Book Review: Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire
Thursday, 20 April 2006
Tag it:
Janel and my review of Colossians Remixed was included in Sojomail today :
For those who reject cut and paste biblical literalism, yet maintain that the Bible is a genuine authority rather than merely a literary or cultural artifact, Sylvia Keesmaat and Brian Walsh present a refreshing alternative in Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. Keesmaat and Walsh use the book of Colossians as a launchpad into their vision of scripture as a story of people struggling with what it means to live faithfully in the midst of a culture that is saturated with seductive, opposing ideas, and ideals.
After establishing the importance of context - both the original context and our own - they propose a hermeneutic of scripture which emphasizes the participatory nature of the story. We are not called to memorize lines from a completed script and "repeat [them] verbatim, over and over." Rather, they suggest - in concert with N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham, England - we are actors in a part of the story that is not yet written, and we are improvising with the help of a great Director. As society and culture unfold around us, we are entrusted with the great responsibility to live the continuing story. This isn't to suggest that the first acts of the play are not important; Keesmaat and Walsh go to great pains to emphasize that we must be "deeply immersed in the text, and...completely absorbed by the story." They draw on the imagery of a plant that is deeply rooted below the soil yet growing dynamically above ground as a metaphor for our own freedom and rootedness in interpreting scripture in our context.
Colossians Remixed is an example of the direction Wright's view of scripture might lead in the interpretation and application of specific texts. Keesmaat and Walsh steep us in the original context of Paul's letter, supplying historical background on daily life in the Roman Empire and explaining what various words and images would have meant to the people who first read the letter. They argue that Paul liberally references Old Testament imagery drawn from his own experience as a Pharisee as well as words and metaphors from Colossae's cultural milieu, infusing one with new meaning and turning the other on its head.
After rooting their readers in the letter's original context, Walsh and Keesmaat tackle the question of the text's meaning in our contemporary situation. They ask their readers to imaginatively consider the "dynamic analogies" between the empire Paul preached against and various entities in our world that act as empires. Just as Rome was built on "an economics of oppression," so too the empire of global capitalism built on an economics that benefits the wealthy most on the backs of the poor. Just as Rome perpetuated the myth of the Pax Romana - which was really a euphemism for military oppression - we perpetuate our own myths. For example, "[t]he myth that we are moving as a culture toward increasing wealth and technological control, and that this is invariably good, provides the justification for all the economic and military policies of the North." In a similar way, they draw parallels between "systemic centralizations of power" in Rome and today, and ways in which "imperial images" continue to bombard us in advertisements and seek to "capture [our] imaginations," just as images of Caesar and empire permeated the lives of the public in Paul's day.
One difference they note is that today the church is "more enculturated, more taken captive by the dominant culture, more comfortable in the empire, than that radical group of young converts in the first century." This is exactly what the empire needs to survive and that is precisely why Paul sounds the trumpet for an alternative imagination, grounded in the story of scripture rather than in the imperial myths and images. By refusing to surrender our imagination to the empire, we subvert it.
The authors note an interesting tension in Colossians between the parts of Paul's letter that appear to be written between the lines so that only "those with ears to hear" will grasp the meaning, and the parts that are so blunt and in-your-face that "no one would miss the subversive overtones." This tension is also evident in Colossians Remixed, though it takes on a slightly different form. Walsh and Keesmaat write more aggressively than Paul did - without much that is hidden "between the lines." All the same, it may still be the case that only be those with ears to hear who take it to heart. The book is full of words such as "subversive" and "co-opting" which will annoy some and scare off others. They acknowledge: "[I]t may well be that what we achieve in clarity by being so aggressive we lose in aesthetic quality."
Walsh and Keesmaat make repeated and effective use of the "targum," a technique of "extended paraphrase" originating with rabbinical scholars during the Diaspora. Translating from the Hebrew as they read, Diasporan rabbis contextualized the message for congregations in a new time and place with their paraphrases. (See a PDF entitled "Colossians Targums: Reading Paul in a Postmodern Context).
Other techniques and stylistic choices used in the book don't work as well. Keesmaat and Walsh periodically entertain questions and comments from an anonymous reader in dialogue form. The danger in this, of course, is that invariably the questioner doesn't represent every reader's questions and accepts answers that leave other readers unsatisfied.
To be fair, they do try to address tough questions. They note in their discussion about Colossians as "an ancient writing preoccupied with something like what we today describe as a worldview" that "[t]he problem with worldviews is they are worldviews. In other words, they are by definition comprehensive in scope, seeking to present an integrating vision that encompasses everything. In this respect they bear some uncomfortable likeness to empires." From this frank acknowledgement that the worldview espoused in Colossians bears similarities to oppressive empires, Walsh and Keesmaat explore the ways that it differs from most: its embrace of suffering and its concern for the oppressed.
