives unconditionally, living and giving and being without why, performing acts of mercy and love that do not appeal to any standard above or below -- no Categorical Imperatives [Kant], or Divine Commands [Augustine], no Phronesis [Aristotle] or Natural Laws [Aquinas]. Just to give, for the hell of it, emptying oneself into the world, for others, as an end in itself (something Caputo does seem to keep from Kant!), and not as a means to an end.
It is this more fundamental faith that Caputo is interested in. This faith transcends theism and atheism, rather, it is before them, before these debates and positions even get off the ground. And, so, no matter what your religious beliefs are (the "whats"), I would hope that you could appreciate the ethical force, if I may so crudely use that language (Caputo wrote a great book entitled Against Ethics ) of Caputo's vision. For me, at least, it's hard to read Caputo and not sense deep down in my soul that all of this talk about loving the unlovable, forgiving the unforgivable, giving without expecting, loving for the absolute hell of it, etc. is some of the most beautiful and terrifying shit I've encountered.
Such is the folly of God, the kingdom of Yeshua, the crucified victim who forgave his crucifiers.
"Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” (Matt 25: 37– 39)
This is the foolish logic of the cross, a giving without return, "in secret," like Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, without letting one's right hand know what one's left hand is doing. Wherever a sick person is given medicine, wherever a hungry person is fed, whenever a naked person is clothed, whenever an imprisoned person is visited -- for the hell of it, without any reason outside the gift itself, without expectation of divine or human reward, or fear of divine punishment, in short, "without why" -- that is the unconditional-in-action, and the folly of God's kingdom is enacted.
Merold Westphal once said that he likes Caputo's politics better than his metaphysics (Caputo rightly passes for an atheist and interprets all classical Christian doctrines like the Incarnation, Trinity, Atonement, etc. as so many "representations" or "pictorial symbols" of the truth) [Hegel]. When it comes to his beliefs he does not believe in a God, or an afterlife, or in the divinity of Christ, or in any other creedal confessions. So, on this front, actual religious believers may find his work scandalous, perhaps.
But Caputo's entire project wants to rethink what religion itself is about. He thinks the real substance of religion is not about cognitive beliefs (atheism versus theism, protestant versus catholic, arminianist versus calvinist, etc.) but about a much more deeper faith in the unconditional that precedes these distinctions altogether. Religion is, to put it in the language of Kierkegaard, about "how" a person believes rather than "what" a person believes. I think that while Caputo is an atheist, and while he thinks atheism is "true," ultimately, he is not concerned to debate or spend much time at all thinking and debating about such things (the "whats"). For him (and this is what he thinks religion is really all about), faith (as distinguished from mere conceptual belief) is a way of being in the world [Heidegger] that lives unconditionally, living and giving and being without why, performing acts of mercy and love that do not appeal to any standard above or below -- no Categorical Imperatives [Kant], or Divine Commands [Augustine], no Phronesis [Aristotle] or Natural Laws [Aquinas]. Just to give, for the hell of it, emptying oneself into the world, for others, as an end in itself (something Caputo does seem to keep from Kant!), and not as a means to an end.
It is this more fundamental faith that Caputo is interested in. This faith transcends theism and atheism, rather, it is before them, before these debates and positions even get off the ground. And, so, no matter what your religious beliefs are (the "whats"), I would hope that you could appreciate the ethical force, if I may so crudely use that language (Caputo wrote a great book entitled Against Ethics ) of Caputo's vision. For me, at least, it's hard to read Caputo and not sense deep down in my soul that all of this talk about loving the unlovable, forgiving the unforgivable, giving without expecting, loving for the absolute hell of it, etc. is some of the most beautiful and terrifying shit I've encountered.
Such is the folly of God, the kingdom of Yeshua, the crucified victim who forgave his crucifiers.
February 14, 2017
I am currently developing my own theory on nihilism and the Death of God. The Folly of God, for the most part, fits into what I am developing. Caputo argued that God is literally dead and that theology starts with Atheism, due to it.
I am not opposed to the concept, just the interpretation of that. What I think he is really getting at is a Theology of Nihilism, that the Value of God is dead, therefore, theology should start at that point.
