Sean the Baptist

I am giving a paper this afternoon (to our Partnership Research Seminar) based on some work in progress on Matt 28.16-20.  The paper's title is "Mission, Empire and the Son of Man: Re-reading the Great Commission (Matthew 28.16-20)".

The basic thrust of the argument is that, given the complex interweaving of mission and empire in the modern wester missionary movement, and given that Matthew 28 was a key text in the development of that movement (Carey's re-interpretation of its force and focus), there is a need to explore whether this text can be read in ways that do not inevitably lead to either (a) the church's complicity in the western imperialist project (then and now) or (b) the church's construction of its own theological hegemony.  The first option is susceptible to the standard postcolonial critique; the second to a more developed postmodern critique.

 In the paper I argue that there are two features of the text that suggest that a non-imperialist interpretation is possible.  the first is to recognise with Warren Carter et al that the gospel, and specifically this text would have been read by first readers as an implied critique of the Roman imperial project, with the risen Jesus challengiing the claims to universal authority made by the Roman emperor.  This takes us some way to addressing (a), but does little to help us with (b).  Therefore I go on to argue that we also need to see how the implied reader of Matt 28 is invited to see the risen Jesus in this pericope as the Danielic Son of Man, to whom is given authority as the fulfilment of his earthly ministry and in anticipation of his final coming and triumph.  Thus, those who obey his command, must do so fully aware of what that authority does and does not legitimate (cf the ουν̉ of v19).  Or, in the words of the conclusion to the paper: "It is not just that the church in mission is unfaithful if it uses the structures of secular imperial power; it is also unfaithful if it claims the absolute authority that belongs to Jesus, for itself and when it wields its own power in a way that is not consistent with the earthly ministry and suffering death of Jesus."

The aim is to use this as the basis for several differently focussed papers over the next year.  One on how this affects Baptist understandings of authority; one much more exegetically focussed on the anti-imperial backdrop to the text and its intertextual relationship with Daniel 7, and one on the reception history of Matthew 28.

See, I can talk about the New Testament after all!  Whether I do so coherently or intelligently will be better known after I have given the paper.