Kruse Kronicle

Jesus Versus Empire?

—

by

mwkruse
in

Did Jesus come to defeat empires? Various scholars and activists seem to think so, ranging from John Dominic Crossan to Walter Bruggeman, to N. T. Wright, to emergent types like Brian McLaren and Brian Walsh. I hear it frequently among some of my PCUSA sisters and brothers. Some of my cyber friends who congregate at Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed also share this perspective. I'm not persuaded, and here is why.

Which of the two following characterizations is more accurate?

1. God's mission in the world is to unmask idolatrous empires, and the Kingdom of God is the means through which it is done.

2. God' mission is the establishment of the Kingdom of God, and pursuit of that Kingdom unmasks idolatrous empires.

I reject 1 in favor of 2. The difference is subtle, but it has profound consequences for our discipleship. The focal point must be on what is to be created, not what is being opposed.

The oneness of the New Testament church resulted in Jews, Greeks, slaves, free persons, people of different classes, women, and men, all worshiping together. This was not a tactical challenge to the empire. It was the people of God simply being the people of God. Yet it deeply disturbed the Roman authorities. I'm sure Paul and the others knew it would do just that, but that was not their motivation for behaving that way. The driving energy was to be the Kingdom of God, not combat empires. Yet being the Kingdom of God would expose the idolatry of empires.

An adage says the best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better. All idolatry is a mixture of truth and deception. When the Kingdom of God is authentically present, it unmasks deception but also confirms and preserves the truth in the idolatry.

When the starting point is the empire and its defeat, then the empire becomes the measure (by antithesis) of our Christian discipleship. We are failing to the degree we bear the image of the empire. We are the Kingdom of God to the degree we do not bear its image. Yet because all idolatry is a mixture of truth and deception, we reject both the deception and the truth. By making ourselves unwitting opponents of some aspects of truth, we merely swerve into another idolatry that is oppositional to the idolatry we are rejecting.

This in no way suggests that we should be ignorant of empires and use our influence to oppose evil and seek justice. However, I typically see the "Christ vs. Empire" mentality working out in terms of iconoclastic, anti-capitalist, anti-Western critique. This is the present empire by which we should antithetically measure our discipleship. Too often, the "Christ vs. Empire" hermeneutic attempts to claim biblical legitimization for trendy intellectual critiques of contemporary culture. It's pretty heady to be among the elite who really know the score and know that you are on the frontlines of bringing down evil empires … just like the fundamentalists know they are protecting the Kingdom of God from corrupting influences and opposing evil empires.

When we read the gospels and Paul and other New Testament writers, we find almost no mention of direct opposition to Rome. Nor do I believe inferred attacks are as pervasive as advocates of the framework claim. On the contrary, we find admonitions to get along with others, to obey the authorities, and even to pray for enemies. While the consequences of being the Kingdom of God as aliens in a strange land are never far from mind, the empire isn't the focus. The Kingdom of God is … and no empire can withstand its prophetic witness.

Comments

20 responses to “Jesus Versus Empire?”

  1. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    Michael,
    This sentiment: “This is the present empire by which we should antithetically measure our discipleship” is all too pervasive in discussions. As your use of ‘antithetical’ notes it is an Hegelian understanding not only of discipleship, but of history. For my part, I don’t know whether I disagree with this more because of an apocalyptic bent as evinced in the well-worn quote by Yoder: ‘The relation between the obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not one of cause and effect, but of cross and resurrection.’ I.e., God’s mission is an apocalyptic inbreaking, just as the resurrection was the apocalypse of the new creation in the resurrected flesh of Jesus, rather than primarily an effect of historical causes (note the qualifier ‘primarily’). This apocalyptic focus in the NT is widespread and more and more scholars seem to be emphasizing it. On the other hand, I wonder whether this Hegelian understanding is ultimately due to a gnostic dualism due to a deficient pneumatology, as to how the Spirit works in creation. All too often the focus on the antithetical empire is very heavenly minded, in the sense that God’s work in this ‘passing age’ is a matter of shoring up the church as opposed to building and creating for the kingdom (which is an earthly, physical kingdom). I wonder how one articulates an understanding of the Spirit wherein she is active throughout the physical cosmos without succumbing to the establishmentarian readings of passages like Romans 13. This concern is not abrogated, I don’t think, by the rise of the religious left, with its emphases on social justice, because it all too often still treats human bodies as disposable (e.g. abortion and militarization).

