Further footnotes on Paul, Yoder, and Boyarin.

It is an honor to respond to Professor Boyarin's article, in which he addresses an important topic. Most people I talk with are willing to accept as self-evident that religious differences can foster deep divisions and, sometimes, breed resentment and a desire for revenge. This forum, held so soon after the US Congressional mid-term elections, is a welcome sign of hope for a rhetorical climate that is more gracious than polemical. I believe that the sort of respectful engagement represented in this panel discussion speaks to a deep need in our world.

I have been asked to provide a response to Boyarin's work from a Pauline perspective. I accept Boyarin's point that a sort of diaspora identity (i.e. an identity of not being in charge) is necessary for truly vigorous inter-faith dialogue. I think that Paul's letter to the Galatians, through its emphasis on freedom, can inform a diaspora identity and, I will argue, a diaspora mission. Finally, I will make the case that, despite the dangers, mission is a necessary part of Christian identity, but that it can only be done in a Christian way with a thorough-going commitment to nonviolence.

The Dangers of Particularity and Universalism 

Most debates about the seemingly polar concepts of particularity and universalism will approach the subject by considering which is better and why. I will enter the discussion with an assertion that both are necessary in order to have vigorous and real inter-faith dialogue; however, both are also dangerous. The problem, of course, is in knowing how to negotiate this. My position here is that it is only by holding to a nonviolent stance that people are able to evade the dangers of particularity and universalism.

Many who see the dangers of particularity, do not see danger in universalism. A potent manifestation of particularity in our day is found in various fundamentalist groups, who, at best, often are unable talk to one another and, at worst, kill each other. An address by Senator Barack Obama, recently published in Sojourners, succinctly points to peril in this kind of particularity. There, he notes that, "given the increasing diversity of American's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." (1) His response is that "democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." (2)

I, however, cannot so easily to decry particularity. Although I see the dangers of sectarianism that Senator Obama identifies and I, likewise, affirm the quest for that common ground, I would argue that fruitful discussion and real understanding do not happen under the guise of a thin universalism. In fact, I think flat universalism can be dangerous. This aspect is best illustrated by a film and a Bible story.

During my senior year of college I saw a film about J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project. From that film I remember a strong sense of optimism and confidence in human achievement. I also remember Oppenheimer's deep despair about the use and results of that endeavor. Humans have great power and, collectively, tremendous potential for good. We also can band together for destruction on a massive scale.

I think about this film when I read the story of the Tower of Babel. Although this story can be understood as a way ancient people explained why there are different languages and why people are spread over the face of the earth, we miss a much deeper point if we only see this. Rather, I think it is a caution about grandiose plans for human achievement. It may seem unfair that the LORD'S response to the pooling of creativity and power is to confuse the builders so that they could no longer understand one another. The result is that their project ends.

The LORD'S comment upon observing the people's tower and city, "this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose will now be impossible for them" (Gen 11.6), (3) is polyvalent. In this story, there are no explicit reasons given for why God sees this project in a negative light. (4) Reasonable questions to this story might be, "Why should God wish to hinder the work of our hands?" "Why does God take a stand against human progress?"

In looking for meaning, one must recall that the relationship between God and humankind in the Primeval History of Genesis is rocky. God's view of human activity from Genesis 6, just before God decides to destroy the earth by flood, is that "the LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually" (6.5). (5)

Of course, both of these stories in Genesis represent low points in the story of the relationship between God and humanity. However, the lessons here are still meaningful for today: banding together in the name of universal human interests is not necessarily a path to peaceful common good. In fact, it can be dangerous, given humanity's destructive potential. Commitments to specific expressions of truth and goodness--often found in religious particularity--are what can and do often hold destructive forms of universalism in check.

Boyarin's Proposal

In working out of the implications of a radical revision of the history of the Jewish-Christian schism, (6) and through his engagement with John Howard Yoder's project also on that theme, (7) Boyarin offers us a way of being that navigates between the false choices of being "entrenched" in a cultural-linguistic particular or "sold out" to a generic universal. Boyarin argues for a vigorous engagement with the other; as such, this sort of activity necessitates confidence in one's self, but also recognition of the other's dignity.

Boyarin brings the questions about universal and particular identity to bear in his treatment of John Howard Yoder's historiography about the Jewish-Christian schism. He describes Yoder's stance as being alive to other historical possibilities--that is, how it happened is not the way it had to happen. (8) Yoder, then, describes this as a "repentant" mode of historiography, (9) which is further than Boyarin wishes to go. Boyarin suggests that accepting multiple historical possibilities raises doubt that things had to go the way they did, but this is different from Yoder's surety that the Jewish-Christian schism was wrong. (10)

Boyarin is not comfortable with the thought of losing what is valuable about human cultural diversity and Yoder's argument for repentant historiography is too close to a relativizing universality that does away with the distinct identities of Jews and Christians. (11) Boyarin would like deference to one's identity to be a moral imperative. (12) Moreover, while acknowledging Yoder's genuine desire for dialogue that matters (i.e. not so much worried about the change in the other as with the possibility of growth for self), (13) Boyarin admits discomfort with Yoder's insistence on mission. (14)

Boyarin relates Christian mission with the seeking of converts and does not agree with Yoder that proper missionary activity is necessarily nonviolent. (15) Boyarin thinks that "mission is not a sign of non-violence and refraining from missionizing hardly a regression [from true Christian identity]." (16) One has merely to have even a small awareness of Christian relations with Jews over the centuries to understand his point. Boyarin suggests diaspora identity as an alternative stance for manifesting religious identity. (17) In pointing out how a diaspora identity could be beneficial to Christians and how Jews could help us learn this public posture, Boyarin writes, "The genius of Christianity is its concern for all of the people of the world; the genius of rabbinic Judaism is its ability to leave other people alone." (18)

Boyarin's critique raises real, not rhetorical, questions about appropriate Christian action for me.

Paul's Message of Freedom

A Pauline perspective can be helpful in this conversation around mission, particularity and universality. I will use Galatians as my primary Pauline text and I will argue that we should understand from Paul that Christianity is necessarily missionary, non-violent, and not in charge. However, I wish to pause on the threshold of these arguments to acknowledge how awkward this is. There is a sea of pain in the history of Jewish-Christian relations and much at the invocation of Paul's letter to the Galatians. Anyone who says that Jewish-Christian dialogue is easy is a liar. So, with humility and an ardent prayer for gracious lips and ears, I will proceed.

I have recently been arguing that Paul's letter to the Galatians is about freedom. (19) The letter is urgent, fraught with tension, polemical, and, sometimes, difficult to follow, particularly in is radical reinterpretation of the scripture in chapters 3 and 4. However, these difficulties can be mitigated if we are able to keep in mind that Paul was writing about freedom in a time when identities could be restrictive of behavior. Paul's argument for an identity that defies the constraints of other identities is why this letter is of enduring value. Of course, the letter is also tied to a particular situation in a particular historical context. Without appreciation of this, I think it is difficult to be fully attentive to how the enduring message can be instructive for new times and places.

In another setting, Boyarin has argued that Gal 3.28-29, the climax of the letter to that point, is about peoplehood. I would agree and say that the verses are about an identity of freedom that is more fully expounded in chapters 5 and 6. Galatians 3.28-29 is the entree to chapter 4, where, as Boyarin notes, Paul renders the Galatians' former pagan worship, what Paul calls "not gods" (4.8) equivalent to the "weak and beggarly elements" (4.9) and the Jews' observance of the Law. (20)

I would argue similarly, but with an equivocation. Paul did not see pagan worship and Torah observance as the same, but as similarly inferior to being a new creation in Christ (6.15). In fact, that Torah observance is superior to pagan worship in Paul's mind is evident from 2.15, where he says, "we ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners." Regardless of whether it is better than pagan worship, Paul still believes that if the Galatians, who are Gentiles, are persuaded to be circumcised and to observe the Torah, i.e. become Jews, then they have traded freedom for slavery (4.31-5.1). Paul cares deeply about this and, in fact, thinks that all meaning, according to his cosmic outlook, hinges on their choice. He asks, "Did you experience so much for nothing?" (3.4) and states, "for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing" (2.21).

Paul is in full-throttle rhetorical mode. He asserts his authority, (21) he exaggerates, (22) he radically reinterprets scripture, (23) insults his opponents, (24) seeks to elicit pathos from his audience by reminding them of his connection to them, (25) and then exhorts them to live in a new, free identity that would allow them to love abundantly and to, actually, fulfill the law (5.13-14). (26) I do not think that Paul's rhetorical strategy here is appropriate for emulation in inter-faith dialogue. In fact, we have centuries upon centuries of evidence of Christian-Jewish relations where Christians, understanding the power of Paul's rhetoric, but not the depth of his challenge to all identity (including their own), have sinned against our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Paul's letter, written in the first century to a particular group of people, facing a particular choice and with a particular relationship to Paul, will not be able to fully address our contemporary situation. In fact, to take the letter as static would curtail the leading power of the Spirit that Paul speaks about in 5.25. However, there is an enduring message of freedom to which we can be attuned. This freedom should permeate Christian identity and has everything to do with behavior, that is, mission. This is not a sort of mission that is preoccupied with converts. Rather, it is of the kind that is the fruit of a free identity. Following Paul's logic, freedom is Christian identity because of the transformative power of the gospel. People transformed in this way believe that there is truth that is greater than their former particularity. Moreover, a free identity means that people are able to be a "new creation" (6.15), which I think has everything to do with being able to listen well and respectfully talk to people who are "other."

In 1994, Boyarin expressed dissatisfaction with Paul's presentation in Galatians of a Christian "sameness." (27) However, since that time, Boyarin has spoken differently about Paul's portrayal of Christian identity in Galatians. Instead of finding that Paul flattens out identity into a thin universal, Boyarin asserts that Paul's "adoptionist Christology" is rich with meaning. (28) He states, "The point is, let us remember, that there is no Greek nor Jew, that a distinction understood as terribly significant by Jews ... makes no difference at all." (29)

I would guess that while Boyarin may be more appreciative of Paul's view of identity, he is not in full agreement. Furthermore, while I agree with Paul's point, I wonder if it is possible to become as fully God's as Paul states. At the very least, I am sure that a particular identity as a person of God grounded in giving up identity is very messy to negotiate. However, I also wonder if this is any less messy than the way we relate to others across difference now.

Let me turn now to a discussion of why Boyarin's call to diaspora, or "not in charge," identity is important and why, if Christians took Paul's message of freedom in Galatians seriously, we would see this importance for inter-faith relationships and for public life.

Implications for Christians of Boyarin's Call

I am afraid that Christians have been and tend to be dramatically supersessionist. (30) We have wielded this like a sword through the centuries, often literally against the Jews. It is clear that the earliest writers of Christian scripture wrestled with how they understood themselves as followers of Jesus as Messiah in relation to the covenant promises that God made with the Jews. In Paul's own writings, Romans 9-11 stands out as a place where we can see this struggle. Subsequent generations of Christians, then, have exploited the scripture writers' struggles to understand and describe their identity in what must have seemed to be shifting terrain. (31) Our exploitation is apparent in the way most Christian seminaries and universities talk about redemption history. If Christians view the biblical narrative as a linear progression in redemption from the Fall to Christ as the culmination, then God's election of Israel is merely a stepping stone to God's real election of the Church. This perspective diminishes God's initial acts of election and "the meaning of 'Israel' as a people is now thoroughly absorbed into the doctrine of Christ and the church." (32)

I wonder if is this faithful? If "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything" (Gal 6.15), then do we, the "uncircumcised," take this seriously? Contemporary Christians are in a much different position now than the church in the first century, when it was dominated by Jews who had a hard time treating Gentile followers of Jesus as equal brothers and sisters. Then, when the "circumcised" had power, submission to the "unpowerful" was an essential divesting of identity in order to live as a person of God. Now, when the "uncircumcised," that is, Christians, are the dominant world power through the vehicle of the Bush administration, aren't we the ones who should be divesting ourselves of identity?

When Christian identity is not manifested in a way that loves neighbors as ourselves, which is Paul's portrait of true Christian freedom, then our freedom is arrogance and we are doing what Paul was afraid of, i.e. "biting and devouring one another" (Gal 5.13-15). Christians have been guilty for a very long time of a type of bullying supersessionism.

So, what does that mean for us? Is the logical extension that Christians have to give up believing that Jesus was and is the Christ? I do not think so. I think that it means accepting a diaspora identity as the very basis of our religion--namely, not being in charge and not seeking to be in charge is faithful to the gospel of Christ. While I understand this literally, I think the underlying principle has longer term significance: by not being in charge we signify that we refuse to force and enforce a particular way of being. Specifically, a "not in charge" identity would allow Christians to let go of the notion that our "rightness" is contingent on another's "wrongness."

In another letter, Paul says it is because of God's reconciliation with the world that Christians are able to be a new creation (2 Cor 5.17). This is why he can call preaching the gospel "the ministry of reconciliation" (2. Cor 5.16-21). I am sure that the ministry of reconciliation has nothing to do with the sword. What if the ministry of reconciliation also has to do with reconciling ourselves (I'm speaking to Christians) to not being in charge? Rather, it is being reconciled to the reality that God is in charge and that God can do what God wants to do.

Not long ago I heard E. P. Sanders speak on Romans 11. There, he said that his understanding of salvation, based on his reflection about the olive tree metaphor and Rom 11.26, has changed over time. He is now inclined to think that God has the power to save everyone and will. (33) I do not know the answer to this, but I ask, what does our faith lose if we think that this is possible? Would we be satisfied to leave the questions of salvation up to God, or would this possibility offend us?

Proposal: "Not in Charge" Mission

We should accept a "not in charge" identity that does not make our rightness contingent on others' wrongness. This is also why I say that we cannot lose Yoder's vision of mission, which is a "not in charge" mission. A "not in charge" mission is important because it challenges a supersessionist mission and it is more faithful to Paul's call to Christian freedom.

Adopting this posture can only be done through a radical commitment to nonviolence. If proclamation of the truth is the basis for our missionary activity, then, since now we only "see through a glass darkly" (1 Cor 13.12 KJV), we need to be ready to receive truth from others. The only way that any of this works is through nonviolence. If the missionary method is violent, then it signifies that it is not confident enough in its truth to be noncoercive.

We should take Luke 4 to heart and learn. There, Jesus, in inaugurating his ministry, read from the Isaiah scroll and said that it had been fulfilled in their hearing. However, he left out the words from Isaiah about God's just vengeance coming. (34) Also, after reading from the scroll, he talked about how in the days of Elijah, healing was granted to Gentiles in preference to Jews. It is right after this that Jesus' Jewish, hometown crowd decided to hurl him off a cliff with the intent to kill him. People became furious because Jesus suggested that enemies will be blessed by God. However, this is good news because it is not dependent on God hurting people in the end. Our identity must be about how to be free enough to love truly and not about whom God will condemn or even whom God will save.

Conclusion

I believe that Boyarin's call to a diaspora identity is absolutely crucial. I value his clear statement on this and find much in common with Paul's exhortation to the Galatians to have freedom as the basis of their new identity. I also take Boyarin's critique of Christian mission as appropriate. I fear that supersessionist identity pervades Christianity and very often results in an unholy way of doing mission. However, a diaspora identity does not preclude the possibility of mission. I confess my own newness to this language as I have outlined it in this essay of response, but I think that Christian freedom calls for mission. Further, I have concluded that it must be a "not in charge" mission. Yoder has done well in bringing this perspective into mainstream theological discussion and we would do well to heed it. In fact, we need to insist on the radicality of this message: the only way diaspora mission makes sense is through a thorough-going commitment to nonviolence, which entails proclaiming that God saves whomever God wishes.

Notes

1. Barack Obama, "One Nation ... Under God?" Sojourners Magazine 35 (November 2006): 15.

2. Obama 15.

3. Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are from the NRSV.

4. Although, in other biblical accounts, we do get the sense that towers are a symbol of human arrogance. For example, see Isa 2.12-17.

5. Furthermore, it looks like builders' impulse to make a tower was in direct defiance of God's will. A second reason for their endeavor (in addition to making "a name" for themselves) is given in 11.4, which is that they may be scattered if they do not consolidate their community in this way: "otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." After God has commanded that humans be fruitful and "fill the earth" (1.28; 9.1, 7), it looks like these people "did not perceive this to be a blessing and so devised means to thwart its fulfillment" (Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 83).

6. See Boyarin's Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).

7. See John Howard Yoder, The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited, ed. by Michael G. Cartwright and Peter Ochs, Radical Traditions (London: SCM Press, 2003). This is a posthumously published work, based on a series of lectures, "Tertium Datur: Refocusing the Jewish-Christian Schism," first delivered by Yoder in 1977 at Notre Dame. In 1999, as a seminary student, I encountered this essay as part of an on-line book. The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited, published by Shalom Desktop Publications (1996). Since the 2003 publication of the book by SCM Press, however, the on-line links to these essays have been removed, which is a shame. As a student of early Christian history and the writings of the Apostle Paul, this collection of essays radically transformed the way I thought about the development of the Christian religion. I wish that they would still be as close at hand for all people interested in Christianity and Judaism as they were for me.