Caputo is arguing for a God that is "weak", very similar to Gianni Vattimo, in fact, he mentions his argument, so it is a compatible argument to Caputo. Both men argue for a Nihilistic Christianity. In both cases, a "Weak" God is argued, as Caputo states, "It is in God's best interest", but he also states, "It is in man's best interest. . ." (paraphrase).
I disagree that they are actually arguing about God him/itself, but rather arguing for a Nihilistic Christianity with a devalued value of God (The Value of God is not God). The Value of God would be Heidegger's Being (an Eternal Concept that has been devalued and Dead, that still lives in Time).
The high value of God that Caputo is arguing against is a valid argument to make, since, we live on the other side of the Death of God. Thus, humanity should move forward from the Death of God, and as Nietzsche argued "we should revaluate values" and that is what Caputo is arguing for. How do we revaluate theology from the Death of God (The dead value of God)? As I mentioned above, we start from that point and move forward, as Caputo and Vattimo both argue.
Gianni Vattimo and John Caputo both should be read together, they are both very complementary. They both worked on a book together titled "Beyond the Death of God". That is the best place to start and then one should start to delve into their own works from that point.
I am not opposed to the concept, just the interpretation of that. What I think he is really getting at is a Theology of Nihilism, that the Value of God is dead, therefore, theology should start at that point.
Caputo is arguing for a God that is "weak", very similar to Gianni Vattimo, in fact, he mentions his argument, so it is a compatible argument to Caputo. Both men argue for a Nihilistic Christianity. In both cases, a "Weak" God is argued, as Caputo states, "It is in God's best interest", but he also states, "It is in man's best interest. . ." (paraphrase).
I disagree that they are actually arguing about God him/itself, but rather arguing for a Nihilistic Christianity with a devalued value of God (The Value of God is not God). The Value of God would be Heidegger's Being (an Eternal Concept that has been devalued and Dead, that still lives in Time).
The high value of God that Caputo is arguing against is a valid argument to make, since, we live on the other side of the Death of God. Thus, humanity should move forward from the Death of God, and as Nietzsche argued "we should revaluate values" and that is what Caputo is arguing for. How do we revaluate theology from the Death of God (The dead value of God)? As I mentioned above, we start from that point and move forward, as Caputo and Vattimo both argue.
Gianni Vattimo and John Caputo both should be read together, they are both very complementary. They both worked on a book together titled "Beyond the Death of God". That is the best place to start and then one should start to delve into their own works from that point.
April 3, 2017
Let me state from the outset that I didn't always understand what Caputo was saying although I loved the his humour. I am not a philospher. However I did find some clues as to why I find the notion of a Supreme being difficult to live with and why so much talk of "power" in churches leaves me with more questions than answers. I feel more at home with the concept of the "weakness" of God. I need to talk with my theological advisers before I say too much more about this.
January 29, 2021
It's hard for me to rate this book. It's book number #3 in a trilogy, but you don't really need to have read the other two to understand the book. I did this with a book club over a few months, which ended with a Zoom call with the author. Maybe after my review, I'll be able to give it a quantitative value.
Overall, I personally enjoyed this book. At many times, I did think it was a bit repetitive, where the author wasn't adding anything quite too new. Yet, at the same time, I understood that he was essentially trying to circle around an idea, hoping that each slight variation got you a bit closer, while at the same time, never quite reaching it. He felt like a mystic trying to explain the concept of "God" and the "Kingdom of God" using poetic language, knowing that if he came to a concrete description, he would lose the very thing he was trying to articulate.
If you're someone who is more familiar with philosophy, John Caputo is a true Derridian. He follows in Derrida's deconstruction footsteps, playing with language, and having you never quite land on any firm concept. He brings up Paul Tillich a lot, an old hero from his young adult days, and at first, he doesn't sound any different than Tillich. But towards the end, he does make a few claims on where he lands differently than Tillich.
