Means Vs. Ends

I am sure that everyone has now seen this:

It has been all over Facebook for the past day.

What are your thoughts? Is it a bandwagon worth jumping aboard? How are we (as Christians) supposed to interact with movements like this? Specifically, those of us who profess to be "pacifist" and see nonviolence as a large portion of the Christian call. What are your thoughts on supporting military missions such as this?

Personally, I continue to be torn. Invisible Children is an organization I have supported in the past. I think their goals are noble and worth supporting, but the means they sometimes use to reach their goals I question. So I pose the question (feel free to challenge the binary I set up): what is worse? To use means I do not fully support to accomplish a good goal OR to sit and do nothing (because I am currently not doing anything or coming up with any "third way" options).

I encourage you to watch the video, if you have not done so already. As for me, I am going to write a few e-mails tonight, and pray that they do a little bit of good.

Stories Collide. Pt. 1

What is reality, what shapes it, and how do I understand my experiences? These questions have been prodding me towards story. Story has been a journey of a thousand miles, begun a long time ago. I grew up a scientific modernist giving lip-service to the possibility of the supernatural, then passing through fundamentalist, and into “biblical”, now I find myself somewhere in a matrix of post-modern/modern/undecided/conglomerate. What I have learned through this development is that the story one lives into shapes all arguments, experience, actions, and epistemology.

I was blessed with a lot of dissonance in my life. I grew up in a “Christian North American” story. It was a story that held to a scientific modernist understanding of the world, but refused to take it to the extreme of excluding the supernatural. This, however, was brutally interrupted by a jaunt to a post-religious/secular/European worldview and story when I lived in England; I was twelve and thirteen years old. The stories clashed, I was too young to understand the significance of such an experience. It is hard to describe the clash of story, they do not battle openly with argumentation that is easy to follow, but a feeling is evident. A feeling of being unsettled. A story is supposed to follow a plot, but when the first story is interrupted and a second story enters in the middle, there is a sense of loss. The flow is incomplete, there is no past and the present seems to have no grounding.

Upon returning to North America, I attempted to pick up my old story, but it was now disjointed. One attempts to reconcile the themes, motifs, and symbols of a different story. It was with this muddled story I entered Bible College. Little did I know I was about to disturb my story in unimaginable ways. Coming from the Christian Reformed Story, I entered the Anabaptist Story. I attempted to “argue” the stories, but I ran into the same problem as before, stories do not respond well to argument. They are different with different pasts. Instead, stories syncretise, usually to the detriment of both. Stories have a funny way of picking the worst of both, rather than the best. It is not that the best parts cannot come together to make a better story, but that takes active participation by the character (you and me). I saw an example of bad syncretism in East Africa where Christianity comes with consumerism, modernity, and hyper-spirituality, but does not get rid of the tribalism, thus blending the negatives (tribalism, consumerism, and modernity) and the positive seem negligible (loyalty, direction, hope). Similar awful syncretism led me to a brief period as a fundamentalist. I syncretised the scientific absolutism of modernism with the Bible. It resulted with a “data quest” into the Bible. I attempted to pull out the absolutes. (This is my critique of Systematic Theology, even when not “fundamentalist”, it is a syncretism of a scientific method with a story. It does not ask the questions of the story, rather it imposes the questions of another story – Greek influenced scientific thought – onto the biblical story).

In reaction to fundamentalism, I attempted to become a purist. For a few years, I attempted to understand the biblical story, attempting to read it on its own terms. This was going well, but then I went to East Africa. This cross-cultural experience rattled my “bible only” conception of truth and reality. The “same” Christian stories clashed, this shook my naïve understanding that one’s private experience is able to arrive at a purist Biblical understanding. Rather one’s private experience and story will completely subvert the entire story. Our private experiences ultimately determine our stories, what flows in and that which is discarded. I came to this conclusion as I sat across from another reading the same text, we both claimed it as authoritative, and we would come to completely different understandings, each significantly shaped by our cultures. The common ground seemed negligible compared to the differences. Everything is relative. Thus ended my purist pursuit.

