Power to the Powerless and the Prophetic Imagination

At the beginning of The Prophetic Imagination, Walter Brueggemann states

“The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.” - 

 People should accept the system as it is. Nothing is going to change. Don't even think about it, let alone discuss it with others. The entrenched powers create, maintain, and enforce this social reality and consciousness. This consciousness can be identified with what Brueggemann calls the "royal consciousness", that was created, maintained, and enforced by kings of Israel, beginning with Solomon. 

In the 40th Anniversary edition, Brueggemann reflects.

 “I would now alter ‘royal consciousness’ to ‘totalism’...The term ‘totalism’ refers to a socio-ideological arrangement in which hegemonic ideology takes up all the social space and allows for no alternative possibility. Its claim is ‘total’!” 

Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, a book by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton

As I mentioned in my last post there is a resonance with the book, The Power of the Powerless, by Vaclav Havel. Coincidentally, both books were first published in 1978 and written in two very different contexts (capitalist USA versus communist totalitarian Czechoslovakia) and from quite different perspectives (a Christian Old Testament scholar and a secular humanist).

I have a Penguin Vintage edition which includes a beautiful Introduction by Timothy Snyder, written in 2018, also coincidentally the same time as the 40th Anniversary edition of The Prophetic Imagination, that I am reading. Their republicaton is testimony to the enduring influence of both books.

Havel coined the term "post-totalitarian" for his essay, writing, "I do not wish to imply by the prefix 'post-' that the system is no longer totalitarian; on the contrary, I mean that it is totalitarian in a way fundamentally different from classical dictatorships..."

Havel biographer, John Keane, describes Havel's definition of a post-totalitarian world:

Within the system, every individual is trapped within a dense network of the state's governing instruments…themselves legitimated by a flexible but comprehensive ideology, a 'secularized religion'…it is therefore necessary to see, argued Havel, that power relations…are best described as a labyrinth of influence, repression, fear and self-censorship which swallows up everyone within it, at the very least by rendering them silent, stultified and marked by some undesirable prejudices of the powerful…

Here are a few note-worthy quotes from Havel's essay 

“If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth. This is why it must be suppressed more severely than anything else.”

The entrenched powerful create a "royal consciousness" which defines social reality.

“As the interpretation of reality by the power structure, ideology is always subordinated ultimately to the interests of the structure. Therefore, it has a natural tendency to disengage itself from reality, to create a world of appearances, to become ritual... Increasingly, the virtuosity of the ritual becomes more important than the reality hidden behind it.”

“Patočka [to whom Havel dedicated the essay] used to say that the most interesting thing about responsibility is that we carry it with us everywhere. That means that responsibility is ours, that we must accept it and grasp it here, now, in this place in time and space where the Lord has set us down, and that we cannot lie our way out of it by moving somewhere else, whether it be to an Indian ashram or to a parallel polis. 

We cannot escape our responsibility to where we are located, both in time and place. [Aside: this has interesting parallels to what the Apostle Paul says about the "calling" of Christians in 1 Corinthians 7]. 

"If Western young people so often discover that retreat to an Indian monastery fails them as an individual or group solution, then this is obviously because, and only because, it lacks that element of universality, since not everyone can retire to an ashram. 

Christianity is an example of an opposite way out: it is a point of departure for me here and now-but only because anyone, anywhere, at any time, may avail themselves of it.

In other words, the parallel polis points beyond itself and makes sense only as an act of deepening one's responsibility to and for the whole, as a way of discovering the most appropriate locus for this responsibility, not as an escape from it.”

Small actions by a single person to speak truth to power can have significant ramifications. 

For the crust presented by the life of lies is made of strange stuff. As long as it seals off hermetically the entire society, it appears to be made of stone. But the moment someone breaks through in one place, when one person cries out, "The emperor is naked!"—when a single person breaks the rules of the game, thus exposing it as a game—everything suddenly appears in another light and the whole crust seems then to be made of a tissue on the point of tearing and disintegrating uncontrollably.”

T]hey must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.

“It is of great importance that the main thing - the everyday, thankless and neverending struggle of human beings to live more freely, truthfully and in quiet dignity - never imposes any limits on itself, never be half-hearted, inconsistent, never trap itself in political tactics, speculating on the outcome of its actions or entertaining fantasies about the future. The purity of this struggle is the best guarantee of optimum results when it comes to actual interaction with the post-totalitarian structures.”

Totalism of dominant cultures

“The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.” 

 The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann, page 3.