Others in the book club I did this with felt like this book wasn't as good as his others. It's less of a logic argument on why to follow a "weak theology", but more of an intuitive and poetic dance towards why he always felt something was wrong with a "strong" Christianity. Some said it felt like he didn't have anything new to add to the overall discussion of Christianity as well, since it sounded like liberation theology at times. To this, I believe Caputo was more focused on the "reason" and "intentions" behind actions, but not so much on the actions themselves. Some enjoyed his sarcasm throughout the book, others didn't like it and felt like he was using stereotypes to make a point.
However, we all got to talk to the dude via Zoom and everyone really loved him. He's a smart man who knows his stuff and was much more convincing in person than in the book. I do want to read his other works to understand him better. I felt like this might be a good primer for me. If I could, I'd give it 3.5 stars. It was good, but based on what others tell me, his other books are better and go deeper and more detailed. Yet, I do appreciate what he tried to do with this book and it definitely felt like an "event" for me. ;)
Overall, I personally enjoyed this book. At many times, I did think it was a bit repetitive, where the author wasn't adding anything quite too new. Yet, at the same time, I understood that he was essentially trying to circle around an idea, hoping that each slight variation got you a bit closer, while at the same time, never quite reaching it. He felt like a mystic trying to explain the concept of "God" and the "Kingdom of God" using poetic language, knowing that if he came to a concrete description, he would lose the very thing he was trying to articulate.
If you're someone who is more familiar with philosophy, John Caputo is a true Derridian. He follows in Derrida's deconstruction footsteps, playing with language, and having you never quite land on any firm concept. He brings up Paul Tillich a lot, an old hero from his young adult days, and at first, he doesn't sound any different than Tillich. But towards the end, he does make a few claims on where he lands differently than Tillich.
Others in the book club I did this with felt like this book wasn't as good as his others. It's less of a logic argument on why to follow a "weak theology", but more of an intuitive and poetic dance towards why he always felt something was wrong with a "strong" Christianity. Some said it felt like he didn't have anything new to add to the overall discussion of Christianity as well, since it sounded like liberation theology at times. To this, I believe Caputo was more focused on the "reason" and "intentions" behind actions, but not so much on the actions themselves. Some enjoyed his sarcasm throughout the book, others didn't like it and felt like he was using stereotypes to make a point.
However, we all got to talk to the dude via Zoom and everyone really loved him. He's a smart man who knows his stuff and was much more convincing in person than in the book. I do want to read his other works to understand him better. I felt like this might be a good primer for me. If I could, I'd give it 3.5 stars. It was good, but based on what others tell me, his other books are better and go deeper and more detailed. Yet, I do appreciate what he tried to do with this book and it definitely felt like an "event" for me. ;)
June 16, 2020
A near-perfect book for the "theologically atheist". In witty and lively prose, Caputo dismisses both the New Atheists and the orthodox priests as the misguided and unfortunate protagonists of today's discussions around God.
He absolutely rejects the premise of a "mythological and semi-blasphemous" Supreme Being that engages in an economy of salvation and instead leverages thinkers like Derrida, St. Paul, Hegel, Tillich and Lacan to offer us a Kingdom of God which is truly with-in us.
He absolutely rejects the premise of a "mythological and semi-blasphemous" Supreme Being that engages in an economy of salvation and instead leverages thinkers like Derrida, St. Paul, Hegel, Tillich and Lacan to offer us a Kingdom of God which is truly with-in us.
November 29, 2017
I read Jack Caputo's work for its creativity and intellectual challenge, not to mention its tendency to make me smile. (Often out loud.) There is nothing knee-slapping within his writings, mind you, since the humor is found primarily in sly turns of phrases. But it might be fair to consider him a 'stand-up philosopher', much as the poet Scott Cairns has been referred to as a "religious stand-up".
All this is going on while serious subjects are pursued. About which, I might add, I lack the philosophical expertise to properly critique. Rather, I'll merely recall a few things that caused me to pay close attention.
1) The title does not refer to acts of foolishness by God. Rather, it has to do with the apostle Paul's reference to the weakness of God in I Corinthians. Which is a good reminder of how it's up to us to NOT engage in acts of foolishness in the name of God. (Or in the formation of God, come to think of it...) Perhaps there's more to this idea of weakness than meets the eye.
