I\u2019m going to mention two important dates in my life. The first is Tuesday, January 28, 1986. That is the date of my first class in a course I took during my first year in seminary called \u201cReligion and the Social Process.\u201d It is the ONLY course I ever took where I still <\/b>remember the introductory comments of one of the three professors who were team teaching the course. \u00a0Professor Joanna Gillespie looked at us and said, very emphatically, \u201cIn this course we are going to give you a lens which will enable you to see structures of oppression.\u201d<\/p>\n
That stuck with me. It kind of hit. I had never heard that kind of talk before. Structures of oppression. I had not really thought much about oppression up to that point in my life and I kind of had the vague impression that oppression was what bad people did to the helpless. \u00a0Oppressors were villains. And of course, I wasn\u2019t an oppressor. I wasn\u2019t racist. I wasn\u2019t sexist. \u00a0Let me tell you, was I ever in for a wild ride that semester.<\/p>\n
In reflecting on this I went back to my notebook from that course. Still have all my notebooks. I was reminded of the phrases and concepts that, as I look back, shaped my thinking and the way I look at the world. Simple things such as an operative definition of oppression:<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Here is one that I found very powerful.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Social structure operates in three realms; discrimination, segregation and stereotype.<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Discrimination – denial of the right to have.<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Segregation – denial of the right to belong<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Stereotype – denial of the right to be<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0And all of this organized around a system of in groups and out groups.<\/p>\n
Now as the course unfolded through the lectures, readings, group and written assignments it became very clear, to me at least, that my own personal beliefs, attitudes and view of the world came out of this whole structural social-political realm. My belief system was<\/p>\n
formed in the context of being a white, middle class, protestant heterosexual.<\/p>\n
Fast forward thirteen years. Thursday, May 20, 1999.<\/p>\n
That is the day I walked into the administration building of Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Malone, New York, to begin my new job as that prison\u2019s Protestant Chaplain. As I walked into that august institution I very quickly discovered that I might as well have landed on<\/p>\n
another planet. It was a different world. And yet it is a world that, in many respects, is a microcosm of the outside world. It is a world where everything is intensified and where the lines of demarcation a brutally sharp.<\/p>\n
Talk about a structure that has in groups and out groups! I mean, you can see it as soon as you walk in. Officers in blue, inmates in green, civilians in civilian attire. It\u2019s right there before you. The lines of demarcation were so sharp that as a civilian staff member I was not permitted to wear green or red. Only inmates. The security staff, the guards, in fact all staff, had to be able to visually discriminate population – that is, the incarcerated ones – from non-population. There are many things a prisoner is not permitted to have. And there are groups to which a prisoner is not permitted to belong, namely gangs. And it is the Department that determines what a gang is.<\/p>\n
It is a world of organized discrimination, segregation and stereotyping.<\/p>\n
Now to be sure, there are sound security reasons for this in most, but by no means all, cases. It wouldn\u2019t be good for prisoners to have guns, knives, drugs, certain metal objects or escape paraphernalia, of course. And gang activities in prison are never good. But the point is all these restrictions are imposed from above.<\/p>\n
However, all too often a line gets crossed. And it gets crossed because staff in that setting are cloaked with power. While at Bare Hill I had two clerks who were inmates. One day I called out for one to come into my office for a moment and in about one second he was in front of my desk with a \u2018yes sir?\u2019 Boom! There!<\/p>\n
Now, in eleven years of teaching prior to that I NEVER had any student respond that way. In 23 years of parenting up to that point I NEVER had a response like that. In 25 years of marriage….well, never mind.<\/p>\n
But I call out the clerk\u2019s name and in one second he\u2019s there.<\/p>\n
Now this had absolutely nothing to do with me. It is no reflection on how my clerks viewed me. You see, there was something else controlling the situation. It was in the form of something called rule 106.10. Rule 106.10 is in a little booklet that is issued to anyone entering a New York State prison to serve a sentence. It is called Standards of Inmate Behavior. <\/i>Rule 106.10 is the only rule printed in bold faced upper case letters. Rule 106.10 states AN INMATE <\/b>SHALL OBEY ALL ORDERS OF DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL PROMPTLY AND <\/b>WITHOUT ARGUMENT.<\/b><\/p>\n
It doesn\u2019t say \u2018follow,\u2019 doesn\u2019t say \u2018comply,\u2019 it says OBEY. Absolutely no wiggle room is given in that rule. And WE, staff, were expected to follow a principle that has a name I\u2019ve always hated, called \u2018zero tolerance.\u2019<\/p>\n
That simple phrase is a manifestation of immense power. So much so that it gets invoked almost as a religious talisman. I would see signs posted that said such things as \u201cInmates can not enter without permission of staff.\u201d and the numbers 106.10 would be printed underneath.<\/p>\n
Power.<\/p>\n
Power.<\/p>\n
We see the manifestation of it. But there is an invisible component to it. It is visibly invisible.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it <\/i>over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.\u201d <\/i>So Jesus told the disciples in our Gospel reading. I\u2019m only going to deal with that statement.<\/p>\n
