Jesus and Empire: An Imperial-Critical Perspective

New Blog Address

2009-06-09T21:27:00.004-05:00

Dear Friends,

I have fallen prey to the devilish desire to abandon my roots and migrate over to Wordpress.

Follow Me and UPDATE your SUBSCRIPTION to my blog at its new home

robgreid.wordpress.com

Obama is sort of God: The Rhetoric Just Doesn't Get any Better than This

2009-06-08T11:14:00.005-05:00

Special thanks to Mike Whitenton for pointing this out to me. Over at SingingintheReign the professors pointed out a very interesting comment on national television by the editor of Newsweek no less, I will let you judge for yourself, but I think this clip points out the unabashed bias, devotion, and fundamentally skewed thinking with regard to the nature of Obama's political career. Sure he's black, he's young, he's hip, he's intellegent, he's left, that's all fine and good. He is a great polititian. However, doesn't anyone else find the rhetoric surrounding his "reign" to be blatantly frightening?

I'm just wondering how long it will be before "those who love America" will offer insense and declare "Obama is Lord" in nationalistic fervor for the new era of America, the "new" "remade" America.

Evil Cheney favored more by American Public than Nancy Pelosi!

2009-06-05T23:37:00.002-05:00

Dear Friends,

While we have heard for the past several years what an evil, diabolical villain Dick Cheney is, being the archenemy of basically everything good, I find it absolutely hilarious that more people like him than Nancy ("the whore of Babylon") Pelosi. Frankly, I find Pelosi absolutely detestable, far more than Cheney. I don't personally favor Cheney, but I am thrilled that more people like him than Pelosi. Now it is empirically proven that most people agree with me, that Pelosi is an idiot, lying ideologue, lunatic who has no business being the speaker of the house.

See the Gallup Poll proof HERE.

P.S. Dallas, I told you so!

John Anderson at Wordpress... an exodus?

2009-06-05T15:04:00.002-05:00

I would like to highly recommend John Anderson's blog. It has recently moved to wordpress and I'm wondering why so many of my fellow bibliobloggers are being led out of the wilderness and into the Wordpress holy land.

Anderson is a very astute Old Testament scholar working heavily in the Jacob cycle of Genesis. His insight and commentary is very valuable in my estimation. He is also a PhD candidate at Baylor (congrats again on passing your comps). My blogroll link to his site is also now current to his new address. Thanks for pointing that out John.

My Master's Thesis

2009-06-01T22:35:00.003-05:00

Today, I received my 2 bound copies of my master's thesis: "Apocalyptic Imagery as Resistance Discourse: An Analysis of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch in Relationship to Matthew 25:31." By employing several analytical tools from postcolonial/imperial-critical analysis in tandem with several of Joseph Fantin's observations from Relevance Theory in order to argue that the "Son of Man" discourse is an apocalyptic discourse that is constructed by the marginalized under imperial persecution and thereby may be understood as a discourse of resistance (similar conceptually to the concept of Negro spirituals sung in the 17th century like "Babylon's a-falling" wherein the slaves envisioned an alternative reality over against their present experience in safely nestled in religious imagery so as to be "coded" to use James Scott's concept of hidden/public transcripts). I argue that this is the case independently and historically for the "Son of Man" figure in Daniel 7, the Parables (Similitudes) of Enoch, and Matthew 25:31. However, of importance to my argument, I view the author of the Parables of Enoch to have taken Dan 7 and dynamically transformed the imagery, that is, s/he took imagery that functioned religio-politically and re-envisioned or "reactualized" the image and developed it further. Indeed, it seems Matthew later did the same thing with the Enochic imagery. What the Parables do with Dan 7 radically furthers the development and in some sense the discourse evolves in a new and different direction. My position is that this is equally the case for Matthew 25:31, namely, that Matthew takes Enochic imagery bearing a normative function and applies it to Jesus. In doing so, I believe that Matthew portrays Jesus in Enochic exaltation language which activates various concepts related to the Enochic portrayal with regard to Jesus, albeit in his own way. Therefore, the Matthean discourse is not merely the Enochic discourse, rather, in some sense, I think Matthew grounds the imagery and conceptual expectation of Enoch in a person, Jesus. Thus, I think in doing so he does not merely say "this is that" but....rather... that, really, is this (Jesus). It seems plausible that if Dan 7 may be perceived, as I have argued, as an imperial resistance discourse, and that the Son of Man in the Parables functions in this way also, that by Matthew relatively clearly employing that imagery and language (i.e. the Son of Man seated on his throne of glory") with the referent of Jesus, that in some sense, that manuever may well have been understood by some, those familiar with the Enochic material, as a discourse of resistance against imperial persecution. Jesus becomes the figurehead whom symbolizes the overthrow of the wicked, the institution of justice, and the marginalized becoming elite.

Therefore, in each chapter I reconstruct a plausible discursive world (conceptual/linguistic world) in which these literary figures arise in order to properly frame the ideological and religious significance of the discourses within the communities in which they arose. Unfortunately, I was severely constrained by the word limitations of a thesis in a school that pressures people who shouldn't be writing a thesis in the first place into doing it. This practice over stretches the faculty and limits those students whose work is advanced enough to warrant much more depth.

Enjoy an excerpt from my conclusion:

This thesis has sought to investigate the literary construction within its milieu of the Son of Man figure within Daniel, the Book of Parables, and Matthew 25:31. Our aim has been to reconstruct the cognitive environment relevant to each document along with its socio-political context in order to analyze the Son of Man figure in that regard. We have determined that each text arose in environments deeply impacted by the phenomena of empire. We have discerned that one aspect of the Son of Man discourse arising in Dan 7, the Book of Parables, and Matthew 25:31 may be understood as functioning among its hearers as a discourse of imperial resistance offering an alternative reality to the hearing community from that envisioned by the dominant imperial powers of the day, in each unique case. Furthermore, we have shown through the use of relevance theory, the likelihood that Matthew 25:31 appropriated and invested with new meaning the “Son of Man” figure as constructed by both Dan 7 and the tradition undergirding the final form of the Book of Parables and applied this new construction to Jesus, in an imperial context, in such way that some of his hearers would have perceived the “Son of Man” as a challenge to the normative power structure enjoyed by the living emperor.

Review of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament ed. Bock, Enns, Kaiser

2009-05-26T09:19:00.002-05:00

I would like to direct your attention, to what I view as a both fair assessment and scathing critique of Kaiser's position in Three Views. Steve Moyise has articulated a very insightful review, available in the Review of Biblical Literature May 2009 Edition (see the RBL blog). I believe that Moyise has captured the subtle nuances and significance offered in this volume by both Bock and Enns, while rightly identifying the naivete offered by Kaiser's outmoded hermeneutical suggestions.

Imperial Power Exerted

2009-05-23T16:20:00.001-05:00

Is it striking to anyone that a cancer patient who is dying does not have the right to refuse treatment? He is a 13 year old boy who took one chemo treatment and doesn't want to continue chemo. His parents support his decision. So what happens? Well a doctor and a judge have determined their opinion should trump both the wills of the dying patient and his parents. So what, in a day in which medical care is supposedly so hard to get, the FBI is hunting down this young man to drag him back and force him to receive treatment! Where is the ACLU to fight for this individuals right to seek alternative treatment.
Moreover, what is next? Will the gustapo come drag you out of your house and force you into service or to receive a "treatment" they deem necessary for you?

-- Post From My iPhone

Pax Pneuma in Print

2009-05-19T08:59:00.003-05:00

Pax Pneuma: The Journal of Pentecostals and Charismatics for Peace & Justice (do check out the link) is now being published by Wipf and Stock. I encourage you to pick up a copy or encourage your library to purchase the volumes as they are released. I am one of two assistant editors on the project and I'm grateful to work with such a wonderful editorial board and excellent contributors. Please consider submitting articles on issues of peace and justice or biblical studies that have some import into peace and justice or critical analysis of the socio-political variety. As you will note, we publish an array of topics all connected, albeit sometimes loosely, to Pentecostalism, peace and justice issues, and anything else the board finds relevant.

Current political policy and imperial critical analysis

2009-05-19T01:05:00.001-05:00

So I have been thinking (dangerous activity I know). For the record, I am neither a democrat or republican. I find it interesting that most of the scholars I know doing postcolonial biblical criticism, individuals keenly in touch with the evils of empire, are politically liberal, either outright Marxist, socialist, or very left leaning democrats. Most that I know are staunch Obama supporters. Indeed, Obama himself is a very well educated man, in tune with oppression and social justice. However, I find an egregious disparity with the radical expansion of government and postcolonial/imperial critical sensibilities. How can individuals who realize the danger and oppresive domination often weilded by centralized power structures support the radical expansion that this administration is putting forward? It seems to me that such policies of increased taxation and govemmental influence in peoples lives is fundamentally contradictory to the fruits of critical analysis of imperial expansion and domination. Does anyone else see a disparity here?
-- Post From My iPhone

Comments on the Church and the Academy

2009-05-17T22:29:00.002-05:00

My good friend Mike Whitenton offered a provocative question in light of his ordination. He queried as to the necessity and relationship of the local church and the academy. I felt my response to him was well worth posting here as well, though I suggest you engage his thoughts also.

I thoroughly believe that the two should be integrated. Taking the faith in the pew and engaging it with critical scholarship is not only honest, frightening, and somewhat dangerous…in my view it is the right thing to do. Might some lose their faith? Well, quite frankly, losing my faith has been the best thing that has ever happened to me. It happens about once every year or two. I don’t stop believing in Jesus, I just grapple with who Jesus was and what his message meant (then) and therefore means (now). In some sense, Jesus for me has changed, or rather perhaps the change is merely perspectival. As the relationship and knowledge has increased, I think I have a deeper more robust faith, though the crutches I held on to in earlier days, when I had faith and God and truth all figured out have long since fallen away, but yet and still I follow Jesus. I am an ordained minister and full time pastor, I am also an academic, starting doctoral work in the fall and looking forward to a fruitful career in the academy AND the local church.

Capitalist Jesus spotted at Target

2009-05-17T01:15:00.000-05:00

Could there possibly be anything more offensive than a Jesus action figure who, when squeezed, speaks Bible verses? For real, this and a Mary counterpart who speaks can be yours for only $19.99! I am speechless. Also, available is a " Warrior Sampson" so you to can make war, God's way. My son said, "Look Mommy, it's God!" (at Target no less).

-- Post From My iPhone

He's back!

2009-05-16T17:53:00.001-05:00

I am now back. I graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary with a Master of Theology degree in New Testament Studies this past week with Highest Honors (top 3 in my class). I am most greatful to my wife and children for seeing me though a four year degree in three years. I am grateful for the education I received, but having evolved significantly in terms of ideology and I am very much looking forward to studying in a less ideologically restrictive environment so I can freely express my thoughts.

Stay tuned I will be posting frequently from my new iphone.

-- Post From My iPhone

Name that Messianic Tradition 2: Answer

2009-04-02T20:48:00.004-05:00

This text is from Psalms of Solomon 17:27. With some language very reminiscent of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and yes Enochic tradition, this text depicts what appears to be a militaristic messianic figure. One who will purge the wicked:

Ps_Sol. 17:23 (21) Look, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David,
At the time in the which you see, O God, that he may reign over Israel your servant
24 (22) And endue him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, 25 And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction. (23) Wisely, righteously 26 he shall thrust out sinners from (the) inheritance, He shall destroy the pride of the sinner as a potter’s vessel. (24) With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance,
27 He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth; (25) At his rebuke nations shall flee before him, And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their heart.

Ps_Sol. 17:28 (26) And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in righteousness, And he shall judge the tribes of the people that has been sanctified by the Lord his God.

Here we see a developed dynastic expectation, embodied in an ideal Davidite, who will "shatter" and "purge," thereby illustrating the militaristic aspect of this messianic tradition. He will wield authority that causes the nations to retreat and will usher in an age of righteousness. His age will be the "end of exile" (e.g. "gather a holy people"). Very interesting stuff.

Name that Messianic Tradition 2

2009-04-02T20:32:00.003-05:00

I don't know how much fun this is for you, but I love it. Identify this text and, if you can, describe something specific about the shape of this expectational tradition. :)

At his rebuke nations shall flee before him,
And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their heart.

Name that Messianic Tradition 1 Answer

2009-03-29T22:12:00.003-05:00

Mr. Whitenton, you get the prize. This is Ezra's dream/vision figure of a man ascending from the sea.

This text comes from 4 Ezra 13:26. I originally omitted "come up from the sea" because that would give it away. This passage is the interpretation of Ezra's dream/vision.

Name that Messianic Tradition 1

2009-03-29T22:06:00.005-05:00

We are going to play a new game called "Name that Messianic Tradition." See if you can discern the author, passage and figure-description (or round about "title") of the figure in view. By the way, "Messiah" is not what I'm looking for, rather see if you can describe the figure's characteristics within the literature.

1. Text: "As for your seeing a man...this is he whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation."

President Obama.... My new Chia Pet?

2009-03-25T00:38:00.005-05:00

Well we may be in the worst economic downturn since 1983, but things are looking up... at least for the new "Chia-Pet" Obama head! Too

For an interesting article about this in the Chicago Tribune see here. I am totally going to get a Chia Obama on my desk. Too bad his hair doesn't grow nearly as fast as the national deficit.

Walk through the Fire: Sermon on Facing Life's Adversity

2009-03-22T20:59:00.001-05:00

Here is a sermon I preached today at Rockpointe Church (Flower Mound, TX).

The Failure of Government to Learn

2009-03-17T23:39:00.005-05:00

The Community Reinvestment Act, a policy originated in '77 under Jimmy Carter, essentially legislated banks, by means of employing pressure through the FDIC insurance group to force banks to lend to borrowers that posed a serious credit risk. However, the government's perpetuation of this program led to the housing crisis that we are all now privy to.

Would you believe that the FDIC is still, yes, currently using using this Act to tarnish the records of banking executives who were more careful with their lending? Insanity! See here in the Boston Business Journal, a bank executive who was careful, so careful with his lending that his bank is still turning a profit and presently holds no defaulted loans, while holding a top credit rating... Was he given the "Banker of the Year" award? Was he praised for using good judgment, for being faithful to do business well? No, his bank was slapped with the label "needs to improve" under the Community Reinvestment Act!

Why anyone would be ignorant enough, in light of the data so evident in almost every realm, to continue to believe the government is capable much less skilled in accomplishing anything productive is quite frankly, beyond me.

I am disgusted with America and infuriated at the imbeciles who continue to get re-elected, despite their complete stupidity and inability to accomplish anything.

Sermon about Overcoming Heroin Addiction: My Life Story

2009-03-13T09:32:00.003-05:00

I had the opportunity to share my life story at my church last week, Pastor Ron Holton and myself c0-taught a message. The first 13 minutes or so are Ron setting the message up and walking through the narrative in John 4 about Jesus encountering the Samaritan woman. Then I give my life story in about 12 minutes and conclude the message with some applicational points. The gist of the message addresses maladaptive behaviors, our metaphor being "the cycle," those that lead to addictions of all kinds, and it also offered a foretaste of a class I will be teaching on addiction at Rockpointe Church for the next three weeks.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE SERMON.

Entering the PhD program in Biblical Interpretation at Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University Fall 2009

2009-03-08T23:00:00.004-05:00

I am very happy to report that I have been offered and have accepted admission to the Doctor of Philosophy program in Biblical Interpretation at Brite Divinity School, TCU (Fort Worth, TX). I will be afforded the opportunity of working with some very cutting edge thinkers in imperial-critical thought (imagine that!) such as Warren Carter (Matthew and Empire [2001]; John and Empire [2008]), Fransisco Lozada, Jr., Leo Purdue, and a host of other excellent scholars. Needless to say, I am thrilled.

Obama, now more popular that Jesus, God, Ghandi, JFK, Mother Teresa

2009-02-23T22:21:00.004-06:00

There is hard data to prove that Barack Obama is now more popular than Jesus, God, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, JFK, Oprah, Bill Gates, and every other figure that could be deemed a "hero" by the populace.

See Harris Interactive poll HERE. But don't worry, I'm just over the top when I say that we too, like ancient Rome, give more than honor to our emperors.

A Scholar Who Will Be Missed: Harold Hoehner 1935-2009

2009-02-12T13:04:00.004-06:00

Several evenings ago, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Seminar for the Discussion of Early Catholic Christianity. There Dr. Warren Carter from Brite Divinity School presented a paper: "Matthew: Empire, Synagogues, and Horizontal Violence." While the dialogue that evening certainly deserves comment, that shall have to wait for a later post. That evening, I sat next to Harold Hoehner, Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Little did I know, that night would be the last time I would encounter Dr. Hoehner on this side of the great divide. This morning, Dr. Hoehner passed on, leaving behind a cacophony of voices who will sorely miss him. Hoehner was a stalwart of scholarship, exemplified a charitable fair-mindedness, and without question played the most pivotal role in shaping the face of the New Testament department both in makeup and fundamental exegetical methodology over the past quarter century.