2) Theology has deeper interests than God. (Maybe the roots [or the radix of 'deep' and 'radical' theology] are more revealing than the heights.)
3) Metaphysics is not enough. It's not that metaphysics doesn't go far enough, though. Rather, it's that WE can't go far enough using this approach. Let me put it this way: not ALL narrow ways lead to life: some just dump their travelers in neoplatonic cul-de-sacs. Think about it: do you want Plotinus as a next door neighbor in 2017?!
4) When we think about God, it's probably a good idea to occasionally check ourselves for what Paul Tillich called "half blasphemous and mythological concepts". Without getting too high and mighty about it, of course. (Because that just may be the original problem.)
5) At the end of days, does the kingdom of God really come through an angrily vengeful Messiah who, by his very actions, takes back everything he seemed to say to us through the scriptural stories about how he lived...and died?
I could continue my list but instead, in closing, I'll transcribe a brief excerpt from a single paragraph:
"The 'rule of God' cannot mean the rule of an omnipotent and sovereign power but an unruly and un-royal rule of a weak force, of a certain sacred impotence and divine folly. The rule of the kingdom does not constitute a hierarchy but a sacred anarchy. After all, the ikon of the God in the kingdom of God is an unjustly crucified man who forgave his executioners and whose disciples scattered in the moment of maximum peril. There is no greater folly than that. The kingdom whose coming he announces is not sustained by a show of might but by a certain invisible and weak force."
Please note, though, that a weak force can exert strong influences! It can work on us, haunting us, consistently insisting that we turn from the foolishness of a cult of power towards a more mysterious and emptied living in the face of what the author (and others) have called the Unconditional. So, should your curiosity be piqued, this short book may be well worth your time...
All this is going on while serious subjects are pursued. About which, I might add, I lack the philosophical expertise to properly critique. Rather, I'll merely recall a few things that caused me to pay close attention.
1) The title does not refer to acts of foolishness by God. Rather, it has to do with the apostle Paul's reference to the weakness of God in I Corinthians. Which is a good reminder of how it's up to us to NOT engage in acts of foolishness in the name of God. (Or in the formation of God, come to think of it...) Perhaps there's more to this idea of weakness than meets the eye.
2) Theology has deeper interests than God. (Maybe the roots [or the radix of 'deep' and 'radical' theology] are more revealing than the heights.)
3) Metaphysics is not enough. It's not that metaphysics doesn't go far enough, though. Rather, it's that WE can't go far enough using this approach. Let me put it this way: not ALL narrow ways lead to life: some just dump their travelers in neoplatonic cul-de-sacs. Think about it: do you want Plotinus as a next door neighbor in 2017?!
4) When we think about God, it's probably a good idea to occasionally check ourselves for what Paul Tillich called "half blasphemous and mythological concepts". Without getting too high and mighty about it, of course. (Because that just may be the original problem.)
5) At the end of days, does the kingdom of God really come through an angrily vengeful Messiah who, by his very actions, takes back everything he seemed to say to us through the scriptural stories about how he lived...and died?
I could continue my list but instead, in closing, I'll transcribe a brief excerpt from a single paragraph:
"The 'rule of God' cannot mean the rule of an omnipotent and sovereign power but an unruly and un-royal rule of a weak force, of a certain sacred impotence and divine folly. The rule of the kingdom does not constitute a hierarchy but a sacred anarchy. After all, the ikon of the God in the kingdom of God is an unjustly crucified man who forgave his executioners and whose disciples scattered in the moment of maximum peril. There is no greater folly than that. The kingdom whose coming he announces is not sustained by a show of might but by a certain invisible and weak force."
Please note, though, that a weak force can exert strong influences! It can work on us, haunting us, consistently insisting that we turn from the foolishness of a cult of power towards a more mysterious and emptied living in the face of what the author (and others) have called the Unconditional. So, should your curiosity be piqued, this short book may be well worth your time...