The church today needs to hear the message of this book, to root ourselves in this story and let it develop in us an alternative vision for our place in the shadow of the empire.
Does the "story of scripture" support or subvert the Empire?
I want to say that the business about the God who makes this life a matter of isolated relativistic points of view, only to be challenged by the more absolute point of view of God, who rewards the principle, "go along to get along," is just what the Empire needs to do just what it is doing. It's the perfect enabling religion.
What is it that Paul teaches that would "subvert" the Empire? The suggestion here is that an alternative imagination would serve to undermine Empire. So, are we to think that the Christian imaginative story of saints and martyrs is going to vanquish the Empires imaginive story of Olympian Gods or mystery religions which, by the way, have very small differences from the Christian images, or the images of any other Empire?
Why should we think that just the imagery, or just the emotions, are going to do anything to subvert empire?
steven, i don't think the book would claim that christianity has always subverted the empire--rather that it should, if paul and his context are understood correctly.
the alternative imagination is not merely about "saints and martyrs"...it is about everyday living in ways that can either support the empire or empower the powerless.
Suppose I believe the worship of Mithra provided ways in our everyday life that could either support the empire or empowered the powerless. Isn't it then a toss up which way of life I choose? Doesn't it make sense that this is what the followers of any religion say?
I am skeptical that the Christianity preached by Paul, for example, was at all about challenging the empire. The success of his mission to spread his message wouldn't have gotten very far if he had any effective message to undermine power.
Of, course you can imagine that the Christian message supported the empire in certain senses, and made one think that it, in some more important sense, challenged power. The question, then, would be which Christian position was more important.
You could look at the argument coming from Christian texts that as a Christian, one should support anyone in power, pay them your taxes, fight in their wars, go along with their practices of slavery and thievery, and so on, because they wouldn't be in those positions of power unless God had supported them.
Seems to me this message pretty much supports whatever the powers that be may be.
Beyond this piece of boot licking, however, stands the claim that we are unable to take care of our own. We are incapable because our lives our limited by our worldly perspective. Maybe we are unable to develop knowledge or real values. And as such, we are lucky to have Jesus to save us.
Isn't this story about God in his chariot just a red herring? The question we have, even after getting the message about Jesus, is what we are to do to protect.
[Note: I am transcribing your comments to my site, steven. if this bothers you please let me know and I will remove them.]
RE: Mithra...Its hard to respond to that because I know nothing about Mithra. In this case, the argument is that although many Christians believe that they are to serve the empire as opposed to subvert it, reading Pauls letter in context reveals that to do so is a form of idolatry.
Im sure I wont be able to make the arguments that they make in their book in these short commentsso if you are curious about their arguments, you may want to read the book. That said, they do reference briefly the passage that (I think) you are referring to (even though the book is primarily on Colossians, not Romans) so I will quote them briefly for you:
we need to take seriously the context in which Romans 13:1-7 occurs. This teaching cant be isolated from what Paul is saying in the surrounding passage. It is preceded by a radical call against conformity to this age (12:1-2), within a context of persecution at the hands of the empire in 12:9-21. It is followed by a call to owe no one anything, except to love one another (13:8). In the midst of this clear context of nonconformity, persecution and the call to love not only the community but also ones enemies, Pauls comments about the state have ambiguous overtones. It was, after all, the state that had persecuted the Roman believers and caused their suffering.
In the second place, the violent nature of the state is underlined by references to fear and to the states bearing of the sword. Paul emphasizes that the state should be obeyed because of the fear of wrath (13:5), a fear that is underlined in 13:7: Pay to all what is due themtaxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due (our translation). Note that we have translated the Greek word phobos as fear to show that this is the same word that is used in verses 3-4. The use of the language of fear in relation to the state, along with the mention of the sword, heightens the ambiguity of the passage. On the one hand Paul is echoing Jewish sources such as Philo who use the language of fear in describing both the brutality of rulers and the need to be obedient out of expediency; on the other he using language that is quite out of pace with the contemporary propaganda of the empire that touted Nero as a ruler who engaged in no bloodshed and no wielding of the sword.
What sounds to our ears like a completely straightforward call to obey governing authorities, especially when read out of the context in which this instruction is given, has overtones of persecution, fear and bloodshed for the community reading this letter. Romans 13:1-7 is not a call to blind obedience to the state, but to prudent action; its very vocabulary hints that this particular authority is not living up to its God-given calling. In a nutshell, Paul is saying, Be careful.