Although I was not personally one of Dr. Hoehner's students, my several encounters with him were always warm. He was understanding and very thoughtful. The other night, just in our casual conversation, these characteristics were apparent. He was interested in me and my studies. Upon hearing which undergraduate I attended, Professor Hoehner immediately brought up a former student of his, Bruce Rosdahl, who was one of my professors in undergraduate study. I remember being surprised by how sharp his mind was and how thoughtful a person he was to have paid such close attention to those whom he taught. I am grateful for having known him, even in a limited sense, and I express my deepest condolences both to his family and the Dallas Seminary family who will miss Dr. Hoehner. I am sure that more substantive accounts will be forthcoming from Hoehner's colleagues of the great legacy that he has left behind.

Fantastic Resource on Romans: "Coded Resistance: A Proposed Rereading of Romans 13:1-7" by Sze-Kar Wan

2009-01-31T09:46:00.011-06:00

As a grader at for a graduate exegetical class on the book of Romans, I am constantly looking for cutting edge critical resources. Two years ago, I heard a most compelling paper at a conference held at Southern Methodist University called Religion and Empire which hosted a robust panel of critical scholars from various disciplines within biblical and theological studies. Among the presenters were Sze-Kar Wan, Abraham Smith, Joerg Rieger, Namsoon Kang, Marc Ellis, and others. One lecture that stood out was presented by Sze-Kar Wan, Professor of New Testament at Perkins School of Theology. Later I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Wan, who was not only an engaging scholar, but a genuinely kind man. I found out that his paper was subsequently published as "Coded Resistance: A Proposed Rereading of Romans 13:1-7" in The Bible in the Public Square: Reading the Signs of the Times, eds. Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, and Jonathan A. Draper (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008), 173-84.

Firstly, I would like to commend this entire volume to those interested in engaging the biblical texts through an imperial-critical optic. This text happens to be dedicated to the influence of Richard A. Horsley (something I was not aware of prior to owning the volume) and contains a host of provocative essays on a variety of biblico-theological issues from some world class thinkers: Warren Carter, Cynthia B. Kittredge, Steven J. Friesen, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and many others. The articles are arranged in a tripartite framework, namely, Biblical Insight into the Present Moment, Questioning ἐκκλήσια and the Academy, and Prospects for Politically Engaged Biblical Studies. Leaping from the Table of Contents are several topics such as C. Kittredge's "Echoes of Paul in the Speeches of George W. Bush," A. Callahan's "American Babylon: Days in the Life of an African-American Idea," S. Friesen's "The Blessings of Hegemony: Poverty, Paul's Assemblies, and the Class Interests of the Professoriate," A. Smith's "'Nobody Tasted Blood in It': Public Intellectuals Interrogating Myths of Innocence in Biblical Studies," and E. S. Fiorenza's "Reading Scripture in the Context of Empire" just to name a few.

Secondly, I would like to commend specifically Sze-Kar Wan's article for anyone critically engaging Romans 13:1-7, a text that has been frequently democratized into a biblical mandate for American patriotism. That is not to say that everyone has been compelled by such a prima facie reading of imperial complicity, but many have. What Wan proposes is a "rereading" with an eye to the conflictual nature of the text and its readers; indeed, he underscores the duality of the discourse as read by "insiders," those Roman Christians who would be familiar with the message of the early Jesus movement and Paul's thought over against the powerful, ruling elite who may read the text as reinforcing the dominant class's own view of themselves (174). Wan employs a "two-level reading" (a development inspired by Herzog, "Dissembling") akin to John C. Scott's public and hidden scripts (cf. Domination and the Arts of Resistance). This reading strategy offers the tools to decipher a functional duality within the text, a surface reading through one socio-politically situated community and a reading that individuals in a shared cognitive environment, privy to the religious convictions of the early Jesus movement, would have likely perceived. Moreover, this unmasks the "coded resistance" evidencing the "safe" reading for the elite, which enshrines the subversive, subtle script of resistance. Wan's lexical, exegetical, and biblical-theological moves are cohesive, cumulative, and should be reckoned with by those who tout the tacit Western imperial reading.

I have intentionally omitted a detailed analysis of his argument because I think it a very worthy read. However, I will say that his points regarding several subtleties in the text necessitate consideration, such as Paul's explicit fight elsewhere over the title διάκονος and its use in this passage (Wan, 179-81), the shift of number between ἐξουσίαις and ἐξουσία as well as οἰ ἄρχοντες and ἐξουσίαν (180-83), and others which are amply sustained with detailed observations illustrate the thought and effort Dr. Wan has exhibited in this work as well as the justification for his argument to be grappled with by those with opposing viewpoints.

Indeed, if one probes Wan's argument long, the question necessarily arises as to why the reigning reading of Romans 13:1-7 by the majority of so-called orthodox/conservative Christianity has been Paul acquiescing to Caesar and justifying the empire and her behavior; this, in turn, has translated into the legitimation of the Christian Right's theocratizing tendenz; and the commissioning of complicity with the whims of imperial leaders and their programs among the populace, regardless of the degree to which those enterprises stand in contradistinction to the way of Jesus. The implicit answer, I think, is because the modern American necessarily, devoid of the lexico-syntactic Κοινή indicators that Wan identifies (i.e. unable to see the subtlty couched in an ancient language and text), coupled with a Weltanschauung constructed largely by imperial power and legitimation, read the text as the ruling elite, as the world superpower, as the empire by which all peoples should do obeisance. Might the standard reading that Paul, contrary to his other stances toward empire, be instructing Christians to obey the rulers because disobedience is tantamount to disobeying God be a self-condemning reading, thereby convicting the imperial reader?

Regardless, Dr. Wan's exegetical case is one that must at least be considered when interacting with this text. As a grader, nothing is more of an affront than a paper that does not illustrate a clear and concerted attempt to find alternative viewpoints and weigh them critically, irrespective of the conclusions reached, whether one finally arrive at a "conservative" or "liberal" judgment, academic integrity necessitates a fair consideration of opposing viewpoints.

I will likely comment on several other chapters at future dates, but time presently does not permit it. Whatever tradition one finds themselves in theological or ideologically speaking this volume is one that should be reviewed by all.

The Enthronement of a New Emperor: Reflections on the so-called Inauguration

2009-01-22T09:14:00.005-06:00

With the recent accession of the new President, the world watched as the new emperor ascended the throne. The praise rang out in the streets, peoples all over the empire watched as their new leader came to power. Indeed, millions around the world tuned in to watch. The festivities included many banquets, a tour symbolically re-actualizing parts of American history as Obama made his way to Washington by train. Then the grand festival took place, the former rulers gathered, the new ruler was crowned, and he proclaimed the good news of his rule, in the name of justice and mercy. Millions crowded the streets, crying, singing, with great joy at the monumental greatness of their new emperor. Songs were sung, poems were read, priests invoked the gods, and the new emperor was enthroned. Then the emperor was lead through the streets as the cheering denizens waved so they could catch a glimmer of his greatness and beauty. In the evening multitudes of banquets were held to honor the new emperor, gifts were bestowed upon him, and he was extolled.

One woman spoke of the Benefactor as follows:

In an age in which millions of Americans are financially crippled and struggling to pay their bills, we spent more than 80 million dollars for the inaugural festivities, the most expensive inauguration in American history. How is this financially responsible? How is this doing the "hard thing"? How is this change? I am very hopeful that our standing in the world will improve and some of our injustices may well recede with this new emperor, but I fail to see that this new ruler will actually change the shape of our empire in a significant way. And moreover, I am perpetually concerned that our present practices, seemingly so "secular" and "political" or "patriotic," do not have a greater significance religiously, and do not resemble with both aspects of similarity and dissimilarity the Roman Empire during the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

An imperial critical perspective of the inauguration would be sensitive, despite one's own personal stake and hope in the change of political rulers, to the praxis of the empire in these festivities. There is a fine line between where religious affections border on what appears to be simply nationalism. Can politics be bifurcated from religious affection? It was not in the ancient world, and I question whether such a distinction itself isn't an imperial construct to perpetuate the imperial religion alongside alternative religious expressions in order to appear unrelated and thereby logically consistent to hold simultaneously. Just a thought.

Israel and Gaza: Removing the Imperial West's Goggles

2009-01-11T00:16:00.002-06:00

Frankly, I have never been more disgusted in my entire life than I am with the way in which the media portrays the crisis in Gaza. Although I have been mulling over this for several weeks, I read a fantastic blog on this today over on James Crossley's Earliest Christian History blog. My sentiments couldn't have been articulated more clearly; thanks to Professor Crossley for beating me to it. As he points out, when will we start the narrative being woven? This is the point. The media, with wall to wall coverage, begins the narrative with Hamas lobbing puny rockets at Israel. But that is not where the Gaza crisis begins! It began in 1948 when the Palestinians had their land high-jacked and were relegated to the slums of Gaza. However, this isn't the narrative that gets told. No, we Americans have legitimated our own world domination through God and thus we have also legitimated Israel's occupation of others land and terrorism against the Palestinians theologically, with the Bible. Yes, that is right. Here in America, because of our faithful friends the dispensational looney tunes who believe Israel raping the land from the Palestinians is God's ordained end-time scheme, have used Jesus to justify war against those on the margins. I'm ashamed. Ashamed of so many Christians who can't see that Jesus never justifies war. Ashamed of so many so-called Bible believers who have a naive theological system they are protecting, yet most are unable to perceive that they have been given biblical goggles that are not biblical (maybe mine aren't either, but certainly closer to the historical Jesus is the way of peace regardless of empire)! Ashamed of the American media, who has no problem showing the utmost bias, almost as if they don't have a bias (much like fundamentalist) when it comes to American politics, but fail to offer cogent, moderately balanced reporting when it comes to presenting both sides of a conflict. And day by day, hour by hour, the media continues to cast the same narrative that it is all the wicked Palestinian terrorists fault. Never are Israel's practices called into question, I mean seriously, they were just totally minding their own business when these nutty Palestinians started persecuting them, right? I think not.

From "Postcolonial" to "Imperial-Critical": The Shifting of the Paradigm; or is it?

2008-12-30T10:30:00.004-06:00

You will notice, this blog's title/subtitle has changed from Jesus and Empire: A Postcolonial Perspective to Jesus and Empire: An Imperial-Critical Perspective. This shift has been one I have pondered in my mind for several months. It was born out of a conversation that I had with Professor Francisco Lozada, Jr. at Brite Divinity School as well as an ongoing personal conversation with my good friend Dallas Gingles.

In what follows I will articulate, albeit in brief, the rationale for my shift. Firstly, the term "postcolonial" despite the works of Stephen Moore, R. S. Sugirtharajah, Fernando Segovia, and others, continues to be misunderstood even in the academic community. This is the case for two primary reasons, I think: (a) the prefixed "post-" continues to be understood as a temporal indicator of some sort to the average person unfamiliar with the highly nuanced discussion and (b) it becomes more difficult to communicate the nature of the type of ideological criticism being employed on the biblical texts when the prima facie glance most individuals offer in the direction of this criticism is confounded by a seemingly anachronistic category (i.e. imposing 18th/19th/20th century social constructs flowing out of British colonialism [and then American and other colonial programs] upon the ancient documents whose Sitz im Leben knew not such a robust construct [or did it?]). The former concern tends, in my estimation, to be a distraction. What postcolonial biblical criticism is doing often is confused by others thereby detracting from their perception of the analytic tools, methodologies, and goals of this type of biblical criticism which thereby invalidates, at the outset for many of them, any conclusions that such criticism can offer. The second point, in my view, also sidetracks the value of the criticism. Most (if not all) well known postcolonial biblical critical practitioners perceive and sufficiently nuance the sense in which they read the texts as "colonial scripts." Thus, the anachronistic charge, frankly, is one made by individuals who neither sufficiently understand or possibly have not thoroughly read the distinctions made by postcolonial biblical critics. Ancillary to this point, is the personal issue. That is to say, part of what is occurring in this method of biblical criticism is the elevation of the reader and the reader's context, that is, pushing the reader forward into view in the hermeneutical process. Thus, for individuals such as myself, I was born in America, a neo-colonial empire. For that reason, I cannot write or interpret from the same international and sometimes formerly colonized perspectives that other critical postcolonial scholars do (e.g. Stephen Moore, R. S. Sugirtharajah, Fernando Segovia). Furthermore, I have two more strikes against me, namely, I am white (albeit part American Indian) and a male. Therefore, in some sense, in the current discussion, simply by my social location, I am the colonizer as it were. Despite the fact that I have, through critical realization, noted my location, categorically rejected the oppressive role that has often characterized those traits, as much as consciously possible and desire to put forth critical research in this area that I find most fruitful reading through decentered, imperial-critical eyes.

As I stated above, I want to be clear, the terminology of "imperial-critical" was suggested by Professor Lozada and after having pondered his mention of the term and why, I feel that in locating concretely my methodological approach it is best to describe my interests and my eyes as imperial-critical lenses. My rationale are: (1) this term avoids dealing with the two above problems with the term postcolonial, (2) this term is neutral in so far as my being a mixed race American (but mostly caucasian-looking) to some may disqualify my voice from speaking in or as a "colonial/postcolonial" voice. This new terminology, empowers those who have been born and raised in the greatest imperial machine on the planet (for the moment) to critically engage the imperial presuppositions, categories, syntax, empire-speak, ideology, and socio-political reality from the inside. As Neo in the Matrix awakened to note that reality, as such, has been a construct of the imperial machine, so also imperial-critical hermeneutics offers the place in which those riddled with empire, but cognisant of its devices and evils, may come to read the text through these lenses. Even though Neo at one point took part in the machine and constructed reality according to the machine, was he disqualified from identifying the evils of the machine to his and other ethnic/socio-cultural individuals? To indeed, re-imagine the first century environment, noting that the biblical texts, albeit not existing in a Western imperial milieu, but nevertheless were written in a period and by a people deeply and pervasively affected by various forces within the imperial environment. Now, I still contend that what has arrived through postcolonial biblical criticism offers unique tools, that must continue to be used (i.e. mockery, mimicry, ambivalence, etc). Therefore, in a real sense the notion of "colonial/postcolonial" is the same in imperial-critical lingo, albeit slightly more nuanced, in terms of the condition of reality. That is to say, there are socio-political forces at work within, upon, over, under (to appear partially Lutheran), and around the religious concerns of the texts and vice versa. Moreover, there are Roman imperial oppressive forces engaged with Jewish elite oppressive forces and several categories of marginalized individuals within the text, a viewpoint, in my estimation, that the text is written from/to. The foundational concern in imperial-critical studies (if I can call it that), the sine qua non is empire and its devices. Thus, the imperial concern is the fundmental modality through which this lens peers. In my thought, this invites other criticisms, to stand on equal footing, with this criticism (e.g. womanist, feminist, LGBTQ, etc.).

In sum, imperial-critical best describes the mode through which my own situation and critical sensibilities are best described. At least for now. And therefore, will be the term or auspices under which my expressions here will be located. (Fortunately, I'm not baptist or this change may well have gotten lost in committee ;)

A Liberating Sermon: Download my Recent Sermon

2008-12-28T21:46:00.002-06:00

Today, I had the honor of preaching at Rockpointe Church. This message incorporated both the grand narrative of my mentor's life and my own, how they intersected through addiction and recovery, and probably evidences the most basic message that I have as a former heroin addict turned Christian. It captures a message of liberation, albeit I resist the temptation to develop some of my more academic and critical perspectives, giving way rather to a simple message of deliverance through Jesus. Thus, if you are looking for a Reverend Wright-ish tirade, you will be disappointed. Nevertheless, I think it accurately reflects the shape of my life and message in the local church.

CLICK HERE to Download the Sermon or get it HERE from SermonAudio.com

Happy Christma-Hanukk-kwanzaa!!

2008-12-21T20:15:00.003-06:00

I saw this over on the 'wrong' side of the tracks, and frankly, it is so funny, well I had to share it too.

There are several reasons that you haven't heard my voice lately, the greatest of which is a thesis deadline... and well, a scholar's worst/best problem/blessing...family.

Happy Christma-Hanukk-kwanzaa!!

Evangelicals and the Inability to Tolerate Diversity

2008-12-11T23:49:00.007-06:00

My contention in this post is that "Evangelicals" have fundamentally evolved into a group intolerant to diversity of thought, even within the strictures of their already narrowly defined theological dogma.

Why is the National Association of Evangelicals unable to find stable leadership? It wasn't long ago that the NAE President Ted Haggard was exposed for being involved with a homosexual prostitute, despite being a prolific "warrior" against the social progress of LGBTQ equal rights. Now, the most recent resignation comes from the NAE Vice President of Governmental Affairs , Richard Cizik, (See here). He was ousted because he didn't sufficiently repress and subjugate individuals espousing alternative sexualities. That is to say, he thought it was okay policy in the United States to permit homosexual civil unions. In my estimation, that is not tantamount to saying that one necessarily endorses the life-style as a normative or morally valuative practice.

I thought that the conservative Evangelical position was that homosexuality was a sin. However, this man was ousted ipso facto that he didn't take a political orientation toward domestic policy in a empire that is not distinctly oriented to a religious group or ideology. America is not a theocracy, and most Christians, even conservative Evangelicals that I know, don't want it to be. However, "evangelicals" have been high-jacked by fundamentalists who desire power to purge the "wicked" (=those not conforming to the exact litmus test of theological dogma of the one judging) from their midst. There was a time, history tells us, when evangelical was a broad term encompassing many confessing, moderate Christian individuals (and denominations). But now, who would want to be associated with a term that continues to be defined by narrow, bigoted, hate-mongers that herald themselves as the last bastion of truth, when in fact they fail to look even remotely like the Jesus of history or his earliest followers.

