The Mighty from Their Thrones: Power in Biblical Tradition
by
by
The Emperor’s Clothes
I am an anarchist. That is to say, I believe that power must justify itself continuously. I also agree with Lord Asquith: power corrupts. It corrupts everyone in a position of power, from the head of the college mailroom to the Pope, proportionate to the power they exercise. I observe that it does so without exception, either by rationalising self-interest or by becoming an end in itself.
Consequently, I mistrust anyone in a position of power and needle them whenever I can to justify their actions whether I agree with them or not. They don’t like this and tell me that I don’t understand the difference between the good and the bad use of power.
To correct my lack of appreciation, a very respected (and beloved) colleague has badgered me into reading James Walsh’s ‘The Mighty From Their Thrones.’ My colleague believes that the Judaeo-Christian explanation of power is one which will convince me that institutions of power are not just an evil (necessary or otherwise) but in some way a reflection of divine beneficence. Let’s see...
Walsh's fundamental point is that the ancient Hebrew vocabulary used to express concepts that are relevant to power - words for judgment, rightness, and justice - don't translate easily into modern language and society. He claims we must understand them in their original cultural context. This is obviously tendentious. We use these words the way we do, and the way we do is generally to justify the need for the powers that be, by the powers that be, often on theological grounds.
His next assertion is that the vocabulary developed by ancient Israel was in direct response to the prevailing 'Baal myths' of the Canaanite milieu in which Israel found itself. These myths, according to Walsh, have a simple moral: might makes right. Power flows from the divine to those who dominate their fellows; it is a symbol of divine favour.
At this point Walsh performs an intellectual sleight of hand. He claims there is a different concept of justice contained in Yahweh's lordship than in Baal's, one of compassion and care for the poor and dispossessed. What he pointedly neglects is that it is still the divine agents - priests, officials, judges, elders, kings - who do the interpreting of the Yahwistic ethos, whatever the god involved. To claim that the ethos of Yahweh is 'better' begs the issue: power still flows from a divine through his minions, human beings who may or may not interpret compassion and care any differently from the minions of Baal.
There is in fact no biblical evidence that ancient Israel ever developed institutions of government or law that were superior - by modern or ancient standards - to other civilisations. The idea of 'covenant' between a god and his tribe is hardly unique to Israel. And as far as it is analogous to a modern constitution, it provides no protection for those without power from those individuals and institutional bodies with interpretive power. The persistent arbitrariness and impetuosity of Yahweh and his various agents throughout the Old Testament, in any case, belie the assertion of a superior, or even more compassionate ethos that might be exercised through such institutions.
Walsh's consideration of the New Testament is equally tendentious. He, of course, makes much of the undermining of the 'principalities and powers' in the synoptic gospels and in the Pauline epistles. But even fewer hints are given in these documents for the construction of just structures of power than in the Hebrew bible. The general impression given by Walsh (and by the documents themselves) is that these structures are irrelevant to the extent that ‘Christian values’ are exercised by those in positions of power. Notably however, the Epistle of James, which contains the most direct statement in the New Testament on the inherent evil of power, or even the desire for positions of power, goes entirely unmentioned.
Clearly I remain unconvinced by Walsh's argument about the possibility of good versus evil in the exercise of power. If anything I am confirmed in my anarchism. After all Walsh is a member of the Jesuits, that group of men formed in the 16th century to defend and expand the power of the Catholic Church as the sole legitimate voice of the Creator. To me he is merely silly.
I am an anarchist. That is to say, I believe that power must justify itself continuously. I also agree with Lord Asquith: power corrupts. It corrupts everyone in a position of power, from the head of the college mailroom to the Pope, proportionate to the power they exercise. I observe that it does so without exception, either by rationalising self-interest or by becoming an end in itself.
Consequently, I mistrust anyone in a position of power and needle them whenever I can to justify their actions whether I agree with them or not. They don’t like this and tell me that I don’t understand the difference between the good and the bad use of power.
To correct my lack of appreciation, a very respected (and beloved) colleague has badgered me into reading James Walsh’s ‘The Mighty From Their Thrones.’ My colleague believes that the Judaeo-Christian explanation of power is one which will convince me that institutions of power are not just an evil (necessary or otherwise) but in some way a reflection of divine beneficence. Let’s see...
Walsh's fundamental point is that the ancient Hebrew vocabulary used to express concepts that are relevant to power - words for judgment, rightness, and justice - don't translate easily into modern language and society. He claims we must understand them in their original cultural context. This is obviously tendentious. We use these words the way we do, and the way we do is generally to justify the need for the powers that be, by the powers that be, often on theological grounds.
His next assertion is that the vocabulary developed by ancient Israel was in direct response to the prevailing 'Baal myths' of the Canaanite milieu in which Israel found itself. These myths, according to Walsh, have a simple moral: might makes right. Power flows from the divine to those who dominate their fellows; it is a symbol of divine favour.
At this point Walsh performs an intellectual sleight of hand. He claims there is a different concept of justice contained in Yahweh's lordship than in Baal's, one of compassion and care for the poor and dispossessed. What he pointedly neglects is that it is still the divine agents - priests, officials, judges, elders, kings - who do the interpreting of the Yahwistic ethos, whatever the god involved. To claim that the ethos of Yahweh is 'better' begs the issue: power still flows from a divine through his minions, human beings who may or may not interpret compassion and care any differently from the minions of Baal.
There is in fact no biblical evidence that ancient Israel ever developed institutions of government or law that were superior - by modern or ancient standards - to other civilisations. The idea of 'covenant' between a god and his tribe is hardly unique to Israel. And as far as it is analogous to a modern constitution, it provides no protection for those without power from those individuals and institutional bodies with interpretive power. The persistent arbitrariness and impetuosity of Yahweh and his various agents throughout the Old Testament, in any case, belie the assertion of a superior, or even more compassionate ethos that might be exercised through such institutions.
Walsh's consideration of the New Testament is equally tendentious. He, of course, makes much of the undermining of the 'principalities and powers' in the synoptic gospels and in the Pauline epistles. But even fewer hints are given in these documents for the construction of just structures of power than in the Hebrew bible. The general impression given by Walsh (and by the documents themselves) is that these structures are irrelevant to the extent that ‘Christian values’ are exercised by those in positions of power. Notably however, the Epistle of James, which contains the most direct statement in the New Testament on the inherent evil of power, or even the desire for positions of power, goes entirely unmentioned.
Clearly I remain unconvinced by Walsh's argument about the possibility of good versus evil in the exercise of power. If anything I am confirmed in my anarchism. After all Walsh is a member of the Jesuits, that group of men formed in the 16th century to defend and expand the power of the Catholic Church as the sole legitimate voice of the Creator. To me he is merely silly.
posted by The Mind of BlackOxford @ December 06, 2016
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home