I'm interested in this issue, the question of what we should do about a violent state, because it is relevant to the current time, and it seems to me to be one of the central issues of the Christian religion. I am therefore, kinda dissappointed that there is so little discussion of this in Paul, even though Romans touches on it, or anywhere else in the Gospels. If there was more said, I'd think you'd be able to cite them along with your Romans 13.
You end up saying that Paul basically tells us to "be careful." I think this would be true advice anywhere. But, that makes it cliche. The big questions that I have seem to be avoided altogether. Yes, we may think, we need to be careful, but is this care to be taken as defenders of the empire or as subversives? And what considerations should we make to decide what we should do? These are the questions that should be discussed and I don't see Paul doing this.
I see ambiguity. So, Paul may say that "serving the empire" was akin to idolatry. Does this mean that being a Senator of Congress or a General in the army made one an idol worshiper? One worshipped the state in which you held high office. How much participation in the state does one have to be committed to before one has gone too far. Does being a dog catcher make one an idol worshiper?
This kind of criticism of governmemt involvement seems to make no distinction between what we might take to be a worthy state and one which would be unworthy of us. So, I think one should be able to assess the kind of state you're a part of and try to commit oneself to worthy governments. So, working to defend a government that helps the poor would be something that would be commendable, whereas being a camp guard at Buckenwald would not be. I realize this kind of contrast would be real easy for us to answer. No, we would be able to easily refuse to be camp guards. It is the more subtle questions that we need advice to help us. Can Paul help us decide whether we should be liberal or conservative in these United States? Shouldn't he be able to make some helpful recommendations?
Paul does not seem to help us evaluate states or governments, he just says that participation makes one an idol worshipper. This seems to be a crude failure on Paul's part.
There is this quote from the text,
"...This teaching cant be isolated from what Paul is saying in the surrounding passage. It is preceded by a radical call against conformity to this age (12:1-2), within a context of persecution at the hands of the empire in 12:9-21."
When I read this I want to read into what is said the argument that we should support the work of the Rev. King who wanted us to reject American segregationalism despite the persecution that would come one's way. Yet, I see that many Christians supported segregation, because it was a conservative value. The segregation of the races seemed to be ordained by God in the minds of many. Isn't this what supported racism in America? How else could it have developed unless American Christians enabled it.
Given the violent nature of the American state, I am curious about what Paul means by his cautionary advice. I think he means that one should make a peace with the murderers and thieves who run the world. That peace consists of the deal: We as Christians won't object to the powerful torturing others for profit, so long as the powerful don't come after us.
This view sounds like a cowardly way of dealing with mobsters, but I think a more principled objection to people who think they need to steal your valuables and kill you if you resist would not be careful.
If you understand the world as being run by mobsters, then to be careful, may just be a recommendation to make such a deal.
I think that people who resort to violence must think that's the best way to meet their goals. If one would like to resist the rule of violence and the fear that such people force on others, then you have to challenge their claim that the powerful need to be violent to succeed. When Paul says that in the face of mobsters we need to be careful, and that's it, I think he's failed as a moral teacher.
I have read recently, briefly, about the German resistance to Nazi governmental, cultural, and academic changes. There was a story of some students who decided they needed to resist the changes they saw by writing and passing out leaflets on the grounds of their university. They were caught and executed. But, people have since remembered their courage even after they were sentenced by the government corrupted courts. These students did not listen to Paul, who would have told them to be careful. If they were careful, they would have been like too many of their fellow Germans who saw the corruption of their leaders but did not do anything to rock the boat.
Personally, I think the issue is whether you support argument and the Golden rule, or you don't, in which case you will naturally think that force is the only way to get things done. On this basis, I think the war in Iraq is immoral and our leaders have broken our own laws for no good end.
I don't think Paul has any such argument in mind. This is a shame.
I cited the Romans 13 passage to you because it was the one you referenced in an earlier post. It is somewhat of an aside in the book, which is (as the title makes clear) about Colossians. Again, if this is really of interest to you, I would recommend you read the book to get the full sense of their arguments and decide whether they are credible to you. In the book, they claim that Paul's message undermines a host of imperial imagery and power claims and turns them on their head, making the empire out to be a hollow idol. I don't think Paul would argue with the idea that you have to assess the kind of state you live in...not sure where you came up with that idea.
