1 Lords Prayer as a Postcolonial Discourse: An Analysis of St.

Matthew 6: 9-13

Discourse Analysis: Discourse Analysis has become an important ground for critical thinking in literature, social sciences and theology. Terrance R Wardlaw in his Discourse Analysis lays down the basic principles of how biblical te!ts can be analysed within the framework of discourse analysis. "iblical te!ts are at once literary and religious te!ts. Wardlaw says, #The e!posure of the ideologies of te!t, interpreter and interpreting institutions is of some importance within any hermeneutic approach$ %&'(). Thus biblical discourse analysis mo*es away from the basic sentence structure to the social conte!t within which language is situated, the conte!t of its making and interpretation%s). Discourse becomes utterances within conte!ts of speaking, writing, reading and interpreting. Wardlaw says, #Discourse analysis is the analysis of language and its use beyond the sentence, and this includes the analysis of language situated in its social conte!t$ %&(+). Thus Discourse Analysis, and ,ritical Discourse Analysis, in particular, looks at language in a social conte!t. Postcolonialis : -oore and .ego*ia made a remark that it is difficult to propose where precisely it is that postcolonial biblical criticism begins and ends. They argue that #postcolonial biblical criticism seems to emerge out of liberation hermeneutics, or e!tra biblical postcolonial studies, or e*en historical biblical criticism or from all the three sources at once$ %/). 0ostcolonial biblical criticism can be defined as a *ariety of hermeneutical strategies characteri1ed by their political position and ideological agenda, and whose biblical interpretation ultimately concerns hermeneutic of retrie*al of the marginali1ed *oice. 2t interacts with colonial history and its aftermaths, which concerns both a history of repression and of resistance. 2t challenges the totali1ing forms of western interpretation, e!posing its co3optation by imperial interests and destabili1ing its frames of meaning. 2t is a counter hegemonic discourse paying special attention to the hidden and neglected *oices as well as the *oices of protest or opposition in the te!ts. Lords Prayer as a Postcolonial Discourse: The te!t -atthew '4 5316, commonly known as the 7ord s 0rayer can be treated as a literary discourse which counters the then e!isting Roman imperial politics of 0alestine. 8esus ,hrist, while teaching his disciples how to pray, was on another le*el teaching them how to critici1e the imposing politics, which was oppression and sub9ugation for the 8ewish identity. 2t also delineates how the teaching of the prayer, and reading and interpreting the te!t today, counter the power discourse which e!isted in 0alestine in the first century, and which still e!ists in the world, in *arious forms. As Wardlaw opines, #The commitment of critical discourse analysis to social change is therefore theoretical grounding for focusing upon the application of the "ible to social change$ %&((). Discourse analysis of a biblical te!t must take into account the discursi*e, te!tual and social implications and practices. Traditional interpretation tends to read the 7ord s 0rayer to find theological, spiritual and eschatological meanings, but it fails to read the prayer as emanating from imperial situation , and hence, fail to retrie*e the discourse of the coloni1ed. The discursi*e practices of 8esus and his community were linked to the social formation of a marginal community for resistance in the social, economic and political realities of the then Roman

& :mpire, as 0hilips and 8orgensen state abo*e. Teun A *an Di9k in her ,ritical Discourse Analysis states that the differences between the micro le*el social order %which includes *erbal utterances, communication and language use) must integrate with the macro3le*el social order %like, power, dominance and ine;uality) in critical discourse analysis of a te!t %6/<). =ere, 8esus interpolates his *erbal utterance with the social and political ;uestions of power and hegemony, thereby trying to empower the colonial sub9ects to disturb, challenge and counter the e!isting legitimacy of colonial dominance. Discourse of !od as "ather a#ainst the fatherhood of $aesar 4 2n such areas where literary theory and theology merge, a discourse analysis of the words used by 8esus in his prayer within the social conte!t, opens our eyes to the counter discourse offered by 8esus to the colonial Roman power. ,olonial mimicry cracks the certainty of colonial dominance and creates uncertainty in its control of the beha*iour of the coloni1ed. The 7ord s 0rayer mimics the Roman colonists by internalising and duplicating their ideology of colonialism in order to disrupt the colonial power and knowledge. -aking use of the colonial discourse of legitimi1ing ,aesar as father of the land, 8esus and his community o*erturned this symbol into mockery by attributing the *ery notion of father to >od. The fatherhood of the ,aesar for the coloni1ed was one of domination and e!ploitation. ?ur @ather in 7ord s 0rayer ga*e preferential option for poor and oppressed, as the one who heard their cry. @ather is a sa*iour in 7ord s 0rayer which is contrasted with the e!ploitati*e fatherhood of ,aesar. =ence calling >od @ather was a direct challenge to the Roman rule. This mimesis problemati1es the authority of the emperor and his position and enabled the coloni1ed to resist the fatherhood of the colonial master. 7i*ing in3 between >od and ,aesar, and calling >od as father, may be treated as 8esus and his community s postcolonial strategy that enabled them to strategically adhere to >od and turn their contact with the coloni1er into a strategic space of resistance. 0hilips and 8orgensen say, #A language users can change the order of discourse by using discourses and genres in new ways or by importing discourses and genres from other orders of discourse$ %(&). 0roclamation of kingdom by 8esus destabili1es the colonial epistemology of kingdom . Bingdom was a discourse familiar to the then e!isting 0alestine, because they were assailed by the Roman kingdom in economic, social and political matters, and e*eryday. 8esus imports this discourse in the prayer. Roman colonial discourse of 0a! Romana promised peace and prosperity for the world. "ut it benefitted only the powerful, and marginalised the ma9ority. =ence when 8esus proclaimed a counter discourse that promised >od s reign, it produced a narrati*e for an audience who longed for change of order in their world. 8esus announcement of the counter kingdom did not originate in a *acuumC it was announced against the background of Roman colonial discourse. Wardlaw opines that the kingdom of hea*en implies the accomplishment of >od s rule and >od s will on earth. And peace , Wardlaw ;uotes -.A.0owell, is not a passi*e peace for 8esus. @or him, it is an acti*e encounter with in9ustice, a counter discourse against the political and social in9ustice, then and e*en today %6D6). $hallen#in# the %otherin# of the colonial discourse: The construction of the uni*ersal image of the colonised ?ther is the primary strategy of colonialism. They construct the colonised ?ther as the binary opposite of the colonial self which in turn results in the ob9ectification of the ?ther as primiti*eEunci*ilisedEinferior. 2n the 7ord s 0rayer, this othering is clearly seen in

6 the material depri*ation and multiple socio3economic burdens imposed upon the colonised. The 0harisees and the .cribes considered the ta! collectors, women and sinners as others who did not belong to their category for table fellowship %7k./4&(361). "ut 8esus challenged this othering and initiated open commensality which profoundly negates distinctions and hierarchies of richEpoor, maleEfemale, gentileE8ew %7k.1<41/3&<). The prayer refuses to accept the colonial ga1e that looked at their body as the site of hunger, debt default and dependency. The we language in the 7ord s 0rayer functioned as a symbol that brought together all sections of people at the same le*el. This symbol is against the construction of the dominant self o*er against the other$ which does not conform to the category of the self . @or the coloni1er, the coloni1ed constitutes the other who are ob9ectified and e!ploited. The women, the unclean, the ta! collectors, the .amaritans, the gentiles constituted the other . "y cutting across all binaries, 8esus proclaimed a kingdom of us 4 a kingdom for the oppressed and the destitute, a kingdom focused not on nation or empire, but a kingdom in which people li*ed together without any di*ision. Mission of the $hurch: As @r. Dr. B.-.>eorge says, #The li*ing community is the real hermeneutical matri!$. =ence church being an interpretati*e community , re reading of biblical te!ts in such a discourse analytical framework, pro*ide potential to inform and transform the contemporary struggle of marginalised in a postcolonial conte!t in 2ndia. ,hurch should not be coloni1ed to the Caesars of the world. =er duty is to listen to the will of >od and act as a transformati*e force in this world. 0articularly in the present conte!t of globali1ation and market economy, which accentuates the gap between ha*e and ha*e3nots and marginali1es a dominant group, church has to orient herself to the transforming mission of creating practices and narrati*e discourses for the *ision of a society where kingdom of >od will become a reality on earth. 2t is possible when church orients her belie*ers through word of >od, prayer and liturgical practices. 2t creates in belie*ers a transformed self , rooted in kingdom *alues as proclaimed by 8esus ,hrist. &'()S $*+,D Di9k, Teun A *an. #,ritical Discourse Analysis$. Discourses.org. D1 April &D1&. 6/13(1. -oore, .tephen D. and @ernando @ .ego*ia. #0ostcolonial "iblical ,riticism4 "eginnings, Tra9ectories, 2ntersections$. Postcolonial Biblical Criticism. :d. .tephen D. -oore and @ernando @. .ego*ia, 7ondon4 TFT ,lark. &DD/. /3'. 0hilips, 7ouise and -arianne W. 8orgensen. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. 7ondon4 .A>:, &DD&. Wardlaw, Terrance R. #Discourse Analysis$. Words and the Word: Exploration in Biblical nterpretation and !iterary Theory. :d. Da*id. > @irth and 8amie A >rant. 2llinois4 2nter*arsity 0ress, &DD+. &''3 61(. >eorge" B. -. #An ?riental ?rthodo! Approach to =ermeneutics$. ndian #ournal o$ Theology. 61E63< %15+&). &D63&11.