I suppose there is a reason that I do not aspire to participate in distinctly Evangelical circles, a sad reason. They feed on their own. There is no room for thought, for difference, for diversity. This is a case in point. He said things the President, Leith Anderson, didn't think represented the association. Thus, despite his "regret" expressed (See the NAE account here), he was (as is implied) forced to resign. Is that what being an evangelical means? Does it mean opposing civil unions for homosexuals? Is that really it? Is that what Jesus would do? Are there any who call themselves evangelical out there that disdain this behavior?

The Quest for the Historical NT Wrong: Requiem for a Discipline

2008-12-07T12:33:00.003-06:00

There has been much ado throughout the biblioblogosphere concerning the quest for the historical NT Wrong. Blogging stalwarts such as Jim West, James McGrath, and many others have allocated their scholarly acumen to the worthy task. But it seems that Wrong has evaded historical inquiry. For those daring academics who expended their efforts in the quest, as Dale Allison said of Jesus, the reconstruction of the historical man frequently appeared more like the inquirer, a reflection in the well as it were.

I wonder, might scribal tradition have modified Wrong. Might the orthodox have melded his sarcasm and humor to serve their own means, to further their own diabolical plan, writ in the shadow government headquarters in the basement of Wal-Mart? Was it Cheney's evil minions who wrangled the manuscripts, manipulated the theology, and reconstructed the Wrong of history to suit the advancement of their own imperial dreams?

"I played a song and you did not dance,
I played a dirge and you did not mourn..."

I hear the sound now, the requiem, the quest has ended and Schweitzer himself has declared it, the Wrong of history has been lost to the Wrong of faith.

Therefore, I quip, "Wrong to me is the actualization of the hope of the disenfranchised scholar, the resistant, witty collegue and friend. Wrong is you, Wrong is me."

Darrell Bock and the paradigm shift in Evangelical Politics

2008-11-16T20:47:00.003-06:00

Could the Evangelical political paradigm have shifted? I would say so, Darrell Bock outs himself in Newsweek Magazine as a Christian conservative who voted for Obama. Who could ask for a better mentor and friend for inspiration, seriously?

In the article, "A Post-Evangelical America: The religious building blocks of Obama's victory" by Lisa Miller at Newsweek.com the following is stated:

Darrell Bock is a professor at [sic] New Testament Studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary who voted for Obama. For Christians like him, social issues such as and gay marriage were not litmus tests this year. If Christians were concerned about "the economy, competence, our role in the world, the way we've prosecuted the war on terrorism—then they switched their vote and made the middle group larger." George Bush came to power telling an evangelical story that appealed to his base, a story of sin and redemption, of simple faith, of good and evil. This familiar story—and stories like it—has overshadowed every other religious theme in America for 40 years. Obama—his deep religious faith and his peripatetic spiritual biography—shines a light on all other religious paths in America, various as they are, and infinite.

Charismaniacs: Requiem for an American-jesus Empire

2008-11-16T20:43:00.002-06:00

I became a follower of Jesus through the Pentecostal/Charismatic wing of Christianity. I admit that in the earliest days of my faith, I fell prey to glamour and panache of teachings about Jesus that prima facie appeared to be unconventional. Having been crushed by the weight of a heroin and cocaine addiction, in concert with a severe alcoholic bent, I sought a relationship with God that would enable me to succeed in life. I was drawn to a Jesus, quite disparate (in hindsight) from the historical Jesus, or frankly from the Jesus of “orthodoxy” ((While in a formal paper, I would be reticent to use this term, I speak hear only the general contours of faith from the fourth century on espoused on both Eastern and Western sides, by Roman Catholics and Protests [so the net is pretty wide!)) for most of Christian history. The Jesus I found was the quintessential American Jesus—a Jesus whose robe was composed of the American flag, who was a stalwart for Western superiority, who desired for his people to learn the “ways of the world” and manipulate the world system in order to gain wealth and influence “for the kingdom,” of course. This Jesus wanted his preachers to be Imperial warlords “of the Spirit,” to vanquish “the wicked,” take their wealth and be affluent beyond imagination. This jesus ((You will note that henceforth for this “jesus” I will use the uncapitalized substantive morpheme, in the same way an orthodox (of whatever stripe) person would choose to discuss alternative deities to their faith with a lowercase “g-od.” )) furthermore has become the servant maiden passed around from demagogue to demagogue used for her worth to manipulate the populace by playing on their thought or felt spiritual needs. In a provocative new series of posts, I will seek to identify and deconstruct several Charismaniacs. As a thinking Pentecostal, someone has to identify the fallacies of fundamentalist mind control employed under the guise of the name of jesus, regardless of how disparate this jesus may be from the historical Jesus who identified himself with the marginal, hopeless, oppressed, and poor.

Case 1: Dutch Sheets (a self-proclaimed “prophet”)

Recently, Dutch Sheets, a sparsely known Charismatic “prayer warrior/prophet” has posted on his website an open letter concerning his “response” to the recent Presidential Election. At the outset he states that Obama’s election “he is confident” is not God’s will. His rationale is that Obama is not against abortion, and will not perpetuate a Supreme Court to his liking. These to factors would have pushed America towards being more “god honoring” and “life and morality.” He is concerned America has put on “blinders” to Obama’s beliefs and practices.

He believes that “judgment will increase” as a result. By this, he means “divine” judgment. He likens his sadness to “Jesus” weeping for Jerusalem! Moreover, he identifies several key groups who will experience direct judgment: (1) those who “aligned themselves with pro-abortion forces” (which being interpreted means “anyone who voted for Obama”!), (2) leaders who refuse to take a stand (we are left to assume he means against the evil forces of Obama and those who voted for him, (3) for those who voted for money over morality, then pause. He steps back to rationalize his appeal, trying to say that social justice is important, but not as important as anti-abortion. Then he identifies what he thinks this judgment will look like.

Firstly, I would like to say that I offer the benefit of the doubt, at least in so far as I’m sure Mr. Sheets thinks that his heart is “led by the Spirit” or “right” if you will. With that caveat, it should be pointed out that what Sheets has offered is little more than his own diary entry. Sheets is unable to recognize that God may well not be in his movement or his perception of “the church.” Could it be that God has removed his presence—in judgment….from the entrenched arm of the Republican party that calls itself the body of Christ? Might Sheets mourning be stemming from a deeper level of pain than for the nation, rather could he be perceiving in his unconscious the fall of the fundamentalist Empire? Might the power brokering days those who represent a jesus washed in the red, white, and blue, who justifies war and the perpetuation of empire, who commands capitalistic enterprise and spiritual manipulation among those who would seek him in faithfulness be drawing to a close?

I have sympathy for Sheets, a true American product of his environment. He doesn’t realize he embodies more of the world in his nationalism and quasi-pietism than the “evil world” of those outside his spirit-clan of yes-men. In the earliest days of my faith, I was at an event where Sheets “prophesied” for nearly 45 minutes in a morning chapel. I fell asleep that day, literally. Sometimes blessings come in disguise, I suppose. By way of concluding commentary, I believe Sheets’ rhetoric are prophetic, I believe, however, that the “Spirit” is needed to understand this unknown tongue. The days of the late great American fundamentalist Empire are waning, the foundations have crumbled, and the structure is trembling and will soon buckle under the weight. If the American jesus proponents’ measuring rod of success is correct—namely, if that which “brings in the biggest crowds” and “blesses the most people” is the standard of God’s Spirit involvement with humanity, then I suppose that Jesus has arisen, but those who called him ‘lord, lord’ and perpetuated their tunnel-visioned, hate-mongering, discriminatory, elitist faith are not being recognized by Him. And Sheets’ letter operates functionally as a requiem for the American-jesus Empire. May she rest in peace.

A New President and Another Blog: Change is Coming!

2008-11-11T21:27:00.005-06:00

It is an amazing time we live in! America is apparently in a new direction, having shaken off the fetters of racism by electing a new African-American President. Congratulations to Barack Obama and I am hopeful of the change that is to come (albeit, I'm skeptical that anything radically new will change).

Another, less historic event has occurred, I've been given a voice at Jesuspolitics.net with some other very intelligent folks. The site is geared toward Jesus and politics. I have a great respect for Thom Stark after having only read a couple of his papers, and I am grateful for the opportunity to blog there as well robreid.jesuspolitics.net. I will maintain both blogs, likely with many of the same or similar posts. You can check out my new post Towards a Jesus' Politiks of Palestinian Liberation.

Again, keep coming back HERE, but check there too! And definitely read Thom Stark's stuff!

Other News:

Big Thanks to N.T. Wrong, the infamous, who included me in his biblioblog list, despite labeling me as "fairly conservative," I was just happy to be included!

Ezra and עם הארץ: A Neo-Colonial Judaism?

2008-10-20T20:55:00.007-05:00

There is no question that Ezra had ties to the imperial Persian court (cf. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, and Second Temple Politics [2007], 22-23). However, Ezra's history is both theocentric and monolithic, which is to say, there is a tacit assumption throughout his work, namely, that only the deportees are "true Israel" in a sense. For עם הארץ are demonized half-breeds, having "fallen prey" it seems to wickedness. But, Yahweh had "divinely" commissioned via the Persian empire a return to the land. There is no mention of the fact that Persian imperial practice normatively reconstructed a people's indigenous religion as a way of making the province functional both economically and civilly. Rather, Ezra paints a picture of pietism. The Ezra-led band of "true Israel" were "in terror of the local people" (Ezra 3:3; NET). Indeed, the Judahites that were not deported were now "enemies" of Judah and Benjamin (4:1). Thus, in the name of God, the Persian Empire sponsored the reconstruction and systematic colonization of Yehud, albeit in a disguised way---now Ezra and the Jewish Elite were given authority to rule the province, thereby ensuring the Persian Empire's return on their investment and they were given imperial authority to make everyone "obey God's law and the law of the king (Ezra 7:25–26)! Ezra was empowered with the ability to banish, imprison, and confiscate of property! This sounds like martial law, no? What Ezra offers is ONE narrative perspective. However, what many scholars have found is that Yehud was much more complex than Ezra paints the portrait. And the tacit dismissal of those in the land as "negligible in number" or "fundmantally Yahwistic apostates" as a professor recently said to me, is to fail historiography for a theological agenda.

Admit it, the book of Ezra functions as a colonial mandate, justifying theologically no less, the systematic colonization and oppression of an indigenous peoples. Was Ezra's commission sanctioned, truly sanctioned, by Yahweh? Certainly, Ezra thought so.... but to change the analogy, what would we call it if a people group today was sent by a large empire to populate and subdue another land, to subjugate it to the host empire? To confiscate land, to force "them" to obey? What would we call that?

Economic Crisis and Empire

2008-10-10T12:30:00.003-05:00

As the savings, investments, and retirement hopes of millions of Americans have essentially stepped back in time 5 or more years, shedding in three or so weeks virtually everything they have gained in the past 5 years, the Empire teeters on the edge of utter disaster. The entire world economy is crumbling along with us and the reality is that no one knows or has the will or insight to really help. I am ashamed by both candidates for President. What I thought was an election that might, in fact, change things no longer appears that way to me.

With both parties, the president, and both candidates for president essentially supporting the nationalization of American financial institutions out of sheer panic, I find myself wondering how increasing the size, power, and control of empire will really help the average citizen. Here is the point I'm pondering. Most of my friends, who are critical of empire, support Barack Obama. But my question is this, if we are truly skeptical of empire, skeptical of its evils, skeptical of it as an ideological machine, why do we support the radical increase of American imperial reach? Congress cannot even balance the budget of their cafeteria without a multi-million dollar deficit, how then can we trust them to manage our futures, retirements, health care?

I am cynical, truly skeptical that either candidate will create change so that my daughter may grow up in a world not worrying where her next meal will come from. Such a statement one year ago could readily be dismissed as fringe-pessimism. However, with the global political and economic climate in the shape it is in, I find little if any energy left to "hope" that either candidate will positively affect the direction of this country. I think both candidates are going to expand the empire in a radical way, such a radical way that before long, before anyone has time to notice, the very fundamentals of America will no longer resemble what we once called "America." Maybe it will be for the better, or maybe not... What may be worse, however, is that it will no longer be able to sustain a reasonable standard of living for any of its shivering denizens. Will expanding Empire's reach really save us? If the banks are nationalized, if the health system is nationalized, if the power base of the government continue to grow, will the well being of the people really be affected? I remain skeptical, for I simply cannot trust empire, no matter who is at the helm. Now I wonder whether I can vote at all, should I elect not to vote? Will it matter?

As a Christian, I cannot pledge allegiance to the flag. As a Christian, can I, or should I vote?

Warren Carter on Negotiating the Empire

2008-09-28T11:35:00.002-05:00

I had the pleasure of attending Stalcup School of Theology for the Laity yesterday who offered a series of lectures on Negotiating the Roman Empire in the New Testament by the esteemed Professor of New Testament Dr. Warren Carter from Brite Divinity School (TCU). Carter has written extensively on the Gospels in their Imperial context (such titles as: Matthew and the Margins, Matthew and Empire, and most recently John and Empire).

He presented three engaging lecture/discussion sessions. Each format provided initial discussions into the imperial foreground of the texts of the New Testament. He unpacked the socio-economic stratification of the elite vis-a-vis the rest of society (i.e. the 97% of people!). Underscoring the convergence of economic, political, religious, and civic life in the first century, he provided a robust reorientation to the gospels. I personally found Carter's style a model approach for presenting imperial and postcolonial concerns in a manner conducive to reception within the local church. What was most intriguing, and in my case encouraging for my own future vocational pursuits, was his ability to present the information in such a practical way, stripped of technical academically oriented terms, while never failing to deliver the content of those terms in a way anyone could perceive. Certainly, these are the hallmarks of good education in the local church context.

Further, he set forth the contours of much of his published material. The final lecture/discussion took on John and Empire wherein he described some of the factors relative to the "eternal life" found in Jesus over against the "Roma aeterna." I found this the most interesting area of the discussion, largely because it was so new to me. Previously, I considered John a difficult text to navigate in terms of imperial interaction, yet in the few brief minutes that he spoke, it became clear that John may well be one of the easier texts to analyze with respect to empire. Carter's works and thoughts are certainly on the cutting edge of reading the Gospels in their context. I suggest highly picking up, as I have, his recent publication John and Empire: Initial Explorations [T & T Clark, 2008]).

Imperial Jaundice: Reflections on Being a Christian in America

2008-09-07T12:30:00.001-05:00

An old expression that is really growing on me is that "every thing is yellow to the jaundiced eye" which is tantamount to saying one's situatedness in life fundamentally colors they way in which one perceives, knows, and engages the world. Therefore, I would like to appropriate a new term, at least I think it is original, Imperial Jaundice. Herein I think the expression properly captures the nature of the American imperial jaundice epidemic. This is the disease, literally and metaphorically, of the religion of Empire, namely, patriotism, nationalism, and Americanism. The disease is characterized by the stories we tell each other in the narrative world that we have constructed around the world experienced through our lenses. So deep and subversive is this illness that it is virtually undetectable, lurking below the molecular level. Indeed, even as one who is beginning to recognize how entrenched in the American imperial ideology that I am, there is yet a conflict. A deep conflict of soul, difficult to describe, but utterly real. Why is it that I understand, to some degree, the seriousness of the call to radically follow Jesus. I recognize that the American Empire and even the expression of mainline Christianity of any denomination for the most part is inherently complicit to empire and yet there is a resistance in my soul, an ambivalence. At one and the same moment I hate and yet am drawn to my imperial heritage. This space, this ambiguous, ambivalent circumstance torments me. On one hand, the New Testament presents Jesus as a peacemaker and the early church as a social body, functioning in a cooperative/voluntary mode something akin to socialism. Jesus stood up for the poor and working class, those whom empire and the elite had swept under the carpet. While I know these things, and am rather convinced of their truthfulness, when I consider the capitalist system in which we live, where profit is god and the marginalized are part of the machinery, why do I still resist movements toward socialism? Why do I resist internally, at the heart level, the notion that somehow bigger government will really in the end help the marginalized? I want to believe. But something in my soul fights against that. In life we all learn by experience various principles we call "wisdom" or "common sense." What is a Christian to do, when I know capitalism is wrong, and yet I don't think movements toward a socialist state would really be better in the end?

I'm vexed by this. I think a real encounter is being made at the core of my being; I'm beginning to understand some of the categories of postcolonial criticism by means of experience. More will come on this topic, but I wonder, does anyone else struggle with this?

"God is on Our Side:" A Primer in the Hermeneutics of Empire

2008-08-31T20:26:00.004-05:00

Unfortunately, neither party it seems cares about the peasantry. Ever wondered what political theology is? What are the hermeneutics of empire? I would argue whatever the hermeneutics of empire are--certainly, in practice it looks something like this... a congress person interpreting a hurricane that will potentially kill and certainly destroy thousands of the poor and ethnic minorities by claiming that "God is giving his party victory!"

The Christian and the Vote: What is the theological significance?

2008-08-30T13:39:00.004-05:00

A recently released book out by Cascade Books is entitled Electing Not to Vote: Christian Reflections on Reasons for Not Voting (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008). What is a Christian to do? Anyone sensitive to the Imperial nature of Americanism is rightly reticent to participate in the enthronement of yet another quasi-Caesar figure. Conversely, is electing not vote tantamount to the retreat of fundamentalism into the "holy huddle?" Why or why not?

