"They carried the word ‘brotherhood’ always in the mouth, while they founded terror regimes."
- Hannah
Arendt,
Uber die Revolution, pp. 21; 318
PHILEMON REVISITED,
PART ONE
THESES ON PHILEMON:
REDUCTION OF SEDUCTION
“My theme is seduction, resistance, and the cultural
consequences of both.”
That provocative opening line (p.1)
of Henry Abelove’s monograph on John Wesley, The Evangelist of Desire, has
always elicited from me a smile, as well as a healthy respect for its accurate prediction
of the flow of his paper.
In a sense, Abelove’s salvo serves
just as fittingly for the thematic intent of this current article, and in turn
for the topic of the article itself: the biblical book of Philemon.
My working assumption is that
Paul’s quietly subversive letter to Philemon--partly because its “theme is
seduction, resistance, and the cultural consequences of both” --may well be
the interpretive key and even kerygma-in-microcosm of the entire Pauline corpus, theology and
worldview.
I do not view this claim as
hyperbolic hubris; though I certainly
concede that it is quite a
supposition for a book that for most
Christians is barely acknowledged and rarely read; and per many scholars is
not sufficiently lengthy, meaty, or “theological’ (!) to merit such a distinguished and distinctive
role in the canon.
If churchgoers have heard anything about this
shortest letter of the New Testament, it is likely the “radio orthodoxy” (Brian
McLaren’s delightful phrase) view that it is “about” Philemon’s runaway slave,
and Paul’s encouragement that Philemon forgive said slave.
That party line may be partly
right…and in the end, largely wrong.
If congregants have seriously studied
the text beyond downloaded sermons and popular literature, they may have even
run into Callahan’s alternative view (Callahan, 1997) that Philemon’s supposed
slave Onesimus was not a slave at all, but literal brother to Philemon.
That take may be half-right;
perhaps even dead wrong.
Philemon: Key and Keynote
Though it sounds counterintuitive
to proffer that this tiny epistle holds the veritable key to all of Paul (among
the more “obvious” candidates are the majestic narrative of Romans or the
comprehensive compendium that is Ephesians), I am at least in good
company: F.F. Bruce (1983), Marcus Bath
(2000), and N.T. Wright (2013), to varying degrees and from differing angles,
unashamedly assert the same.
Philemon : A Tale of Two Brothers
Though it may appear contrarian and
contrary to accepted logic to offer that this letter is actually about a call
for two brothers-by-blood to
reconcile, there is no more obvious way
to read verse 17 with grammatical and contextual integrity. Some (Callahan et al) are convinced that in
Philemon, the slavery is metaphorical (not the brotherhood, as almost
universally assumed), and the brotherhood is literal (not the slavery, as
usually assumed). A surprisingly compelling
case for this interpretation can be made; but more likely is the scenario that
Philemon and Onesimus are both
master/slave and brother/brother. Exegetes as astute as F.F .Bruce (not
convinced) and Timothy Gombis (convinced) have weighed in here.
Philemon: Call to Manumission
Though it may feel a stretch for
the historical milieu for Paul to be advocating release from slavery
(manumission) for Onesimus, I make the case that Paul was prescient and
prophetic enough to do just that…albeit between the lines… yet in a way clear
and clamant for Philemon to decode and decide upon.
“Forgiveness, Radford
Reuther suggests (in Pinnock, p, 205) “is not simply a transaction between God and the individual soul that has come to recognize its
sinfulness. Politically interpreted, forgiveness means concrete acts of
repentance expressed through social struggle to overcome oppression and to create a more just world.”
As for the “seduction, resistance,
cultural consequences of both”?
Paul’s cruciform-shaped approach to
leadership, status and power issues necessitates that any correspondence by him
inevitably both incarnates (especially in a delightfully intentional choice of
literary style and rhetorical genre) and
advocates (via a surprisingly subtle-sneaky
narrative arc) a radically Christocentric and stubbornly kenotic refusal
to submit to the seduction of seeing a brother or sister in Christ (let alone
sister or brother “in the flesh”) as “the other” or in any way less important than self. The cultural consequences--not just for
ecclesiology, but for sociological issues such as slavery—are thus significant
and sweeping. “History,” as Walter Wink would
have it, “belongs to the intercessors.”
Bottom line, then? What is Philemon “about”?
Paul is writing to Philemon, about Philemon’s
fugitive slave Onesimus, who is also
Philemon’s half brother; he is
arguing for unconditional restoration of Onesimus , which includes the “even
more than I ask” release from
slavery. This is all embedded with
profound implications for subversion of empire and dismantling of ecclesiological
hierarchy.
In this series of articles, we
shall eventually weave all these theses into a tapestry and “contexture” with
we believe is faithful to an informed hermeneutic. We begin with the initially confounding issue
of Paul’s literary approach.
-----------------------------------------
THE LITERARY APPROACH OF PAUL: Humor, Holy Fool, Prosopeion, and ‘Paradigmatic
I”
“I could command you, but I appeal
to you ought of love”?
“Any decision you make will be
spontaneous and not forced”?
“Oh, by the way, you owe me your
would”
Paul’s language and literary
approach have been much maligned, yet little understood. He has been read as being (at best)
disingenuous and passive-aggressive, or (at worst) sycophantic and manipulative
to a degree that borders on messianic complex.
I believe a third way unpacks the dilemma and makes salient sense of the
intuitive embarrassment and discomfort we feel overhearing Paul’s appeal. In a word: humor. In several words: a mosaic (and not at all
prosaic) humor based loosely (?) on the “holy fool” tradition and rhetorical device of prosopeion; a holy humor laced liberally
with a playful but profound twist of (almost) irony and mimetic
self-reference. All of this is of
course at great risk, and presupposes a deep, abiding and adamantine trust
between sender and recipient.
Is Paul being authoritarian to a
fault, all the while claiming the opposite?
No, St. Paul is smarter…and not smarmier… than that. He is more humble than he has been given
credit for; and decidedly not proud of his own humility. Per McLuhan, his medium masterfully
matches—even equals and incarnates—his message.
On humor in Philemon, consider Marcus Barth:
In contrast to the doctrinal style of Romans; the irony and sarcasm found in Galatians; to
the apologetic, wailing, and aggressive passages of Second Corinthians; and to
other idiosyncrasies of other letters, in Philemon the use of contrasts is a
sign and means of underlying good humor. Humor is, according to
Wilhelm Busch, where one laughs, “in spite of it," even in the face of grave situations.
The mighty apostle of
the omnipotent Lord Christ is a prisoner in Roman hands (w. 1, 9-10) and
chooses the role of a beggar before Philemon (vv. 8-9). The child Onesimus was created by a father in chains (v.
10), who was, according to some versions of verse 9, an old man! A pun is made on the name Onesimus
("Useful") in verse 11. God's purpose in permitting separation was to
establish eternal union (v. 15). Paul and Philemon are business partners, and Onesimus can substitute for Paul
by being the third man in the association (v.17) Philemon is much deeper in debt to Paul than the
apostle eventually is to the slave owner
(vv 18-19). Paul hopes confidentially that he will benefit from Philemon — not only materially but by finding
rest for his troubled heart (v 20)..... Overflowing obedience is the sum of complete
voluntariness (v. 21.) A man whose chances for quick release from prison were less
than certain invites himself to a private home for the near future (v. 22). All or at least a part of these elements can be considered, or are, humorous.
It is not certain whether
Paul intended this impression, and whether Philemon was capable and willing to appreciate jokes pertaining to his relationship to Onesimus and to Paul. But together with other earliest hearers and readers of PHM, modern readers are by no means
prevented from responding with a smile or a chuckle. The dreadfully serious issue of the slave Onesimus's future is treated lightly
— a fact that reminds of the role of slaves in Greek and Latin comedies. Obviously bitterness
is neither the only nor the best way of reacting to grave issues. Indeed, Philemon has a hard choice to make, but the decision-making process is sweetened as much as
possible — by humor. (Barth and Blanke, 2000, pp. 118-19)
Paul is acting
(literally) oddly, but not obsequiously.
He is flirting with a not-quite full-blown prosopeion,
a technique which is definitely in his repertoire and arsenal (see especially
Romans 7); it is deployed here even more covertly than the infamous “I know a
man..” of 2 Corinthians 13.
His persuasive approach seems inspired in part by the prophetic
tradition’s use of “holy fool, “which Paul directly affirms in 1
Corinthians 4:10. Later Christian
history finds Eastern Orthodoxy creatively adopting this approach, in yurodivy , "which is caused
neither by mistake nor by feeble-mindedness, but is deliberate, irritating,
even provocative.” (Ivanov, 2006, p. 211)
St. Francis was clearly another practitioner, as are Malamattiya
Sufis. I make the case that in
postmodern pop culture, persons (and personas) such a Stephen Colbert (“Is he a
conservative playing a liberal playing a conservative?)” and U2’s Bono (as
Screwtape/MacPhisto) have taken up this torch in ways that are in fact helpful
in confirming Paul’s modus in Philemon.
These may be all too easily be discounted as leitmotif-lite, but the remarkable theological sentience and skill of
both Colbert and Bono betray a wise and profoundly Christian (hence Pauline)
mechanism of adapting “holy foolishness.”
Brian J. Dodd, at length:
Paul
uses large blocks of material containing self-portrayal to ground or add weight
to his argument (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9; Gal. 1-2; Phil 3)…Occasionally, Paul’s
self-portrayal verges on self-praise, creating a social need to employ accepted
literary techniques to mitigate the odium and offence of his
self-discussion…While Paul often portrays himself as a technique of
argumentation, it is striking that he nowhere transgresses the stigma against
self-praise except where he also offsets its offence…
Against
the backdrop of Philemon’s watching community, Paul develops a distinction
between commanding and appealing, a feature that is not distinctive to
Philemon. He exploits his right ‘in
Christ’ to command (8) only in order to contrast it with his loving appeal (9-10),
while crediting Philemon with the sense to
do what is good and right (14) .
How
then do we understand the ambivalence of Paul’s request, since he repeatedly
appeals to Philemon’s volition so he may freely choose the right thing (8-9,
14, 17, 20), all the while allowing the undercurrent of his authority to flow
freely (21-22)? The answer may lie in
his implied paradigmatic strategy in the letter. That is, Paul’s ambivalence itself may
exemplify the attitude he wants Philemon to adopt in his reshaped relationship
with his slave: as Paul refuses to assert the authority he clearly possesses,
Philemon is coached in the responsibilities of his newly reformed relationship
with Onesimus. Paul wants to gain
Philemon’s consent so that he will freely do what is good, not by compulsion (v.14).
By this example, the seed is sown for a new phase of the master’s relationship
with his slave. Paul does not compel Philemon to act, thus patterning for him a
new style of interaction with his slave-become-brother Onesimus…
...In
Philemon, Paul exhibits self-restraint of his authority by explicitly refusing
to command as he appeals to Philemon to forgo freely his grievance with
Onesimus. This display of Paul’s
self-limitation of his authority is combined with an example of love and generosity
to demonstrate paradigmatically the manner in which Philemon is to treat his
slave-who-has-become-a-brother. Though
Philemon has the legal right to be harsh with Onesimus, Paul asks Philemon to
grant Onesimus the same loving and generous treatment that he would extend to
this elder missionary….Paul’s status as an elder and as Christ’s metaphorical
prisoner affirms Paul’s authority in the community in the strongest terms, and
his repeated emphasis on his imprisonment creates an emotional receptivity to
his appeal as a captatio
benevolentiae. Whether or not
Philemon would have or should have taken the letter as a suggestion he manumit
Onesimus cannot be ascertained, but it may be implies by v. 21: ‘I am confident
of your obedience to the things I write, knowing that you will do more than the
things I have asked.’
Thus,
by the time of Philemon Paul’s rhetorical use of self-portrayal has blossomed
into a full and intricate flower, and the paradigmatic aspects are difficult to
extract from their intrinsic relationship with the other aspects of his nuanced
epistolary persuasion. Philemon is the
apex of a literary style that is already evident on Paul’s earliest letter. (Dodd,
--
Partial
Bibliography
Abelove,
Henry. The Evangelist of Desire:
John Wesley and the Methodists. Palo
Alto: Stanford, 1992.
Barth,
Markus and Blanke, Helmut. The Letter to
Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary).
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Bruce,
F.F. The
Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New
International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hey, thanks for engaging the conversation!