Jesus and Empire:

The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder

Richard A . Horsley

Building on his earlier studies of Jesus, Galilee, and the social upheavals in Roman Palestine, Horsley focuses his attention on how Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God relates to Roman and Herodian power politics. In addition he examines how modern ideologies relate to Jesus’ proclamation.

Richard A. Horsley is Professor of Classics and Religion at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. He is the author and co-author of numerous books, including: The Message and the Kingdom (Fortress Press, 2002); Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs (1985); Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (Fortress Press, 1992); Galilee (1995); Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee (1996); 1 Corinthians (1998); and Whoever Hears You Hears Me (1999). He is also the editor of Paul and Empire (1997) and Paul and Politics (2000).

Jesus and Empire

June 15, 2003

by Joe Roos

Matthew 22:15-22

Mark 5:1-13

Luke 13:31-35

Not long after the first Gulf War was over and the Clinton administration came to power, a group of political conservatives with deep roots in American foreign and defense policy gathered to form what became know as the Project for the New American Century. They critiqued fellow conservatives for losing what they called "the moral clarity" of strategic vision formulated in the Reagan years. They attempted to correct the perceived error by setting forth guiding principles for American foreign policy as they envisioned it. In their Statement of Principles, written in 1997, they sought, as they put it, "a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century." Enthusiastically affirming the United States as the world's only reigning superpower, they asserted the need for the U.S. "to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles." (Emphasis mine)

Note especially their desire to "extend" the international order controlled by the U.S., an expanding American economic and military hegemony.

You might recognize the names of some of the Project for the New American Century's founders: Dick Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle; Elliot Abrams; William Kristol; William Bennett; Dan Quayle and Jeb Bush. When the younger George Bush came to power in 2000, he brought with him the heart of the Project for a New American Century to guide U.S. foreign and military policy.

Central to the Project's strategy for American global dominance was control of the Middle East and the first step in their plan was, as they put it years ago, "regime change" in Iraq. In fact, early in the second Clinton administration, founders of the Project wrote a letter to Clinton encouraging the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. While Clinton tried to undermine the Iraqi regime and subsequently bombed parts of Iraq, he declined the path of direct invasion. When this small "cabal," as they are fond of calling themselves, came to power in 2000, the stage was set and preliminary plans got under way for the invasion, well before September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon became the basis for their rallying cry for invasion. After Iraq, the Project's plan named Iran and Syria as the next targets. It is therefore not surprising that the bombing of Iraq had barely stopped when Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney started calling for regime change in both of those countries.

The Project's expansionist strategy for global American economic and military hegemony has just one name that truly fits-Empire. Until a few months ago, the use of the term "empire" to describe American presence in the world was quite controversial. But now, many are publicly and unapologetically embracing empire. William Kristol, the chair of the Project for the New American Century, said just last month: "If people want to say we're an imperial power, fine." While criticizing the U.S. readiness for the role of empire, Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, recently wrote in The Washington Post: "The military victory in Iraq seems to have confirmed a new world order. Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others. Indeed," he continued, "the word 'empire' has come out of the closet."

The newly found candor reflects, I believe, two realities. First, in the aftermath of military victory in Iraq, the need to be coy about our intentions has evaporated. Second, the fiction that we are not an empire has simply become impossible to sustain, and not just because we now occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. According to the Pentagon's own numbers, the U.S. has troops stationed in more than 130 countries around the world, with permanent bases in 40 of those countries. Just last month, the U.S. signed new agreements to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary. The Philippines and Vietnam are next on the list.

Like all empires that have preceded and fallen before this one, and in my opinion, this empire will also fall, the U.S. already shows some of the key faults and weaknesses of empire. The first victim of empire is always the truth as the ruling authorities resort to distortion, propaganda and even lies to achieve their ends. I won't belabor what you can read in the newspaper every day about how the premise for war with Iraq was built on the very selective, manipulated and distorted use of intelligence to support a previously determined course of action, what the intelligence community calls "cherry picking." Some call it lying. John Dean of Watergate fame last week wrote that while he hopes weapons of mass destruction are still found, if they are not, grounds for impeachment of the President are firmly in place. I seriously doubt the will of Congress or the American people to impeach Bush even if the grounds are undeniably there.

With a "who cares" attitude typical of those who feel they hold unchallenged power, Paul Wolfowitz, a founder of the Project and currently Deputy Defense Secretary under Rumsfeld, the week before last shattered the illusion of truthfulness in presenting reasons for going to war by admitting that the weapons of mass destruction argument was simply a bureaucrat convenience because it was the only thing the administration, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, could agree upon. The next day he claimed a major motive for war was that Iraq was "swimming in oil" and provided a dependable military base for the U.S. in the region. Economic and military control is what empire is about.

Another weakness of empire is the way it treats the marginalized within its borders. When so much money is spent on a huge military presence abroad and a controlling intelligence network at home, the poor, the elderly, women and children suffer the most. Jim Wallis put it well in the most recent issue of Sojourners when he said the costs of the war in Iraq and the tax cuts for the wealthy in America are "becoming a silent war" on the poor and marginalized. "The truth is," he continued, "that the hungry poor will go without food stamps, poor children will go without health care, the elderly will go without medicine and school children will go without textbooks so that the taxes of the wealthiest Americans can be reduced." A few weeks ago, Jenny Swan stood before us and lamented the fact that her school does not even have the funds to provide her classroom with paper for children to write on and pencils to write with.

A key question, in my mind, for us as Christians who live in the belly of the beast, as it were, is how do we relate to empire? How can we order our lives in a way that says we are citizens of the Kingdom of God and not of American Empire? With Harvard's Nye reminding us that "not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others," what can we learn from Jesus and the early church about our relationship to empire?

Last November Fortress Press published a fascinating new book by Richard Horsley, Professor of Religion at the University of Massachusetts, entitled, "Jesus and Empire," and subtitled, "The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder." Horsley begins by tracing the emergence of Rome as a single superpower and its establishment as an empire. He next shifts

to Judea and Galilee and surveys the social roots of revolt in Roman Palestine. Finally, Horsley concludes by analyzing Jesus' relationship to imperial rule, assessing the impact of the form of his execution and describing the anti-imperial nature of the early Christian community. I want to briefly focus on two points made by Horsley.

First, Jesus' relationship to the representatives of empire was anything but cozy. In fact, he could be quite direct in his confrontation. While we don't know what he thought of Herod's response to his birth, the killing of the innocents, we do know that he disdained Herod Antipas and called him a "fox," which was a very strong denunciation in the first century. And he ignored Pilate's interrogation altogether.

But Jesus also had a subtle way of critiquing Rome. When confronted by the Pharisees and the Herodians (talk about being compromised!) on the issue of paying taxes to Rome, Jesus avoided their trap by telling his questioners to render to the emperor what belongs to the emperor and to God what belongs to God. Of course, he begged the question of what really does belong to the emperor and probably did so purposely. And in the incident of a man with an unclean spirit wandering around the tombs in Gerasenes, we discover that the name of the demons possessing the man is Legion. Yes, they were many demons and hence they were legion, but it would probably have been impossible for his first century listeners to not hear a subtle criticism of the occupying Roman "legion" forces, especially when Jesus had them tossed into the swine and drowned in the sea.

Second, Horsley points out, although the empire had Jesus executed in the same way they did all political threats and criminals, the empire did not have the last word, by any means, so far as his followers were concerned. Perhaps the most remarkable evidence that the empire did not have the last word was that Jesus' followers expanded their movement among other subject peoples of the empire. In the Acts chronicles of the early church movement, charges were made by outsiders that Christianity taught that "there was another emperor named Jesus" and that Christians were "acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar."

While Horsley's book goes into greater depth than what I can right now, and we may use "Jesus and Empire" next year as one adult education option, I want to conclude by returning to the question, how do we live today, as confessed disciples of Jesus, in the seat of American Empire? Will we not cooperate with the most dominant empire since Rome in a way that others might say of us what they did of the first century Christians in Thessalonica-"They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the empire, saying there is another one who they follow named Jesus"? I want to close by suggesting three directions for resisting cooperation with empire.

First, as individuals and families, deepen solidarity with the victims of empire. Or, to put it another way, reject our privileged status as beneficiaries of empire. For one example, many and probably most of us will receive a tax rebate resulting from the tax cut package. While the

greatest beneficiaries are the wealthiest Americans, a lot of us will receive a rebate ranging from a few bucks to $300 or more. Consider not doing what the president and his advisors want you to do-purchase products and services to stimulate the economy. Instead, redirect those funds, in whatever way you choose, to benefit those suffering the most from the decrees of empire. Send them to Jenny Swan's school so they will have paper and pencils. Send them to clinics, like Columbia Road Health Services where Cathy Egan works, which serve the poorest of our society in meeting their health care needs. Send them to senior citizens you know who are losing prescription drug benefits. Each of us can find countless ways to say, "I will not cooperate"!

Second, as a church, make our witness unambiguous that we are citizens of the Kingdom of God and not American Empire. Our vigil along East-West Highway against the war in Iraq is one example. A few days ago, I was speaking with the pastor of Hyattsville Presbyterian Church. He said, "I've seen your signs for peace and against the war in front of your church. It was great to see another church taking that stand." Our involvement in Community Café and Warm Nights is another example. But as more and more government funds are diverted to maintaining empire and as more and more tax relief for the wealthy is enacted, homelessness and hunger are bound to increase in Prince George's County and around the country. We may need to redouble our efforts and involvement in those activities. Our evolving sister church relationship with a congregation in Bogota, Colombia is another case in point, this time with victims of empire outside this country. We may want to think about other avenues as well. Though I'm sure we have differing views on whether or not to pay war taxes, we may want to, as a church, write the appropriate governmental leaders expressing our strong desire for the establishment of a Department of Peace, which has some congressional support, so that some of our tax dollars can go that direction instead of funding the expanding military needs of empire.

Finally, as individuals and families, and as a church, deepen our relationship to the living Word. The resources of empire are overwhelming in their capacity to shape who we are. If we are not regularly steeped in the Word, if we are not continually deepening our understanding of the words and life of Jesus our Lord and Savior, if we are not bathing ourselves in prayers for God's guidance, we are in danger of losing the spiritual battle with empire. Paul said it best when he wrote to the Christians who lived in the seat of empire in his day:

I appeal to you therefore, sisters and brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so you may discern what is the will of God-what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2 )

In the days ahead, as we individually and together seek to deepen our understanding of what it means for us to be Christians living in the heart of empire, I pray that our minds will remain open to the transforming power of God's guiding Spirit.

AMEN http :// peace . mennolink . org / articles / roos . html