Rejecting Exile

My home parish hosted Walter Breuggemann for a weekend recently. And yeah, I geeked out over that about as much as you might expect. For someone like me, who spends a whole lot of time thinking about biblical scholarship and also about theology and also about mainline Protestant culture and about how to get these different worlds talking to one another, this was excitement on a par–dare I say it–with the release of a new Harry Potter book. (Not Deathly Hallows, though. Let’s not exaggerate here.)

Saturday’s lecture was a sweeping introduction to the prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible, centering on the prophet as a voice subverting and resisting the dominant narrative of empire. The ideas were pretty basic, in the best way, and were thoroughly grounded, beautifully and clearly explained, and peppered with sharp wit. (One of the most pitch-perfect images came out of a digression into the importance and sacredness of the biblical canon: “It’s like having a family album. There are more attractive pictures of other people elsewhere…but this is our family.”) It was a lovely and inspiring day, and I strongly encourage you to listen to the whole thing, and honestly, that’s about all I have to say about that.

Sunday’s lecture (which you can and should watch here)–how do I put this–gave me considerably more grist for the mill. Breuggemann moved from talking about prophecy generally to talking more specifically about exile as a metaphor for the current state of the gospel community in America, and…I just didn’t quite buy it. I feel like it wouldn’t really be fair to fuss at specific pieces of his argument, since he made it pretty clear that his emphasis was more on the metaphor of exile than on the historical reality of Jewish exile which gave rise to that metaphor. He noted furthermore that no metaphor is going to fit its historical antecedent (is that the word I want?) precisely. Also, it’s cheating to attack specific points without first comprehensively paraphrasing his argument, which latter seems too much like work.*

But taking the historical argument apart piece by piece isn’t the point here. Breuggemann’s lecture got me thinking: is the metaphor of exile an authentic one for Christians today? Is it fair to think of ourselves, as Christians both individually and communally, as displaced, cut off from our “home,” isolated within a foreign community that is indifferent or hostile to us and that seeks at all costs to assimilate us to itself, or even to erase us altogether? Is it useful to envision ourselves in this way? Does it open us up to God and to other people?

One of the things that concerns me about the metaphor of exile is the variety of ways in which various people talking about the lecture before and afterward paraphrased it. As I heard it, Breuggemann’s argument was that Christians feel as though we are in exile due to an increasing sense that our baptismal values–the values of the gospel–are no longer (if they ever were) the values of the dominant culture. That is, we live in a world dominated by the cruel exigencies of the market rather than by the Christian virtues of generosity, hospitality, and self-giving love. Okay, cool! That is a sentiment I can get behind. But when I heard other people describe what they were hearing, there was a subtle difference: people talked about the demise of Christendom, that is, a world in which Christian culture was the default setting. People talked about feeling pushed aside, displaced, misunderstood. And I think these are two ideas which are fundamentally very different, but which bleed into one another incredibly easily. We need to distinguish between “We have an abiding sense that our baptismal values are not the values of the dominant culture” and “We’re anxious about not being quite as much the center of our own universe as we used to be.” The former is a deep concern for me. The latter is a grief that I think is probably understandable, but that, honestly, I really struggle to understand or sympathize with.

So, here’s a more tentative question: What does it do to other people to claim the language of exile? We claim a metaphorical exile; is that–can it possibly be–a neutral act with regard to those among us who are literally in exile? As I listened to Breuggemann’s lecture, I thought, What would a refugee with no support network and little English think of this? And honestly, I don’t have any idea. (Which is something I need to sit with.) Are we taking on the romance of exile without being privy to its disorienting, devastating grief?