Paul was writing to a specific place and time, and to assume he realized his words would be incorporated into a Bible and read and pondered over thousands of years later and applicable to all governments that ever existed...is somewhat of a crude failure on your part, perhaps. Too many times, people want a list of do's and don'ts instead of realizing that the 'figuring out' of things in our time is a big part of what we are called to. ("...they propose a hermeneutic of scripture which emphasizes the participatory nature of the story. We are not called to memorize lines from a completed script and "repeat [them] verbatim, over and over." Rather, they suggest - in concert with N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham, England - we are actors in a part of the story that is not yet written, and we are improvising with the help of a great Director. As society and culture unfold around us, we are entrusted with the great responsibility to live the continuing story.")
I have to say that my reading of Colossians does not support the following claim,
"...In the book, they claim that Paul's message undermines a host of imperial imagery and power claims and turns them on their head, making the empire out to be a hollow idol."
I say this because it seems to me that the task of Paul's letter to the Colossians is to get them to ignore the character of the world and the arguments that philosophers might make about that world and, instead, pay exclusive attention to what Paul says are the preferences of God.
So, Paul tells us,
"...My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments."
Which he elaborates in saying,
"...See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
I claim that Paul makes Jesus out to be some kind of hero who provides the kinds of things, i.e., knowledge and wisdom, which heretofore to him was provided through the kinds of arguments that Paul recommends the Colossians ignore. It's this kind of argument which I suspect makes the empire seem like a hollow idol, not any consideration of the nature of the empire. That is, Paul is not here recommending that there is anything that the empire might be doing or standing for that makes it evil. It's only crime is that it exists in a world that Paul recommends we ignore for the sake of paying attention exclusively to the message of Jesus.
The claim that Paul is making some kind of temporal comments about some specific time and situation, so that my criticism that he does not provide us 2,000 years later with credible advice is misplaced, is not born out in the text of Colossians. That is, Paul is trying to force his view of Jesus on the community of Colossians while trying to deny them the ability to question his arguments by appealing to the advice of philosophers.
I did not presume that Paul was giving us here in these United States bad advice, because I forgot that he was talking to specific people about their specific problems way back when. I see Paul as arguing for a particular philosophical position which has implications not only for the Colossians but for us.
I oppose Paul's philosophy as it was advocated to the Colossians and as it would be argued to us now.
One of the problems with Paul's rejection of the empire is that it is based purely on the preferences of its advocates. If Paul doesn't like the Roman Empire he argues that we are bound by God to reject it. If Paul or his apologists like the United States Empire then they argue that we are bound by God to support that empire. The support of the Church for the empire, or the rejection of the empire by the church, depends not on the church's assessment of the empire or its actions, but on what the leaders or rulers of the Church say the will of God might be about that empire.
According to Paul in Colossians, our figuring out of what to do about the Empire should not involve "clever" arguments from philosophers, but, presumably, what rulers of the Church like paul say about the preferences of God.
I reject Paul's argument in Colossians because our support or rejection of just about anything, including the Empire, should be based on facts about those things, facts about the Empire, not on the claims of any rulers of one's church. This seems to me to be a view of things that any Savior worth his salt would support.
"One of the problems with Paul's rejection of the empire is that it is based purely on the preferences of its advocates."
Walsh and Keesmaat, I think, would disagree--Paul's rejection of the empire is based on a history and story and metaphors and imagery that were thousands of years in the making, and which Paul was steeped in.
"I reject Paul's argument in Colossians because our support or rejection of just about anything, including the Empire, should be based on facts about those things, facts about the Empire, not on the claims of any rulers of one's church."
I think here, too, you may be off-base in your assumptions. Paul is holding up the "facts" (claims and experienced realities) of the empire to another, alternate/subversive worldview with alternate/subversive claims and experienced realities, and making the case that the latter should hold our allegiance.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the "history and story and metaphors and imagery that were thousands of years in the making, and which Paul was steeped in." Do you mean Jewish history, etc.? Do you mean something called the "perennial philosophy"?
And I do not understand what you are trying to contrast in the last paragraph with "facts." You say it's "another, alternate/subversive worldview with alternate/subversive claims and experienced realities, and making the case that the latter should hold our allegiance." And I'm not sure what the point of such a comparison would be, as my point is that our understanding of an empire, or our friend, or one's way of life, for example, is based, or should be based, on facts about the empire, our friend, our way of life, and so on. I don't know what the point of looking at some other alternative worldview would be.
1. I mean Jewish history, etc. as opposed to simply "Paul's preferences"
2. What do you propose we measure the "facts about the empire" with, if not
an alternate worldview? How do we evaluate these facts? Without another
worldview to use in exposing the empire's as a lie, we cannot do much
with the "facts".
I am going to presume that I understand whats on Laryns mind here. I will lay out what I think she must be thinking when she says Paul appeals to Jewish history to make any critique of the Roman Empire and that one has to appeal to some alternative worldview in order to evaluate facts. I may be mistaken in part, or completely. I would appreciate her telling me so.
