Mike Koke of The Golden Rule has posed some interesting questions about Christianity and its complicity in empire building:
Postcolonial critics consider the Bible to be both part of the problem and part of the solution; the biblical message of liberation is far more complex and indeterminate (117). So what do you think of postcolonial criticism, given that the Bible is the product of people living under different imperial regimes (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek or Roman)? Has Christendom, often alligned with imperialism and colonial expansion, missed the critique of Empire found in the Bible in the Exodus, the call to justice in the prophets, the message of the kingdom of God or the confession that Jesus (not Caesar) is Lord and Savior?
I think Mike has given a basic grasp of postcolonial studies and its relationship to religious scholarship. For more, check out his post Bibliobloggers and Postcolonial Criticism. Fellow Brite Divinity Schooler Rob Reid has also made a valuable contribution as well with his Bibliblobber Challenge and Towards Defining Imperial Critical Methodology.
Rod of Alexandria
Optimistic Chad
rod,
at this juncture of my studies i’m very sympathetic towards postcolonial theory/perspectives. he’s right on in his description of the bible coming from the context of empires.
i don’t think, though, that i see the logical connection between postcolonial theory and “the good confession that Jesus (not Caesar) is Lord and Savior.” almost all the self-proclaimed postcolonial interpreters that i know personally aren’t even believers, at least not in the sense that Jesus is Lord and the exclusive way to salvation (though there are exceptions, like yourself).
and what about this “critique of empire” found in the exodus, the prophets, and so on. the prophets, for example, primarily blast israel/judah for oppression and injustice, NOT the empires (e.g. Isaiah 1, Jer 2-10, habakkuk 1, etc). God even takes responsibility in the prophets for raising up the evil empires to punish israel (the subjugated). so the closest parallel would be that the prophets speak out primarily against the colonized – i.e. the community of faith.
and then there are NT passages like rom 1, 1 tim 2, and titus 3, telling the community of faith how to behave in the midst of empire.
i guess what gets me is this. imperial critical scholars too often, in my view, try to use the bible to tell the “empire” how to behave, when what it’s really doing is telling that community of faith how to live, even in the midst of empire. that doesn’t mean we don’t have something to proclaim to the powers that be – we do, and we must. but don’t you get tired of biblical interpreters who want the bible to correct everyone . . . but themselves?
besides, it’s hard to listen to postcolonial scholars like segovia complain about oppression when he A) grew up in a well-off family, B) went to the finest universities, and C) is a tenured professor at vanderbilt univ. i know he’s not representative of everyone, but c’mon. it’s too convenient that he went through the hoops, gained prestige, enjoys the benefits of the hoops, and AFTER getting his chair decided to blast the hoops.
Mike,
You are always challenging people’s presuppositions. lolz.
But you have to at least be fair to Segovia. I mean I think that he is not an ideological purist, and that negotiation is needed in order to move through imperial structures. We should not cut him off now that he has “made it.” Perhaps he is trying to voice an opinion rarely heard from the “top.” We could say the same thing about any scholar and his/her inconsistency, with his/her scholarship and his or her lifestyle. I would encourage you to open up to what poco scholars are saying; they are not just: we should be against empire. Their message is that we all participate in empire in one form or another. There is no purely “anti-empire” movement. That is where ambiguity comes in, the ambiguity, the mystery of Scripture. It keeps us humble, so that we do not lord our knowledge over others.
I will recommend some works to you and maybe try to clarify what postcolonialism is about, but it is not about being “anti-empire”; it is imagining a world without human empire and subjugation.
good clarifications; i disagree about segovia, though. he repeatedly points out in his work how oppressed he’s been, and how never got the same chances others did, and how he’s an exile. yet he came to the states at a very young age, his family is wealthy, he’s had more opportunities than 99% of americans, and his biggest complaint about being oppressed is that his graduate professors made him learn the history of critical scholarship! in other words, he went to a university (marquette i think) and felt oppressed that credentialed professors actually thought they had something to teach him!
but again, good clarifications; i certainly shouldn’t view all postcolonialists through segovia. i actually read a book recently by tamez (i think that was her name) on paul that was very well done and much more congenial than segovia and some others. she didn’t have the racism going that segovia does, you know, when he paints a very monolithic, degrading picture of euroamerican white males. don’t even get me started on that – the answer to racism is NOT reverse racism (lolz)
still, great clarifications; and by the way, segovia is one whose recent work shows NO interest in hearing what the bible says for the colonized communities of faith. or better put, what it says to them is ALL positive and definitely not normative.
your friend – mike!