Where does one go from complete relativity? N.T. Wright goes to critical realism, a noble option, but a method still rooted in a Greek history. Others walk forward into post-modernity with their arm open come what may. Yet others revert, either back into modernity, fundamentalism and its syncretism, or even to a pre-modern-esque type of understanding. This is the crossroads many of us encounter; it is a crossroad I continue to navigate. It is here Story becomes significant. Newbigin’s book “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society” argues for the church as the agent telling the Gospel story and thus persuading the world. Here Duncan’s articulation of Gospel becomes incredibly important; for if Gospel is a part of the story it can be persuasive and syncretised into our stories becoming a story changer. However, if it is a coercive, totalizing, story it co-opts our stories and leads to bad syncretism.

I am attempting to create some hermeneutics for myself as I wallow through this nebulous crossroad. First, honesty. It does me no good to neglect my past or the biases I know I hold. I must be as honest as possible, lay my cards out and attempt to proceed with all the guidance there. Second, virtue. What do I want to become? What do I want my story to look like? Here I lay down my card of compassion. If it is not compassionate, I ought to consider alternatives. Third, story. I must continually remind myself not to argue myself into the “correct” option, because by doing so I have already been co-opted by one story, that of rational argumentation arising out of the modernist era I grew up in (thus following the first hermeneutic). I must continually open myself to persuasion. What story persuades me to follow hermeneutic two? Fourth, keep the biblical text as authoritative. Thus, as the stories blend together I want the narrative of scripture to have significant weight, specifically life, death, and resurrection, as living, dying, and rising throughout my life, even daily, and hopefully in the cosmos, lead me towards greater compassion (hermeneutic two). Fifth, choose wisely. The ability to choose, to choose what is authoritative, choosing the story one lives into, choosing to ones hermeneutics, I must choose contemplatively.

With that, I find myself at the point of syncretising stories. None of them can be “taken out” as they have all entered into my story, but I can mix and mould. I can choose the back-story of the Bible. Therefore, I can incorporate the Gospel (as Duncan articulated) into my story. I can affirm the story of modernism, its conclusion, and collapse into post-modernism. I can look relativism in the face and walk forward with the most persuasive story I can compile, given my experience, which includes the Gospel and compassion. Further, when I am confronted with other stories, such as in East-Africa, I can affirm the parts that blend, while persuading the parts that clash. This has significant influence on my thoughts on pluralism, because if I truly believe that the story I tell and the parts I have chosen to incorporate, it is honestly the best possible story and the most persuasive, there is reduced fear of bad syncretism if I choose to tackle it head-on.

Some of those reading this might be more than a little bit uncomfortable with my choice of words, specifically syncretism. But you see, I have no choice but to syncretise if I wanted out of (or to change) my original story. Since I cannot erase my past and my mode of though, remembering my first story was that of a scientific modernist in North America and NOT a first century Jew in Palestine, I must syncretise the stories I encounter. If I want to change story it involves delicate syncretism. Or to use more “Christian” words I might choose “conversion”, understanding conversion to be the continued gradual change of my story into one I desire.

CYOA: Genesis 37-50 – The Egyptianization of Joseph

I have been sticking my head into Empire again. It is nice to be enveloped in an academic topic again. The reason for this is an up coming lecture. I have been asked to give a lecture on developing a hermeneutic of Empire, specifically in relation to Colossians. Maybe it is just the nerd inside of me, but this gives me great purpose in life. It gives me a reason to manage my time and a goal of producing something. The enjoyable side effect of having an academic goal is that I get to sick my head into a bunch of different books, find the gems, and synthesis them into a coherent presentation (wow I truly am a nerd). So on my desk is a stack of books relating to Empire, and in my spare time I have been watching the series Rome by HBO (probably the best depiction of the inter-testamental period ever created). All of that rambling to say that when Joseph came up as this weeks topic for Choose Your Own Adventure, I knew exactly what I had to write.

One of the gems I found while sticking my face into many books was an alternative interpretation of the Joseph story. Walter Brueggemann, in his book “Out of Babylon”, borrows from Leon Kass, saying that the trajectory of Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt is effectively Joseph’s “Egyptianization”. That is to say, Joseph becomes corrupted by the drive, imagination, and worldview of Empire. Joseph is effectively an example of accommodating to empire with minimal defiance. Thus, Joseph ought to be seen as a weak example of remaining faithful to a worldview requiring one to keep a unique identity in the face of Empire.

