Brian Walsh has a lot of good things to say. That said, Brian Walsh enjoys playing the role of the gad-fly which bites, draws blood and considers that a great victory. Like a gad-fly, I find him annoying. His contemporary lectures and talks have a useful role to play, but they serve, at best, as food to other, higher, creatures and at worst to spread pestilence. Now, call me old-fashioned, but I have very little use for people who -- even in rhetoric -- equate hell with Scripture. I consider the words themselves sacred after all.
Subversion of the empire is not what Paul writes about; it is what Brian Walsh loves to talk about with considerable bravado and as one who has the luxury of never having to deal with the hard choices that those of us in the real world have to make. It is certainly not good pastoral leadership to say to someone about to enter the public service, or who is considering running for public office to say "to hell with Romans 13". Should Namaan say "to hell with the Empire?" Or should he, as Elisha counsels him, "go in peace" even though he knows he will have to kneel before idols? Paul is writing about living as embodiments of kingdom of God, which is a very different thing than subverting the empire. There might be overlap between the two, but Paul does not write with the goal of subverting the empire. That's an anachronism and someone of his considerable intellect should recognize that. And to those who would say "it's just rhetoric" I would reply: it's not even good rhetoric. It's sloganeering mixed with a sneer.
Now, what I'm really interested in not so much to debate the usefulness of empire in discussions about the proper Christian response (Though I think we could have a good discussions about that here on this blog) but whether or not it's appropriate to respond with such fervor to such pieces of writing. Is it better to go the route of Yoda, or is there a place for polemics?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Brian Walsh and Polemics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Which piece by Walsh are you referencing and can it be found online? I'd like to enter the discussion but don't want to do so blind.
The point you raised about Naaman seems a very powerful counterpoint; certainly a strong observation on its own.
As of right now I wonder if you would ellaborate on the "real world" and how it differs from Walsh's... or somebody else in the academy.
Q: I linked to the article's title: "to hell with Romans 13."
The bit from Naaman actually was brought to my attention by Mike Goheen. Paul Marshall makes a similar observation with Obadiah, a servant of Ahab's who served perhaps the most wicked king ever had by Israel, yet was considered righteous.
With regard to real world. I was hesitant to put that in there and it's an unhelpful term. Thanks for drawing attention to it. What I should say is this: Brian's lectures have considerable power. And academics have considerable power, but it's very different than that held by someone working in politics. Now, I don't want to disqualify anyone who's never likely to work in politics from judging politics (that's what we do in a democracy) but, Brian doesn't even pay the slightest lip service to the hard fact that people working in politics, and in other spheres where they exert power over particular people's lives and livelihoods, within a space where pressures are so great and the demands are so many to decide in a certain way, might actually be difficult and that it is inevitable, given our natures, that we dirty ourselves with sin some how. Or, further, that even through such very sinful actions/structures, that incredible grace is shown and good is done. No clarifying distinctions made, no attempt at thoughtful discourse. His article is one giant slogan and I think that's why it bothered me so much.
I regret getting so upset about this piece.
You're not the only one who gets your "ire" raised by this. To be honest, I'm annoyed with a lot of what I consider to be "sloganeering mixed with a sneer" in emergent circles - especially when it's not particularly sophisticated political/cultural commentary.
I firmly believe there is a place for intelligent, well-intentioned polemics - even sharp, slightly offensive ones. The veneer of weak willed tolerance has erased good, honest disagreement in the form of informed polemical writing. Hence why I prefer freedom, not tolerance (a la Thom Farr).
"I find him annoying."
"His talks serve as food to other higher creatures and to spread pestilence"
???
I'm glad you regret responding with such fervor. :)
Post a Comment