April 24, 2018
A very good and accessible introduction to Caputo's 'weak theology' of the 'insistence of God,' which of course makes explicit and continuous use of Derridian deconstruction. All this results in a necessary (in the context of the post-modern, globalised, West) 'theopoetics' of the Unconditional (delighting us theology/philosophy nerds with a combined use of Tillich, Derrida, and the Mystics).
There's a brief discussion on his critique of (process, Tillichian, and mystic) metaphysics that you will find interesting no matter where you are at these issues at the moment.
At the very least, I find this book deeply challenging and very much worth wrestling with, even if you disagree with his conclusion(s), though Caputo's hermeneutical project, of course, doesn't really allow for conclusions!
There's a brief discussion on his critique of (process, Tillichian, and mystic) metaphysics that you will find interesting no matter where you are at these issues at the moment.
At the very least, I find this book deeply challenging and very much worth wrestling with, even if you disagree with his conclusion(s), though Caputo's hermeneutical project, of course, doesn't really allow for conclusions!
April 3, 2017
This little book took me a lot longer to read that I expected. Caputo explores this concept of the "unconditional" that was new and surprising to me. I found myself asking "but why does this distinction matter" often throughout the book, but as some of his thoughts have settled in my head, I'm understanding the answer to that question a bit more.
To me, this exploration of the unconditional is one of exploring the depths of what it means to be dead to the world (and ourselves) and alive in Christ.
There is so much more to say and consider, but where to start? I'll just leave it at this: I enjoyed this book and in glad I read it.
To me, this exploration of the unconditional is one of exploring the depths of what it means to be dead to the world (and ourselves) and alive in Christ.
There is so much more to say and consider, but where to start? I'll just leave it at this: I enjoyed this book and in glad I read it.
January 16, 2018
While I'm not the fastest reader, this book really did take quite a while. A few pages was all I could take in per day. Caputo's discussion of the unconditional was deeply considered and well executed. I think there were some elements of rhetorical hypocrisy, however, on the whole, this book manages to discuss complex paradoxes without resulting to the same power games we like to play with our deities.
July 19, 2020
If I were going to have a theology, it would be a lot like Caputo's. But I have never been convinced that theology is a worthy subject of study, and though this book came close to changing that perspective, in the end it didn't. Religion is inherently non-rational. Religion can be a source of great comfort. It can provide social cohesion and a basis for ethics. It can give us beautiful art and stories. And most of all it can satisfy the deep spiritual longing that is felt by most people. But it defies rational analysis, even rational analysis like Caputo's that comes to the ultimate conclusion that rational analysis of God is impossible because rational analysis is inherently conditional and his God is unconditional. OK. So why did we need a book to tell us that? At least it's short.
I have never been much on a Supreme Being sort of God of the kind that Caputo rejects, so I applaud the rejection, but if you want to think of God as being the Supreme Being, if that works for you, be my guest. And I think that Caputo feels the same way. He isn't telling people who like the Supreme Being conception of God that they are necessarily wrong, so that they need to follow the way of Caputo. My spiritual yearning is satisfied best by something more along the line of Caputo's God who does not exist, but insists, than by the Supreme Being, but his analysis of it didn't really alter my belief system at all because my belief system, such as it is, is just that -- non-rational and not swayed one way or the other by rational argument.
Nevertheless I did greatly enjoy the book. I think that the answer to my "Why bother?" question is that whether or not this sort of discussion can prove anything, whether or not it sways belief, it is very smart. The ideas are intriguing and fun to turn over and over in my head, so there is an existential pleasure in reading it. It has a value in and of itself, even if it proves nothing.
I have never been much on a Supreme Being sort of God of the kind that Caputo rejects, so I applaud the rejection, but if you want to think of God as being the Supreme Being, if that works for you, be my guest. And I think that Caputo feels the same way. He isn't telling people who like the Supreme Being conception of God that they are necessarily wrong, so that they need to follow the way of Caputo. My spiritual yearning is satisfied best by something more along the line of Caputo's God who does not exist, but insists, than by the Supreme Being, but his analysis of it didn't really alter my belief system at all because my belief system, such as it is, is just that -- non-rational and not swayed one way or the other by rational argument.