And my last, still-more-inchoate thought: It seems to me that exile as a concept depends on the idea of a pre-exilic existence, a home that exists, somewhere, to which you maintain your loyalty, on which you pin your hopes. You used to be in control, have self-determination, live in your homeland. You used to be part of the dominant culture. Though it looks forward to the future, the exilic imagination necessarily has strong roots in the past. And I want to say that my identity as Christian is fundamentally at odds with this sense. The Kingdom of God is always already-but-not-yet, always looking forward, never looking backward. I guess this is where one could bring in Paradise and the Fall and say that really, we’re exiled from Eden; but that’s not a story that gets me very far. Because to me, saying “I want to return to Paradise” is like saying “I want to turn away from this world,” and I will always reject that. Always. The Kingdom of God, as we imagine it, is not some other place, from which we have been exiled, to which we will return. It is this place, transfigured into what we can even now see that it might be. This place is our home. That is the whole point.



*Okay, I’m going to cheat, just a little: 1. Breuggemann’s sweeping dismissal of empires as culturally sterile, homogeneous entities (“If you’ve seen one empire, you’ve seen all the empires;” “By and large empires do not have any visions; they just imagine keeping doing what they’re doing, but they do it better”) is just…not true. The Babylonian empire =/= Persian =/= Roman. There were definitely some strong similarities in the ways those empires chose to administer their vassal states, but that’s mostly because the Babylonians were really freaking good at it to begin with, is what I dimly remember. 2. He characterizes the formation of the Torah during the Persian period as a straightforward rejection of the culture of empire, rather than a complex borrowing, transformation, and appropriation of the high culture of the ancient Near Eastern powers. He cites Genesis 1 as a text that develops in order to show that “the world does not belong to the gods of the Persians, or the gods of the empire, but the world belongs to the God who has long loved the Jews”; but the very thing that makes this text work in that way is its total saturation in the mythology and literature of the powers it seeks to supplant.** 3. This is a little further out of my (former) area of expertise, but every time he draws a sharp dichotomy between the gospel community and the “market ideology” of contemporary global capitalism, I think, “Wait, didn’t capitalism develop within a Christian society? Do we really get to wash our hands of this market ideology?”

**WRT 1 and 2, I feel moderately confident that he knows that the historical situation was much more complicated than he’s making it out to be, and is simplifying for the sake of telling a coherent story to a non-specialist audience. Which opens up whole new vistas of puzzlement and frustration for me.  It just hurts me inside when people dismiss or malign the monumental achievements of human civilization to make a rhetorical point.


10 thoughts on “Rejecting Exile

  1. “Because to me, saying “I want to return to Paradise” is like saying “I want to turn away from this world,” and I will always reject that. Always.”
    It took me a really, really, really long time to think this way. I longed for another world IN PLACE of this one so hard for so long. I loved reading this piece, and I loved being reminded that the Kingdom of God is now. Thank you.

  2. Ok, I’m going to be honest–I need to really think about this. Because off hand, I don’t see a way I could EVER accept exile as a metaphor for Christians. I need to think about it because I don’t want to just reject it offhand. But honestly, I can’t see a way to accept this metaphor without also accepting the “Christendom nostalgia” that I find distasteful. Christians never had a *right* to political, social, and theological domination. And I’m not sure one can be properly nostalgic for something we never deserved in the first place.

    I took a class last semester in grad school on theology of migration. Such a theology was really rich, with ideas like earthly and spiritual pilgrimage, Jesus as a migrant (ie: flight to Egypt, migration through the desert, etc). But exile is totally different than migration–exile lacks choice. I really think this choice is integral–it denotes power and autonomy. And I’m not sure we can argue that Christians lack power and autonomy in our culture (even if we’re not a Christocentric culture anymore)

    Also, it’s not lost on me that exile is a frequent metaphor for Jews. The specificity of Jewish faith claims towards Israel/The Temple are pretty compelling, and Christians have no such specific/geographically grounded faith claims. So….are we stealing someone else’s metaphor here?

      • Yes! I feel like we are very much on the same page. I also had the thought that, if you choose it, it’s not exile–this was in response to hearing someone speak of the Prodigal Son narrative as an exile story. Also, I think “nostalgia” is exactly the word I was looking for.

