Question #8 -

"We can argue until we are blue in the face that Colossians is good news for an oppressed and marginalized community at the heart of the Roman empire, but unless this good news is for those truly at the margins – slaves, children, and women- it is nothing but a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal." (p201). But the household codes in Colossians 3:18 -4:1 have more often been interpreted as justification for oppression of those groups instead of good news. The authors address this issue through a fantastic expanded account of Onesimus (the slave) and Nympha (who had a house church) – the whole book is worth just this story imho. The authors propose that the household codes can be interpreted as (1) Just an affirmation of the imperial view of the household, the Aristotelian hierarchy of man over women and all that (not likely if this letter is about subverting empire and not being captive to the philosophies of men). (2) A loving patriarchy when the wives and slaves choose to submit and husband (amazingly enough) love and not beat their wives (wow – that seems full of hope). or (3) Paul is challenging the status quo by promoting the freedom and full rights of women and slaves. He couldn't of course say so directly because to commit that to writing would lead to serious persecution from the empire for such revolutionary practices. But the language he uses connotes the themes of inheritance and jubilee. Remember that Colossians was delivered and read with Philemon (about treating a slave as an equal), the subversion is evident. Are we willing to challenge systems that oppress others if it means questioning the philosophies and assumptions of empire (ending global slavery, grant equal rights to women, not treating children as commodities)?

This is of course one of the most controversial parts of the book (bring up equality for women and you’re bound to find controversy). The idea that Paul was intending a certain meaning through his use of allusions to inheritance and jubilee that he couldn’t say outright challenges the assumptions of many contemporary Bible readers. The average reader is so used to assuming that their 21st century cultural lenses and vague familiarity with English versions of the Bible is all they need to fully grasp the Biblical text. Try to suggest that there may be elements there that a 1st century reader would hear, but which require a tad more complex reading from the reader today and one is met with cries of “the Gospel is simple enough for a child to understand, how dare you assume the masses need education and intellect to understand God’s word!” (a claim that I have issues with, but which is believed as gospel truth by many).

But assuming that the household codes listed here and the language that surrounds them really does claim a revolutionary inclusion of all, then what does that mean for us now? Perhaps to forget these passages as confining the church to rules and philosophies that don’t even make sense in our culture today and instead see them as messages of hope that can alter our world for good. To recall the language of jubilee and shalom they connote and actually put that into practice. To live in this subversive and revolutionary way.

I always laugh when I hear Christians tell me that I’m just being influenced by the world when I stand up for women’s rights. In what universe do they live in where women actually have equal rights in the dominant culture? Where do women actually receive equal pay and benefits? Where do women not have to live in fear of being raped or trafficked into sexual slavery? Where are women appreciated as people instead of sex objects? Where do women get the same publishing and speaking opportunities as men? I’m not giving into the world – I’m trying to subvert the world by promoting women’s equality. It’s the church that has sold itself to the lies of hierarchy and inequality.

And it gets worse when slavery is brought up. The fact that our clothes, our food, our junk is made at best by underpaid workers in sweatshops and at worst by abused slaves doesn’t seem to bother most people. It keeps our stuff cheap and helps our economy. To care about those people would just be hurting ourselves and our country. Phrases like “you can’t change the laws of economics” or “those jobs are better than what they had before” get thrown around as poor excuses for not giving a damn. (and don’t even get me started on the people who say that if those poor people would just live morally, then they would have better options available to them). When it’s our greed that brought about most of the conditions for slavery worldwide and it is our greed that sustains it, it is up to us to fix the mess we created.

Guess what. This might take sacrifice. To live for Christ and the values of the Kingdom just might mean having to deal with some hardships. Maybe we can stop seeing “carrying the cross” as not getting to pray in school or not having our candidate win and start having to actually identify with Christ by caring for those he cared about. By being willing to pay workers a fair wage, to not support the (cheap readily available) products that were made by slave using companies, to stand against sexism even when the church openly supports it (and labels you a liberal feminist). These are lessons, I’m still learning. To get over my sense of entitlement and wanting to be liked by everyone in order to actually live for Christ.