Nevertheless I did greatly enjoy the book. I think that the answer to my "Why bother?" question is that whether or not this sort of discussion can prove anything, whether or not it sways belief, it is very smart. The ideas are intriguing and fun to turn over and over in my head, so there is an existential pleasure in reading it. It has a value in and of itself, even if it proves nothing.
June 6, 2025
I still am not so sure I understand what Caputo means by the Unconditional. His application of an adjusted apophatic theology was a bit, eh... for me. There were some good things in this book, I wish I had written a review closer to completion, for I cannot remember much now.
One thing I do recall and appreciate was his commenting on Nietzsche's observation that Christianity was simply rooted in resentment. I have been studying Revelation lately, which seems to be a revenge fantasy--a longing that all his enemies (almost everyone in the world) would be placed under his feet. Sadly, I have long been aware that Jesus' apocalyptic worldview seems to convey the eager expectation for the imminent worldwide genocide as the Son of Man returns to establish the Kingdom through force in the disciples' lifetime. Caputo takes seriously those aspects in the New Testament that demonstrate this and repudiates the toxic element, while embracing beautiful aspects that are not soaked in this repugnant stew. The OT's concept of the Kingdom of God being established with force was shattered when Christ was crucified. Christians still hoped for a Kingdom established with violence after Jesus was believed to be raised in their lifetime, but Jesus' failure to return and slaughter almost everyone on earth and then send them to hell, as his early followers had hoped, has shattered these expectations once again.
One thing I do recall and appreciate was his commenting on Nietzsche's observation that Christianity was simply rooted in resentment. I have been studying Revelation lately, which seems to be a revenge fantasy--a longing that all his enemies (almost everyone in the world) would be placed under his feet. Sadly, I have long been aware that Jesus' apocalyptic worldview seems to convey the eager expectation for the imminent worldwide genocide as the Son of Man returns to establish the Kingdom through force in the disciples' lifetime. Caputo takes seriously those aspects in the New Testament that demonstrate this and repudiates the toxic element, while embracing beautiful aspects that are not soaked in this repugnant stew. The OT's concept of the Kingdom of God being established with force was shattered when Christ was crucified. Christians still hoped for a Kingdom established with violence after Jesus was believed to be raised in their lifetime, but Jesus' failure to return and slaughter almost everyone on earth and then send them to hell, as his early followers had hoped, has shattered these expectations once again.
November 24, 2021
This book has a clarity that is often missing from Caputo's other books. In a way, he leaves theopoetics a few lengths behind in order to give a more structured picture of his thought, even while singing theopoetic's praises. In fact, Caputo is obviously struggling, in all his many books, to find the right voice for saying what he wants to say without at the same time falling into the hermeneutic traps he warns against. He's onto something, perhaps, maybe. But it's a whisper. It haunts me too (which Caputo would approve of, I'm sure).
February 21, 2023
Honestly a pretty big waste of time. Caputo spends a lot of time constructing a fancy philosophical web to say “take care of the poor”. If you want to understand this book just read the last chapter. For a better postmodern a/theology, read Mark C. Taylor’s Erring.
Substance-wise Caputo’s god who does not exist but insists is not worth it. It is not a god of Isaiah 59, Habakkuk 2, Psalm 146, and the Magnifcat and hence not a god that cares for the poor meaningfully. The cope of “it’s on us” provides no hope and no liberation.
Substance-wise Caputo’s god who does not exist but insists is not worth it. It is not a god of Isaiah 59, Habakkuk 2, Psalm 146, and the Magnifcat and hence not a god that cares for the poor meaningfully. The cope of “it’s on us” provides no hope and no liberation.
July 22, 2020
Excellent book. Caputo expounds on ideas from Tillich and Derrida. He writes in a very accessible manner. This allowed me to absorb his ideas, metaphors and analogies more easily. I want to read more from Caputo and others he mentions.
October 26, 2022
Any time you say “theology begins with atheism” you have my full and undivided attention.
February 8, 2023
A profound little book that will leave you with lots to think about in relation to the name of God, not as a supreme-being but as an insistence.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews