Book
Miguel A. De La Torre. Liberating Jonah: Forming an Ethic of Reconciliation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2007.
Reviewer
Daniel Smith-Christopher, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA
Miguel A. De La Torre, who is on the faculty of Iliff School of Theology in Denver, has written a challenging, provocative volume that is based on a reading of the book of Jonah but includes an engaging though brief contemporary social analysis in order to place this reading in the modern context. Beyond the preface and introduction, there are six chapters.
De La Torre was once asked if there was any reading of Jonah available that considers Jonah’s message from the perspective of “the margins of society” (ix). His work is an attempt to respond to his observation that he knew of no such work.
In the introduction, the author lays out one of his primary arguments: Jonah is a book about reconciliation. However, De La Torre’s reading presents this as reconciliation in a context of unequal distribution of power – as exemplified by the Israelite, Jonah, facing Nineveh, symbolic of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires that were ancient bitter, oppressive enemies. The author is well aware of the potential for manipulating themes of “reconciliation” as a way for the powerful to try to get the oppressed to resign themselves to their subordinated fate.
“It is important to recognize that those who benefit from the present power structures cannot be relied upon to define reconciliation,” says the author, “or to determine how to go about achieving it” (2). He advocates no cheap “peace” that does not engage injustice: “Still, any quest for reconciliation cannot advocate premature peace. A desire to ‘forgive and forget’ can bring about only a cheap reconciliation that sacrifices justice for the sake of serenity” (5).
In a sense, De La Torre wants to read Jonah from “Jonah’s perspective” confronting Assyria, that of a subordinate confronting the powerful. In chapter one the author reads each of the four chapters of Jonah. After a brief discussion about the historical reality of Assyrian brutality in the Ancient Near East, he then begins his read through the book itself. His analysis is largely literary, drawing only occasionally from contemporary historical-critical commentary. One of his main sources is Rabbinic legends about aspects of Jonah, which not surprisingly highlight some of the main literary themes that he is interested in.
In Chapter Two, “Who was Jonah, What was Nineveh?” De La Torre reads Jonah and Nineveh as models of the oppressed and the socio-economic realities of that oppression in the 18th to 20th centuries of the European and American West. Characteristically, his strongest focus is on the racialized borders of modern socio-economic systems within the US historical context. He is rather dismissive of attempts to work “within the system,” because the system itself must be transformed. What it is to be transformed into is not so clear, short of frequent calls for a “redistribution of income.”
Chapter Three, “Reflecting on Jonah,” proceeds to a specifically Christian analysis, raising issues about reconciliation in the Christian tradition. Here De La Torre brings together a profound interest in reconciliation as a Christian reality with the difficult “praxis” of justice – reconciliation never cancels the need for change, in his reading.
In Chapter Four, “Praying through Jonah,” De La Torre clarifies that reconciliation must be initiated only by the oppressed: “Any definition of reconciliation must arise within marginalized communities. Those who presently benefit from the existing social order lack the objectivity and moral authority to define reconciliation or even recognize the need for reconciliation….” (88). The author seems to accept nothing short of revolutionary change for authentic reconciliation.
This becomes problematic when he tends to minimize the courageous acts of individuals because they do not transform entire socio-economic systems. This sense of helplessness in the face of evil systems sets up his sense of hopelessness in the final chapter.
Any doubt about the kind of change De La Torre calls for, and who must do it, is extinguished in Chapter Five, “Pitfalls Jonah Should Avoid.” Included are comments about internal politics in various ethnic and cultural minorities, as well as problems in dealing with Euro-Americans. Euro-Americans are largely not trusted for a credible analysis, because “Euroamerican Christians, either from the fundamentalist right or the far liberal left, probably have more in common with each other and understand each other better than they do Christians on the other side of the racial and ethnic divide” (125).
So great is the task of social transformation, and so little the will to do it, that De La Torre despairs of it ever taking place even in his grandchildren’s generation (143).
In the final chapter on “Case Studies,” the author offers stories of attempts by individuals to seek social change and then raises questions about each case. For example, the first case describes recent Native-American reactions to the Columbus Day celebrations in Denver, and asks the reader to consider what forms of protest or response would have been appropriate, given that Native groups were denied most opportunities for legal, peaceful protest.
A second case describes Daryl Davis, an African-American, who attempted to make contact with members of the Ku Klux Klan in order to force a dialogue on racism with those who have publicly stated he is not welcome in America. He even managed to make friends, leading some members to leave the Klan after long conversations with him.
These and other cases are intended to raise questions about the individual actions of people of color, but one is left wondering if these studies are signs of hope or of futility, given De La Torre’s previous analysis.
Reading as a Quaker informed by Anabaptist theology, I honor individual acts of faith – attempts to live an alternative reality within the rigid systems of oppression – and that same Anabaptist conscience sometimes wonders if this is the best to be hoped for. I will not minimize or trivialize such individual actions only because they are fall short of the revolution.
Furthermore, I am not in sympathy with an exclusively racialized social analysis that refuses to consider the potential bridge-building (and recognition of historical realities) that are served by a more thorough-going class analysis.
Finally, I am concerned with De La Torre’s tendencies to homogenize the very different experiences of Latino, Asian, Native, and African-Americans in this society. If we have learned anything in the postmodern, postcolonial dialogues within Biblical Studies, it is to pay attention to the unique social experiences of different peoples, cultures, and even historical time periods in relation to questions of power. “People of color” is becoming a dubious generalization for social analysis.
My disagreements should not be taken to indicate that I did not deeply appreciate De La Torre’s fascinating meditations on the socio-economic contexts of a modern reading of Jonah.