Question #7 -

If Christians are not to be at home in an empire characterized by sexual sin, greed, and violence, the authors ask what should the Kingdom look like? They proposed a life lived where the peace of the victim of an empire is spread, where community is lived, gratitude is practiced, and worship proclaims that Christ not Caesar is Lord of our lives. Practical suggestions the authors give include – pledging our allegiance to Christ not to the empire; investing as much each year in the hurtings present needs as we do in our future retirement; paying attention to where our food comes from and what's in it; setting up food co-ops where you can get food produced as locally as possible, in environmentally responsible ways, and that seeks to do justice to the producer of the food; be ecologically responsible by reducing our use of cars and start walking. biking, or using (or lobbying for) public transit; be good stewards of the ecosystem and stop dumping diapers (for babies or women) into the landfills (and hence streams and rivers). How do you react to those suggestions? What else could you add?

I like all of their suggestions. I care about those things. And yet I don’t always live that out. I’ve blogged on that issue before (here). Sometimes, I don’t know what exactly to do to change things. If I care about stuff like this and still have issues living it out, how can I ever hope to encourage others to live justly?

Plus most of the time I just really don’t know what to say. When my friends and family start going off on things that really contradict my values and understanding of the Kingdom I generally just don’t say anything. I’m torn. I want to share what I am passionate about, but I don’t want to do it in an argumentative way or in a way that invalidates the things they are passionate about. So I don’t say anything and let them assume I completely agree with them.

For example. Easter. We didn’t do the whole egg thing this year. I didn’t want to stuff plastic eggs with cheap crap made in Asian sweat shops nor with unhealthy unneeded candy made by child slaves. I also didn’t want to waste food by dying eggs nor spend money on cheap eggs that support environmentally and ethically harmfully practices. But all my friends were talking about those things. Who has the best price on eggs? On candy? When can we get together to dye eggs? I don’t know what to do in those situations. Do I explain my choices, do I question their choices, and do I endure the “OMG what a religious freak who won’t let her child enjoy life” accusations? (which I of course said about the families who banned the Easter bunny because it detracts from the real meaning of Easter. And shudder that I am coming to the same lifestyle conclusions as the fundamentalists but for completely different reasons)

So this isn’t really a real answer here. Just to say that I find it really easy to write about stuff like this on my blog, but find it a lot harder to consistently put it into practice or to share it with the people I interact with everyday.

Question #6 -

What is your reaction to this quote? "Does the child who sits in front of a television set for three to four hours a day, shops at the mall with her parents, goes to school and recites the Pledge of allegiance, plays computer games, listens to her president encouraging everyone to go out shopping in order to defeat terrorism, wears clothes from the Gap, and plays with the toys created out of the imagination of Disney and Hollywood, ever actually choose the American way of life? … Was there a moment of conversion in her life when the American dream became her dream? No. She imbibed the monocultural consumerist dream in the fast food she ate, the polluted air she breathed and the visual culture she inhabited. And so she was converted, made into a cult member, before she knew what was happening." (p171).

So I read this quote the other evening. Emma was sitting on her Elmo chair wearing her "Future Jedi Knight" t-shirt and watching Dora the Explorer. We had spent the afternoon at playgroup at the mall. Oh, and we had gone through a fast food drive through for lunch on the way to the mall. My initial response – “oh crap, I’m a horrible mother/person. I need to feel guilty.”

But I don’t. Well, not completely.

I’m a fan of moderation. As I’ve mentioned recently in other posts, I don’t think most (if any) things are evil in and of themselves. Kinda Shakespearean “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” sort of thing. So while I think there are serious things wrong with the world we live in, I don’t see the best response to be withdraw from that world.