        I’m of two minds when it comes to the question of Jewish use of exile as a major metaphor for forming an identity. On the one hand, I am very sensitive to/aware that this IS one of the primary means of self-understanding for Jews, and I want to be careful about playing around with/appropriating stuff that is so central to another faith tradition. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Hebrew Bible is primarily a Jewish document, or somehow “belongs more” to Jews than to Christians. And so, the image of exile IS a biblical one for us, and so it is one that is open to us as well. I think.

  3. Very interesting, Mary, thanks!

    Is there genuinely one among us who is not in some kind of exile? I’m not sure we need an Olympics of exile, or a “less-bad-exile” guilt: are we all not (or have we not been) distanced from the love of God? I think one message of Christ is in speaking hope to the hopeless, power to the powerless, &c.; in this sense, the language of exile and homecoming is very Christian.

    On the other hand, the language of communal exile is the meat-and-potatoes fearmongering of abusive and oppressive organizations. It’s seductive–I think in part because of the individual exile we do share–and it’s great as a way of uniting and controlling people. And so it is very Christian in this sense, too.

    I think one power of the message of Christ is to take the fact that many people feel the pain of metaphoric exile, and use it to bring them closer to all others. To alleviate it by acknowledging its shared reality. And one power of the message of Christian churches is to take the fact that many people feel the pain of metaphoric exile, and use it to bring them closer to some by bringing them farther from others. To exacerbate it by abusing its shared reality.

    (Or maybe I just grew up in a cult.)

    • Haha, yes! I imagine being raised in a cult is a little different from the typical experience and actually, quite similar to an experience of exile!

      But I really think the words exile and migrant/pilgrim/wanderer are incredibly different and in this particular argument, its really important to distinguish them. To be exiled is to be prevented from returning home because of fear or threat. I put exile in the same category as “refugee”–it lacks choice and indicates fear, and is way more specific than someone who is simply distant. Christians definitely are distanced from the love of God, but we aren’t being *forced* out of that experience of love.

      I think everything you said, Luke, is both true and beautiful, one of the hallmarks of good theology (lookout! you’re becoming a theologian!) But I think its true of the words migrant, wanderer, pilgrim, etc, and not of the specific word “exile.”

      What do you think, Mary?

      • I really like your differentiation, Carmen. On the other hand, I think what Luke’s saying gets for me, in some ways, right at the experience of sin: that is, I personally experience distance from God as something that is outside of my control, something that’s being done to me rather than something I’m doing, something that I fear and dread but am powerless against. Which is part of why I’m a Christian: I find some of the language and images it uses to talk about sin very hopeful, in that I can come to understand that distance from God as something that’s surmountable, partly through learning to take responsibility for it, and partly through the grace of God reaching out to me where I am. So I’d agree with you that we aren’t *actually* forced into a distance from God; but I’d agree with Luke (or maybe “elaborate on what he said” is more accurate) that it *feels* like we are being forced into that distance.

        What comes to mind for me, also, is that, even within the Bible, we can see the language of exile being used punitively or coercively–that is, the experience of Exile is used to differentiate between “true” Jews (who all got sent to Babylon) and those “people of the land” who stayed in Judea and (so the narrative goes) failed to keep themselves pure in their worship of YHWH. Also between “true” Jews who kept the various laws (kosher, endogamy, etc.) during the generations of being exile, and those who let themselves be assimilated into the culture in which they were living. And so that’s another reason I’m uncomfortable with the language of exile–it ends up all too often becoming a way of weaponizing one’s trauma. (I think there was some way I was going to connect this with what you were saying? But it’s gone now. Oh well.)

        • INTERESTING. I *never* would have put sin in the category of things forced on us, that distance us from God–but it makes a LOT of sense. The way you explain it here is very thought-provoking. (side note: this is why this blog is amazing)

          • I mean, I don’t *actually* think it is forced on us, but I think it *feels* like it. I don’t know, I’ve been channeling Paul in Romans a lot lately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s