Laryn believes we should not only rely on Gods understanding of morality, but also his understanding of knowledge and what is true. In other words, Laryn argues that we are mistaken if we think knowledge or values are reality based. The purpose of Colossians is to claim that reality is a misplaced foundation for claims about knowledge or values. Instead, we must place our trust in the alternative worldview of God.
Laryn believes you cant do anything with facts because on any persons account of the world, or the Empire, their facts are unassailable. That is, one cannot dispute that for that person whatever they claim is a fact is so. The reason for this is that the support one musters for any claim about what reality is like is supported by their experiences. The claim that such and such is a fact about the world is thus supported by a persons experience of the world. The claim one makes about ones experiences are unassailable in the same way that one cannot dispute the claim that you are having a certain sensation or pain. And since ones claims about ones experiences are indisputable, the claims we make about the facts of the world are indisputable.
On this view, ones claims about what may or may not be a fact about the world, or the Empire, is just a statement about what one has personally experienced. It is this kind of view we say is subjective and relativistic.
Laryn seems to suggest that one could criticize anyones claims about the Empire from any other world view, so long as it was an alternative view, and maybe a little subversive. This would seem to be a mistaken understanding of Laryns view because Im sure she doesnt mean that the Presidents understanding of the threat posed by Iran is wrong-headed because it does not agree with my understanding of Irans threat. That is, Im sure you cant criticize some account of the world on the basis of any old alternative viewpoint.
I think this is why Laryn says Paul based his criticisms of the Roman Empire on what he took to be Jewish history. Paul wasnt just appealing to the preferences of the Jews in matters of morals or understanding of the affairs of state. Rather, the important thing about Jewish history, according to Paul, was that it was informed or inspired by the preferences of God. The importance of this is that where we who live in the world have subjective and relativistic accounts of the world, God has an objective and absolute view of things.
The reason Laryn thinks we must evaluate facts from the perspective of an alternative, and presumably better, worldview, is that the facts provided by any of our reality based points of view have necessary limitations. I think this is why President Bush is not impressed by anyones argument that Iraq or Iran does not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor that they do not pose a credible threat to the United States or even Israel. He does not listen to his critics in the reality based community because their facts and arguments have the unavoidable limitation of subjectivity and relativism. Like Laryn or Paul of Tarsus, the President is trying to listen only to God in these matters.
I guess what Im saying is that Paul who wrote Colossians, and Laryn who supports him, advocate one of your standard philosophical views with all its implications. When Paul tells his readers to ignore the arguments of the philosophers, he is just trying to prevent them from adequately evaluating the philosophical arguments he is asking them to accept. He tries to get his audience to accept the idea that Jesus who they would like to support would go along with Pauls ideas about knowledge and values. I think that Jesus need not be committed to the particular philosophy advocated in Colossians. Neither should we. He would not advocate it because, as we can see how it enables President Bush to invade defenseless and harmless countries, it makes those committed to it a danger to themselves and others.
Thanks for the long post...but you do effectively put a lot of words in my mouth. I guess I'd summarize my concern this way: If we are going to critique a worldview which claims to be authoritative over all aspects of our life, we will need to do so from outside that worldview (ie. from an alternative worldview). That, simply put, is my point. You seem leery of acknowledging that we all need to argue from a particular perspective, but I think that is fairly well established.
Also, you seem hung up on the line about philosophy (perhaps you are a philosopher and you find this line about not being captive to "hollow and deceptive" philosophies to be directed against your hobby or profession...would you then say that people should be captive to "hollow and deceptive" philosophies? Perhaps Paul is arguing against a particular hollow and deceptive philosophy in a particular place (Colossae) and time (1st century)?
Anyway, to reiterate...I just did the book review. If you want to engage these ideas further you should read the book.
We begin today a series on Colossians and to do this I will be reading my way through a book many of you have perhaps read: Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmat, a husband and wife team, wrote Colossians Remixed.
Here's a guiding theme for the whole: "The epistle to the Colossians, we are arguing, was an explosive and subversive tract in the context of the Roman empire, and it can be and ought to function in an analogous way in the imperial realities of our time. This letter proclaimed an alternative reality, animating a way of life that was subversive to the ethos of the Roman empire" (8).
We read Colossians in its context and â just as importantly â we read Colossians from our context. W-K see three major themes in our context today, and they are the one shaping "William's" quest â who represents the postmodern â as we begin to read Colossians:
1. Postmodern disquiet, flanked simultaneously by
2. Cybernetic global optimism fueled by
3. Globalism
Just in case you are wondering what Walsh and Keesmaat's understanding of Colossians and postmodernity might look like, they have "updated" Colossians 1:1-14, what the ancient Jews called a "targum."