This is how I see Joseph as I reread the story through the lens Brueggemann offers.

First off, one cannot blame Joseph completely for his actions and his accommodation to Empire. He was socially conditioned by his father to feel exceptional, as “Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons” 37:2. Therefore, it only makes sense that when Joseph is treated exceptionally by Pharaoh later on, it would only seem natural to accept and accommodate, just as he would have done to his father in his youth. Furthermore, when he invokes policies of exceptionalism, they may be rooted in this upbringing.

I see Joseph’s transformation/slide into Egyptianization as follows:
Gen 39:2 “The Lord was with Joseph and he prospered” (39:2) is a statement showing Joseph has not yet accommodated
Gen 40:15 “for I was forcibly carried off from the land of the Hebrews”. In this statement Joseph continues to keep a unique identity
Gen 41:14 “shaved and changed” – first accommodation to the physical appearance of an Egyptian
Gen 41:16 doubles back to God
Gen 41:41-5 Joseph is in charge, this is not inherently badt – but then he accommodates in dress, jewellery, show (chariots and criers), name (Zaphenath-Paneah. Names show having power over, thus Joseph is put under the power of Egypt and Pharaoh rather than Israel and God), and marriage.
Gen 41:51 Names his son Manasseh, to forget, “forget all my trouble and my father’s household” – Here Joseph goes beyond accommodation to denial of his former identity. Joseph invokes God on his side, but it is not the narrator like it was earlier (39:2).
Gen 41:56-57 Joseph’s economic power play is hard on the peasants and benefits Pharaoh. A monopoly and totalizing of industry is always hard on the most poor.
Gen 42:8 Joseph is so thoroughly Egyptianized that his brothers do not recognize him.
Gen 42:23 Joseph uses deception and façade rather than honesty like he did when he was in Potiphar’s house.
Gen 43:32 Joseph’s food is notably distinct from that of his Hebrew brothers. “Because Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians”.
Gen 44:5,15 Joseph’s cup was used for divination, notably something Hebrews would not do. (Keep in mind this text was most likely written down in its final form during Babylonian/Persian exile, therefore reading later (historical) jewishness into the text in not necessarily erroneous)
Gen 45:10 “…and all you have” Joseph wants his family to totally commit to Egypt as well.
Gen 47:12-13 Exceptionalism, a trait of empire, everyone else is hungry yet the exceptions are fed
Gen 47:13 What may have started with good intentions, now sucks all the money from the lands of Egypt and Canaan
Gen 47:15-21 Joseph exploits his position and the people, thereby allowing/forcing them into slavery
Gen 47:22 further exceptionalism for the priests
Gen 47:26 Joseph is credited with creating the economic dominance of the Pharaoh, by giving back the land to the peasants with a “1/5 per year to pharaoh” caveat
Gen 50:14 Joseph returned to Egypt after burying Jacob
Gen 50:22 Joseph stayed in Egypt

It is common knowledge that the Israelites end up in Egypt because of Joseph, but I, for one, never really asked why? Why did they not leave once the famine was over? This reading of the text is the first reading (I have encountered) that hedges a bet at the question Why? Why is answered by over accommodating to the Empire. This accommodation with very little defiance is the reason the Israelites find themselves in need of an exodus.

It is a telling tale. A tale of over accommodation to empire. A tale that once revealed can be seen throughout scripture as the reason Israel finds themselves in exile. Maybe this too is our current story. Are we living a story of accommodation without even realizing it? Brian Walsh, another subversive writer, I am reading, would say absolutely! We have become numb to the accommodation of our minds to the imagination of Empire. We have lost the subversive imagination of a Biblical perspective. Our Worldview has become static, static like the Empire rather than dynamic like a living God. That comes as a challenge, a challenge to keep one’s worldview dynamic and to re-enter the difficult spectrum of when to accommodate and when to be defiant.

The struggle of when to accommodate and when to be defiant (because there are no black and white answers) Brueggemann sums up in an adaptation of the famous serenity prayer of Reinhold Neibuhr:

Give me the dignity to accommodate,
When accommodation is the only option;
Give me the courage to resist,
When identity depends on it;
Give me the wisdom to know when to resist and when to accommodate.