Consider the "cultural moments". For each there was a dominant culture that claimed to be the only option, was well-ordered to protect the power and wealth of the rulers who stifled questioning and criticism.

The first four are considered by Brueggemann in The Prophetic Imagination.

1. Israel in slavery to Egypt. Pharoah ran a royal household and extensive system with absolute rule. The Israelites were enslaved not just for productivity but also for subjugation. Moses gave the Israelites and alternative vision of a community built around the freedom of God [YAHWEH, I am who I am, I will be who I will be], justice, and compassion.

2. Israel under King Solomon. Some considered this period to be the "golden era" of Israel. The twelve tribes were united in a single kingdom. The king was wise and just. Jerusalem was secure and there was a beautiful temple for worship. 

But actually, Solomon was an idolater, an adulterer, who murdered political enemies, made dubious foreign alliances, and had an insatiable desire for wealth, power, and women. People were heavily taxed and conscripted for his vanity projects such as his palace [which was much bigger than the Temple]. Through his family life and public life Solomon sowed the seeds for the division of Israel, civil war, and the eventual destruction of Israel and Judah.

3. Israel in exile in Babylon. The people were subjugated by the violence, power, economic might, vanity, and idolatry of Babylon. To this day Babylon remains a symbol of iniquity. The people seemed to have no option or hope. Many capitulated and enjoyed the comforts of assimilation.

4. Palestine in the time of Israel. Oppression occurred via two powers in a dubious and symbiotic relationship: the Roman imperialists and the Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees). The only economic option was to pay the heavy taxes to Rome and eke out a living. The only political option was to submit to Roman law, enforced by violence. The only religious option was to accept the power of the male elders and their theology and interpretation of the law. The only social option was to conform to the expectations and social norms prescribed by the Pharisees, particularly concerning relationships with Gentiles, "sinners", and the marginalised. The Prophet Jesus disrupted all this presenting a very different theological, moral, social, economic, and political vision. The cross was the embodiment of this vision.

5. Life in communist countries of Eastern Europe ruled by the Soviet Union in the 1970s. The only option was to accept the rule of the Party, parrot empty slogans, not ask questions, trust no one, vote in sham elections, pretend to work, and queue in line for hours for bread. Vaclav Havel captures the dehumanising nature of this totalism in his book, Power to the Powerless, published illegally in 1978.

6. The Western world today. On the one hand, it seems a different context to those above. We enjoy freedom of the press, democratic elections, accountability of individuals and institutions through the rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and economic freedom. On the other, there are dominant ideologies that we are soaked in: individualism, consumerism, and instrumentalist. These ideologies define the lives of individuals and how institutions (government, schools, hospitals, universities, churches, and charities) function. They are all hard to question. Many assume these are good. Others may acknowledge there are problems but consider there are no alternatives.

Individualism defines identity, sexuality, autonomy, careerism, and self-actualisation.

Consumerism defines social relationships and priorities. Relationships are transactional. Comfort, materialism, acquisitiveness, immediacy, and insatiability are the order of the day.

Instrumentalism is concerned with efficiency. Truth is defined by what works. It leads to a focus on money, marketing, metrics, and management. People are defined by their performance and productivity.

Here is what Havel said almost half a century ago. 

“It would appear that the traditional parliamentary democracies can offer no fundamental opposition to the automatism of technological civilization and the industrial consumer society, for they, too, are being dragged helplessly along by it. People are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal methods used in the post-totalitarian societies.”

Grief, truth telling, prophetic imagination, and social change

I recently watched the movie Till with my family. It recounts the tragic death of Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old African American, who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955. Two men were charged with murder but acquitted at their trial. Later the two men confessed to the killing in a paid interview for a magazine article.

Most of the movie is about the grief of Till's mother, Mamie Till-Bradley, and how this drives her to activism with the NAACP and energises the campaign for civil rights. A key event is Mamie's courageous decision to view the tortured and battered corpse of her son, and then to demand a funeral with an open casket, so others can see what happened to him.

By coincidence, I am currently reading The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann. Its themes and ideas resonate with the movie.

“The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.” - page 3

The consciousness of the southern USA [and Australia] in the 1950s was that non-whites had no civil or voting rights and that they should accept the system as it was. Nothing was going to change. Entrenched powers created, maintained, and enforced this social reality and consciousness. This consciousness can be identified with what Brueggemann calls the "royal consciousness", that was created, maintained, and enforced by kings of Israel, beginning with Solomon. 

In the 40th Anniversary edition, Brueggemann reflects.