8. Boyarin, "Judaism as a Free Church: Footnotes to John Howard Yoder's The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited," an unpublished paper first delivered at Bluffton University, OH, February 28, 2006, 9. This paper was also delivered at the Mennonite Scholars and Friends Forum, Washington, DC, November 18, 2006 and re-printed in this issue of CrossCurrents.

9. Boyarin, "Free Church," 11.

10. Boyarin, "Free Church," 11.

11. Boyarin, "Free Church," 11-12.

12. Boyarin, "Free Church," 12.

13. See also Yoder's article about ecumenism, where he points out that an unjustified assumption some make in such discussions is that "'we' are right and 'they,' the other Christians with whom we converse, are wrong. If we face honestly the fact that this assumption is only theoretical, and that in fact 'we' have something to learn just as surely as we have something to teach, then the need for conversation becomes all the more clear" ("The Ecumenical Movement and the Faithful Church," in Focal Pamphlet Series #3 [Scottdale, PA: Herald Press], 37).

14. Boyarin, "Free Church," 13-14.

15. Boyarin, "Free Church," 14.

16. Boyarin, "Free Church," 14.

17. Boyarin, "Free Church," 16.

18. Boyarin, "Free Church," 14.

19. Freedom as an underlying theme first appears at the beginning of the letter. Paul opens by reminding the Galatians that Jesus Christ gave himself "for our sins to set us free from the present evil age" (1.4). Being free is what followers of Jesus are and it allows them to be a new creation (6.15). Paul says to the Galatians, "for freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (5.1). He contrasts slavery and freedom throughout the body of the letter and then shows what freedom can look like when walking in the Spirit (5.22-25).

20. Boyarin, "Saul Among the Sophists," an unpublished paper from the conference, "Saint Paul Among the Philosophers," Postmodernism, Culture and Religion 1, Syracuse, NY (April 14, 2005). This paper will appear as a chapter, "Paul the Antiphilosopher; or, Saul Among the Sophists," in a forthcoming publication.

21. In chapters 1 and 2, he states that his authority is by divine, not human, appointment, although the appropriate human authorities did acknowledge his authority. This, however, does not keep Paul from pointing out the hypocrisy of some in leadership in the Jerusalem church.

22. As in 3.10, where he states, "cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the Law." Cf. Deut 27.26 and 28.58-59.

23. As in chapters 3 and 4 in his telling of the story of Abraham.

24. See especially 5.12.

25. Refer to 4.19, where he casts himself as their mother: "My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you."

26. In fact, the whole of chapters 5 and 6 expounds this theme.

27. Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkley: University of California Press, 1994), 228.

28. Boyarin, "Antiphilosopher," 6.

29. Boyarin, "Antiphilosopher," 7.

30. I use the phrase "I am afraid" because I truly fear that this is the case. In this section, I will raise the possibility that it is terribly hard, given the way in which Christianity is related to Judaism, for Christians to be other than supersessionists.

31. I use the word "exploitation" because most Christians use scripture as a way to authenticate a view that things are as they were always meant to be. This is the same critique as Boyarin's and Yoder's about history reading. People read the New Testament anachronistically and assume that the Jewish-Christian schism was already heralded by those authors. We forget that when we read it as a Christian text, "Christian" was an identity being shaped. Acknowledgement of this may help us admit that Christian identity is still being negotiated.

32. Douglas Harink, Paul Among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003), 199. For a thoughtful critique of some contemporary studies of Paul that Harink considers to be problematic because of inadequate reckonings of Israel's election and for his own view of the theological significance of election, see especially chapters 4 and 5, "Israel: 'Who Will Bring Any Charge Against God's Elect?'" and "Culture: Religion and Pluralism in Pauline Perspective."

33. Sanders, "Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism," unpublished paper delivered at the conference, "Saint Paul Among the Philosophers," Postmodernism, Culture and Religion 1, Syracuse, NY, April 15, 2005.

34. Compare Luke 4.18-19 to Isa 61.1-2.