So ever since we have heard of your faith, love and hope, we have not ceased to pray for you. And our prayer is that in a world that has commodified knowledge, you will be saturated with the holistic, intimate knowledge of God's way with this world that he has created. May your lives be characterized not by the accumulation of disembodied, unconnected facts and information but by a playful, history-embracing, this-worldly, interconnected wisdom that traces the wise and loving way God engages this world in all of its rich diversity.
What is perhaps most interesting to me about W-K's "commentary" (Colossians Remixed) is their explanation of three terms [make that four]: peace, grace, truth, and spiritual wisdom.
Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat's commentary, Colossians Remixed, blends three elements: a postmodern approach, a socio-economic critique of empire in the West, and a creative attempt to get into the realities of the Colossian letter and its recipients. Chp 3 is creative.
Here are the five themes of empire, and they draw out significant analogies between Rome and the West, especially the American system.
1. Systemic centralizations of power: the paterfamilias system, with the emperor at the top, and the patron-client relationships of Rome. Global economic structures, so they suggest, are not that dissimilar to the systemic centralization of Rome. Is Paul's understanding of paterfamilias undone by his presentation of church and family?
2. Secured by structures of socioeconomic and military control: Rome can be explained this way, and probably also the USA. How does the message of a king on a cross respond to these?
3. Religiously legitimated by powerful myths: The overriding Roman myth was Pax Romana; there is also, so they suggest, Pax Americana, that is shaped by the myth of progress. Paul repudiated Pax Romana and appealed to Pax Christi.
4. Sustained by proliferation of imperial and empire images: coins, monuments, art, etc.. and so also in our world. Paul's message was about Jesus being the image of God.
How do we tell the story of the Bible? Let's keep it simple: the Reformed focus on covenant, the Lutherans on Gospel and Law, low church evangelicals on personal redemption ⌠and we could go on. What Walsh and Keesmaat do is tell the story of the Bible through the lens of empire.
One of the responses I am having to W-K, along with saying to myself "that's pretty good," is "Is this Jewish enough?" In other words, is Paul's concern "Rome's empire" or "Israel's history"?
This is poetry; this is poetry about the "image". And Walsh and Keesmaat, in their Colossians Remixed, argue this is subversive poetry, poetry about an image that undermines empire and Rome and Caesar.
Walsh and Keesmaat (Colossians Remixed) suggest we develop, alongside Paul's and fired both by Paul's imagination and the narrative of Scripture, an imagination that is an "alternative to the empire's" (85).
As soon as he [Paul] made references to âimage of God,' âfirstborn' and âfirst place,' everyone with ears to hear would know that he was contrasting Jesus with Caesar" (89).
We've been hard on W-K in their commentary on Colossians called Colossians Remixed and I'm being hard on them because I want to see evidence and not just explanation.
W-K, in Colossians Remixed, make the observation that many try to see the "thrones and dominions" (shorthand for the four terms found in Colossians 1:16) in either exclusively political or spiritual (angels, etc) terms.
"Regimes of truth" and the "word of truth" is the subject of chp 6 in Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed. The chp begins with this statement: "The Colossian Christians had trouble on both sides. To many Jews they were heretics, and to the empire they were seditious" (96).
Michel Foucault: "Truth is a thing of this world⌠induces effects of power ⌠Each society has its regime of truth ⌠the status of of those who are charged with saying what counts as true" (102). Truth is constructed and power is its originator. Truth thus becomes a regime.
Instead of just accepting the totalizing claim of the opponents and dissing the totalizing claim of Paul, what if we â they ask â "apply a Foucauldian critique to both the author of Colossians 2 and the philosophy itself?" (105)
"If this drama has the redemption of all creation as its focus, then any violent, ideological, self-justifying ownership of the story ⌠brings the story to a dramatic dead end that has missed the creationally redemptive point" (109).
The exodus liberation of the Son is a new exodus. It is a kingdom of loving inclusion and this is established in a way radically different from a regime of truth. The violence is absorbed by the Son not dispersed on others. Defeat is not by violence but by sacrificial love.
The concern of this book is to explore postmodern questions by reading Colossians; they do this creatively and in a variety of ways and much I find in this chp I agree with. This chp is a dialogue about truth â a clearly important subject to the apostle Paul in Colossians.
They proceed by reminding us that truth is commitment â it is relational, fidelity, and covenantal. And the nervousness about talking about truth this way is called "Cartesian anxiety." They say "Fear not."
But "objective" truth, Walsh and Keesmaat argue, hasn't worked yet. The 20th Century was the violent century in history. All empires were built on objectivity. Objectivity, or the rise of the scientific method, has not released the world from oppression. Radical evil â holocausts of Hitler, nuclear war, and Stalin â brings into question the Enlightenment ideology of objectivity.
There are, they say, no metaworldview criteria that can prove one worldview superior to others for those criteria are part of worldview. They argue that we cannot let the idol set the terms of the conversation.
"Our task is to keep the drama alive and move it toward Act VI" (134). Our task is to finish Act 5, part 2. Our task is more than just quoting the earlier script; we are to continue it. We need an imaginative improvisation. We are free for historical innovation.
"Let's not beat around the bush here. What is at stake in this conflict at the cross is indeed a power struggle. And Jesus takes precisely the principalities and powers that placed him on the cross - the idols of militarism, nationalism, racism, technicism, economism-and on that very cross disarms, dethrones, conquers and makes public example of them. In this power struggle, sacrificial low is victorious precisely by being poured out on a cross, a symbol of imperial violence and control."
If with Christ you died in your baptism to the principles of autonomous consumerism that still hold the world captive, then why do you live in a way that suggests that you are still in the iron grip of its ideological vision? Why do you submit yourself to its regulations to consume as if there were no tomorrow, or live as if community were an impediment to personal fulfillment, to live as if everything were disposable, including relationships, the unborn and the environment? Why do you allow this deceitful illusion to still have a hold on you? Donât you know that copulating with the idols of this culture is like climbing into bed with a corpse that is already decomposing?
But we do live in hope. The struggle between the restorative rule of God in Christ and false, empty, deceitful pretenders to sovereignty-this struggle we experience deep within our bodies, our communities, our culture-will reach a final resolution in the return of Christ. Yes, are are waiting, but what we are waiting for is already stored up for us in Christâs heavenly rule and will be revealed in his coming. So live now, animated by that radically subversive hope.
They imagine themselves accusing for not being humble in their broadside against postmodernity. Their response? They are using dynamic analogy and they are not suggesting this is the only way to read Colossians today. But, they believe the audacity of Paulâs letter should be replicated with the same audacity in our culture.
Walsh and Keesmaat, in their ever-provocative study of Colossians in light of postmodernity, Colossians Remixed, devote a chp to Colossians 3 under the thematic heading of âan ethic of secession.â Today we look at how postmoderns view ethical teachings in the New Testament.
W-K contend Paulâs theology and this letter in particular is the exact opposite of an otherworldly ethic. Paul denies an otherworldly ethic in Colossians â and such denies connection with the head in Col 2:19. Christ forms a âbody politic,â the Church (1:18) and the statement that the fullness of God dwelling in Christ bodily is the exact opposite of a world-denying otherworldly ethic (2:9-10).
After mentioning that Paulâs ethic in Colossians is a resurrection, ascension, liberation, and eschatological ethic, Walsh and Keesmaat, in Colossians Remixed, contend also that the ethic of Paul is ârelationalâ and ânarrativeâ and (tomorrowâs post) an ethic of secession.
Most importantly, the ethic of relationship and the ethic of narrative leads to an ethic of secession (from the empire) in Walsh and Keesmaatâs study of Colossians, Colossians Remixed.
Economic brutality leads to sexual brutality and that leads to image-denying brutality. Is the language of 3:5 âbourgeois passivity and middle-class politenessâ? No, they say. This is the discourse of violence against humans and against selves. And they contend that the violent language of 3:8 simply passions and coarse language and unacceptable dispositions.
How then is the postmodern dilemma resolved ethically? If there is anxious paralysis or nihilism or simply the resolution in personal experience, is there any way to render moral judgment when one suspects something is wrong? Walsh and Keesmaat, in Colossians Remixed, suggest that postmoderns âknow there is something wrong with the moral culture of late or post modernity, but they arenât at all sure about how to respondâ (169). Their answer? Grounding oneâs story in an alternative-to-empire story.
1. Patriotism to the empire needs to be re-evaluated. They examine here Romans 13 and contend that this is not obsequiousness to the Roman emperor but is a strategy of limiting the power of the state (they use Acts 16 as an example). The church is an alternative community with an alternative politics. (Perfect!, I say.)
2. Economism is a god. We must reclaim this for our lives.
âWe can argue,â they put into the mouth of âAnthony,â âuntil we are blue in the face that Colossians is good news for an oppressed and marginalized community at the heart of the Roman empire, but unless this good news is for those truly at the margins â slaves, children and women â it is nothing but a noisy gong and a clanging cymbalâ (201).