Is Pelosi the Whore of Babylon? Denounced by Cardinals and Priests!

2008-08-26T20:14:00.005-05:00

While this blog takes an unabashed progressive point of view, I have gone to lengths to refrain from commenting on America's fundamentally failing and utterly worthless government (the result of the idiot Bush and the equally worthless congress). Watch the video below (this video is obviously from an anti-Pelosi bent; however, you can't distort what the woman so clearly and stupidly says....):

Last time I checked, the Catholic church, if they believed in anything at all unilaterally believed that life begins at conception. That is not a statement of right or wrong (that is, I'm not valuating the statement, merely making it). How can this woman so easily distort and pander to her own ideology? This is further evidence of the fact that she is an ardent ideologue sold so far up the river, she is just as bad as Bush---totally worthless. She will say anything and do anything to stay in and acquire more power.

Note the Catholic response: Cardinals have blasted her, members of Congress have publically and formally written a letter of correction.

And all this from a woman who wants America to get off of "Fossil Fuels" by getting on to Natural Gas (a fossil fuel)! I'm sorry, but I officially hate all republicans and all democrats. I think Pelosi is at best an imbecile and at worst, well a chief player in the perpetuation of empire in America.

Daniel and Empire: Initial Thoughts

2008-08-24T20:08:00.005-05:00

Who is the enigma of the Hebrew Bible (besides possibly יהוה)? Could it be that seer of luminous things, visionary, and prophetic riddler whose words are enshrined in the Hebrew Bible as "Daniel?" This document scrawled out in Hebrew and Aramaic has been the fancy of liberal and fundamentalist alike for some time. The latter abduct various visionary episodes subjecting them to the scrutiny of their so-called interpretations offering little more than a modernist, head-in-the-sand hermeneutic yielding fodder to construct vain charts for their laser pointers. Ah, I suppose that's enough poking at the blindness of fundamentalist theology.

Daniel is a fascination, not only for its fanciful and endearing tales, but also for its genre. It denotes a shift within the burgeoning and imaginative resistance to empire. Not just that, but the book itself, if taken as a whole is fundamentally conflicting; whereas in the first several chapters (1-6) the tales of Daniel relate to the apparent complicity with empire that these foreigners had, albeit with some minor resistance. By and large this section though is sprinkled with an orientation toward dominating powers that is rather positive. The paradigm shifts as the reader transitions to chs. 7-12, in which the destruction of the tyrannical empire is projected via the apocalyptic imagination into the immediate (or less likely remote) future. Further, this issue arises as to whether said prophetic oracles are ex eventu (a very likely, if not probable position), but for the sake of argument lets say they are not ex eventu (that is--for the fun of it).

More to come. I'm digesting a host of commentaries presently as I feverishly assimilate my thoughts and put them on paper for my thesis.

What makes a great teacher?

2008-08-08T23:28:00.005-05:00

The gears in my tiny noetic apparatus have been spinning... While apocalypticism, hermeneutics, classical Hebrew prophecy, and of course the infamous Son of Man have been weighing deeply upon my mind, I would like to share and query with you regarding something more practical.

I just finished the best class I've ever had. This professor exemplified everything a student could possibly desire, simply masterful pedagogy, engagement with the data, moving through the material in a timely and insightful way, all I can say is WOW. Now I know for sure that someone is actually doing education the way I aspire to, critically, unapologetically honest with the data, and willing to follow the evidence where ever it leads.

What makes a great teacher? Is it charisma? Is it brilliance? How do we measure brilliance? I know one or two of the top tier people in their niche areas, but does that make them the best teachers? In fact, some of the people who write incredible books have pitiful classroom etiquette; conversely, I know of at least one professor who has published extensively in a variety of modalities from popular level to monographs and yet is also likely one of the top teachers in terms of in-class engagement.

As of today my thoughts are:
The Best Teachers/Academics are (in biblical studies):

Individuals committed to analyzing the data from all vantage points fairly. That means being willing to genuinely entertain, critique, and valuate each argument on its own merits (regardless of the religious implications). The best example of the mentality not to have (an anecdotal quote no less) is one that "my beliefs are battle-tested, unshakable..." (yes, I actually read that somewhere). All this signals is fundamentalism, which at base is no different that hardened liberalism which refuses to entertain anything remotely orthodox (whatever orthodox means).
Committed to the highest quality scholarship and desirous not "to put the cookies on the lower shelf" (I hate that expression). Students should be taken deeper, pushed further than they can go, stretched farther than they can stretch---this in my estimation is real learning.
Intentionally push viewpoints contrary to the normative student body's theological orientation. If you don't teach people to think, they will wind up losing their faith because no one had the nerve to be honest. If, in the face of the data, they choose to walk away from faith---so be it. Nothing is more aggravating that the tired rhetoric of pseudo-"pastoral" protection by educators who choose not to entertain the hard questions. When professors are known only to tow the party line and fail to engage the difficult questions honestly (often admitting there are not clear and certain answers that are comforting) then they fail their students and their vocation. Students see through the mirage and coming from a lifetime student, it is almost impossible to have respect for someone being paid to educate who views their vocation as some sort of "ministry of encouragement" wanting only to "teach people what to believe."
Kind, merciful, and just. Justice is grading critically, but fairly. However, I have little compassion for those students who always have some emergency or excuse. Who has time for that crap? Life or death, sure I understand. But good teachers are firm, yet just.
Are committed to guiding their students both in life and most importantly in their future vocation. If that means training a student to be more academic, teaching them how to write better, or pointing them in correct directions for doctoral and other work then so be it. These are teachers who care about their students enough to 1) be honest with them about the state and limitations of knowledge and 2) to pour into their lives something of the character, values, and insights the educator has pertaining to academics.

I have only seen education like this modeled in a handful of individuals in my life. That statement is itself a travesty. What do you think

Enough of my hobby horse, lets talk prophecy.

Prophecy, the Prophetic Imagination, Hermeneutics Part 1

2008-07-30T15:08:00.002-05:00

Currently, I'm working through D. Brent Sandy's Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic (IVP, 2002). I'm about a third of the way through it, and I am compelled by Sandy's methodology and research abilities, his literary prowess, and thoughtfulness. What is more, I'm exegetically working through portions of the prophets (i.e. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel) in Hebrew, a fascinating venture.

Moreover, I'm being challenged to rethink, or think afresh concerning texts commonly held within popular level Christianity as so-called "direct" or "clear" messianic prophecies. Today, we focused on Jeremiah 23:5-6, in light of Jeremiah 33, arguably an exilic reflection on the originally pre-exilic oracle in 23:5-6. Of late, I was already pondering the state of Jewish apocalypticism pertaining to the development of messianism (as should be obvious from virtually every post on this blog). However, some of my initial suspicions are now being framed in a new, and indeed, more lucid landscape.

My current work, albeit only initial investigations of classical Israelite prophecy, happens to be directly impacting my thinking in other areas. What I'm seeing now in Jeremiah is as follows. Firstly, there is no trace of messianic expectation from a contextual (i.e. historical-exegetical) standpoint in Jeremiah. The "righteous branch" or more properly "legitimate scion" (a phrase I borrow from Dr. Gordon Johnston) is a prophetic expectation not of an individual, but of the restoration of a Davidic dynasty. This is confirmed by both a) the immediate context and b) Jer 33. What is so important about this observation is the implications, namely, there is no eschatological messianism present until at least Zechariah or the Second Temple period. Hence, many traditional passages often "clearly" messianic in traditional interpretation, in terms of their Sitz im Leben were nothing of the kind. What does this mean? On one level, the passage in Jeremiah shows that what takes place in Zech is a projection, in light of the apparent failure of the expected Davidic lineage of kings to sit on the throne again, of the apocalyptic imagination, albeit inspired by the Spirit, in resistance to the Yahwists' socio-political situation (oppression, subjugation, etc) of an eschatological figure. That is, a dynamic transformation takes place between the exile and the Second Temple period, the reorientation of Israelite future prophetic expectation, via apocalyptic expectation, of a archetypal Davidic kingly figure. This figure is initially shrouded in apocalyptic ambiguity, appearing "like" a human, often as angelic, sometimes as military victor, elsewhere as priestly ruler.

Much more has to be said about this, and even now I am merely focusing my thoughts. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Suter, David W. "Weighed in the Balance: The Similitudes of Enoch in Recent Discussion"

2008-07-24T22:50:00.005-05:00

David Winston Suter, "Weighed in the Balance: The Similitudes of Enoch in Recent Discussion," Religious Studies Review Vol. 7, No. 3 (July 1981): 217-221.

In this article, as the title implies, takes up SOE (=Similitudes of Enoch) within scholarly dialogue up through 1981 (so admittedly the state of affairs nearly thirty years ago. Suter gave lucidity to the discussion, tracing various trajectories in the conversation from Milik through his own position. Chiefly, in the end he argued that SOE is firmly rooted in the mid to late 1st century CE roughly contemporaneous, but not antecedent to the Jesus movement(s). For Suter, the SOE is too late to be of any influence on the Son of Man tradition in NT gospels. He offered great insight in solidifying the untenable position offered by Milik that the SOE was late 3rd century Christian tradition (270 CE).

This is a helpful but dated article establishing the shape of the discussion toward the twilight of the 20th century pertaining to NT studies and Second Temple Judaism studies.

Several interesting quotes (either for their literary artistry or academic significance):

"In recent scholarly estimation, the Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-70) has suffered a fate akin to Bright One, son of Dawn in Isaiah 14, who was cast down to Sheol" (217).

Come on, that is a beautifully crafted sentence for biblical studies.

The Book of Ruth in Postcolonial Perspective

2008-07-20T23:28:00.002-05:00

The book of Ruth is something of an anomaly as one of the few books in the Hebrew Bible written specifically around women, what a refreshing thought. How could the book of Ruth be understood in Postcolonial optics? While there is great scholarly disagreement concerning the date of Ruth, most would concur that the purpose of the book is to legitimate the Davidic monarchy and the Davidic throne in light of David's mixed ancestry. Whatever the book accomplishes within its milieu, aside from offering a inspiring tale of the loyalty of a daughter-in-law for her foreign mother-in-law and her ultimate redemption by a nobleman, it certainly offers a beautifully colored narrative.

What else might the book be/do? Could it be that Ruth, as an apologetic serving to legitimate the rightfulness of David to rule over against his Moabite ancestry is fundamentally the quintessential postcolonial literary specimen? As such we have power structures, the Davidic monarchy, with vested interest in perpetuating a divine justification for his questionable genealogical line. To that end, does it presuppose detractors to the Davidic rule? What kind of discourse is going on here?

After an analysis of the document itself, I think, whatever Ruth's (the book = Ruth) purpose is, one aspect of it likely is propaganda. This document legitimates Davidic rule as a result of Yahweh's divine ordering of his forebears in terms of genealogy. These are some preliminary thoughts that deserve further attention. I will continue to consider the issues and report to you as is possible.

Three Days and He was Raised, before Jesus?

2008-07-08T22:45:00.002-05:00

There is much commotion about a recent Time's article relative to an archaeological finding in Israel that purports to have found a pre-Jesus narrative, depicting the angel Gabriel as describing another messiah (Simon?) having been raised from the dead after three days. Unfortunately, there is much to cloud any scholars purview, gaping holes in the text, unsure wording, leaving much to conjecture (-al emendation!).

For a look at the Hebrew and English translations of this text see:
1) Biblical Archeology Review
2) Time's Article

Also, for commentary from several noted NT scholars see:
1) PrimeTime Jesus

American Patriotism: A Competing Metanarrative?

2008-07-08T21:34:00.002-05:00

A cover story at CNN.com depicts the new fight an atheist solidier is waging against the U.S. Department of Defense. What is most interesting, however, is a quote from Michael Weinstein, a retired senior Air Force officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He states: "Our Pentagon, our Pentacostalgon, is refusing to realize that when you put the uniform on, there's only one religious faith: patriotism," Weinstein said. (Click Here for Article)

I realize this is a rather touchy subject, but in the first century religion and politics were not separated, there were not neat taxonomic glasses through which one could parse out their spiritual life from their socio-political life as is often the norm in America. This is a vexing question that I am really dealing with. Though I have been accused of it lately, I'm not a card carrying leftist liberal (whatever that means!). I'm someone who was raised in the deep South, raised to sincerely be devoted to my country. As an academic and as a thinking Christian, it is my duty to QUESTION whether patriotism can be, is, or could possibly be construed as a competing religious metanarrative. Therefore, I query: Is Patriotism a religion? Why or why not? Is Patriotism compatible with following Jesus?

Religious Affection, Part 2

2008-07-07T22:03:00.002-05:00

I have been participating lately in a rather heated set of discussions pertaining to Empire, allegiance, and what it means to follow Jesus. So far, I have been accused of being "indoctrinated by leftist liberalism." What is so funny about the accusation, is not so much whether its true or not, but the criterion this individual used, namely, 1) I use the abbreviations BCE and CE (before the common era/common era) rather than BC/AD (before Christ/Anno Domini[sp?]), 2) I refer to America as Imperial, and 3) I had the audacity to question whether the pledge of allegiance might be roughly similar to oaths to Caesar in the first century CE (there I go again!).

Well, odds are Christ was actually born before the close of the "Before Christ Era." This dating system of BC/AD shows up, I believe, in the fourth century CE and later was found to have been off a couple of years. So am I obligated to use a dating system that: a) is rather arrogant to anyone other than Christians (ah, considering others, that makes me a liberal too!), and b) that is historically inaccurate? I think not.

Secondly, America fits perfectly the definition of an Empire. Most people around the world perceive us as such. Ben Franklin evidently did because his quote to that effect was printed on Dick Chaney's Christmas cards in 2003. So if that makes me a liberal, well I'm guilty. America is an Empire, it is in fact the most powerful empire on earth (at least right now; how long that will be the case is another matter entirely).

Third, I am trying to be a careful and honest historian with regard to first century Christianity(-ies) in the Roman Near East. If being honest with the historical data and being self-critical of my own socio-political location somehow makes me an "evil leftist liberal," well I think that judgment is indicative of a close-minded fundamentalistic attitude/worldview. I think I can safely say that because I used to be the one indicting liberals as though somehow thinking freely is a sin against God; however, I have reconsidered my loyalties, and I am seeking to hold only one true loyalty--the way of Jesus. Fidelity to wife, yes that is included in fidelity to Christ. However, fidelity to a nation is not.

In the final analysis, I wonder this: To say that I do not have allegiance to the country to which I live, is not to say 'I hate america' or 'I am ungrateful for the opportunities I have had.' So why when people are actually critical of facets of the American empire, are the lambasted? Is that Christian? Would Jesus approve?

Can a Christian Pledge Allegiance to the Flag: Reflections on Religious Affections Ancient and Modern

2008-07-01T19:41:00.004-05:00

This past March I presented a paper at the 37th Annual Society for Pentecostal Studies meeting at Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. The paper was entitled "'Savior' and 'Lord' in the Lukan Birth Narrative: A Challenge to Caesar" (which has been submitted for publication in a NT related peer-reviewed journal presently). In this paper, I spent a great deal of time constructing the historigraphical picture of Palestine with reference to the rise of the Imperial cult through the end of the first century BCE and the mid-first century CE. In so doing, I spent much time wrestling with the ideology of religious affection in a milieu in which the taxonomic lenses of modernity's bifurcation of "political" and "religious" were alien, unthinkable demarcations; for religion was political and politics ipso facto was intrinsically enmeshed with religious concerns and affections.

As I studied the rise of the Imperial cult, I found myself torn internally by what I was uncovering about the past and how such knowledge was impossible for me to keep from deconstructing my own current experience as a human in the American Imperial West in the 21st century. Granted I was very careful to reconstruct the ancient world as the ancient world. However, what I did not expect from my research was the overwhelming effect, residual effect, such study would ultimately have upon my own Weltanschauung in the present. Indeed, the ways in which I conceived of myself in the socio-political and historical present. Now to my thought for the day, actually, I have been pondering this for quite some time now, almost a year.

In the ancient world, Israel was, even after exile, (as N.T. Wright has labored exhaustively to show) Israel likely still perceived herself as still in exile, even during the time of Jesus' advent. First, the Persian empire financially and politically offered the support (or rather sponsorship) of the reestablishment of a temple-state in Israel (i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah's building programs). Throughout the period that followed from the Persian sponsorship of the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem to the Roman occupation stretching into the earliest Jesus period, Israel was perpetually ruled by socio-political forces outside of their control. At times there was a feeling of independence, but historically the period clearly evidences the nation as a subject peoples, though often granted the beneficence of being able to practice their own religion and operate on a semi-independent scale, barring the perpetual extraction of monies by the overlords.