For example I see the abuse of alcohol as a bad thing, but I don’t think that means that all people should always avoid alcohol. I see being consumed by greed and the desire to acquire stuff as well as an ignorance of the global implications of our purchases as bad things, but I don’t think it means that all shopping must end. I see a world where children lose the ability to be imaginative and creative as a bad thing, but don’t think imaginative stories/movies (even if they have an agenda) should be condemned and avoided. (As for the fast food thing. That’s just pretty much evil and harmful to our bodies, our families, and the environment. I have no excuse there).

I’m a fan of engagement over withdraw. To explore with my child the world around her. To not mindlessly accept and consume, not reject for the sake of rejection. To teach her to value people over stuff. To encourage her imagination. Will this affect our habits? – it should if we are in any way different from the empire around us. Just being aware that our shopping habits affects families and children around the world changes a lot.

And I see nothing wrong with enjoying life. I enjoy a well cooked meal. I enjoy a good glass of wine. I enjoy a good movie or book or TV show. I try not to be consumed by such things (although there are times in my life when I’ve leaned in that direction, especially when it comes to certain fiction genres. And please no LOST comments…). I see no problem with Emma enjoying Dora, or the children’s museum, or the Zoo. But if our enjoyment comes at the expense of others (dark chocolate made by trafficked children…) then there are issues.

Its the whole in but not of the world thing. At this point I see it as possible to live in this world counterculturally. That doesn’t mean a rejection of all that the world has to offer, just a need to engage thoughtfully with it and to constantly be self aware.

All that said, there is still some guilt. I know there are still things I need to change. Areas of my life where I knowing support the empire over Christ. I want to get past the guilt and find positive ways to live. It’s a fine balance between guilt induced through education and awareness and the healthy changes they can effect. But I’m trying to be aware. To not let my daughter be initiated mindlessly into the cult. To not promote values that I disagree with just because they are easy or expected. And to encourage her to subvert the empire when it needs correction. Do I have a clue most of the time as to what I am doing? No, but I’m going to keep on doing it.

Question #5 -

In Colossians 3:5-17 Paul tells us to put to death the things of our earthly nature (sexual immorality, greed). The authors write, "Why end a list of sexual sins with an economic sin? Because sexual sin is fundamentally a matter of covetousness, an insatiable, self-gratifying greed that has the control and consumption of the other person as its ultimate desire" (p160) and "In our culture, the unrestrained economic greed of global market capitalism pimps sexual promiscuity along with its entertainment products, communications systems, automobiles and running shoes. You see, if the empire is all about economic growth driven by a lifestyle of consumption, then all of life becomes a matter of consumption – including our sexual life. … There is no point in getting all morally absolute about sexual promiscuity if Christians are screwing around with the same consumeristic way of life as everyone else. This text gives us the language to identify what is going on here for what it is: idolatry." (p162). How do you see sexual immorality as being greed and idolatry? What is the value of the alternatives?

I’ve always been uneasy with views of sex that paint it as evil in and of itself. The views that dichotomize body and soul. That disparage the physical world as evil. That are ashamed of our bodies.

Like it or not or intended or not those are the views that dominate the church’s approach to sex. There is something shameful about our bodies, they are finite, they wear down, they tempt us and are therefore evil. In a culture mesmerized with Platonic conceptions of reality the heresy of dualism finds an easy hold. Sex is evil because it is sex.

Christian women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies. To hide away their physical selves lest they “cause” their brother to stumble. Sex is the quintessential sin to be avoid at all costs. Do not think about it. Do not explore or attempt to understand your physical self. You will be ruined as a person for life if you slip up here. Take pride that you have stripped yourself bare of any desire to partake of that tainted act. But from your wedding night onward you had better be prepared to enjoy sex – creatively and proactively or else you will cause your husband to sin from neglect…

I remember the first time I asked (really asked) “why is sex outside of marriage wrong?” The answers I was given (because it is for pleasure and not procreation and because God says so) didn’t cut it for me. And I discovered that was a question you just didn’t ask. Ever. I wanted to affirm the conclusions but wanted better reasons and I just couldn’t seem to find them.

That’s why I liked the the take presented here. It explores the deeper reasons. It doesn’t turn sin into a concrete object or action that is performed, but sees it as an attitude of the heart that gets lived out in various ways. It allows for sex and the body to be celebrated in and of themselves, but still provides caution and care in their expression. And it gets past the hangup of seeing sexual sins as the only moral issue out there.

Idolatry is whatever causes us to turn away from the image of the invisible God and be consumed with other images. When the structures and mandates of empire usurp our worship. When the materialism of the marketplace captures our imagination. When other image-bearers become commodities for us to use. Then we have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.

Followers of the way of Christ trying to subvert the empire in Turkey are persecuted by those who oppose them. Sounds strangely familiar. Its all good to talk about how the letter to the Colossians encouraged the believers to follow a different way of life than that promoted by Rome and hint at the danger of spreading that message, but how does one respond to the same thing today?

The first thing that comes to mind is to wonder if it is the same thing. I don't know much at all about this publishing house, what their intentions are, and how exactly they live out their faith. I've known enough missionaries to closed countries to not be naive about some of the manipulative and underhand ways they work for converts. The process often has little to do with making the world a better place or spreading Kingdom values, and everything about getting notches on their belts and getting butts into heaven. And I've also known some amazing people who care about spreading God's love everywhere who are in the same places. It is interesting to note that it is often the churches that are most vocal about supporting the American government (the whole we have to submit to governing authorities thing) that are the most insistent about subverting other governments by illegally sending missionaries into closed countries (and yes, I know that officially Turkey is secular, officially). What was this group doing? Were they just trying to impose some Western conception of Christianity onto a foreign culture (exchanging empire for empire)? Were they there to persuade others that Islam is absolutely wrong and Christianity absolutely right? Were they there to promote freedom of knowledge and access to the Bible to those who desired it?

I don't know what to think. I am pained by the hatred of the terror and violence. But the history of Christianity is seeped in the tradition of imposing one version of empire onto another's. I am supportive of tolerance and respect for other cultures, but then wonder how to spread the hope of Christ in a way that continues to be loving and respectful. Subversion and tolerance – is there a balance? Should there be?

Question #4 -

4. But wait a minute you cry! Aren't Christians supposed to subject ourselves to the governing authorities and all that? The authors respond – "Rather than read [Romans 13] as providing carte blanche legitimation for any regime, regardless of how idolatrous and oppressive it might be, we suggest that Paul is actually limiting the authority of the state. The state is a servant of God for our good. it has no legitimacy or authority in and of itself, apart from subjection to the rule of God. and when the state clearly abrogates its responsibility to do good, when it acts against the will of God, then the Christian community has a responsibility to call it back to its rightful duty and even to engage in civil disobedience (see Acts 12:6-23). The state has no authority to do evil". (p185)

I like the balance created here.

I have often heard the “subject yourself to the governing authorities” used as that sort of carte blanche. It is a line used to silence all opposition and dissent. Question the war, the Patriot Act, or No Child Left Behind and you are treated as if you are questioning the existence of God. And labeled a liberal (its hard to tell which is worse)

Then from another camp if I merely attempt to say that the government is in a good position to help make the world a better place and I’m told that I look to the government for my salvation. And that I’m a liberal.

So I like this response. That government thing – it’s there because of God. You know “for by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” The government is just one more thing that can serve God for his glory. Can it be corrupted by power and swayed by greed? Of course and we have the empires to prove it.

But the responses that say “well even if it is doing God’s work we won’t let it or support it” and those that say “well even if it’s doing evil, we have to support it” just don’t make sense to me. To me the government can be used as a tool to advance God’s kingdom (and I so don’t mean this in a theocratic dictatorship sort of way) or it should be called out when it engages in practices contrary to kingdom values.

