As I mentioned yesterday, my interest in the hermeneutics of the temple action--how the story is interpreted--is that this story can be used to unmask the background assumptions regulating how we read the biblical texts, the unspoken worldview that tells us which readings of the text are legitimate versus illegitimate.
Here is the analysis I have been giving.
In debates about justified violence and just war Jesus's temple action is often used as a warrant for using violence against people, even to the point of killing people.
A different reading of the temple action could argue that Jesus's violence in the temple action was violence directed at property, rather than at people, as a protest against economic and political exploitation.
As I mentioned in the last post, I don't think Jesus's actions can be used to justify violence of either sort--toward people or property. Just war apologists and militant activists who make appeals to Jesus's actions in the temple are free to disagree with me about that. My point has been, rather, that a wildly implausible reading--using the temple action to justify violence against people--has frequently been deemed moral and legitimate while an equally if not more plausible reading--violence toward property to protest exploitation--is generally deemed immoral and illegitimate.
Why the different attitudes about those two readings?
The suggestion I made yesterday was that when the reading is used to support the violence of Empire that reading is deemed moral, theologically reasonable and legitimate. But when a reading supports violence protesting or interrupting Empire, and milder forms of violence at that, that reading is generally deemed immoral, theologically unreasonable and illegitimate.
What I'm trying to draw attention to is how Empire regulates our reading of Scripture, how Empire unconsciously sets up the boundaries of what is moral versus immoral, reasonable versus unreasonable, legitimate versus illegitimate.
So let me, to end this series of posts, make this point clear.
Imagine I go to a Christian blog or forum and there I see Christians debating whether or not killing is ever justified. We've all seen or participated in these debates, say, between pacifists and just war apologists. And while many of us have strong opinions about this topic most simply feel torn. We see the good points being made by both sides. So the debates roll on.
Here's the point I want to make: Christians find these debates about killing people perfectly normal.
Can a Christian kill people? Ho hum.
Ponder that. This is how deeply Empire has scarred our theological imaginations. It's completely normal for Christians to debate killing people online, coolly listing out criteria about when killing is or is not acceptable.
Now imagine you stumble upon a different sort of debate today on the Internet.
Imagine you come across some Christian activists debating online about when it is or is not acceptable to use violence against property as a part of a protest against economic and political oppression. Using biblical texts like Jesus's temple action these activists are setting out criteria for when it is justifiable to destroy property as a part of a protest. These activists discuss things like "last resort" criteria just like the "last resort" criteria used for just war: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
If we came across a debate like that online we'd freak out. We'd log in to say, "Hey, destroying property is never, never okay!"
Ponder, here, our reactions to those two debates, Christians debating justifiable violence toward people versus justifiable violence toward property.
My point, again, isn't that either sort of violence is justified but that when Christians debate killing people no one finds this conversation weird or problematic as a conversation.
Listing out criteria for killing people? That's totally normal behavior for Christians.
But listing out criteria for the justified destruction of property? That's totally beyond the pale--radical, crazed, immoral and insane.
Once again, I don't think either sort of violence is justified. What I'm trying to point out is how our notions of sanity, morality and radicality have been twisted in ways we barely notice or register. Violence toward property in a protest? That's the height of immorality and irresponsibility. It's anti-Christian to the core. But few if any Christians are shocked by a debate about killing human beings. We think killing is a legitimate debate to be had, worthy of reasoned conversation and consideration.
Killing people? That's on the table of options. It's a very Christian conversation.
Think about that.
That is how deeply our theological imaginations have been scarred by Empire