By the latent first century BCE, the Roman Empire was in process, that is, they were undergoing an internal transformation, a transformation instilling national power in an individual--the Emperor. This, of course, is a complicated manner that here, my brush strokes only outline vaguely. However, with Julius the religious landscape, polytheistic as it was, was also changing along with the power structures (because they were intimately wed together). Underlying the difficulties of the tremendous expanse of the Empire in lands and people was the ever illusive task of grounding the locus of authority, originally with the Republic (510 BCE), but ultimately in the Emperor (ca. 50 BCE). The imperial cult arose, slowly, but steadily in response not to a necessarily religious need, rather the imperial cult functioned as a means of perpetuating the Imperial ideology, a tool for the dissemination of Empire, if you will. Granted this functioned primarily in the East, often arising from the indigenous peoples seeking the favor of the Empire via the Emperor. With Augustus a new age had dawned in which the Emperor himself would function as the locus of Rome's authority, as the symbol of the Empire par excellence. Thus, a two-way relationship was forged: a) from the provincial areas toward the Empire (centripetal) and b) centrifugally from the Emperor as "savior" (Σωτήρ) or benefactor by providing games, food, and drink. Hence, the socio-political constellation revolved on the axis of the ancient universe--the Emperor himself. There is no little significance to the fact that the "government/emperor" oppressed the people through the extraction of monies from the provincial areas to fund the perpetuation of Empire building (wars, construction, etc.). The Imperial cult offered individuals on a local level a venue to evidence their patriotism to the Empire. Here they would come and offer prayers for (and sometimes to) the emperor, they would give offerings, they would participate in a sacerdotal system of spending in order to show their religious affection for their nation via the emperor. In fact, the mantra of the day became "Caesar is Lord." That is not to say, "Caesar is the unique creator, monotheistic deity who is holy and will save the world from sin" (that would be anachronistic. Rather Caesar is the supreme Lord in the sense that he saves the people from their own peril--lack of food, etc. (Often at the Imperial games the Emperor would distribute meat to the populace, etc.).

However, the first Christians refused to say "Caesar is Lord" because they followed a different Lord. Their claim, while possibly including the theological freight of restoration to God through Jesus, certainly first was socio-political (because remember in the first century there is no separation--religious and political are inseparable). So what was the real issue? I submit to you that fundamentally faith = allegiance. Following Jesus is a fundamental commitment of one's allegiance (socially, politically, spiritually) to have no other allegiances than Jesus. First Christians were murdered because they would not pledge an oath to Caesar. Evangelicals often appeal to the claim that Christians opposed the oath for spiritual reasons, i.e. it offended their religious commitment to Jesus; but does that not prove my point?

Now, what does any of this have to do with the "pledge of allegiance?" For those of you who are not American or have not lived in this country, this may or may not make much sense to you; but I was raised in the United States, indeed, the deep South for that matter. Every day at school students would stand, face the American flag, place their hand over their heart and say, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Today, I can no longer in good conscience pledge allegiance to the flag or to the nation. In fact, I think that if one takes Jesus seriously, takes his followers seriously, then in rough terms I find very little difference between the Imperial Cult's oath's to Caesar and the pledge of allegiance.

Here is my rationale:
Purpose and Function:
The Oath to Caesar functioned in order to: a) perpetuate the Empire's ideology and power structure, b) to identify, articulate, and perpetuate individuals personal commitments to the Emperor (a metonymy for the Empire), c) to foster Imperial unity of purpose under one monarch; and probably other reasons that I can't presently think of.

The Pledge of Allegiance functions in order to: a) perpetuate the ideology of the American Empire, b) to identify, articulate, and perpetuate individuals personal commitments to the Empire (flag a metonymy for America), and c) to foster American unity and a sense of patriotism toward one's place within the empire.

If first Christians died because they wouldn't simply say, "Yes, I am a patriot. I love my country and my leader, Caesar is Lord" then neither can I today fail to perceive that being a follower of Jesus necessitates that no other governmental allegiance may be held for where my "treasure is, there will my heart be also."

Interesting Theological Community -- Theologica

2008-06-30T23:19:00.002-05:00

There is a new discussion forum called "Theologica" that might interest some of you.

Click Here

As of yet, I hear mostly conservative evangelical voices there, it would be nice to hear others as well. Hint, hint.

Pentecostal and Charismatic Peace and Justice Conference 2008

2008-06-19T19:47:00.002-05:00

Just an update on the PCPJ annual meeting, things are going very well and we expect this year's program to be very exciting. Moreover, we have had some great submissions to the student academic conference (see flyer on the right side of this page). I have been rather impressed with the submissions we have gotten dealing with several vital topics, namely, what a Pentecostal dialogue of peace should look like in the age in which we live and another excellent proposal which will be presented at the conference on the statuses of female and male slaves in Peter's Acts 2 Sermon and pentecostal/charismatic hermeneutics.

Needless to say, I am very excited about the potential of this conference and its impact, albeit small.

Collins, "The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel"

2008-06-11T22:47:00.003-05:00

John J. Collins, "The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel" Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 93 No. 1 (Mar 1974): 50-66.

I apologize for the down time lately, things have been rather busy. Today, I'm reviewing the argument of the above article.

Collins' proceeded to give a rather thorough discussion of the history of the "Son of Man" (hereafter "SM") discussion relative to the book of Daniel. He reduces much of the discussion, helpfully, down to the central theses, namely, that the SM in Daniel refers collectively to "the holy ones of the Most High" or to an individual (with several trajectories flowing out of this distinction). After further nuancing he sets forth two precise positions: 1) following Coppens "the kingdom is given to the angelic hosts under their leader Michael," or 2) following Delcor "the kingdom is given to the people of Israel, who are symbolized by the 'one like a son of man..." (53). His aim is to determine between these options and set forth the meaning of the chapter (Ibid.). Methodologically, he approaches Daniel 7 with the supposition that "there is no reason to doubt that the vision in its present form and the interpretation of the work of one author" (Ibid.). And secondly, the document was composed in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and even after any modification likely reached its normative form (i.e. its present form) shortly after that time (54).

Collins' articulation of his methodology was helpful, both the structure of the article and the coherence of his argument. Without detailing every movement of the article, he proceeded to articulate the narrative structure of the unified section chs. 7-12 in light of its historico-social context (Antiochus IV Epiphanes). He proceed inversely from Dan 10:12-12:3 back to Dan 7, setting forth the Jewish cosmology of a two-storey universe in which events transpiring in heaven were corresponding to events in the earth (55). Hence, Daniel's essential apocalypticism, in some sense, reflects his notion that the historico-political events on earth, that is, of the Hellenistic wars transpiring on the human level in cosmic, angelic warfare; but there is more, 11:36 depicts an earthly ruler battling or vying for power even over the angelic beings, something Collins' notes is a biblical notion (cf. Isa 24, Jud 5). For Collins "Daniel 10-12, then, makes explicit the conceptual framework within which the apocalypticist saw the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes" (58).
Next he takes on Dan 8, which though valuable outside the scope of my review. Then he reaches the visions of Daniel 7. He finds the "one like the son of man" to be an angelic identity saying "it is most probable that the figure of "one like a son of man" represents an angelic host and/or its leader" (61). Herein Collins sees play or fluidity between the "holy ones" being purely the kingdom people (e.g. Israelites) and angels (62-63). He rightly notes the ambiguity in various texts that depict this play within the imagery and referentiality (i.e. 1 QM 17:6-8).

Finally, he arrived at the "Son of Man." Between the options of this figure 1) representing the angelic host collectively or 2) representing their leader specifically, he opts for the latter in light of Michael's centrality in Dan 10-12 (63). And thus, "it seems most likely that the figure...represents the archangel, Michael, who receives the kingdom on on behalf of his host of holy ones, but also on behalf of his people Israel" (64). What is most important for my future research is his next statement, "If this interpretation is accepted, then the later development of the "son of man" figure in the Similitudes of Enoch becomes much more readily intelligible" (64). Collins sees this angelic power as a growing tradition within the Jewish apocalyptic movement that becomes a half-breed as it were in the Similitudes and ultimately is a "variant belief in a heavenly, angelic savior figure which we find in a number of other Jewish intertestamental works" (64). Thus, Collins' view in this regard is significant, at least for my thinking.

In sum, presently I'm appreciating the late date for the book of Daniel. I think this readily explains the rise of the visions in response to the chaos which ensued with Antiochus IV Epiphanes; secondly, the figure in Daniel represents a trajectory within apocalypticism, in the shadow of Imperial oppression, that arose in resistance to the tyranny of the wicked overlords and envisioned a deliverance for the oppressed resultant of the rise of an angelic figure representing the masses and receiving a kingdom--that is, one that supplants the present world-stage of post-exilic Israel under Hellenism in the 3rd-2nd century before the common era. This figure is the beginning of a growing tradition that will be developed further in the intertestamental period, most notably, by appropriating and reconstructing the Danielic figure and "his" enthronement in a new socio-political and apocalytico-symbolic way.

John J. Collins, "Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Hellenistic near Eastern Environment"

2008-05-31T16:52:00.009-05:00

Article Bibliographical Information: Collins, J.J. "Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Hellenistic near Eastern Environment" Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 220, Memorial Issue: Essays in Honor of George Ernest Wright. (Dec 1975), 27-36.

Collins' article is lucid in his articulation of the phenomena of apocalypticism in the Near East from the Persian period forward. Prior to endeavoring toward a discussion of Jewish apocalyptic per se, Collins reviews some of the developments in previous discussion from Gunkel through Hanson regarding the influence of the ancient Near Eastern environment upon Semitic thought, especially with regard to apocalypticism. He underscored the lack of attention to the post-exilic period in this regard and also drew out the implications of Alexander's conquest(s) for the proliferation of ideas among ancient peoples (26).

Collins identified a strand of shared experience among diverse peoples in the Hellenistic Near East that in some sense relates the apocalyptic ideologies which arose, namely, that most of the ancient peoples (quite independently of one another) shared "the idea of the kingship of the national deity" over against the new socio-political circumstances brought about by the advent of the Greeks and then Romans in the Hellenistic age (26). Essentially, he argues that various trajectories within broadly apocalyptic motifs arise from this conflict among varying peoples (e.g. Persian, Egyptian, Jewish).

He argues "[t]he most obvious result of the conquests of Alexander was the demise of the native monarchies in the various Near Eastern states" (28). This new state of "disorientation" of the deposition of native monarchs gave rise to various explosions or uprisings of native peoples in resistance (the Jews were only one of several peoples who resisted Hellenistic rule). Collins aptly points out that kingly figures were aroused in the future hopes of the colonized (my use of the term not Collins'). Among the Egyptian in the Demotic Chronicle, during the early Ptolemaic period, he quotes: "It is a man from heracleopolis who will rule after the Ionians. "Rejoice, O Prophet of Harsaphis." That means: The prophet of Harsaphis rejoices after the Ionians. For a ruler has arisen in Heracleopolis" (Citing C.C. McCown, "Hebrew and Egyptian Apocalyptic Literature," Harvard Theological Review (1925) 18:357-411]. This and many other examples offered by Collins shapes the contours of a common resistance motif among Near Eastern peoples during the period in which, in their unique and subtly differing ways, they projected a king-deliverer or "savior" of sorts to restore the centrality of the native monarch/peoples.

Collins' also cogently argued that other peoples resisted the rule of the "colonizer" by means of desecrating religious icons (e.g. statues in Hellenized temples) which he points out "were prompted by religio-nationalistic motives rather than desire for booty" (28). Thus, he concludes that before the Maccabean period, "...throughout the Near East from Egypt to Persia, Hellenistic rule was met by national resistance. Messianism, as the desire for the restoration of native monarchy, was by no means a peculiarity of the Jews but was a feature of the entire Near East in the Hellenistic period" (29). He then showed a precedence for a "four-kingdom" motif (similar to that envisioned in Daniel) envisioning (always) the Greeks as the fourth kingdom, which would be replaced either by the Roman Empire (Aemilius Sura), the kingdom of God (Daniel) or a new millennium (Bahman Yasht) [ibid.]. The schema then must have been "consciously borrowed" (29) though it took on various indigenous national features in each independent case.

Next, Daniel is proposed as the "best clue for the social function of this literature" (31). This is the case primarily because the "elite" or wise class intends for the apocalyptic to inform the masses. He states: "In the context of Daniel, it was clearly intended to inspire resistance to the Hellenistic king, a purpose shared by such non-Jewish works as the Demotic Chronicle, Potter's Oracle, aand Bahman Yasht" (31, emphasis added). Moreover, the phenomena itself of Jewish apocalyptic "...grew out of a situation of political alienation brought about by the loss of national independence in the post-exilic period" (31-32). Two points he raise further relate to the pesher mode of interpretation that often have been overlooked: 1) an indirect (or concealed) projection of scriptural interpretation into eschatological terms in order to "reapply the language of the older scripture without giving a direct commentary" (32). Now, in part I have interpreted Collins on this point, but I think it a safe assessment to parallel this to recent postcolonial-critical terms, namely, the rise of an ambivalent discourse against the dominant discourse (of the colonizer) which is couched in religious terms and yet is thoroughly religious and thoroughly political simultaneously. Or a reading of one's native scriptures and interpreting it in such a way to describe present events in eschatological terms. That seems to be Collins' argument. His second point argues "the interpretation of scripture is part of a broader phenomenon of prophecy by interpretation" (32). Hence, revelation is mediated by means of interpretation as opposed to directly. That is, Daniel's prophecy is one mediated through interpretation of revelation via the angelic being (cf. also 1 Enoch).

In passing he makes an interesting comment that already is haunting the crevices of my mind: "[pointing back to the oracles of nechepso and Petosiris (pointing back to the Chaldean astrology)] Especially, in the latter work astral phenomena are repeatedly interpreted with reference to political upheavals" (32, emphasis added).

In conclusion, Collins' sees apocalyptic as a phenomenon in its own right with two dimensions: 1) continuity and direct influence from other Hellenistic Near Eastern motifs and ideas, and [yet] 2) that they are not merely borrowed from other peoples, but have "a point of contact in the native tradition" (34). Further he states of the messianism: "The expectation of an ideal future king in both Egypt and Judah in the Hellenistic age is due, not to influence in either direction, but to the loss of native kingship in both countries" (34). Thus, the rise of the common apocalyptic (messianic) Zeitgeist "was the demise of national monarchies...[which] caused disruption in the traditional order and therefore led to a loss of meaningfulness and to alienation" (34).

Assessment/Reflection: I have sought to capture the essence or highlights of this profound work by weaving salient quotes from the article in order to underscore Collins' argument. For such a brief article, Collins traversed a vast amount of terrain. From a postcolonial standpoint, Collins' is a veritable goldmine. The surplus offers a cogent account in the Near East during the time leading up to that of the NT of the matrix of socio-political and religio-political resistance to oppressors of the indigenous peoples by means of apocalypticism. It is difficult to see how, through say Simon Samuel's motif of ambivalent hybrid discourse, the apocalyptic phenomenon is not by its very nature postcolonial. Moreover, his article raises the questions of messianisms evidently present throughout the Near East, this is a point that further work could really draw out in reconstructing the milieu of the NT documents and bear import in the way their authors construct Jesus apocalyptically.

Decolonizing the Son of Man

2008-05-31T15:57:00.002-05:00

In what will follow shortly, I will be reviewing a host of articles and books related to the so-called "Son of Man" debate. I am working through these materials as I process information for my master's thesis related to Daniel, Enoch, and Matthew's "Son of Man" Enthronements. I would appreciate and welcome (even solicit) your thoughts and criticisms as I articulate the works and my thoughts of them.

Apocalypticism and Current Existential Events

2008-05-27T12:01:00.004-05:00

In recent weeks my personal reading habits as well as my preparation for my master's thesis has left me vexed by the matrix of Jewish apocalypticism, ANE apocalyticism, and its relation to the politics of empire. I'm currently, among other works, working through J. J. Collin's The Apocalyptic Imagination. Though this is far from a new work, rather it is a standard in the field, I am reading it for the first time and have been very impressed with Collin's facility with the materials coupled with the ease with which he communicates the subject matter. I will certainly be commenting more upon this work and the ideas expressed therein (as well as those evoked in my own small mind as I read).

On another note I now turn my attention to the GRE, that looming, villainous latch-key to open or close various doors in my future. On one hand I am deeply concerned that after having expended so much time and effort in order to maintain a very high GPA, worked diligently to find and pursue extra curricular activities that would comport with my desires, aims, as well as personal development, that how I do on this test could be determinative for whether people even consider my background, academic history, and Vitae! It would be a lie not to say that this in itself is a rather frightening thought, although I still have the utmost confidence that I will likely do well on the test. Though I am rather unnerved about the math section.

Now to the existential aspect of my post. In the last several weeks, I have been "blessed" (though I am very leery of using that type of rhetoric) to have such wonderful, fulfilling, and meaning time with my wife, daughter, and son. During the drive to Indiana and Tennessee my seat in the van was right next to my daughter Gennavieve. In the last few months, due to suicide Hebrew, advanced Greek grammar, and several other classes together I was so pressed for time that I didn't get the chance to just stare in my daughter's young eyes, see the vibrancy and love that illuminates those small blue eyes. I think one of the most meaningful parts of the trip was the time I had to simply bond with my daughter, trapped in the car, the opportunity to arose for me to communicate with my infant (who can't talk!) extensively. We made faces at each other the whole time, smiling, and playing. She has added so significantly to the meaning, purpose, and value of my life---for which I am eternally grateful. This family time has been a season of refreshing, grounding, and joy. Indeed, I think my relationship with God has grown closer through my relationship with my family and children, maybe you really will know "them" or even "yourself" through "their" or "your own" fruit!

In retrospect I wonder, what does apocalypticism have to do with life, the struggle, and empire? I think it has far more that we often give credit for. My thoughts of late have been plagued by the perpetual inquiry of in what way the apocalyptic imagination is influence by and a response to the oppression of empire, the inculcation of the colonial ideology upon the colonized, and the resistance discourse of the latter against the former!

Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus

2008-05-26T01:26:00.002-05:00

Deconstructing Jesus. By Robert M. Price. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000. 266 pp. $34.00

The provocatively titled Deconstructing Jesus does not fail to disappoint in its erudite facility with the intersection of New Testament studies, literary criticism, historical criticism, and philosophy. Price presents his volume in eight core chapters framed in vitriolic, often humorous, and fundamentally skeptical prose. Price holds “Jesus Christ” to be a socio-religious moniker entailing a host of tertiary theological formulations and presuppositions (e.g. Chalcedonian Christology, nineteenth century views of inspiration and literalism, etc.) all of which necessitate critical reflection and deconstruction (pp. 11-12). Price eschews the very idea of so-called “historical Jesus” projects or “reconstructions” as “practically impossible and ill-advised” (p. 12). Indeed, he argues that because so many Jesus reconstructions are plausible that they therefore “cancel each other out” which gives rise to Price's own “Jesus agnosticism” (pp. 16-17). With the tone set, Price scrupulously proceeds to “deconstruct” the various Christianities within the plethora of ancient sources in order to undermine the modern notion of “Jesus” as a monolithic and even known figure.

In chapter one, Price assails the “myth of the early church” arguing for widely divergent “Christianities” many of which would hardly have been recognizable as “Christian” in a normative sense. Hailing F. C. Baur and Walter Bauer as “[t]wo of the most important investigators of early Christianity” he employs their initial formulations as starting points and seeks to press some of their conclusions (however tentative they might have been) to what Price perceives as their logical ends. With the degree of mention Price makes concerning philosophy throughout the work, it is rather odd that he failed to note even once the influence of Hegelian philosophy with its dialectic-evolutionary presuppositions embedded in the analyses of both Baur and Bauer. This betrays what later appears as Price's own underlying presupposition of a dialectical, history of religions approach to the materials (cf. pp. 29-32, 35-44).

Nevertheless, he proceeds to question the ideological factions perceived in the nascent documents. On the one hand, Price raises excellent questions of whether “orthodoxy” as such were existent at all in the way later historians (e.g. Eusebius) presented the story; however, Price's invective rhetoric persistently chiding any semblance of “Christian orthodoxy” seriously inhibits the effectiveness of much of his argumentation. The balance of chapter one through three yield, following Burton L. Mack's “pre-gospel” classifications the following movements: the Q community, the Pillars (Peter, James, John), the "heirs of Jesus" (the brothers of Jesus and James), the “community of Israel” (those who saw Jesus as the new Moses/Elijah figure), the synagogue reform movement, and the “Christ cults” (which he parsed into several cults). Each of these movements represents a rather diverse and independent cluster of religious followers each movement having its own “take” on Jesus. Price undermines the “big bang” theory, that is, the idea that the resurrection occurred giving rise to various trajectories of interpretation whether orthodox or heterodox. Rather the picture is one of a diversity of meanings of “Jesus” some completely removed from any notion of suffering/death or resurrection, which falls in line with and makes more complex the “Christ-myth” position. This is the case because Price finds Gnostic Redeemer myths already widely in circulation in the religious landscape of the Judean peoples of the time.

In chapter four Price argues extensively that the construct of Jesus in the NT supposedly antagonistic of “Pharisees” and “religious leaders” betrays the anachronisms embedded within the document. Rather, the Messiah of the NT is something of a “midrash” or compilation figure presented through a complex construction of layer atop layer with a bedrock of diverse, contradictory, Cynic sayings of “Jesus” (p. 100). Indeed, the “Son of Man” in the NT is merely a cipher for a hiding sage's agenda allowing “the dubious authority of some early Christian sage to recede behind the Torah-like clout of the Lord Jesus” (p. 103).

In chapter five, Price copiously labors to place the “Sufi” Islamic sayings of Jesus (twelfth century) alongside Q and Gospel of Thomas sayings developing a case that Jesus' death was not part of the original story. Indeed, he concludes “if we plot the trajectories of Christian evolution through the New Testament documents as Mack does, we will come up with multiple Christianities all the way back…” (p. 149). Hence, this constellation of Christ mystery cults and Jesus movements having nothing to do with one another validates both Price's idea that the Jesus could ever be known or indeed whether he, as such, ever existed.

In chapter six, Price courts Rene Girard's theory of the sacred scapegoat, bemoaning Girard's failure to press the theory through the Christ myth (p. 176). Herein Price posits the transposition of names for others all the while implying that Peter might be the Caiphas-figure and the disciples put him to death, or his death could have been faked which would comport with other ancient stories (a la Chapter seven). The book culminates with Price following Earl Doherty in seeing the construction of Jesus as midrashic compilation of OT antecedents which supposes that none of the events of Jesus are historical in any sense.

Ultimately, Price succeeds to offer a chiding work sure to evoke consternation. However, his arguments are convoluted and predicated upon a host of presuppositions that are at best tenuous. For instance, how probable is it that Luke-Acts was written so late that Marcion's version represents the earliest version of Luke [!] (p. 80). Where are opposing views to Price's radical theses? One will search the bibliography in vain finding a list of highly selective and agreeable sources to Price's unambiguous agenda. The work is fraught with a continually arising false dichotomy setting Price and his theories as representative of “critical scholars” over against fideists and Christian apologists. What is more, does Price actually represent “critical scholars” or only those who agree with himself (likely a more limited group). Is everyone who disagrees with Price's constructs ipso facto a fidiest? The irony, however, is that it is difficult to imagine how believers in Jesus, who he derides, exercise more of a fidiestic “leap” in supposing Jesus existed, died, and was believed by his followers to have been raised than Price himself exercises in supposing his “critical eye” discerns the layer upon layer upon layer of texts, communities, and confluence of myths to reach communities behind the communities exposing that “Jesus” is a construct and historically incredible. What of the non-Christian historical attestation to Jesus' existence? Nevertheless, his arguments would have been more compelling if they were better documented and argued in greater detail. The work took on so many radical theories that it did not prove convincing or probable in most of what was offered.

Back in the Saddle

2008-05-23T22:42:00.002-05:00

Well, I survived a two week trip with two small children and my in-laws. I accomplished much, spent quality time with family, and now I think I need about two weeks of fasting and silence to clear my mind and find release for my nerves.

I will be promptly postings some reviews of materials I have worked through, notably, my complete review of Benny Liew, along with a Review of Price's Deconstructing Jesus.

Moreover, much is going on with CSTNM they have an expedition going out this week to photograph manuscripts.

Freedom, Travel, and the Frontier

2008-05-21T21:31:00.003-05:00

I have been reticent to post recently because I have been traveling with family. This trip has served as both an amazing opportunity for me to see several campuses and meet with several faculty members of some really amazing schools that I will be applying to in the fall! So, I get the best of both worlds, traveling and enjoying my beautiful wife, children, and yes, even in-laws all the while getting the chance to meet some incredible scholars and see new campuses!

Thus far, I have been to Notre Dame and it was an absolutely gorgeous campus. The two New Testament scholars I had the chance to meet with were exceptionally warm and kind to me. Overall, Notre Dame has an amazing Ph.D. program and it was exciting to learn more about it.

Secondly, I visited the University of Chicago and met with one of their prominent NT scholars. While I likely will not apply there, more so because of the location of the campus in light of my wife and two small children, it was a tremendous experience. The students I met were brilliant, articulate, and warm. I am very glad I had the chance to finally visit the campus. Believe me, if I were a single man, downtown Chicago and that amazing campus would be on the top of my list.

Next up, tomorrow, I visit Vanderbilt University. I'm thrilled with this prospect as well. While I understand that all the programs I am interested in are the most difficult programs in the country to gain acceptance to, just the experience of visiting the campuses and meeting such notable scholars has been an invaluable life experience, and I have no doubt that my meeting tomorrow will be equally (or possibly more so) exciting.

If you haven't noticed, my sentiments provide enough indisputable evidence that in fact I am a nerd at heart! How I went from the depths of existence, living on the street, whose only dismal future expectation was either prison or death, to competing in academia and loving the life that I have been given (several) second, third, and fourth "chances" to live, I will never know...well, I do know, which is why I'm driven in the field of New Testament studies. I have known several dark nights of the soul, but I have known a whole life in the shadows of society, dejected, and alone, and yet while I often question what Jesus really looked like, taught like, and what his life and death mean, theologically and historically, I have a conviction that God indeed has been in the process, above the process, even yes, through the process, the journey, that I call faith/life. And in all my historico-critical meanderings, doubts, and theses, I know there is something, someone, beyond, through, and in this thing we call life...

Alternative Pronominal Referents to Deity or ‘Why we should call God She”

2008-05-14T22:34:00.003-05:00

Granted I’m a white American male, I have been pondering for some time now the discussion about calling God (=deity) “she”, now likely “old” by normal standards, but now that I voice my thoughts in the blogosphere I think its time I said something about this issue. As the first statement highlighted, as a male I can neither be a “feminist” theologian nor (in lieu of my ‘Caucasianaity’) a “womanist” theologian (is there such a thing as a ‘former-heroin-addict-theologian’?). However, as a follower of Jesus and a theologian I do have an opinion on the matter. And I think if anyone is honest with themselves and does their historiographical homework, it is difficult to deny that the Ancient Near East devalued, subjected, oppressed, silenced, and ridiculed women. Further, Judaism itself (as far as I have studied) is a deeply patriarchal tradition.

Now, it is true that one could read the Jewish scriptures and note a distinct bestowal of honor upon women in a completely egalitarian light, especially in the creation motif of the Imago Dei. Yet, the beauty of this created order of divinely instilled unity and equality is fundamentally shifted as the story proceeds through the marring of the Imago Dei through the so-called “fall” narrative. I do not buy into the conservative argument for so-called complementarianism (maybe better called “patriarchal capitulationism”). As I read the creation narratives, I think whatever one asserts from the stories, the principle regarding gender relations seem to be that through the “fall” event that the “seeds” of antipathy and active antagonism characterize the reciprocal relationships between the genders. Moreover, I am also compelled by my reading of Galatians 3:28, that indeed, there is no more slave or free, male nor female because of the reconciliation of Christ (There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female–for all of you are one in Christ Jesus [Gal 3:28; NET]). However, I think if there is a conflictual theology in the New Testament or one that is problematic for that matter, it is Paul’s. But the evidence is far from conclusive on the inclusion of the deutero-Pauline corpus (so if you are wanting to wallop someone with the Pastorals, not me!). Indeed, my reading of the gospels and the message of restoration is one of complete restoration, equality included! And please don’t respond to this with some kind of “functional” justification.

Having then established in brief my reading of that conflict, underscoring my own egalitarian reading of Jesus and the New Testament (granted I did little to argue my case, because, well, that is not he primary thrust of my post). Thus, the Kingdom of God, whatever else it may be, is God’s restorative kingdom characterized by peace, reconciliation, and equality. And recognizing that patriarchalism has dominated the Jewish tradition and by and large the Christian tradition from virtually its inception, I think merely as a socio-religious corrective to in some sense push the pendulum back to the egalitarian middle that for several decades or a century we should refer to the trinity (Jesus excluded) as she. I do not believe godself has ontological gender, neither male nor female. And yet for better than two millennia God has been referred to as “he, him, father” etc. I realize there are many times in the biblical narratives in which God is described as “father.” Conversely, there are also passages that imply feminine characteristics to God and regardless, even the male references are just that, references or anthropomorphisms (or possibly we should call the gynepomorphisms!) Since ontology is never on the table, besides offending the King James only folks and the ultraconservatives who subjugate their own women (in theory more than practice [follow some of them home at night and see who really “rules the roost”]), is there really any harm in employing the feminine pronominal when referring to deity? I think not, in fact, I think a healthy corrective to the complicity of Christianity and the empire it has been co-opted by, exploited by, and ultimately subsumed (e.g. “Christendom”) and reproduced would be to call god “she” instead of “he.” This would likely be the most deeply felt at the pew-level, inspiring “shock and awe”, causing alarm, and indeed capturing the attention of humanity within the sphere of Christian influence that a transformation of the destructive and repressionistic modes of praxis are being shed as the people of God are working out practical ways of showing greater fidelity to the true Jesus and the message he heralded.

Politics of Parousia by Tat-Siong Benny Liew

2008-05-11T14:47:00.004-05:00

I just finished Tat-Siong Benny Liew's Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(con)textually (Biblical Interpretation Series 44; Leiden: Brill, 1999). This was a fantastic read that I highly recommend and I will have a published review of this text later next year. However, for current discussion I would like to outline the argument and listen to any thoughts or reflections you might have about it.

From a biblical standpoint, Liew determined that the Markan parousia, stands in a rich tradition of Jewish apocalyptic literature which stands against imperial oppression and subjugation. First, he reasons that the Markan Jesus is painted in stark contrast to the Jewish authorities who are subtly identified with the kingdom of darkness. I found this to be one of the penetrating insights into the Markan narrative offered, that I for one, was previously unaware of or simply missed. At least in so far as he was able to show cogently that several linguistico-rhetorical features of the gospel (e.g. the use of the ἐκβάλλ-verbs, etc.) subtly tie the Jewish elite and "their house" with the dominion of the adversary (evidently this is something Mack and others have already alluded to, which I wasn't aware of). His reading was deeply textual, interacting skillfully with the text and language, more so than I had initially expected (though granted I had little basis for expectation!). Another feature that was rather unforeseen was how richly he treated the narrative from a biblical theology standpoint; this could well be my own (mis)assessment because I have only a marginal perspective of literary criticism as of yet.

The primary thesis he argued for, evidenced in the title of the work, was that the fundamental politic of the Markan parousia as eschatological event was a duplication of the ideology of the colonizer, namely, the Roman's "obey-or-be-destroyed" program! So the totalitarian vision of Jesus' sole judgment of the "righteous and unrighteous" and political reckoning, at bottom, was a repackaged "colonially mimicking" vision of the colonizer's ideology. Therefore, resistance to the colonial regime, being so inculcated by the ideology of empire, takes on the form and vision of empire even in its resistance. Hence, the best way I can describe what I think was his point, is that the vision of Jesus' return (parousia) setting the world to "rights" by the binary standard of "in" vs. "out" chiefly is the projection of the Imperial Caesar's mode of oppression by violence in cosmic religious terms. This is a very provocative thesis in my estimation, not only for what it says, but further what it leaves unsaid. Moreover, as a reader I continually found myself querying as to whether I was reading Albert Schweitzer or Liew. I realize this statement necessitates qualification, but I have yet to put my finger on exactly why, I kept getting that "feel." What does this mean for the parousia, in general? Ah, these are the questions that are forever unanswerable because methodologically we have departed in a sense from history in so far as authorship, date, occasion, etc. are matters out of reach and in a real sense out of bounds in his study. The whole exercise is "constructed" in Mark's narrative-world, which thereby alleviates some of the traditional questions and pitfalls. Maybe that is exactly the genius of the method, namely, dealing with the literature as a "piece of colonial literature arising during a certain historical milieu" and then analyzing the internal construct of the narrative world and actors vis-a-vis the colonial situatedness of the literature. There are still some issues in the method that seem unaddressed and I might well be reading the whole thing incorrectly, but this at present seems like a robust way to deal with the socio-political significance of the narrative in its historical context without the pitfalls of traditional "Introductory" material/debate. Any thoughts?

He goes on to analyze the way mark constructs colonial subjects first with an eye to the way he views "agency" and then to the way he constructs women. Chiefly, he throws several notable scholars' works, who argue strongly for a positive (or semi-positive) presentation of the role of women, to the flames, finding rather a "backseat" and rather negative view of women's role in society. This climaxes in his final chapter which draws together the previous work on Mark and sets it over against the Chinese American colonial experience. From this he harvests the "timeless, universal truth" (not Liew's language!): that the colonized of all times bear the danger of duplicating the ideology of their oppressors and in turn oppressing others (p. 158).

Evangelical Manifesto - Released

2008-05-07T23:20:00.002-05:00

Though CNN broke the story several days in advance, the "Evangelical Manifesto" is out! There are two versions, the brief version (5 pages) and the full version (20 pages). Chiefly, the manifesto evidences a group seeking to define itself over against various compulsions from within and without the movement(s). An encouraging aspect is the fact that the document is irenic in general, that is, while calling for a distinctive identity, at least this appeal is for religious diversity in the global world in which we live. Believers of all religious faiths and even atheists are given fair place. Issues of social justice and equality are mentioned. And on the whole, the document is better, note that honest remark, better than I had expected (well I am rather skeptical). That is not to say, I have no reservations about the document at all.

In brief: Theologically, the document articulates a christological confession consistent with Chalcedon. It continues: salvation by grace through faith, exclusively through Jesus' death on the cross "for the penalty of sin." To that end, the manifesto is very conservative theologically, although they were careful to steer clear of "inerrant," likely a rather divisive term even among confessing Evangelicals. Beautifully, the theologically driven section concludes with an honest self-indictment that evangelicals perpetually fail to live up to their standards. Fair enough!

What I found most interesting about the document (larger version) was that the attempt was made, whether successfully or not remains to be seen, to stand against an evacuation of religion from politics and conversely politics from religion. It is to this point that I would like to comment. Under section 3, "We Must Rethink Our Place in Public Life" (pg. 14ff.) this attempt was made. The argument is made that evangelicals must stand against two equal but opposite "errors." The first is "privatized faith" whereas the religious life is neatly tucked away in the "spiritual compartment of life." Conversely, the other "error" they articulate is the politicization of faith, which they acknowledge has been a practice of both the "right and left."

While I do appreciate their sentiments concerning the fact that Christianity has in many senses been hijacked on both sides of the isle as it were, I am still questioning whether "politicizing" faith is something one can not do. Now, if I'm reading the manifesto correctly then the assertion is being made that Christianity is in some sense "other" than partisan. I agree. My concern, however, is that following Jesus is a politic. I think that several key terms and phrases in the document point in this direction (e.g. "independence" and "allegiance higher than a party, ideology, or nationality" [15]). However, that is where it ends. Could this be because this was as far as agreement could be reached among the charter signatories? I will certainly grant them the benefit of the doubt.

At the end of the day, (and it is the end of this last grueling day of finals for me!) I think more needs to be said about what the politic of Jesus is. What does it mean to live in this world as a Christian? In a partisan world? In a world and culture of capitalism, consumerism, militarism, and still bearing the undercurrents of imperialism that, though less visible, is increasingly stronger ideologically within the culture. I applaud the Manifesto and was pleasantly surprised by some of the diversity of signatories, but my concerns remain on several accounts. This will be a topic that comes up again.

"Damn the Pharisees!" Gospel of Thomas 102

2008-05-05T21:38:00.004-05:00

Gospel of Thomas

102 Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."

After a quick read of Thomas, I am more confident than ever that Jesus was a lot more fun than a lot of his followers I know! And I find myself resonating deeply with his sentiments.

Evangelical Manifesto - Watching and Waiting, but not holding my breath!

2008-05-05T11:21:00.005-05:00

Well the blogosphere is buzzing after CNN broke the story that many evangelical leaders have converged on Washington D.C. and are drafting "An Evangelical Manifesto." Then Dr. Bock's blog mentioned the event and now bloggers all over are awaiting the release of this document on Wednesday.CNN reports from the AP "Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word 'evangelical' has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars."

I anticipate this venture to be rather interesting, though my expectations are low. The only promising things that have been reported are that various individuals such as Richard Land (Southern Baptist Convention) and James Dobson (Focus on the Family) have not been invited. Contra most, I find this factor to be the best thing this project has going for it. Secondly, the one or two people who we know are involved, Richard Mouw (Pres. of Fuller Seminary) and others show promise because they are likely more representative of moderate evangelical voices as opposed to the business-as-usual conservative (often Republican) agenda.

On Darrell Bock's blog I commented,

Please tell me this manifesto isn't going to pit "evangelical" faith with anti-abortion/homosexual/immigration folks, again, is it? For the record I'm not a democrat (or a republican), but if this manifesto in any way: a) supports the war, b) calls for a support of the president, c) aligns Christians against people of any sort (alternative lifestyle, race, immigration status, etc.), and bears any signs of patriotism, nationalism, or Western-centrism, I think many people, myself included, will seriously consider whether 'evangelical' is an association that is worth having.

I remain hopeful about this statement---hopeful that 'evangelical' might be a term redeemed from the grip of fundamentalist right-wing conservatives, who hijacked it years ago when the "Christian right" (which is mostly wrong) rose to power. I'm holding my breath!"

Another gentlemen, from an apologetics website responded to me saying that:

"If being Evangelical DOESN'T pit me against anyone, then it's not a name worth having (where "pit me against" means I reject what the other stands for, not that I don't long to see the other come to have a right relationship with Christ)."

To which I responded:

Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I think the whole attitude of being pitted against another Christian, until "they get it right" (= believe like me), undermines the very reality of following Jesus. It is predicated on modernity's quest for absolutism, certainty, and the every illusive term "truth." I am decrying exactly what you are hoping for, another creed to "set the truth (= what I believe)" over against other expressions of Christian theology.
I don't know if you realize it Keith, but the watching world does not, in general, take evangelicalism very seriously because evangelical expression has be hijacked by the so-called "Christian right." It seems the only valuable contributions evangelicalism has expended any effort towards revolve around three crux issues: abortion, homosexuality, and creation/evolution. What about matters that Jesus actually spoke about like war, violence, the poor, the immigrant (maybe especially this latter one). Evangelicalism has become a cipher for Republican policy and that must change. I think either the age of religious toleration and appreciation of different expressions of Christianity will take back the title "evangelical" or else the movement will be eclipsed. Think about it, evangelicals in the media are always portrayed as religious fundamentalists, which is rather unfortunate.

I think this really frames the issue. My vision of Jesus and what it means to follow him is to follow his way of peace, of compassion on the poor, on justice and the weightier matters of the law. What has occurred in the past 20 years is that the Christian agenda has been set by ultraconservative leaders who have morphed the fundamentals of the faith and the essence of following Jesus as being against people. However, in my view, this ideology is more driven by modernity's epistemic concerns and the penetration of Western Imperial ideology into Christian expression.

To this latter concern I would like to highlight several points. Postcolonial theory is concerned with the way in which knowledge and power are construed and wielded in the construction of the "other." Note how he mentions that those who he is against are those who do not rightly relate to Christ. By "right" it is clear he means "believe about Christ what I or my community believe about Christ." For him, 'evangelical' is a meaningful term because it delimits boundaries of "right" vs. "wrong," "in" vs. "out." So Roman Catholics are out. Pentecostals are out. My question is, "who is in?" What are the "tenets of faith" for the evangelical? And which person who calls themselves 'evangelical' gets to choose which other people that call themselves 'evangelicals' are out? It seems as though evangelical has become an organization, a power structure, whose internal coherence runs on the fuel of empire not following Jesus.

My other concern is that this Manifesto might evacuate the reality that following Jesus is a politic! That is, in combating the shift to the so-called Christian Right and "liberal left" (so the AP report through CNN), might the very essence of following Jesus be compromised? We shall see.

Articles/Blogs Referenced:

(CNN article; Bock's Blog;)

Student Academic Conference: "Politics of the Spirit: New Tongues in a Culture of Empire"

2008-05-01T22:01:00.003-05:00

I am absolutely thrilled about the upcoming student conference we have put together for this coming fall. The conference itself is the manifestation of a "pipe dream" that several socially minded Pentecostal students and myself conjured up. We have orchestrated the event so that students who come for the "paper symposium" will also have the opportunity, while in town, to attend the annual meeting of Pentecostals and Charismatics for Peace and Justice. Even more thrilling is the fact that we are able to offer the two best student papers both an $85 award for travel and the opportunity to have their paper published in Pax Pneuma. What more could an aspiring scholar want? If I wasn't involved in chairing the event and putting it together, heck, I would be submitting a proposal. Amazingly, there is finally a conference where undergrad students are encouraged to participate.

I remember as I prepared to apply for master's programs how I wished I could have shown my initiated by having already been active in a scholarly community. Well now, students have that option! I'm more than a little pumped about being involved in putting this together.

Empire and the Christian Tradition--Thoughts

2008-04-30T19:19:00.004-05:00

I had the opportunity today to read through Dr. J. Rieger's introductory chapter in Empire and the Christian Tradition: New Readings of Classical Theologians (Fortress Press, 2007). I think it provides an insightful and cursory introduction into the book's content for one, but also the trajectories within the "Empire" discussion. Rieger skillfully set forth the parameters of the discussion of Empire in a theological context. Moreover, he introduced "ambivalence" technically speaking, but in such a way that virtually anyone could grasp it. While I feel much more could have been said, this would be a helpful chapter in discussing the topic with someone who simply doesn't understand what all the hub-bub about empire is. This latter point is something I have been dealing with in my own context. I've had several days now to reflect on my last "encounter" of sorts in which, by seminary students, I was asked to describe postcolonialism to individuals who had never heard the term. I realized in those few moments, that my own grasp and interest in the subject, and indeed aspirations for future research were better situated in the interior recesses of my psyche than packaged and ready for export (to borrow readily available capitalist lingo).

While I think that I accurately described the study, as a biblical criticism, I also was confronted by the reality of how radical, to the average conservative Christian such critical ideas posed to the reigning presuppositions whether conscious or unconscious of the average evangelical situated in an American context. What does it mean when your thinking, reasoning, and critical reflection make others nervous?

I will be posting much more frequently in the coming days, as finals ease their seeming strangle-hold and my limp mind falls upon the floor. :)

Jeremiah Wright is Right!

2008-04-25T21:32:00.003-05:00

Hopefully, my title is as catchy and as controversial as what I am now "compelled by the spirit" to share. I commute to grad school approximately 40 minutes both ways everyday. As filler I frequently listen to podcast lectures from universities available through various institutional websites or through itunes. Also, in the moments when I simply can't bear another lecture, I listen to talk radio. The prominent stations I know of are very conservative and holistically republican (neither of which I personally identify with, but I have to admit it is fun to listen). I enjoy staying up on current events, the day's news, and politics. Well, I have heard the banter for some time concerning the infamous Rev. Wright (not to be confused with N.T. Wright who I'm moderately sympathetic with). Nevertheless, I was fairly critical of the media portrayals of Wright and his sermons. I've thought several times about blogging on it, but it has either slipped my mind, or I felt it had become old news.

Today, however, I was confronted yet again with clips of his sermons. In recent weeks, as the blackballing of Wright in the media has taken place, I have pondered my own thoughts concerning him and his ministry. My first intuitions were that the notion being kicked around in the media that somehow what goes on in a Sunday morning worship service is disconnected from politics is absolutely fascinating. How is it that people can be so naive about Jesus, the Bible, and what it means to follow Jesus? Moreover, to what should we attribute the conception that politics is unrelated to faith, or vice versa? Is that not insanity? Do the convictions I hold about the nature of the world, humanity, and the future not relate to the way in which I live and indeed the way in which I view the socio-political sphere in which I dwell?

What necessitates my present rant is that not only does Jeremiah Wright have a duty to critique the social structures of the day in light of the gospel, he would be failing Jesus not to do so! At the outset I will say, the ONLY thing(s) I think that Wright is wrong about are his statements concerning the notion of a government conspiracy to manufacture aids in order to kill African-Americans. That is patently absurd, but that is peripheral to the main issue. The main issue is that following Jesus is a POLITIC.

As an aside, I was at an academic event at a very conservative theological institution the other night, and a fellow I didn't know inquired about a book I was reading (which happened to be Tat-Siong Benny Liew's Politics of Parousia [his Ph.D. diss. from Vanderbilt]). He was unfamiliar with "postcolonialism" and asked me to explain in brief what it was. A few sentences into my description he said, "Oh, that type of criticism is Marxist and Marxism is inherently unbiblical." I responded, kindly, that some within the postcolonial conversation employ Marxism as an analytic tool, etc. At that point, he became noticeably disgruntled and issued several argumentative comments (and ironically all I was doing was trying to explain the theory!). Yet, the moment of glory came when he made another comment about Marxism and that ideology being so anti-biblical to which I responded "So you think capitalism is biblical?" And then I had a revelation, or an epiphany---this individual's understanding of the Christian message has been so filtered through Western Imperialism that the very nature of the biblical text is only permitted to be read through an Imperial lens---other lenses and other readings are dangerous to the necessary presuppositions of sustaining the Imperial Weltanschauung that to even entertain other notions is inherently dangerous (and in religious rhetoric heterodox).

Back to Wright, when I heard Wright's sermons on the airwaves again tonight as some sort of evidence of him being anti-American, the only way I know how to describe it is to say the existentially I had a "god moment." I realized that not only do I affirm Wright's freedom of speech and critique of Empire, after hearing his statements tonight, I'm positive there is no difference ideologically between Wright and the ways in which I understand Jesus, his message, and the call for those who choose to follow him. What is more, the clip which was played evidenced Wright doing and excellent job of Second Temple historiography evidencing a thorough and honest assessment of the socio-political location in which the crucifixion was carried out, and contextualizing that history into modern terms and events. He made statements to the effect that (quoting from memory) "There is no such thing as 'A war for peace.'" And, "War can no more bring about peace than raping someone can bring about virginity." When I heard these words, my worst fears were confirmed in that instant---this Wright who has been vilified in the media has said nothing that I would not say myself, including his rant taken out of context about God damning America! If ministers cannot offer a political critique predicated on the politic of Jesus, then they are not ministers, and the truth is not in them. How absurd is it to fuel the outrageous idea that humans live in differentiated, neatly separated, compartments of interest (e.g. on Sunday I worship [spiritual], on Monday I vote [political], on Tuesday I work [vocational]). Is that any different than the husband who loves his wife when he is "home" and has his "home life" and then lives an alternative life on "business trips" with his mistress? Can Christians be americans?

Horsley, "Scribes, Visionaries, and Politics of 2nd Temple Judea"

2008-04-23T23:09:00.003-05:00

In the darkness that is the present--an inkling of light, ever so bleakly, has penetrated the atmosphere and yes, I can finally see the end of the tunnel which is this semester---suicide Hebrew, Advanced Greek Grammar, Academic internship, History of Philosophy, Evangelism (a rather ironic, but required course), and a NT Backgrounds course is a formidable load. And yet, it appears I will survive and actually do well grade wise also.

I'm working through, in the midst of the end of semester woes, Richard A. Horsley's new Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007). Chiefly, he argues that the events espoused in Ezra and Nehemiah are imperial propaganda (I'm distilling the subtleties quite a bit here). To that end, he argues that the Jewish elite were primarily the one's taken in the deportation, and now (or rather then!) the Persian empire in sanctioning the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple were in effect establishing an indigenous imperial tool, namely, the Temple-state through which to maintain power over the territory, but through local and therefore indigenous (at least ethically) peoples. Again, I haven't worked through the whole text, and likely spent far too much time identifying and wrestling with his presuppositions and methodology, but this appears prima facie to be the gist of his argument. It will be interesting to see how he traces it. While I think Horsley proposes several interesting and tenable ideas in his historical reconstruction, I wonder whether he deals even handedly with the data. That is, his rhetoric appears at times a little over confident that it all fits into his imperial-paradigm. I suppose having just mulled over Moore's work, substantiates much of my reticence to imbibe uncritically Horsley's historical reconstruction.

I long to blog more, but the urgency of the moment necessitate that I refrain...for tonight.

Moore's Empire and Apocalypse -"Mimicry" and "Catachresis"

2008-04-17T22:26:00.006-05:00

I just finished my (co-authored) book review of Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament. In The Bible in the Modern World Series. Vol. 12. By Stephen D. Moore. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006. This slim monograph was truly a riveting read, especially to a newbie to formal "postcolonial studies." I have found myself for sometime within the conversation of Horsley, Carter, and others regarding the excavation of the anti-imperial sentiment replete in the New Testament texts. Of late I have become increasingly interested in postcolonialism because it provides several conceptual tools that I think are necessary; indeed, what Moore presents in this text is challenging and unfortunately far off the radar at the institution I study at currently, but I hope to remedy that in the future.

I'm not going to reproduce my book review here, nor offer a modified one. Rather I would like to articulate several conceptual-critical tools which Moore took advantage of and employed that I think are novel and worthy of further consideration. The first concept is the notion of colonial mimicry. This, as I understand it, Moore adapts from Homi Bhabha and subsequently Tat-siong Benny Liew's application of it throughout the Gospel of Mark. Clearly, my efforts now will be expended building my postcolonial conceptual toolbox through analyses of these and other materials. However, I find myself resonating deeply with the both/and internal struggle of the resistance discourse which stands against and yet participates ideologically in what Moore calls catachresis; I propose a new term in its place, with a similar notion, but more precise terminology: "perichoresis" (this being a term I am appropriating from trinitarian dialogue [from Gk. peri “around” + choreuo “dance in chorus”] typically denoting the notion of mutual indwelling and interpenetration without confusion of personal distinction). I find this a more helpful conceptual notion, though modified in my own use, than Spivak's catachresis (for his definition see the article by Mieke Bal, Semiotic Elements in Academic Practices [Critical Inquiry, Vol. 22, No. 3, (Spring, 1996), 583-4]. Yet, my modification takes the conceptual structure that Moore has employed. This notion of the mutual antipathy and allegiance internal to the colonized with reference to the colonizer and the ideological regime in which the colonized has been cognitively born into seems to be the greatest(?) or more promising conceptual tools offered in postcolonial analyses.

I would be very interested to know what others are thinking in this regard.