We come now to the closing chapter of Walsh and Keesmaatâs Colossians Remixed. The last chp is about a âsuffering ethicâ and it concerns the imaginary trial of Nympha.
Nympha is on trial, an imaginary trial, as Walsh and Keesmaat dramatically close off their book: Colossians Remixed. Sheâs been confronted with the âimageâ of God poem of Colossians 1:15-20, which the magistrates think is subversion of Caesar.
âThe counterimperial vision of cosmic reconciliation in Christ is the vision that has transformed this community into a subversive body politic, counter to the empireâ (226).
It is the story of the cross and that means suffering. Israelâs hope is the suffering servant (Isa 53); Jesus is the suffering servant; Paul is on the same path of suffering (Col 1:24).
We have to let the Bible subvert even our most cherished interpretive traditions.
Cross-bearing is integral to being the body of Christ
The church is destined to affliction or, better yet, to oppression. See 2 Cor 1:3-7; Phil 3:8-11 and Rom 8:17. [Question: If âoppressionâ â translating thlipsis â was the analogy between the church and Christ, why is that word never used for Christâs sufferings in the Gospels? It is often used in the Gospels for eschatological tribulation.]
We are called to embody the gospel of a crucified Messiah. This gospel challenges the principalities and powers of our age. The new community is to embody that gospel challenge.
Embrace the one who wears, not a crown, but a cross.
Overall, I enjoyed reading this book. I liked most of it; I disagreed at times because I didnât think the case was proven. If I can see empire implications in the theology of Paul that does not mean that I think Paul had that in his mind as he wrote this letter.
In my reading of Colossians and a number of different commentaries, I have found that the writers of commentaries often apply the principles contained in the book to the problems that they feel are most important to them today rather than attempting to identify what the writer saw as the most important problem facing his audience. Many in the religious right identify man's big problem as sexual sin and therefore major on applying the book in that way. Those within liberal circles focus on social sins and therefore focus on applying the book to primarily cultural ills. But, in reality, these two seemingly irreconcilable positions share more in common than apparent at the first glance.
From a straightforward reading of the text within its contexts, the focus of the book of Colossians becomes more apparent; belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ changes individuals who then interact properly with the world around them. In other words, the message of the book focuses on the importance of internal change which directly results in personal moral change which will eventually result in cultural change, not anti-government (liberal view) or anti-issue (conservative view) agents being instructed to bring about the moralization of our culture. It would seem that governmental change is not the primary issue at hand within the book of Colossians, but a tertiary theme of the book (and the Bible as a whole). Moral change of societies and individuals is a more emphasized theme in the book, but the primary issue of the book (and the Bible as a whole) is personal change by belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. None of these themes should be ignored, but all should be applied in their proper order.
The religious liberal tends to gloss over the direct moral implications of the text in order to focus on a broader concept of societal implication; the religious conservative tends to gloss over indirect social implications in order to focus on the moral implications of the text. Both systems fail to coordinate the two principles under individual change through faith in Christ. Also, both systems attempt to force their concepts on an unregenerate society by attempting to change government from the outside in (the liberal: through revolution or protest; the conservative: through political pressure or political preaching) rather than from the inside out (biblical model: individual change resulting in social change).
One important example within the book is the instructions to slaves and masters. If Paul was advocating gospel-based social change alone, he would have instructed slaves to throw off the yoke of slavery which contradicted the teaching of the gospel; however, if Paul was advocating merely a moral change of society, he would have told masters to release their slaves. In reality, Paul instructed both classes to fulfill their societal responsibilities with a higher purpose (slaves realizing that Christ sees their obedience and will reward them; masters realizing that Christ is their Master Who exercises fairness). Ultimately, Paul knew that the principles of such an internal change with a solid personal testimony would transform the thinking of the entire world from the inside out (this is why the abolition of slavery waited until the cultural milieu of England and the US became greatly inundated with gospel-changed individuals like William Wilberforce who demonstrated such change daily which came to change the viewpoint of their society). This is a proven and scriptural model we can follow to face both the moral and social problems that face our culture today.
For those who reject cut and paste biblical literalism, yet maintain that the Bible is a genuine authority rather than merely a literary or cultural artifact, Sylvia Keesmaat and Brian Walsh present a refreshing alternative in Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. Keesmaat and Walsh use the book of Colossians as a launchpad into their vision of scripture as a story of people struggling with what it means to live faithfully in the midst of a culture that is saturated with seductive, opposing ideas, and ideals.
Shutterstock submissions - Thanks. I wil...
Shutterstock submissions - To be honest,...
That was fast. Thanks! I'm a professiona...
Shutterstock size limits - Chris, I hope...
OK, so I've taken the plunge, starting w...