 “I would now alter ‘royal consciousness’ to ‘totalism’...The term ‘totalism’ refers to a socio-ideological arrangement in which hegemonic ideology takes up all the social space and allows for no alternative possibility. Its claim is ‘total’!” 

A key dimension to this "totalism" is that it leads to a numbness about death.

"What I propose is this: The royal consciousness leads people to numbness, especially to numbness about death. It is the task of prophetic ministry and imagination to bring people to engage their experiences of suffering to death." (page 41)

Mamie did this. 

Creation and redemption in Isaiah

To me much of Biblical scholarship gets bogged down in debates about authorship and dating of different books. Although, there is some role in these questions the danger is it can distract one from understanding, appreciating, and applying the actual text. Furthermore, I contend that adopting a specific position is not necessary for the latter.

I will illustrate my point with a specific case. Brueggemann appears to take the position of Deutero-Isaiah (i.e., there were two authors of Isaiah and that the second part, ch. 40-66 was written during the exile, a helpful summary is on the Wikipedia page). In discussing YHWH, the God Who Creates [chapter 4, in Theology of Old Testament], he has a really nice section on The Context of Exile, which reads (p. 149-150):

In the Old Testament, creation faith receives its fullest articulation in Isaiah of the exile. [See, for example, Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemeption in Deutero Isaiah, 1970)] In the context of exile, Israel faced a twofold crisis that invited Israel to despair and to abandonment of its confidence in Yahweh. The concrete ground for the despair is the formidable reality of Babylonian military-political power. Behind that visiible authority, however, is the legitimating power of the Babylonian gods who guaranteed the regime and who appear to be stronger than the counterpower of Israel's own God....
... It is testimony to Yahweh's work as Creator that counters the ostensive power of Babylon.

[1Thus says the LORD,
the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him:]
......
¹² I made the earth
and created man on it;
it was my hands that stretched out the heavens,
and I commanded all their host.
¹³ I have stirred him up in righteousness,
and I will make all his ways level;
he shall build my city
and set my exiles free,
not for price or reward,"
says the LORD of hosts.
(Isaiah 45:12-13)

But actually, these insights are actually independent of when this passage was written. One could rewrite Brueggemann's paragraph as

In the Old Testament, creation faith receives a full articulation in Isaiah's prophesy concerning the exile. In the context of exile, Israel would face a twofold crisis that invited Israel to despair and to abandonment of its confidence in Yahweh. The concrete ground for the despair would be the formidable reality of Babylonian military-political power. Behind that visible authority, however, would be the legitimating power of the Babylonian gods who would guaranteed the regime and who might appear to be stronger than the counterpower of Israel's own God....
... It is testimony to Yahweh's work as Creator that counters the ostensive power of Babylon.

Moderating postmodern influences

I was a bit disappointed with the last section I read of Bruggemann's Old Testament Theology. I think he may be too influenced by postmodern voices. A few general comments/claims, heavily influenced by my experience in science.

• Culture and personal experience will undoubtedly influence anyones reading of the text but they are not determinative.
• Acknowledging the existence of a plurality of voices and opinions and readings is not the same thing as affirming the validity and value of all their perspectives.
• "Hegemony" is not all bad. God instituted governments to punish evil and protect the innocent. Similarly, because not all perspectives have equal merit and value, those in positions of influence have a responsibility to limit how much those they teach are exposed to alternative views.
  

In science we do not spend semesters teaching students theories that we believe are wrong based on substantial evidence.

Repeating the history of the mistakes of historical criticism

Why should we be skeptical about the nineteenth century historical criticism of the Bible that led to liberal theology?

In Theology of the Old Testament, Bruggemann, writes (page 47):

In order to understand the crisis of biblical theology at the end of the twentieth century, we must pause to understand what was entailed in this singular preoccupation with the historical, as it enthrallled Old Testament scholarship. It is best perhaps to recognize Hegel's articulation of "absolute history", which reflected a convinced Eurocentric view of all human reality. That is, history, in any practical reckoning, consisted in European history and reflected the uncritical hegemony of the writers of that history. Two other facets of history are readily noted in the work of Old Testament scholarship in the nineteenth century. First, history was considered as moving in a single, developmental line, again reflective of a hegemonic perspective. Second, in a mood of positivism it was widely believed that an objective investigation could recover history "as it happened," with no ambiguity. And indeed, there need be no interpretive playfulness about "what it meant".

I hate to say it, but this does help me understand better how in such an intellectual climate many theologians could end up supporting Hitler.