Fears, Careers, and Ideological Openness

2008-04-16T22:32:00.006-05:00

I plan to spend my life in the academic field. Thus, far I have attended rather conservative theological institutions, though of significantly differing core doctrinal commitments. However, recently in pondering the future, I have arrived at one conclusion: I have to get myself out of the theological vein I am in and into the artery of religious academics for several reasons (one of which I will share in this post): 1. I don't like the feel of confessional institutions. This first realization is one that came to me slowly. In my own theological journey, I (much like the general history of Christianity) have largely been reactionary in my development, at least up until this point. Admittedly, my story, of heroin addiction for the entirety of my adolescence and teenage years leading into my twenties, is rather out of the ordinary. Moreover, as I've stated previously at first I was enticed by the "American Jesus" that is the one touted by Kenneth Copeland and his band of cronies who teach prosperity and other absurd and completely antithetical notions to the real meaning and message of Jesus. When the scales fell from my eyes, the horror of what I had learned and believed precipitated my own violent reaction against such theological constructs--(and yet another ideology I would come to abandon)--reformed, covenant theology. Here I was courted by such thinkers as Gary North (Christian Reconstruction), Kenneth Gentry (Postmillennial, Partial Preterism, and Theonomy [not in a Tillich sense!]), Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and John Frame. Here I rested for several years, I call these my "heresy-hunter" days---where the primary role of the Christian theologian, in my understanding, was to defend orthodoxy (e.g. calvinism, etc.). Moreover, this was the age of the "fear-factor." Where ideas that pressed against the veil of "orthodoxy" were to be guarded against and feared. Thus, in reflecting on these two periods, they were both eras characterized by ideology driven by fear of some form or another. First, fear of academic theology (ala the "Word of Faith" crew) because we all know scholarly study of the Scripture causes people to lose their faith. Second, fear of heresy where certain ideas outside of the norm were taboo and therefore to be guarded against. In this latter mode, which seems to be the dominate mode still in evangelicalism (as it is eclipsed by the postmodern, poststructuralist, postchristian shift) ideas outside the norm are dangerous. Fortunately, I entered another era. One in which I could re-envision Jesus, religion, and theology. The primary paradigm shift came through listening and then reading N. T. Wright. I bet I've listened to his "Jesus and the Kingdom" four part series (free on ntwrightpage.com) 7 or 8 times each. Then I read his three massive volumes (New Testament and the People of God; Jesus and the Victory of God; The Resurrection of the Son of God) in a matter of two months, devouring every page. I don't think my own transformation was the result of Wright per se, rather I think it was my own Sitz im Leben coupled with challenging new ideas about Jesus, historiography, the historical trajectories within NT scholarship, and Jesus studies that cracked open my mind, something I am deeply grateful for. Also, contemporaneous with (maybe before/and definitely a little after) I have had crises of faith. I did get married (maybe a cause of crisis) and had a baby (also possible cause for alarm!), but in the moments of desperation, god-forsakenness, and genuine spiritual seeking, I found one theologian to rest in, one academic who I could turn to read---Jurgen Moltmann. Without Crucified God I think I might have left the faith all together [Parenthetically, I actually got the chance to shake his hand and tell him that at SPS this year]. I needed to find again the God whom I knew, but had lost in prosperity faith and orthodoxy defense. In light of where I've been and who I am, I no longer find it desirable to operate (in a future career context) in an environment which confines itself to a narrow, creedal ideology. One of my primary concerns is that, if all staff (e.g. professors) affirm the same creedal positions and believe the same things, then students are not truly challenged. Indeed, such an environment does not seem conducive to biblical studies in general. For what if study leads to other conclusions? What if, in fact, the creed is so narrow and explicit that virtually no one (on staff) affirms it in the way it is written, they all have a nuanced sense in which they understand various facets of it in order to be able to sign it? Finally, these creedal strictures create an ethos of "us vs. them" and one in which individuals who think for themselves (unless they have tenure) have to "watch what they say" on issues that after wrestling with the data no longer fit the creed. I realize there are normative responses to the issues I have suggested, but I am working through them from my own perspective as rationale for why I don't think in my future academic career I would want to work at a creedal institution, not necessarily because I don't believe in various things that might be creedalized, but that in terms of academics I don't think such fosters free-thinking scholarship.

Let me explain my thinking further. This is, I think, something I could not have come to without my former and present academic experience, for which I am grateful. I'm not bitter (although I have several biting criticisms for my institution[s]), but I think most people, after several years in an institution, become keenly aware of its shortcomings. So what now?

My rationale is that I need to and must broaden my horizons in doctoral education at an institution conducive to my goals. Those goals consist of finding a vocational opportunity in an academic institution that is ideologically free, to read the text in new ways, to construct new theories, to test new hypotheses, all without fear of reprisal or retribution. I have witnessed in my undergraduate experience a conservative institution malign and severely devastate the lives of one of its professors (and his wife and children's lives) all because he taught students to take Jesus' teaching seriously and to practice social justice; they didn't mind his teaching until he called the administration on unethical business practices (even though he went to them privately for a period of almost two years, before making the discussion more public). I saw them publically lie, threaten students, and quietly try to sweep him under the rug. I realize academics is very political, but thinking, teaching, and writing freely is a necessity for me and my future development. I don't ever want to be run out of town, job, and school because I teach students, however controversially, to think---is not that the heart of education?

Apostolic Father and the Imperial Cult: Radical Faith, Imperial Games

2008-04-15T00:48:00.004-05:00

For my advanced Greek grammar class each student has been assigned a portion of the Apostolic Fathers corpus to syntactically analyze. With the term paper looming on the horizon and suicide Hebrew a constant battle, I wasn't looking forward to cranking this out--and certainly not right now. However, as mundane as it sounds, something radical happened in the process. During the very moments in which I was pondering my God-forsakeness, I found myself entranced by the melodic and vivid imagery carrying along the narrative of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, my assigned passage. Granted the writers (and several likely interpolators) were certainly attempting to portray the Christian martyrs as heroes, I was struck by the Imperial rhetoric. When Polycarp himself came to the fore of the discussion, his mutual interactions with the Proconsul and others were amazing, there I was translating along and what do you know, the infamous Imperial Cult sprang from the page, wrenching my heart. Polycarp's inquisitor beckeoned, "There is no harm in saying, 'Caesar is Lord,' is there"? (MPoly 8:2). He was commanded, "Swear by the Genius [e.g. divinitus) of Caesar and repent saying, "Away with the athiests [Christians]!" I'm amazed by the faith of this old man to die in light of his faith and allegiance to Jesus; what is so profound is the issue, namely, allegiance. To swear by Caesar's genius was to profess loyal love for the socio-economic Savior of Humanity, the great Benefactor. Several thoughts come to mind in this regard: 1) I wonder in what ways this text evidences the oppression and tyranny of Empire, 2) in what ways is following Jesus counter-Imperial, 3) in what ways might the Christian message, even that of Polycarp, be fundamentally mimicking the Empire against which it asserts itself. I wonder how early it was the Christ-followers were ideologically high-jacked by empire? Was it before the time of Jesus? That is, were the threads of imperial ideology embedded so deeply in the religio-politic of the first century that even a nascent movement would pattern itself as the supra-empire of God, which transcends the earthly Empire, but yet and still looks very much like it, only deified?

My mind toils... the time is late and the hour is nigh... I must sleep to rest the syntactico-analytic machine....

Loosed from the bonds of past theological commitments...

2008-04-13T14:01:00.000-05:00

As most people of faith I gather that there is, in everyone, some sort of transformation in the process. That is, what I believed when I first associated myself with the Christian message and story has undergone tremendous re-evaluation, deconstruction, loss, mourning, faith, and reconstruction several times. I think the greatest thing that has ever happened to me is the loss of my faith, so to speak. For me to say "I have lost my faith" is not to be understood in traditional church lingo, for usually when one states "so-and-so lost their faith" it usually bears the connotation that they ceased to believe in Jesus, left their local community, and that is usually perceived as excruciatingly negative. However, when I use the phrase, I do not mean that "I have lost my faith" and therefore, do not believe; rather, I have lost my faith---that is, my faith reached a location in which it, in its construction relative to that time could no longer support itself with reference to that crucible in which existence, situation, rationality, and loyalty intersect. Thus, when I have gone through a period of "the dark night of the soul" in which I have been confronted with the apparent failure of my own theological convictions to support the history related to, and the person of the Savior himself as it has been passed down to us, I find myself at what people within the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous call "the jumping off place." This is lingo for the end of oneself in which the individual realizes that they can no longer continue to drink and use drugs successfully and yet they cannot stop---or to put it differently when one is confronted with the reality that what they hold dearest can neither be true or not be true. In the case of the addict, they cannot envision life either with or without the next drink/fix.

So also have my moments of crisis in faith taken place, at those moments in which I recognize that what I may have held dearest and labeled "fundamental" to Jesus and Christianity might actually be nothing more than the trappings of late-modernity's Imperial acquisition of and manipulation of the message of Jesus. Currently, I'm coining this (quite unaware of anyone who may well be of great academic prowess who has already pioneered this notion) as "the Imperial nightmare." This, of course, is my own reference to having awakened recently to the realization of my own entrenchment in, loyalty to, and antipathy toward Empire in my situatedness in the Western (North) Americas. How can I love Jesus and hate Empire, and yet be so situated in Empire that it is my very identity? This is precisely the point.

Now I have trudged through these wanderings all resultant of my experience today; when I first followed Jesus, I entered through the Pentecostal wing, most notably through the nutty and distinctly American prophets called "Word of Faith" preachers.... Yes, I admit it; I was attracted to the "american jesus" that is, the one who wants you rich, living in divine health (whatever that means), and basically a co-deity or "little god." How could I have been so naive, so stupid, and indeed so deceived? Well, when I first ventured into ministry to be a "world evangelist" I took with me all the tropes of the american gospel. It didn't take me nearly as long to renounce and move theologically away from such absurdities, but today I had to finally put the axe to some of the rhetoric still found at my website (http://www.robreid.org/). Since I have been in school for the last several years after starting "Rob Reid Ministries" (even the name I now regret), I haven't had any time (or the web skills) to change some of the verbiage on the site. Today, I have done it (at least I think I got it all. While I have been ideologically free of such naive faith for over 5 years, sadly my "face" to the world still bore all the accouterments of such a sloppy approach to faith.

It has been a long and winding road, from atheism to pentecostal faith. From there into the world of the "Word of Faith" nutters to the reaction of Covenantal Reformed faith, to conservative evangelicalism, to the broad place at which I now find myself. I am not "pentecostal" enough for the pentecostal, I am not conservative enough for the evangelicals, I am not calvinist or arminian, certaintly not Republican, but not Democrat... I'm a rogue thinker attempting to follow the Lord. I have embraced peace and not violence, a faith of praxis rather than mere words, and a life of critical scholarship regardless of how my faith might need to be deconstructed and reconstructed. And yet, when I have lost my faith, it was not final, nor a solitary experience, but I have lost my faith at several points, torn down the pillars supporting it, demolished the ground, started back with the person and my allegiance to Jesus and reimaged, reinvisioned, and reconstructed a faith worth having.

I can't wait for doctoral studies, in which I hope to lose my faith yet again; to change, to learn, to reimaging, and to establish myself yet again with a faith purifed by the crucible of criticism, cognizant of the epistemic limitations of humanity, existentially connected through allegiance to Jesus, and genuinely embodying the Jesus of first century Palestine, the true Kurios and yet the true doulos.

Reflections

2008-04-13T00:12:00.001-05:00

Well, in reading my inaugural post I thought I was reading David Hume suddenly! I might have over stated my skepticism, for I do think knowledge is possible, even religious knowledge; but in regards to what and how much...those are the issues that are of present concern. Nevertheless I press on...

Currently, among other things I have been working through Stephen D. Moore's Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006). It is simply fascinating, like stumbling into an underground club and when you become cognizant of the character of individuals who are in here, you realize you are more at home among them than any you have known before. While admittedly only having my toe in the pond as it were at this point, the edge it seems to me is as follows.

Whereas anti-Imperial studies has been my heart's cry for a time, I have always been away of the somewhat forced dealing with the data. That is, to argue that NT author's were "anti-Empire" is one thing, but usually to do so virtually requires that the author be completely averse to Imperial rhetoric, etc. A feature that is not as clear, at least consistently through virtually all the NT authors. That is, I think my case for Luke's birth narrative as polemic of the Imperial cult is virtually cut and dry; however, the problem is showing that Luke is consistently against Empire (many contend that he is sympathetic to Rome). This, for me, is a real problem. [[ N.B. just for the record, my argument is pertaining to how the Gospel text would have been heard by specific audiences in various locales in Asia Minor, I'm definitely not arguing for authorial intention, as though that were accessible (fodder for another post)]]. What Moore seems to be setting forth, however, and not just Moore, but Postcolonial studies is that the NT documents reflect not a "thoroughgoing" {to quote N.T. Wright's phrase} Imperialistic sympathy nor a thoroughgoing anti-Imperial emphasis... rather, the colonized (e.g. the shivering Jewish denizens) is so immersed, oppressed, and affected in terms of the Imperial grip reaching into the fabric of their Weltanschauung and thereby even their offensive against Empire, itself is embodied in Imperial mimicry, whereas the colonized mimic the colonizer rhetorically and possibly even methodologically in their resistance discourse. This to me, seems to forge a way through the conundrum at least in so far as I am thinking through it presently. These are my thoughts for the day...

I plan to write something soon concerning my thoughts on cosmology, God, and world; these thoughts have been "impeding my work" {-Stewie, the Family Guy} for weeks now.

Inaugural Post

2008-04-11T23:18:00.001-05:00

Well the day has dawned where I fearfully and wonderfully begin to publicly explore and expose those thoughts which dance in the crevices of my mind. For better or worse I now venture out, as I should have several years ago to interact theologically in the blogosphere.

At the outset I would like to state several things, both for the sake of clarity of mind (that is my own) and for those, if any, who will choose to read the musings found here. The only thing I know is that I am uncertain about most things. Increasingly as I attempt to trace the various trajectories of interests, thoughts, considerations, and research ideas that swirl ever faster in the small mind I inhabit, they each seem, in the final analysis, to converge into issues of religious epistemology. This gives rise to a new and devastating tentativeness in many theological areas within the character of my religious being. Further, as I have studied the New Testament with more detail historico-critically, literarily, and otherwise I have been confronted with a Jesus that I have not been taught about in church. Indeed, as I continue to read, study, and search what I am finding is alarming. The cause for concern is not a mere "burden" of some sort or other for some so-called orthodox concern of the faith...rather the problem starts much closer---in the very nature of my understanding of Christianity and the church. My eyes see a Christianity unilaterally across denominational affiliation that is utterly a tool of the Empire, her Imperial propaganda, and her Imperator.

In what follows I hope to think out loud, with the world, critically, concerning colonialism, postcolonialism (as I am learning more about it), my own wrestlings with all matters related to the development of my religious person and the theology that entails. So we venture onwards....

Rejoinder to the Honorable N. T. Wrong's Question

2007-09-19T00:33:00.000-05:00

I was flattered that a free and critical thinker such as N. T. Wrong would read, much less comment, on my blog. However, he asked a penetrating question to my rather shallow, generalization concerning the possibility of identifying socialist modes in the ancient Near East. Admitting at the outset that whatever I offer here should not be understood as any type of coherent argument for such existing in the ancient world. Yet, I will try to pull together some of what I was considering (with the caveat that presently I have about 35 books opened and stacked on my desk with another 40 arranged around my little scholarly cubby-hole in the only space my infant daughter and wife will permit me to have as "office space;" the importance of this fact being that I have slept since I had those thoughts cross my mind and I don't know if I will be able to find again the tidbits I read in various sources giving birth to those ideas). Now after dancing with nuance to divert you from the fact that I have said nothing substantive yet, let us proceed.

I think the first thought occurred to me as I was researching the Neo-Assyrian rise followed by the rise of Neo-Babylon. Primarily, I was working in the history and religious inscriptions (that is translations of them [e.g. ANET, COS, et al.]), when in D. S. Vanderhooft's published Harvard dissertation I gleaned upon his section concorning Babylonian economic "geography" (The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets [Harvard Semitics Monographs; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999], 110-14). Again, with a rough notion of socialism that is a system in which basic goods are "distributed through a system of political allocation" (M. Novak ed., Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry [Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1979], 85-6). In the midst of Vanderhooft's discussion of Oppenheim he notes that there is some evidence for both privately and royally sponsored merchant trade both domestically and internationally. Again the situation is certainly not "socialism" tightly defined in our present world. Rather, the function of goods, royal tribute, taxation, and the distribution of goods throughout the empire are issues in play. Further, what we see is a fundamental failure because as with the capitalist motif, our old friend Empire was the driving force. Thus, Neo-Babylon and her monarchical fascism. Thus, socialism as defined by the locus of authority resting among the society or community in terms of goods and trade is not exactly there; rather what we (I) see, or thought I was seeing, was the possibility of conflictual forces in play among some ancient societies. Ergo, could there have been a postcoloniality or postcolonial space wherein the fascism of the royal ruler met other forces driving mechanisms of goods distribution that was populist oriented? To this, I answer... I don't know. I'm not a sociologist, and I certainly don't claim to have read enough economic theory to say anything. So, Bishop Wrong, I trust I have thoroughly failed to present substantive data, but hopefully that shows your some of the forces at work in my thought that day.

Empire, Socialism, and the Ancient Near East

2007-09-10T23:20:00.000-05:00

As I have been seeking to (re)construct the discursive world of the Neo-Babylonian Empire via royal inscriptions and other relia. What I'm finding is rather alarming in so far as I'm concerned. Various imperial programs in the ancient world dominated their populace in modes that, in my estimation, smack of socialist (albeit an extremely anachronistic term) theory. This may or may not be coherent to you, as I admit that my thoughts are unclear even to me exactly. However, my only point is that as I'm hearing the rhetoric and critically analyzing the history, it appears many ancient practices resemble, in form, certain modes of what would today be called socialist theory. Certainly, a Marxist analytic assists in so far as social stratification is concerned, but I am speaking more in terms of economic structures, lack of any trade or private enterprise, etc. What does this mean? Hell, I'm not sure! Neither is this what I'm searching for to begin with, nor a trail I have time to pursue in my quest. I merely chronicle the thoughts of an emerging biblical scholar with postcolonial sensibilities.