    Nonetheless, though I share in repudiating this understanding of discipleship, I have to disagree with the tenor of this post insofar as you write “To the contrary, we find admonitions to get along with others, to obey the authorities, and even to pray for enemies.” While the dichotomy of option 1 and 2 you set up can be seen in simplistic blog posts, I’m not sure it reflects actual practice anywhere; on the other hand your sentiments that I quoted are all too often reflected in the actual mindsets of those who have already got along with others and tends to reflect that heavenly-mindedness that the ‘resident aliens’ you admonish also have.

    Reply
  2. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    Clearly option 2. I don’t think option 1 is at all a fair assessment of the positions of Crossan, Brueggeman, Wright, or McLaren.
    Well, okay, I’ll give you Crossan. But he’s a heretic anyway:)
    So yes, the kingdom of God is absolutely the focus. But one of the things it is scripturally characterized by, in addition to healing of the wounded, peace among natural enemies, forgiveness, freedom for captives, and so on, is the subversion of (not rebellion against) empires. When Jesus teaches enemy love, who are the enemies he has in mind?
    Besides, do you really think most Christians are in danger of overdoing this? Isn’t it quite the opposite, that most of us are far too complicit with our particular Babylon?

    Reply
  3. phil_style Avatar
    phil_style

    If the subversion of an organisational structure is the inevitable result of God’s actions/will (preuming for a moment it is inevitable) then does that mean that this subversion was part of the intent of that will from the outset?
    I don’t know. . .

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Let me try this by way of an analogy. When a boy is growing up, he usually reaches a point were he needs to establish an identity apart from his father. That often leads to a period of rebellion. He tries to be the antithesis of his father and create distance. That is a healthy and normal phase.
    But if the boy goes on into adulthood and into the rest of his life guided by the mission of not being his father, then his life is still defined by his father. At some point, a mature man begins to focus on being who he is regardless of the degree it overlaps with being like or dislike his father.
    “When Jesus teaches enemy love, who are the enemies he has in mind?”
    Certainly the Romans would qualify. And what is the point of that enemy love? To bring the enemy into the Kingdom of God. The by-product of that is that transformed people can no longer live completely according to Rome, but stopping people from living like Romans is not the mission. Getting them into the Kingdom is.
    Another analogy. Motorboats create wake as they move across the water but that is not their mission. The purpose of a motorboat is to move people across the water. What happens to empires is in the wake of the motorboat of God’s Kingdom as it unfolds in history. Resistance to empires is not the mission.
    “Isn’t it quite the opposite, that most of us are far too complicit with our particular Babylon?”
    Yes they are far too complicit. But what is the solution? Study Babylon and combat Babylon? Or is it to be the Kingdom of God? I think the presumption is that the way challenges from the empire must be dealt with is to do battle with. Therefore, when I write, “… we find admonitions to get along with others, to obey the authorities, and even to pray for enemies” you see complacency and complicity.
    I submit the Christians did all these things and they only worship God (not Caesar), they formed community across societal divisions, they rescued babies that had been put out with garbage, and (in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) they remained in plague ridden cities to joyful care for the sick and dying while the inhabitants fled in panic. They didn’t do this to oppose Rome but rather because this was simply what being the Kingdom of God meant.
    Direct intentional confrontation is not the only or the best response. “The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.” When the Kingdom of God is authentically present and focused on being the Kingdom of God, then it becomes the iceberg to the Titanic of the idolatrous empires that come up against it.

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “If the subversion of an organisational structure is the inevitable result of God’s actions/will (preuming for a moment it is inevitable) then does that mean that this subversion was part of the intent of that will from the outset?”
    I’d say it is a direct consequence but it is not the mission. When we make “subversion” the mission then we make the empire the directing force in our life. We aren’t called to be contra X, Y, or Z. We are called to be the Kingdom of God.

    Reply
  6. phil_style Avatar
    phil_style

    Michael, I’m inclined to agree with you.

