the Jesus Manifesto - Latest Comments in Is America an Empire?

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:56:50 -0000

--let me remind you that (even if I thought that these passages argue for support of government) Paul called Rome an enemy in Romans 12. He names Rome as an enemy right before he argues that we ought to submit.--

I've already asked where in Romans 12 Paul calls Rome an enemy. I've even read the other post linked to in the op, and still saw nothing in it about Rome being an enemy.

--By naming America as an “Empire” we name the reality that the USA is not the Kingdom of God--

Umm, no, you don't. You could say that quite well without getting into the rhetoric of "empire" and "enemy".

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:36:21 -0000

The point, for me, is to raise the question "who is our real enemy?"

For example, when Paul in Romans tells us that "if you enemy is hungry, feed him...", I think he is referencing something form Proverbs, which would have predated the Roman Empire.

There is also another use of enemy in Romans, when in ch. 11 Pauls refers to Israel having become an enemy of the church in regards to the gospel, though there is a strong hint in that passage that such a state was not permenant.

Some times when the NT uses words like 'enemy' or 'adversary', then it refers more to Satan.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Jordan Peacock — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:02:00 -0000

At least according to Pseduo-Dionysius, principalities and powers where levels in angelic hierarchy, and those referenced by Paul were the fallen angels of those types.

I'm not sure I agree 100%, but it's a drastically different understanding from earthly government.

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:30:14 -0000

--Was Rome an enemy to the kingdom of God?--

If you're saying we should assume that the answer is "yes", I have to ask "why would I be forced to such a conclusion"?

--The Christian definition is that person or group or thing or Power or whatever that resists the kingdom of God and, should therefore be loved.--

Where did you get that definition from?

--Our call is to love those who are flesh and blood and resist the Principalities and Powers. --

Ephesians 6
12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand .

I would agree with you about resisting principalities and powers, but I can't agree that with this Paul is talking about governments. It would be strange language indeed to tell people to submit and then to resist.

There is at least one other passage where those words are used.

Ephesians 3
10. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

It strikes me that the principalites and powes being mentioned have more of a spiritual basis then a physical--rulers of the darkness of the this world, spiritual wickedness, in heavenly places. That language seems more to do with spiritual then with governmental things.

When Christ was tempted, he was promised all the kingdoms of the world if he would give in to the temptation. Satan claimed to have those things and that they were his to give, and Christ did not say otherwise, but did resist the temptation.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Ben Robinson — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:16:26 -0000

John,

Your use of culture is ambiguous. I'm wondering if you have in the back of your mind the work of Niehbuhr in his famous "Christ and Culture". If so, I think Yoder's critique of Niehbuhr on this point is crucial. Niehbuhr (and at least the way I'm reading your comment) seems to suppose that culture is monolithic, and the task becomes how we relate Christ to already presupposed/established "culture" (that is, in your case, what are the implications for culture). That Niehbuhr seeks to relate Christ to "culture", as Yoder points out, already manifests a problem in the way the church's relation to society is understood. Culture does not stand independent and then require that we relate Christ to it. Instead, the Gospel creates a theological culture of sorts. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus open up the possibility for an alternative modality of existence.

Culture and polity are very closely entwined. But the main point of considering empires as "enemy" is that governmental structures are representative of the old order of being, which is passing away in light of the new order made possible by Jesus. The way in which governments of this world wield power is specifically rejected in Jesus' revolution of the political.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Luke — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:30:05 -0000

When God introduced himself and covenanted himself with Israel he used the form of the Suzerain Treaty which was the dominant political language of that era. The classic work making this point is Meredith Kline's "Treaty of the Great King."
When Jesus appears and covenants with the Church he also used the political forms and language of his day. NT Wright has done massive work in this area. Words like repent, believe, save, Christ, gospel, etc, were pregnant political rhetoric in Jesus' time, though in our time we tend to hear those terms only in a religious sense.
So the language God chose to use in calling both Israel and the Church were I think very obviously intended to convey that these new assemblies were in their very essence a challenge to existing political structures that were using that same language. Thus the "rhetoric" of both the Old Covenant and the New were provocative toward the state in an important and directed sense. Not offensive or abusive language I don' t think, but at least pointed enough that the identity of the Church as over against the state was abundantly clear.
However, as time progresses, words change and some usages just become obsolete. An empire becomes a democracy, a king becomes a president, and suddenly and seemingly irreparably, Jesus message is blunted. And that's why I somewhat enjoy the use of provocative language like "empire". It's not perfect, but It's as though someone has at least bothered to pull out a file and set to work attempting to resharpen the message of the gospel in a crucial way.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Mark Van Steenwyk — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:22:57 -0000

Was Rome an enemy to the kingdom of God?

If the answer is "yes?" In what way? Not because it was an entirely evil thing. Was Rome an enemy governmentally? Culturally? Religiously? What is the line between these things?

Who is an "enemy?" Is it an other that we seek to destroy? That is the American/French/Russian/Cuban/etc. definition of "enemy." The Christian definition is that person or group or thing or Power or whatever that resists the kingdom of God and, should therefore be loved.

Our call is to love those who are flesh and blood and resist the Principalities and Powers. That is why we turn the other cheek when struck yet proclaim a Gospel that undermines the Powers.

Re: Is America an Empire?

John — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:07:04 -0000

My concerns are much like jazzacts. By saying that America is an "empire" and therefore the "enemy," what does that do to one's thinking on other aspects of life or society....for example....culture. There are places where culture is more of an influence over a group of people than is the state. France is one such example. Is culture an enemy of the Kingdom of God, too? Making such absolute conclusions is dangerous in my mind because it has implications on how one sees other aspects of society, like culture. All I have been trying to say is that a more nuanced analysis of this issue is needed.

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:17:43 -0000

Ok, how about this...

Why even worry about using the rhetoric of "empire" and "enemy"?

For example, if by "enemy" we mean something/anything that can take the place in our priorities that rightfully belongs to Christ, then while the concept may be good, the use of "enemy" may be questionable.

For example, if for whatever reason a hobby of mine, let's say chess, becomes to much of a priority for me, then whose fault is that? If I pursue a mastery of chess to the detriment of my Christian maturing, then is the problem with chess or with me?

Or maybe to use that in a living example, suppose my family becomes too high a priority. Suppose that I were to feel called to missions, but didn't pursue it because my family didn't approve. In that, perhaps fault could be more balanced, in that there would be some active striving to keep me from doing what I should do. But in the end, my failure would be my own fault.

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:58:26 -0000

--Hence the smiley face.--

Good point.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Jordan Peacock — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:11:44 -0000

Hence the smiley face.

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:35:49 -0000

--We can eschew ‘enemy’ for the more biblically appropriate ‘anti-christ’ if preferred.--

I don't know, I can't say that that's any less loaded, either.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Jordan Peacock — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:09:41 -0000

On loaded statements:

We can eschew 'enemy' for the more biblically appropriate 'anti-christ' if preferred.

:)

Re: Is America an Empire?

mountainguy — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:56:45 -0000

"would you define China as being ‘third world’, or more particularly Beijing as being a ‘third world’ place?"

Well, China is a very weird country in politics: its governed by a so called comunist party, but it may has the highest privatization rates in the whole universe. Anyway, by the way how you described this Beijing market, I'd state that it's "culturally third-worlded".

Blessings

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:52:06 -0000

One more thing, to clarify something...

--At the same time, I really wonder how the people who use such loaded rhetoric as “Americs is an empire” and “America is the enemy” can really accuse me of being arrogant and insulting. Maybe I am, but then, I find such rhetoric arrogant and insulting, too.--

I realize that most here mean those statements in some different ways, but there is still the use of that kind of rhetoric, and yes it is very loaded. There was even the thought earlier that "enemy" may not be the best word (which I agree with), and I say that "empire" is similarly not the best word to describe the current situation.

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:31:10 -0000

--That’s ok. It simply means that when you engage in discussion here it should be done humbly and by asking honest questions and sharing honestly about your opinions. Instead you have gotten almost instantly defensive about almost every other comment, and you’ve responded in an arrogant, almost insulting tone. --

I'll grant you something there. I did have to apologize to van Steenwyk for some thing I'd written that weren't accurate or fair.

At the same time, I really wonder how the people who use such loaded rhetoric as "Americs is an empire" and "America is the enemy" can really accuse me of being arrogant and insulting. Maybe I am, but then, I find such rhetoric arrogant and insulting, too.

--You really haven’t given simple examples of why you think the US is not an Empire, you just attack anyone who thinks it is.--

I did give the definitions of empire and contended that none of them matched reality, which sparked the start of this particular debate in the first place.

Also, last I checked, it was incumbent upon those accusing or labelling to prove their positions.

--You seem to be more concerned with justifying the actions and paterns of the US than you are with discussing why you think those particular actions fail to make the US “Empire”.--

Have I not admitted that the US has made its share of mistakes, if not more then its share? At the same time, why should I not justify actions if they are justified?

Re: Is America an Empire?

Michael Cline — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:47:26 -0000

Not a single mention of Haiti in this loop. Check out the history of U.S. relations in the poorest country on the western hemisphere (even after gaining independence over 100 years ago!) Not everything that has been done is a fault of "U.S relations" but we certainly haven't helped matters. It was after listening to the voices of the Haitian people in 2003 that I first woke up to the imperial nature of the U.S.

Re: Is America an Empire?

jazzact13 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:27:00 -0000

--hahahaha, its always funny to see “first world” people buying in our “third world” markets.--

There was a question that came to my mind, mountainguy, a bit later--would you define China as being 'third world', or more particularly Beijing as being a 'third world' place? Because it was in Beijing where I experienced what I related in the market. While I did see some places in China which gave the impression of being possible on a 'third world' level, much the same could be said about places in the US.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Mark Van Steenwyk — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:38:23 -0000

The problem is that the definition of "empire" isn't universally agreed upon. I am not an expert, but some brief research seems to indicate that an "empire" is a state that has power over nations. In other words, it is a central government that has power over different cultural and ethnic groups different from the imperial culture.

Everything else seems to be controversial: does this apply only to central governments that exercise military power over those ethnic groups? What about political or economic power over nations?

I believe that, even holding to a strict definition of "empire" (meaning a central government with coercive military power over subordinate cultures) applies to the US, especially when looking over our entire history. The US has coercive power (the legal "right" to use force) over:

1) A number of territories outside the US.
2) A large number of Native American nations.
3) The ancestors of dispossessed slaves.
4) We currently occupy Iraq and Afghanistan (I'm not saying this to be snarky...we are technically occupying foreign land. Even if we are doing this for the noblest of reasons, it still fits the definition).
5) The state of Hawaii used to be its own kingdom, I believe. And so, that is an entire nation under US governmental control. Sure, they are citizens of the US...but many once subordinate persons became Roman citizens too, and Rome was certainly an empire.

We have also intervened in many situations to help bring down rulers and promote other rulers. We've waged conflicts in Afghanistan (Charlie Wilson's War), Vietnam, Korea, the Philippines, etc. (for more on this, go here: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interv...)

And this doesn't even go into the "contraversial" definitions of empire which include economics and culture.

Casey was correct in pointing out the 700 bases the US has around the world. We don't allow other nations to have bases in our country (which is wise), yet we can have our bases around the world? Have we ever seen a non-empire with such global military presence? I think this fact alone qualifies us as an empire.

Re: Is America an Empire?

Jordan Peacock — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:14:35 -0000

John:

If you'd prefer a different term please propose one; i'd be up for it. Empire seems a little weak when compared against past empires - none of them truly encompass the scope of what America currently runs; politically, economically or culturally.

As Casey Ochs said, "If it walks like duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck." Or maybe it's a new species that fits many of the same characteristics. Nevertheless the real concern here isn't so much about the word empire, it's about the characteristics. Those that argue the letter of the law here are missing the spirit; it's not about whether or not America meets the dictionary definition of empire, but whether or not it's influence is large enough to justify using scriptures that point to Christians' relationships with Rome to help understand our situation with America. If it's similar enough, then we're affirmative, whatever we want to call it.

I did not craft that statement about naivety within division in mind, and I apologize if I alienated (you or anyone else). Whether or not Americans define their nation as an empire, please understand that (generally speaking) outside your borders that is how you are understood.

And again, I wanted to frame this in less moralistic language; hence the mentioning of your large aid contributions and whatnot. Not all influence is negative influence but all influence is influence, and no one but America has the heft to make its influence felt everywhere else in the world. If that does not mean empire, it cannot mean much less.

Re: Is America an Empire?

John — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:26:41 -0000

Mr. Peacock believes that one cannot argue that America may not be an empire. He says, "To argue otherwise is quite frankly, naive." I am on the fence here....but this kind of statement frustrates me. I have been following this conversation and have yet to read any real definition of empire. I see a lot of statistics and a lot of conclusions, but no explanation of empire. This makes me think that people are reaching for a conclusion without establishing a foundation. This, in my opinion, undermines the conversation, which would be better served by beginning with the basic definitions and not the conclusion,

Re: Is America an Empire?

Jordan Peacock — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:00:09 -0000

That's the logical extension of my point, and that was something that I've discussed with people numerous times. I myself do not hold voting up as the source of all freedom but it would be a nice start.

Logistics would be a bit messy though, and the partner of voting (education) is fairly inconsistent across the nations. That's another problem for another time though.

Re: Is America an Empire?

mountainguy — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:43:17 -0000

"Because no matter which country you were from, you felt the ramifications of that election."

I'm sceptic about votations, but if USA wants to be a honest nation, the presidential votations should be sufraged in the whole world (And I mean the very WHOLE world).

Re: Is America an Empire?

Jordan Peacock — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:38:01 -0000

Heh heh, sorry about the sentence that died there. I guess I lost my train of.

;)

Re: Is America an Empire?

Jordan Peacock — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:36:30 -0000

Just as a fun little caveat on the immigration bit:

Having been an illegal worker (outside of the U.S.) and an immigrant (to the U.S.) I would say that those who are affected by decisions ought to have a say in making them, regardless of gender, race, religion, political beliefs, past convictions, residency status, etc. If they are there and affected, their voice should be heard.

On the other hand, even if I could vote here in the States, I wouldn't because of many of the reasons Mark mentioned, as well as some more pragmatic ones; see Scott Adam's blog for those. But there are many ways to put forth your voice without voting.

As for the debate about empire, well, I'm flabbergasted that there's even a debate. Like the statistics above show (which are frankly, out-of-date as some of them are far higher, military spending for one). Even 'good' pressure like the % of UN Peacekeepers that are American or the billions of dollars in aid and charitable giving Americans give each year are testament to their position of dominance. To argue otherwise is quite frankly, naive.

Despite that status, I remember a situation in Sydney, at Hillsong Church where the students (1/3 Australian, 1/3 American, 1/3 everybody else) were challenged to come pray for the election in America in 2004. Why? Because no matter which country you were from, you felt the ramifications of that election. Tragically out of a group of a couple dozen, a mere 2 or 3 Americans even bothered to show up, as the Nigerians, Swedes, Australians, New Zealanders, Japanese, Kenyan, Lebanese, Emirati, Canadian, Danish and others prayed desperately for a an outcome that would bring blessing to the world.

I don't think that lack of showing was due to apathy or to spite, but more due to ambivalence and ignorance, and an unwillingness to admit how far-reaching the effects are.

In the same way, this year the whole world is watching this nation, because while the stone is being thrown here, the ripples will touch every nation in some way.

If that is not the literal definition of empire, it is surely the spirit.