Colossians Remixed: A Review, Pt. 2
This week I made it into chapter 1 of Colossians Remixed and
I must say, it was a bit more amenable to me than the preface. Here, the authors do some of what they
forecasted in the preface with regards to allowing the types of
persons/students they engage to raise questions, particularly about Christianity
and more specifically about the Bible.
The chapter is bracketed between the beginning and ending of a narrative
about a fellow named William, a thorough-going postmodernist. Although this book is a over a decade old and
some have declared that we are currently in a Post-postmodern era (or metamodern,
pseudo-modern, etc.), Walsh and Keesmaat offer an inviting overview and foray
into the concept of postmodernism. In
fact, I was quite a bit surprised by the fact that they critiqued it as they
did.
For example, they describe postmodernism’s “grand tale of
progress” as a “myth that requires faith,” whose “story’s foundational
assumptions themselves require faith” (30). They ask, “And on what basis, other
than a perversely blind, self-interested faith, can we justify the assumption
of global capitalism that is permissible to ruin one place or culture for the
sake of another?” (30) These comments
stem from their views that “the progress of autonomous humanity” (30), is
driven by capitalism more than anything else.
Yet, for Walsh and Keesmaat, capitalism, a social structure intimately
linked to militarism, is both the base and catalyst for imperialism. Put differently, perhaps more into layman’s
terms: A lust for money and (military)
power makes up the DNA of empires.
In their view, America is an empire. But the irony, at least for postmodernists,
is that “While postmodernity wants to celebrate diversity and otherness, empires
are all about hegemony and sameness” (31).
Yet, the American empire, they say, has no reason to fear because when
one’s goal is autonomous humanity, that is, self-ruled existence, then one’s
goal is to ask, knock and seek for things that please the self. So, persons go searching for what they think
will make them happy; they are searching for things, or “commodities” to use a
bit of a fancier term. Eventually,
everything becomes a commodity, a thing to be had. This includes religion.
The problem with postmodernism is that there are no
guidelines for figuring out which commodities or things are best, true, moral
and ethical. There is no framework,
there is no undergirding story, there is no metanarrative that guides one in
decision-making. Thus, in the face of
resisting absolutes, persons become confused, or to use another fancy term,
they become “fragmented.” As they say, “The
fragmented self does not need to buy into any metanarrative of progress or make
her choices according to any coherent or rational system of values” (32).
Interestingly, Walsh and Keesmaat contend that the promotion
of Christian absolutes is unbiblical and something that they find problematic
and unhelpful, something that they themselves will argue against later in the
book (34). So, at one and the same time,
the authors critique postmodernism but also side with it in their rejection of absolutes. How can they do this? They do this by claiming that places like
America should be viewed as empires (that is, places where a lust for money and
power are the driving forces). Postmodernism
itself actually props up such empires because it simply plays into the
empire. How? Well, if money and power is what the empire
seeks, postmodernists give that very thing to the empire when they treat
everything like a commodity. In short,
they spend their time shopping and their money shopping and thus, they buy into
and help stabilize the empire.
Thus, the question that Walsh and Keesmaat seem to be
raising for postmodernists is this:
Which empire do you want to be part of?
By buying into the Western (American) socio-political empire, you
ultimately become a pawn; you are not actually autonomous, that is simply a lie
you are telling yourself, a lie the media is reiterating and a lie the government/empire
aims to perpetuate. But…
…Christianity is actually an anti-empire movement, it is a
movement that challenges the very authorities and structures that you are suspicious
about (but unwittingly participate in and sustain). The unfortunate reality is that Christianity
has been painted as the empire. So,
which empire do you want to be part of?
The one that you’ve been told by everyone else is an empire, or the one
that actually is the empire and has, almost unbeknownst to you, lured you into
it? But Walsh and Keesmaat say that this
isn’t really a matter of simply trading one absolute for another (34). Their goal in moving forward, then, is to show
that Colossians “is seriously misread if approached as an Absolute Text…” (34).
Admittedly, the authors do not talk much about Colossians in
this chapter. So, it remains to be seen
where their engagement with Colossians will go.
Little was said in this chapter that I take much issue with. I think their analysis of postmodernism was
fair. I find their equation with America
quite interesting, especially as they are both Canadians. Although I do not consider myself a patriot
or patriotic, neither am I sure that I would classify America as an empire;
America has not established world dominion or a global rule and America,
for all of its foibles, still touts and (to some degree) practices
democracy. Further, America’s citizens
are for all intensive purposes “free” and not under a strained and severe
dictatorship. I could go on about this
but I do think it is something of a misnomer.
Yes, America’s drive is often for money and power and the stories it
creates to accrue, maintain and advance these things are seductive and
prominent. Yet, to boil it down to these
things is, I think, a bit simplistic.
Again, I say that as one who is often very critical of this country and
who resists its metanarrative(s) and myths.
So, we’ll see where this book takes us in the next chapter; hopefully,
it will take us to Colossians.