It also seems how some conservatives today are letting these "historical" preoccupations set the agenda for their reading and interpretation of scripture.

Brueggemann then starts to discuss the value (and some limitations) or sociological approaches and rhetorical criticism. However, much of this seems to be making the same reductionist mistake: trying to reduce theology (or at least Biblical scholarship) to a different discipline (history, sociology, literature, ...). But, as Barth emphasized, the subject under study (the triune God whose revelation Scripture bears testimony to), by its very nature, is not amenable to
such reductionism.

Liberating Old Testament scholarship from reductionism

More from Brueggemann's, Theology of the Old Testament (page 28)

Walther Eichrodt seeks to do in Old Testament study what Barth undertook in dogmatic theology, against his liberal antecedents....

Eichrodt's program is to explore how all of the variations and developments of Israel's religion can be seen to be in the service of a single conceptual notion, covenant. It is impossible to overestimate what a singular intellectual achievement this project is.....
....In our current parlance, we might say that Eichrodt polemicises against the categories of modernity that critical study had imposed on the text; these categories feature individualism and autonomoy and resist articulations that are dialogical and therefore complex, ambiguous, and unsettled. The fundamental relatedness of all of reality, which is most charateristic of Israel's faith, makes the Old Testament inimical to the categories of modernity.

As an aside, I found this interesting because it confirms a point (Barth liberated theology from the limitations of reductionism imposed by liberal 19th century theology) I tried to make in my paper, Emergence and reductionism in theology and science, that is forthcoming in the Scottish Journal of Theology.

The rise and fall of historical criticism

I am really enjoying and learning a lot from reading Walter Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, and Advocacy, which I have mentioned in a couple of previous posts. In the first chapter he discusses how Old Testament scholarship in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was largely shaped by ideas from Bacon (science), DesCartes (rationalism), Locke (empiricism), and Hegel (history). On the latter he says (page 12):

history had acquired a very different dimension and significance from all previous understandings. First, history had taken on a positivistic character, so that events came to be regarded as completely decipherable, to the exclusion of any inscrutable density. This change entailed that events have a simple, discernible, unambigious meaning from which all mystery can be squeezed out. Second, in the nineteenth century the idea of history as development came to be crucial, so that events came to be seen as progressively arranged in sequence. Events without inscrutable density but with progressive sequencing leave nothing for theology to do. And so history could and did become an autonomous enteriprise, without reference to any larger or coded significance.

He credits Barth's publication of Der Romerbrief in 1919 with the recovery of Theological Interpretation of not just the New Testament, but also the Old.

Does the Bible read you?

I really like the introductory chapter of Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, and Advocacy by Walter Brueggemann.

Here is a sample:

The practical effect of the Reformation, as far as the Bible is concerned, is to let the Bible have its own voice, without regard for or indebtedness to any established category of church interpretation. In this sense, the Reformation was indeed an act of interpretive emancipation. Luther and those who came after him in the Reformation perforce established categories of and criteria for reading that are not negotiable. They insisted with great passion, however, that their evangelical modes of Bible reading were not imposed but in fact arose from the substance of the biblical text itself. As we shall see, this practice of devising categories of interpretation that appear to be given is an onogoing issue in Old Testament theology.

Do we interpret the text or does the text interpret us?
Does our theology determine our reading of the text or does the text determine our theology?

Can the Bible tell us if the universe began as a quantum vacuum fluctuation?

I really like Walter Brueggemann's commentary on Genesis, first introduced to me by Ben Myers, and some of the comments below were heavily influenced by Ben (but I take full responsibility!).

Bruegemann suggests that Abraham is called to trust in a God who can:

"violate religious conventions (cf., 18:16-32) shatter normal definitions of reality (18:14), and bring about newness (21:1-7).... There are in the Bible three primary ways of speaking of such radical, unextrapolated newness:
(a) creation out of nothing,
(b) resurrection of the dead, and
(c) justification by grace through faith (cf. Rom. 4:17).''

[Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 111]

This brings me to make the point that the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo is primarily a theological statement, rather than a statement of the nature, timing, or mechanism of the creation act. The doctrine was formulated in response to Gnostic views that God was constrained to work with existing materials. But, the God of Abraham is not constrained in any way, neither in the manner in which he created, nor in his ability to give an heir to a barren couple, nor the ability to make a great nation from some nomads, nor to raise from the dead.

Hence, it is not clear to me why some interested in the dialogue between science and theology are so concerned with constraints that the doctrine may (or may not) put on scientific views about the beginning of the universe. [e.g., Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration]