Week 8: “The Literatures of Australia and New Zealand” -Crane (Castle)

In his piece on the de-centralizing of Australian and New Zealand literature, Crane, brings up a very interesting point on the perpetual marginalization of Aborginal voices, even in the current de-colonizing of Australian and New Zealand literature. This idea seems to mesh with that of previous voices on the absolution of the women’s problem in a decolonized, nationalistic state, one in which those formerly oppressed continue to subjugate and oppress those with whom they are equals, in the purest sense of the word. This continues to happen with the voices of aboriginal writers attempting to combat further marginalization in a creation of a new nationalistic center within Australian and New Zealand literature. This idea furthers the question of whether or not we as people groups can ever break free from the cycle of colonizer and colonized?

Week 8: “The Body in the Library” -Tiffin (Castle)

In her piece on the use of women’s literature as a de-colonizing aspect of postcolonial work, Tiffin, uses the work of Shelley and other women literary figures to support her view. The most intringuing aspect of this work was Tiffin’s discussion on the “frankensteinization” of the colonies in a colonial framework, vis-a-vis the Colonizer as master frankenstein and the colonies as the abhorrant creation that is now widely out of control and must be destroyed before it destroys others. An interesting question that arises from these discussions is How do these “abhorrant creations” view themselves? Do they see themselves as the Frankenstein figure, or as something more? This self-identification is something that must be furthered developed in postcolonial studies.

Week 8: Monday

In today’s class we spent a significant amount of time discussing the praxis of trinitarian mission in terms of how they affect the contexts with which we are working. This time was helpful as it continues to allow us as a class to work practically through forming a coherent and interesting paper. The second half of the class is what I really enjoyed as Ryan spent time developing the idea of Kingdom of God, as inaugurated by Jesus, and how this kingdom speaks to the inclusion of marginal voices, specifically forming a bridge between those on the outside of ethnic and moral binarisms that did and continue to exist in our past and present contexts. The interesting aspect of this is how the language of the kingdom of God can bring with it so many different emotions and interpretive strategies, be it ones of anti-kingdom, anti-imperial rhetoric, as well as pro-imperial rhetoric and fatalism. This reclaimation on the part of Jesus of the work kingdom is something one sees consistently in his message, by using what was once an oppressive or marginalized voice as something to be esteemed or as something that brings with it liberation.

Week 8: “Tyranny, Boundary, and Might” -Liew (Sugirtharajah)

In his piece on the pro-colonial overtones present in Mark’s depiction of the power of Jesus, Liew, stands in opposition to hundreds of years of biblical and cultural interpretations of the Gospel of Mark. In claiming that the Markan depiction of Jesus is one of “might makes right” and one where Jesus is apparently only an overlord who lords and pushes his power and authority not just on his disciples (whom he “forces” to do the menial tasks of his ministry), but also on the surrounding populace who face certain doom if they do not accept his authority. This interpretation is a classic misreading of the textual genre of Mark. As a Gospel its goal is not to present an image of a gentleman who is ushering a new style of egalitarian living and political upheval, what the Gospel of Mark is presenting is an image of Jesus as God, and it would have been unheard of in not only Mark’s context, but the context of the present, to present any God as equal with the rest of humanity, this would not make since for ancient Near Eastern author, period. Secondly I find fault with the idea that Jesus is merely forcing his disciples to carry out meanial tasks of service to him while “he sleeps on the boat”, this again is a misunderstanding of the Christian message of service that is a common thread throughout the Markan Gospel, an ignorance of the willingness of Jesus (again, a God) to subject himself to humanity, to broken, beaten, and crucified again for said humanity, would be the ultimate in service and an oppositional stance to the current violent authorities, in the disciples service they are learning the true model of authority, based upon a belief in a God who will be subject and oppressed to ultimately free.

Week 8: “Mark and Empire” -Moore (Sugirtharajah)

In his piece on imperial tones both latent and obvious in the Gospel of Mark, Moore, concludes that the Gospel of Mark both dreams of an anti-kingdom(empire is the term he commonly uses, although basileia is more commonly translated “kingdom”)but kingdom nonetheless, while still deconstructing the economic structures of empire through the story of the sacrificial peasant. The most interesting aspecit of Moore’s article was his discussion of the exorcisms of Jesus as not only exorcisms of demon-infested persons, but also in a more allegorical light, as lands “occupied” by demon oppressors, i.e. Rome. While this interpretation is quite interesting and worth noting, especially when one is attempting to reconstruct the context of Mark’s Gospel, with special attention paid to the happenings of the time in which the Gospel itself was written, but to take this interpretation as a definitive interpretative lens would be to stretch the analogy a bit far. Moore even mentions the widespread critique on the part of biblical scholars of postcolonial readings of scripture. This is an important fact to keep in mind; a post colonial reading should allow a competent reader of biblical literature another color with which to view scripture, but it should not be one’s primary lens/color for viewing the whole of interpretative strategy, thus forcing all biblical interpretation into conjecture.

Week 8: “Two Models for the Future Church” -Fuellenbach

In his chapter on the two models that will shape the ecclesiology and interpretation of the Church universal, Fuellenbach, brings up an interesting discussion on the nature of the term “contrast societies” and how this term is used to describe the churches of the future. In this discussion Fuellenbach does an excellent job of bringing to light the necessity with churches returning to their apostolic roots in the sense of a being a contrast society, he does this through evidence of God’s contrast society of Israel, as well as the contrast societies of the Early Church. Fuellenbach also discusses the critiques of these societies as sectarian in nature, and through these critiques is able to illumine the true goals and ideas behind a contrast society, one that is not separate or apart from culture, but instead one who is firmly rooted in culture and because of this position is able to give a valued critique of said culture. This is the model that must be reclaimed for the Church, especially because of its current unholy alliance with institutional and secular thought. The Church as contrast soceity must become the new model for the future church, because in doing it will allow the Church to reclaim its core mission and the core mission of its inaugurator; one of liberation, hope, freedom, and irruption of the kingdom of God through incarnational living.

Week 7: Reflection on Caroline’s Blog

In her blog, Caroline discusses the ideas of Latvus in the discussion on the Decolonization of Yahweh. Her central point addresses Latvus’ characterization of Yahweh as a God formerly on the side of the marginalized and oppressed, but who is now on the side of the oppressors and the subjugators. This, I believe, is an unfair analyzation of how the OT should be read, as well as the Israelite understanding of their activities and the subsequent consequences of their actions. The nation of Israel was not confused as why to they were in exile, as to why they were separated, and as to why they were experiencing hardship. They knew that there were consequences for their actions, and as Caroline put, a God who is inconsistent in promises and consequences presents a much more startling picture of God, than one who has a clear perrogative and mission as well as consistent consequences. This brings up a much larger issue, and one that has been grappled with by Christians and non-Christians alike, which is how can a God, who is supposedly loving, be in control of world consumed with violence, death, and injustice? A scarier question, I believe, would be what do we do if there is nothing in control of life? What can we make of life if all decisions, actvities, and hardships are not under the control of a Divine Other, but are merely left up to chance? This is not an apologetic, but rather a belief in a God who fulfills and keeps promises, a God that is consistent in activity, blessing, as well as consequence.

Week 7: Wednesday

In today’s class a discussion arose on the appropriateness of cross-cultural engagement by Christians. This discussion was part of a larger one on our occupancy within a monolithic empire, and the characteristics of this empre that we bring with us during our missional engagements. While I see the necessity and the validity of this debate, a valid conclusion appears to be our responsiblities as Christians to present the most adequate picture of Jesus through our conversations and actions with the world. To cease this activity for fear of the imperialism rooted in our identities is as inappropriate as pulling our children from public schools for fear of their corruption, contributing both to the conception of Christian ghettos as well as the loss of opportunities for our own children to missionally engage the contexts with which they find themselves. A third path, similar to the ministry of Jesus, must be found in this discussion.

Week 7: “Crimes and Punishments” -Hodge and Mishra (Castle)

In their piece on criminal representation through literature and historiographies, Hodge and Mishra, discuss the subsequent effects on Australia through its use as a settling ground of imperial convicts and debtors. This piece was somewhat confusing in its in-depth analyses of criminal textual representation, sometimes appearing to get lost within its own analyses. Ultimately the authors come to the conclusion that although the criminal identity may have either contributed to the two-faced compliance of Australians, or their compliance. The nuance of this identity may need further researching, but ultimately, at least in my opinion, Hodge and Mishra state that crime and punishment representation serve ideally as a disciplinary example that ultimately misses the point and instead leads to a paranoid and guarded view both towards government and fellow Austrailian.

Week 7: “The New Colonizer Arrives” -Ferguson (Castle)

In her piece on a new colonization “ethic” as seen in the novel “Across the Wide Sargasso Sea”, Ferguson, posits the nationalists in the colonial fallout as the new colonizers subsuming the cleansing of the European “other” from their midsts. One of the interesting points that Ferguson makes is the solidarity that characters such as Christophine (the female representative of this cleansing attitude) draw from to exert their independence from and opposition to the European presence. This solidarity is something that the colonizer always fears, hence the creation of race, the instution of class and religion as hierarchies to not only separate the other from the colonizer, but the “other” from his very brother and sister. A question that arises within me as a read a piece such as this is, where does the colonizer still suceed? How am I separate from my brothers and sisters? and within the Church: Where have we allowed the imperialistic ethic to separate us not only from each other, but from the margins as well? Can solidarity heal the un-holy grip that imperialism has upon the Church?