So to pledge one’s allegiance to the government (or to a party within that government) instead of God (or as it is subtly twisted – in the name of God) misses the point. Our purpose is to serve God and spread God’s love. If the government is on board with that great. If it is working against that mission, then it needs correction.

For another interesting take on this check out this post over at Theolog.

Question #3 -

Poetry of subversion. The authors explore how the hymn presented in Colossians 1:15-20 is a hymn of subversion of Empire. It takes the language of Empire and proclaims the supremacy of Christ over Caesar – radical, subversive, dangerous. They then contribute a "targum" (an extended translation and expansion that reads our world through the eyes of the text) of this passage. You can read it on p.85 or here. (and a short article on the point they are making here). What is your reaction to the poem? Does this imagination of an alternative to empire make sense?

I love that poem/hymn. We do live in a culture of images vying for our attention, or allegiance, our time and our money. The numbers vary, but it is thought that an individual is generally exposed to around 600 advertisements per day. We pay companies for the right to wear their name brand on our chest or butts.

I watch TV, I buy stuff, I surf the web (a lot). I don’t see any of that stuff as evil in and of itself. In fact most of that stuff has and can be used for good. I see the value in patronage and support and sponsorship. Issues arise though when said images and economic structures dominate our consciousness. When we allow the greed promoted by our economic system to let us forget that Christ is the image we should focus on. As Walsh writes, “this means that the ideology of economic growth is not Lord over our lives. We are not subservient to the imperatives of consumerism, ecological despoliation, technological innovation, and seeking our own self-interested security because we are subjects of another kingdom. We are committed to submitting our lives – including our economic aspirations, consumer habits, ecological practice, political involvement – to the one in whom, through whom and for whom all things are created.”

So this is about being image bearers for Christ rather than for someone else. I personally don’t see this as a polemic against style but an attitude encouragement. And neither is the point to eschew name brands in favor of whatever the cheap brand is. The allure of Walmart is just as seductive as that of Abercrombie – when both challenge the supremacy of Christ’s love by using his children in sweatshops our patronage of either demonstrates our allegiance to an economic system over Christ.

I don’t do a very good job at this. I live in suburbia. So many days I really don’t stop to think if my economic purchases put Christ first. Scratch that, most days it is only about my needs and wants. The poem proclaims -
the church reimagines the world
in the image of the invisible God

I’m trying to figure that out. To see the good in stuff. To not be a slave to systems of greed. To think about if my purchases are just. To be an image bearer.

So Question #2 -

Empires are defined here as (1) built on systemic centralizations of power, (2) secured by structures of socioeconomic and military control, (3) religiously legitimated by powerful myths and (4) sustained by a proliferation of imperial images that captivate the imagination of the population. In comparing how both the Roman and current Western empires maintain the status quo of privilege and oppression the authors give the examples of "most major corporations use the equivalent of slave labor to produce clothing, toys, tools and some foods. Most of this labor is done by people in Asia, Latin America or Africa. While cash-crops farmers include both men and women, the majority of those who work in sweatshops, on coffee plantations and in the sex trade are women and children. … although our culture does not openly subscribe to an ethos of patriarchy, racism, and classism, the effects of the global economic market create the same kind of societal dynamic that was present in first-century Rome." (p 59-60). I want to ask the same questions the authors then ask – "In the face of an empire that rules through military and economic control, what is the shape of a community that serves a ruler who brings reconciliation and peace by sacrificial death rather than military might? If the empire elevates economic greed and avarice into civic virtues, while Paul dismisses such a way of life as idolatrous, then how does a Christian community shaped by Paul's gospel live life in the empire?" (p61).

Start calling America an empire and you get in trouble (even if you are the Vice President). Granted I’ve heard dispensational interpretations of Daniel’s vision that insist that Rome never fell so we are therefore still living in that fourth empire waiting for the seventieth week pre-trib rapture and all that, but even then the spin was pro-America.

I agree with Walsh and Keesmaat that America is an empire in the tradition of Rome and I don’t think that’s a good thing. The very raison d’etre of empire is power which directly contradicts the way of service and love preached by Jesus. But the systems and values of empire creep into the lives of its people, even those who ostensibly profess other values. Under the Roman empire the apostles had to combat warped values like it being okay to use people as slaves if it increased your profit or made your life easier; if you didn’t like another people group or wanted resources off their land, you liberated them of such land; sexual promiscuity and gluttony being considered natural indulgences of one’s appetites; and women being seen as mindless sex objects. But of course that’s all different today, right?

What really gets me is the subtle replacement of the values of the cross with the values of empire. The propaganda machines that push the virtues of the state have swayed Christians so that now civic virtues are promoted and Christian virtues questioned. When I can sit in a church and hear sermons in support of capitalism, preemptive war, racial discrimination, and sexism and fail to hear the words of Jesus actually preached, empire has won. When we sing hymns in praise of our country and think that forcing our children to say creeds of allegiance to an idol is a form of Christian witness, empire has won. When it is more important to be patriotic than care about the children we blew up, then empire has won. We have been taken captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

So how do we live in this empire? How do we love and not fear and yet challenge that which promotes evil? How can we (and I am very much included in this) stop pointing fingers at individual sins and actually think about how we’ve bought into (been indoctrinated into?) the values of empire? Can we stop trying the mesh or replace the values of the Kingdom with the values of the empire? Basically can we take a step back and ask why? Why do I believe/buy/promote this? Is this really a good thing? Does this fit into Jesus’ message? What is Jesus’ message anyway? How do I need to change?

Anyway. I started the discussion over there with a long series of questions. I’ll wait and see how the discussion unfolds over there (who knows if anyone even read the book or wants to participate), but I’m going to answer respond to my own questions more in depth here. So here we go with question #1 -

1.The question of interpretation. What is your reaction to this quote? "Reading is always from somewhere. We always read from a particular historical, cultural and geographical place. The question that we must ask is, how do we "place" ourselves, how do we discern the times and spirits that invariably influence our reading of a text like Colossians? What are the questions, crises and opportunities that we necessarily (and legitimately) bring to this text?" p19

I’ve touched on the issue of Biblical interpretation a lot here. I think by now that it’s fairly obvious that I’m not a literalist and that I do acknowledge that Biblical interpretation does in fact exist. The question is, are we aware of our lenses and biases when it comes to reading this text?

Honestly, until I read Colossians Remixed, I had never given much thought to this particular epistle. It wasn’t a trendy youth group devotional book like Philippians. Nor is its list of household codes (wives submit and all that) as popular as other similar passages. I know I read it. It fit the follow Christ, don’t sin, and women submit pattern I was used to hearing oh, just about everywhere. No big deal. What’s the point. Moving on.

I never stopped to ask what were the people like in Colosse and how am I like them? I ignored the shadow of the Roman Empire that we are so quick to acknowledge in the stories of Christ’s birth and death, but which seems to fade away in our ultra-individualized readings of Paul. And the admonitions to let no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy and to put to death the earthly nature were used as direct challenges not to actually think or engage with this scripture or any scripture at all for that matter – since thinking necessarily involved hollow philosophies and earthly habits. For those same reasons, historical exploration of the original context wasn’t really needed either. God is the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow – so obviously this text will mean exactly the same thing to us 21st century American Christians reading it in English as it did to 1st century believers hearing it read aloud in Greek. End of story.

That is how I had previously encountered Colossians.

Then I discovered a whole new set of lenses. What if we thought about what these people faced as oppressed citizens of an empire? What if we explored how the language in this letter directly challenges the common language of empire? And what if we opened our eyes and saw the empire that we are living under?

That woke me up and changed my reading of Colossians. As I engage with the rest of the questions, I will explore some of the points that stood out to me as I looked at Colossians from a fresh perspective.