The phrases \u2018lord it over\u2019 and \u2018exercise authority over\u2019 are each rendered as a single word in the Greek. \u2018Lord it over\u2019 has as its root \u2018kyrie\u2019 meaning lord and the \u2018exercise authority over\u2019 has the word exousia, meaning authority. And the word \u2018archein\u2019 or ruler is in that sentence.<\/p>\n
Ruler. Lord. Authority.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m going to use those three words as a jumping off point into the work of a remarkable scholar who has given me deeper insight into what I began learning thirty years ago in that wonderful course, my experience as a prison chaplain of fifteen years, and an awful lot of what has been going on in our country, world and yes, in our denomination.<\/p>\n
Walter Wink, a New Testament scholar and teacher at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York and who died in 2012, produced a five volume work known collectively as \u201cThe Powers\u201d in which he explores the language of power as used in New Testament writings; how the language is used, how the biblical writers conceived of power and the powers and the very real implications that has for us now. Like all good scholars he was not without his critics but I have found his work remarkable.<\/p>\n
Those three words, ruler, lord, authority, are power words, part of a language of power that, according to Wink, pervades the New Testament. Other words are kings, rulers, principalities, power, name, wisdom, commission, throne, dominion, lordship. He also observes that the language of power is imprecise, liquid, changeable, and unsystematic. His words. But in spite of this there are clear patterns of usage that can be seen. He also finds that, because they are interchangeable, one word can be used to represent them all.<\/p>\n
Now here is one of several kickers. And I\u2019ll quote him directly: \u201cThese Powers are both heavenly and earthly, divine and human, spiritual and political, invisible and structured.\u201d That is, invisibly visible.<\/p>\n
Now here\u2019s the other kicker; the Powers are both good AND evil.<\/p>\n
The processes, definitions and categories that were identified in that course all those years ago could easily be dismissed as mere sociological and psychological reductionism. Explained, or explained away by our modern mindset and world view.<\/p>\n
What I have always found remarkable and invigorating is that this work that Wink had done gives us a way to see all of this theologically and biblically. He shows us a way to have a theological and biblical understanding of these processes and categories.<\/p>\n
Yes, on one level we can think of kings, rulers, principalities, power, name, wisdom, commission, throne, dominion, lordship, as political structures, social systems and institutions. But he found that there was always something that could not entirely be reduced to those<\/p>\n
categories, something immaterial, invisible, spiritual and real.<\/p>\n
He argues that the principalities and powers are the inner and outer aspects of any manifestation of power.<\/p>\n
The inner aspects are the spirituality of institutions, the inner essence of outer organizations. The outer aspect is seen as political systems, appointed officials, the chair of an organization, laws, all the tangible manifestations which power takes.<\/p>\n
Police and law enforcement. Prison guards and prison systems. Chaplains and Administrators in those systems. Governors and governments. Churches and pastors. Bishops. Annual Conferences. Boards of Ordained Ministry.<\/p>\n
There is a visible pole, an outer form – be it church, nation, economy – and an invisible pole, the inner spirit, the driving force that animates, legitimates, regulates its physical manifestation in the world. Neither pole is the cause of the other. Both come into existence together and cease to exist together. And the way the inner and outer aspects of a power work, the relationship they have to each other can be complex and is largely unseen. Unless we look for it. I feel it is legitimate for us to think of the spirit of an institution as having a mind of its own that, collectively, may be fundamentally different from the minds of the individuals within that institution, and that the spiritual aspect can influence in unseen ways those who are a part of that institution.<\/p>\n
When a particular Power becomes idolatrous, placing itself above God\u2019s purposes for the good of the whole, then that Power becomes demonic.<\/p>\n
The church\u2019s task is to unmask this idolatry.<\/p>\n
One example that comes to mind is the long, complex and convoluted legal history of corporate personhood. The Citizens United Supreme Court case was but the latest occurrence in a history that goes back centuries. The whole question of what rights are to be afforded a corporate entity has a long, long history. Of course corporations have long had the right to enter into contractual agreements and individuals have long had the right to file suit against corporations, both of which are aspects of personhood. The longstanding question, though, seems to have been just what <\/i><\/b>rights are to be afforded a corporation. ALL <\/i><\/b>the rights of an individual or just some of the rights? To my mind the simple fact that this question has been seriously considered for so many years is an indication that there is an immense and largely unseen power at work here.<\/p>\n
When a corporate entity gets to the point that IT\u2019s existence and life is it\u2019s only reason for being and is to be considered of more importance than actual individuals and if it\u2019s life is to be fostered at the expense of individuals \u2013 THEN THAT POWER HAS BECOME DEMONIC.<\/p>\n
And this is true whether that inner spiritual dimension is that of a corporation, or a law enforcement agency, prison system…<\/p>\n
even ideas and ideologies…<\/p>\n
And yes, even a religion and it\u2019s concomitant organizations, such denominations.<\/p>\n
As I\u2019ve already stated, the church\u2019s task is to unmask this idolatry. Bring it into the light of day. Make it visible. Allow people to see it for what it is. <\/p>\n
A warning. You know how you can tell if a person or group is successfully doing this? \u00a0The more successful anyone is in unmasking a power and shining a light on it, the more angrily and even violently that power will respond.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve seen it in the Occupy Wall Street movement in which the violent response was, at least to me, horrifying. We\u2019ve seen it in Ferguson when the racist basis of law enforcement was called into question.<\/p>\n
And yes, we see it in our own denomination – now I\u2019m goin\u2019 from preachin\u2019 to meddlin\u2019 here – we\u2019ve seen it in our own denomination in the recent spate of church trials over the issue of marriage equality. Violence doesn\u2019t have to be physical.<\/p>\n
So, that\u2019s it. Our task as part of the Body of Christ is to unmask that which is hidden. To see the invisible in that which is visible. To shine a light and be a light. And to do so without fear. And to do it with love not anger. And yes, to bear the response when it comes.<\/p>\n
For are we not the Body of Christ, and do we not have a task to do?<\/p>\n
Amen.<\/p>\n
Appendix and notes<\/b><\/p>\n
The references to the course Religion and the Social Process<\/i>, a course that was taught during the spring semester of my first year at Drew Theological School in Madison, New Jersey, are based on my own recollections and the notes I took during that course.<\/p>\n
Our required texts were <\/p>\n
The Predicament of the Prosperous, Bruce C. Birch and Larry L. Rasmussen<\/p>\n
Beyond Liberation, Carl Ellis<\/p>\n
Sexual Violence, Marie Fortune<\/p>\n
Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, Letha Scanzoni and Virginia R. Mollenkott<\/p>\n
Hunger for Justice, Jack A. Nelson<\/p>\n
Habits of the Heart, Robert N. Bellah, et al.<\/p>\n
My very brief discussion of the work of Walter Wink is taken from his three volume work collectively entitled \u201cThe Powers.\u201d<\/p>\n
Naming the Powers: the Language of Power in the New Testament Fortress Press, 1984<\/p>\n
Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That Determine Human Existence Fortress Press, 1986<\/p>\n
Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination Fortress Press, 1992<\/p>\n
My comments are primarily from the first volume. For those who are interested, but are hesitant about tackling a fairly monumental three volume work I recommend his 1998 book The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium, originally published by Augsburg and now available in paperback. It is a digest of the third volume with elements of the previous two and at 200 pages considerably shorter than the 784 page total of the three volume work. He also omits almost all the secondary literature references from the larger work.<\/p>\n
One important element in Wink\u2019s work, which I did not address, is his coining the term \u2018the myth of redemptive violence.\u2019 It is a powerful concept very pertinent to our own time.<\/p>\n
This sermon was primarily de<\/i><\/b>scriptive as opposed to pre<\/i><\/b>scriptive. In addressing any kind of prescriptive approach to the issue we need to be aware of some issues regarding the nature of the Powers, for the Powers are ignorant of God\u2019s plan. I conclude these notes with a fairly extensive quote from Naming the Powers. All emphases are mine.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Powers did not know\u201d: seen from the perspective provided by our hypothesis,evangelism and social action are the inner and outer approaches to the <\/i><\/b>same phenomenon of power. <\/i><\/b>I have already described the subversive character of the early church\u2019s refusal to worship the imperial genius and its recourse instead to prayer. Many modern Christians have unfortunately understood injustice in simply materialistic terms and have not recognized the need to \u201cconvert\u201d people from the spirituality that binds them to a particular material expression of power. It is not enough merely to <\/i><\/b>change social structures. <\/i><\/b>People are not simply determined by the material forces that impinge on them. They are also the victims of the very spirituality that the material means of production and socialization have fostered, even as these material means are themselves the spin-off of a particular spirituality. In a new structure people will <\/i><\/b>continue to behave on the basis of the old spirituality, as they have to varying degrees <\/i><\/b>in every communist regime, unless not only the structure but also their own psyches <\/i><\/b>are reorganized.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Evangelism is always <\/i>(Wink\u2019s emphasis) a form of social action. It is an indispensable component of any new \u201cworld\u201d Unfortunately, Christian evangelism has all too often been wedded to a politics of the status quo and merely serves to relieve distress by displacing hope to an afterlife and ignoring the causes of oppression. The repugnance with which most liberal Christians regard evangelism betrays their own failure to discern that all liberation involves conversion. Whenever evangelism is carried out in full awareness of the Powers, whether in confronting those in power or liberating those crushed by it, proclaiming the sovereignty of Christ is by that very act a critique of injustice and idolatry. And as the churches of South Korea and Brazil and Chile and around the world have learned, such evangelism will inevitably spark persecution. In sum structural change is not enough; the heart and soul must also be <\/i><\/b>freed, forgiven, energized, given focus, reunited with their Source<\/i><\/b>.<\/p>\n
Walter Wink<\/p>\n
Naming the Powers<\/p>\n
Pages 116-117<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
___<\/p>\n
– <\/p>\n
Rev. James Sprenger\u00a0<\/p>\n
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady<\/p>\n
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305<\/p>\n
<\/a>http:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n October 18, 2015<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"