Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire

From [larynandjanel] - Book Review: Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire:

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.

Comments

[steven andresen]

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?

[laryn]

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.

[steven andresen]

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?

[steven andresen]

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.

[laryn]

[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...It’s 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 Paul’s letter in context reveals that to do so is a form of idolatry.

I’m sure I won’t be able to make the arguments that they make in their book in these short comments—so 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 can’t 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 one’s enemies, Paul’s 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 state’s 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 them—taxes 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.’”

[steven andresen]

To Laryn,

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 can’t 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.

[laryn]

Steven,

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.")

[steven andresen]

To Laryn,

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.

[laryn]

"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.

[steven andresen]

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.

[laryn]

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".

[steven andresen]

I am going to presume that I understand what’s on Laryn’s 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 God’s 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 can’t do anything with ‘”facts” because on any person’s 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 person’s experience of the world. The claim one makes about one’s experiences are unassailable in the same way that one cannot dispute the claim that you are having a certain sensation or pain. And since one’s claims about one’s experiences are indisputable, the claims we make about the “facts” of the world are indisputable.

On this view, one’s 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 anyone’s 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 Laryn’s view because I’m sure she doesn’t mean that the President’s understanding of the threat posed by Iran is wrong-headed because it does not agree with my understanding of Iran’s threat. That is, I’m sure you can’t 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 wasn’t 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 anyone’s 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 I’m 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 Paul’s 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.

[laryn]

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 and understanding of the world, 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.

l.

[steven andresen]

I'm wanting to go back to the origibal comment here. Laryn said,

"...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..."

I'm not sure about this. I am driven to the example of Jesus and the money-lenders in the Temple. We are there asked to imagine that the rulers of the Temple have made secret deals with the money-lenders. The money-lenders provide the wherewithall for the aspirants to become rulers of the Temple, a position they would not otherwise have obtained, and the aspirants, once in power, allow the otherwise prohibited money lenders permission to do business on the Temple grounds.

The purpose of the Temple, of course, is to provide a mechanism for providing much needed services to its people. One of those services is protection from violent enemies.

On this view the Empire can take on the role of money-lender, as one might suppose the Roman Empire became after Constantine, or it could be declared an enemy, much as the communist world became.

Considering this way of understanding the relationship between the church and the empire, it's possible to imagine a very close connection between the church and the empire where the one is supportive of the other, even if covert. The existence of such close connections may not have developed only after several hundred years into the current age. The suspicion that such covert dealings came very early.

There is also the possibility that where one group is dealing covertly with the church, such as the rich, there may be another group declared the enemy, such as the poor. The question would be what the basis might be of these alliances or oppositions.

I think this picture of the Temple and how the rulers are in the business of making covert deals for their own benefit just is the idea of worldviews and their problems, seemingly so well established.

It is the doctrine of worldviews defended by Laryn, and this view of the Temple, that one would want to question.

[steven andresen]

I might read the book. But, my interest is in the notion of worldviews that Laryn supposes is so uncontroversial.

I've read Colossians and it raises the question whether Paul was opposed to Jesus, and whether that opposition was a matter of taking opposing positions on the question of the ends and means of life.

There is a debate about this question. The most notorious articulation of one position on this question was made by Socrates 350 some years previous to Paul. You can see this in a dialogue known as the Republic wherein Socrates tells us our lives are like those living in a cave. Each person's understaning of the world, on this account, has pretty much the same limitations as those of "worldviews" as described by Laryn.

The claim that Paul had just this debate in mind is strengthened by the further claim that the Jewish world had been divided for hundreds of years over just the question of whether one could be committed to Socratic doctrines, primarily this idea of worldviews, and be a Jew and follower of Abraham, at the same time. Some thought you could be a Hellene Jew. Some thought not.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that Paul's real sympathies could be suspect. After all, he began persecuting Stephen the Deacon and other followers of Jesus quite early. Paul claimed that he came to change his mind about Jesus, in a vision, and thereafter, promoted a story about what he learned from his vision. That he made Jesus out to be a Socratic hero, where our lives are a matter of worldviews, where we can only escape them by appealing to the knowledge and wisdom of Godand his messenger son, the lesson to be obtained from Colossians, merely adds support to my suspicions about Paul's intentions.

I am suspicious of Paul's intentions because the things that Jesus is said to have talked about and to have done are themselves arguments against the Socratic doctrine of worldviews. I recommend the golden rule and the example of the money-lenders in the Temple in this regard.

Laryn assumes that no one would oppose the idea that: "If we are going to critique a worldview which claims to be authoritative over all aspects of our life and understanding of the world, we will need to do so from outside that worldview (ie, from an alternative worldview)," My point is that one's refusal to question this idea makes sense if one allows Paul to cover up the arguments that Jesus made against it. One is willing to go along with this because one has presumed that Paul is writing to protect the interests of Jesus and his followers.

I do not see the doctrine of worldviews promoted in Colossians doing that.