    Reply
  7. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “Michael, I’m inclined to agree with you.”
    Well don’t let it happen too often or this is going to become a very boring blog. 🙂

    Reply
  8. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    “Therefore, when I write, “… we find admonitions to get along with others, to obey the authorities, and even to pray for enemies” you see complacency and complicity. ”
    I don’t see complacency or complicity there. I think those are subversive activities. Although I’d correct “obey the authorities” to “submit to the authorities”. But that’s a quibble.
    I completely agree that the taking on of empires is not a cause but an effect, even a side-effect, of the gospel (sorry to be boring). I just don’t see what the problem is that you seem to be arguing against.
    Should taking on empires be our raison d’etre? Surely not. Do most Christians really need to read, say, Shane Claiborne’s books, and consider how they may be unintentionally supporting anti-God systems of injustice? Absolutely they do.

    Reply
  9. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Travis let me come at this another way.
    1. Because of the presence of the Kingdom of God, are we saved from our personal sins into a relationship with Jesus? Yes. Is this the mission of the Kingdom of God? No. It is a necessary consequence of the mission of God which is to establish his Kingdom. What would you say the consequences are when we substitute our personal salvation for the mission of the Kingdom of God?
    2. Because of the presence of the Kingdom of God, are empires challenged and unmasked? Yes. Is this the mission of the Kingdom of God? No. It is a necessary consequence of the mission of God which is to establish his Kingdom. What would you say the consequences are when we substitute fighting the empire for the mission of the Kingdom of God?
    Neither of these two capture the mission of the Kingdom of God alone or joined together. They are merely important consequences of God’s Kingdom breaking into the world.
    I might summarize God’s mission as to create a world where all the land is the Lord’s and is filled with his icons; where all the people of the earth live and work in perfect shalom; where there is perfect shalom between God and his people; and God is glorified in all things.

    Reply
  10. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I should also add that while there are clear calls by to make personal commitments to becoming part of the Kingdom of God, Jesus does not call upon people to take action against the Empire. Such claims are inferred and, I believe, largely read back into the text. Jesus was singularly focused on the explicating and exhibiting the Kingdom of God, calling Israel to national repentance.

    Reply
  11. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    In this portrayal of God’s mission, you and NT Wright would agree. He would also that #2 above is more accurate.
    Where he goes public on this is with his view that one of the duties of Christians is to call governments to play by their own rules, so that they can do what they are supposed to do: make it possible for humans to live together until the Lord returns. This is a bit simplistic, but Wright will readily admit that he is not an economist.
    I wish he had time to read your blog!
    Dana

    Reply
  12. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    I’m not disagreeing about what is primary and what is secondary, and your description of God’s kingdom is entirely right. I just think you’re underestimating how much the church needs to hear, in our historical moment, about the anti-imperial implications of gospel. This may come down to our respective contexts.
    Let’s think about two other implications or side-effects of the gospel (from Luke 4):
    1. Good news for the poor.
    2. The blind/sick are healed.
    Are there contexts in which both of these are in some danger of becoming the main thing? Sure. Parts of the mainline world for the first one, and parts of the charismatic/Pentecostal world for the second. I can apply your logic to both of them and conclude, rightly, that the inbreaking Kingdom of God is primary, and the specific effect, healing or poverty reduction, is secondary. If I am in the charismatic context, I may be right to warn against focusing on healing as the primary thing. But if you were in, say, a northeastern Episcopal context that downplays intercessory prayer, and you heard my warning, you might well think, “WTF! That’s not the problem!”
    Anyhow, now that I’ve stereotyped all spectrums of the church, my work is probably done 🙂 Keep up the good work!

    Reply
  13. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “…he is not an economist.”
    Of course, neither am I. Maybe we’re both loopy. 🙂
    I suspect Wright might agree with #2 as well. But what too frequently happens is a political/social/economic perspective is embraced (say neo-malthusian neo-socialism) as the Kingdom answer to another perspective (say “progress” oriented capitalism.) Superficial readings of the scripture (“there is no scarcity, just abundance” or “the jubilee instructs us to cancel debts to developing nations,” etc.) are employed in support of the settled upon agenda. Then adherence to this new agenda is equated to resisting empire and being the Kingdom of God. It is not one iota different from behavior of the Religious Right. The Kingdom of God is the cart behind ideological horse.

    Reply
  14. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “Anyhow, now that I’ve stereotyped all spectrums of the church, my work is probably done :)”
    LOL. Thanks Travis.

    Reply
  15. Peggy Avatar
    Peggy

    Interesting conversation….
    The Abbess, is her simple way, just thinks of it like this: the Kingdom of God is about redeeming broken Eikons (and their cultures), transforming people first, and then the transformation of culture will follow. That is why she talk about cHesed so much….
    Thanks for your great posts, Mike … and for hosting some terrific commentors.

    Reply
  16. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    And the pursuit of cHesed will pose a threat to idolatries and empires … but that is not its purpose.
    I do think there is a sense in which we have to be intentional and engaged about cultural issues. If the model we teach is to only worry about redeeming individuals, then that is what each generation of disciples will teach the next generation, and so on. Culture never transforms because it will never be addressed. So I think it is a both/and. I just think the focus is on exhibiting the Kingdom and nurturing traditions and institutions that bring shalom … not making ourselves contra-empire.
    “…hosting some terrific commentors.”
    They are among the best!

    Reply
  17. Sister Florence Vales OSC Avatar
    Sister Florence Vales OSC

    Well, Michael, I agree with you. When all our focus is on living out discipleship we will encounter those who disagree strongly with our way of life. Nothing comes of fighting the opposition who won’t be listening to our arguments anyway. They will be spending their time getting ready for the rebuttal. They will know we are Christians by the way we live. More and more I tell my friends and family it is by the way we live that we witness the truth of the Gospel way of life.
    I know this is not any intellectual argument but it sits at the base of my heart and I know that this truth ” There are three things that last,Faith, hope and love and the greatest of these is love.
    Peace and all good.
    Sister Florence

    Reply
  18. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I’m presently reading Scot McKnight’s “A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context.” In contrasting Jesus’ behavior with expressions NT era Jewish holiness he writes:
    “It might be said that these other holiness movements had different ordo salutis, in which repentance leads to holiness, which permits fellowship. Jesus affirmed, rather, that fellowship leads to both repentance and holiness.”
    We, the church, transform the world more through the way we (individually and corporately) live our lives and the relationships we create, than by selling “personal fire insurance” or combating the Empire.

    Reply
  19. Percival Avatar
    Percival

    Michael,
    I am with you. #2 instead of #1. I often see this difference in approaches among Christians who work here in the Muslim world. Those who target Islam, thinking it is the empire to bring down, are in effect not seeking first the Kingdom of God. This is a very real dichotomy for Christian witness today around the world. The holy lives we lead in community are the best way to expose the shortcomings of empires.

    Reply
  20. Michael Simone Avatar
    Michael Simone

    Agape is a ‘way of knowing.’ Knowing isn’t simply gathering cognitive content.
    To put it another way, I travel a lot and cannot see my wife from a distance. But I know she is reliable because I trust based on years of experience. My love for her is a way of engendering certainty. And hers for me confirms that certainty. And this love is a mode of knowing.
    I’m struck by Wittgenstein’s quote about the resurrection (from Culture and Value): What inclines even me to believe in Christ’s Resurrection? It is as though I play with the thought. — If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like any other man. He is dead and decomposed. In that case he is a teacher like any other and can no longer help; and once more we are orphaned and alone. So we have to content ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We are in a sort of hell where we can do nothing but dream, roofed in, as it were, and cut off from heaven. But if 1 am to be really saved, – what I need is certainty — not wisdom, dreams or speculation — and this certainty is faith- And faith is faith in what is needed by my heart, my soul, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that has to be saved, not my abstract mind. Perhaps we can say: Only love can believe the Resurrection- Or: It is love that believes the Resurrection. We might say: Redeeming love believes even in the Resurrection; holds fast even to the Resurrection.
    Who’d have thought this would come from Ludwig Wittgenstein of all people!?
    Love, praxis, is a mode of knowing no less susceptible of certainty than empirical information gathering.
    I was talking to some agnostic friends about the gospel and they were providing the usual objectivist retorts. I told them love and troth was a way of knowing and use the illustration about my wife. They had nothing to say. This is a powerful argument for the gospel.
    Love is a powerful demonstration of the truth of Jesus Messiah and loving troth embraces him with certainty.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading