What Became of Opposition to "Empire?"

Yesterday at Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight linked a great post by Allan Bevere where he raised an excellent question:

I know I am not the only one who has noticed that all the Christians comparing the USA to the Roman Empire during the reign of George W. Bush are strangely silent now that we are under the emperorship of Barack Obama. And yet, how much of President Obama's foreign policy looks virtually the same as his predecessor.

I've been very aware of this absence as well and find it quite revealing. Here is what I wrote (slightly edited) in a lengthy comment.

The defining feature of Empire is its totalitizing agenda. Everything and everyone must come under the service of the Empire. That certainly has implications for how and empire relates to those outside its immediate influence but it equally involves how it subjugates those who reside in the empire.

Liberals have used the Empire motif for American international interventions under Republican leadership. It is a characterization worthy of reflection. But what about the Empire building of progressivism?

Not long before being elected senator, Obama talked of a Second Bill of Rights … channeling FDR. It is a common mindset shared by the left. The original Bill of Rights lists “negative” rights, telling what the government will not do. The Second Bill of Rights would be “positive” rights guaranteeing everyone a home, health care, education, recreation, and so on. In other words, government moves from being a referee for free and virtuous people taking responsibility for themselves and their communities to government being the direct or indirect provider of every aspect of our basic existence. Every sphere of life … business, education, medicine, compassionate care … becomes an extension of government management used toward government’s guarantee of positive rights. All institutions and traditions in our various spheres of life are made to serve the Empire.

If you’ve read much of Roman history you will know that Rome was a Republic until just a couple generations before Christ was born. There was some separation of powers and checks on power in a system governed by patricians and plebes, each with their own pyramidal network of client/patron connections. With the rise of the Empire, Augustus and later Caesars began to portray Rome as a household with Caesars as the paterfamilias of the household. All other households were now clients to the one household of Caesar.

At Christ's birth there was still a considerable distribution of social strata running from senator to slave. But over the next two or three centuries, freedoms eroded while land and produce was steadily siphoned away from citizens by powerful government elites to the point that the elaborate hierarchy of Roman society had been flattened to a handful of wealthy elite and everyone else. That was the Empire that had just found its legs during the era of the N.T. Church.

Thus, Empire isn’t just about international expansionism but bringing every sphere of life under one authority placing those spheres into the service of that authority. True Anabaptists that I have known over the years get that. That is why they come out from society to be a separate witness. What I don’t get are the self-proclaimed Hauerwasian Emergent style Anabaptists who level the Empire critique against Republican internationalism while actively and fervently campaigning for social progressivism. It strikes me merely as social progressivism dressed up in spiritual language.

I’m not an Anabaptist but neither do I believe political solutions are the primary answer to most human problems. The threat of Empire is ever present yet I believe we are called to be present in all spheres of human life, and discerning how best we can continue to nudge our communities and structures toward a more shalom –filled world. My experience is that most of the Empire talk has little to do with robust theological analysis and much to do with legitimizing political agendas.

Comments

[Naum]

Which Christians?

Names, quotes, titles (and today, links) so readers can see for themselves?

These are not the habits of a serious critic who wants to engage with people who are wrong.

Otherwise, it's a nebulous "them" or "they".

From my vantage point, I observe the same criticisms of "empire" and how the new administration is mostly "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"…

[Michael W. Kruse]

"From my vantage point, I observe the same criticisms of "empire" and how the new administration is mostly "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"…"

Then you are fully aware that people are using the metaphor of empire and there is no need to provide you with links. My point is that the left has not been using the same critique of "Empire" against Obama. It makes no difference that they are truly unhappy with Obama. The issue is whether or not the Empire critique is being used. I can't provide you with links to absence of something.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Naum. Your last post was accidentally deleted. You Wrote:

"No, the point is that you made a claim ("left has mot been using the same critique") without any substantive evidence and/or sources supporting it.

OTOH, a simple google search will show you just about all progressives and "the left" gnashing their teeth over Obama's failure to turn the course in this regard. Or lamenting his sellout and kowtowing to corporate interests.

Even the Democratic loyalists accept that Obama has not done right in this regard, yet they merely champion him as a lesser evil/or not moving fast enough in that regard.

So, in other words, you threw out a false equivalency, borne out with no facts, sources, links, etc.…"

To which I respond:

“No, the point is that you made a claim ("left has mot been using the same critique") without any substantive evidence and/or sources supporting it.”

Nice parsing. What I wrote was:

“…left has not been using the same critique of "Empire" against Obama.”

The issue addressed by this post is not whether or not the left is critical of Obama. The issue is whether they use the Empire metaphor to critique Obama.

I’ve lost patience. All further posts you make at this blog will be made under your actual name linked to a website that publically identifies who you are so you can take public responsibility for your comments. The name “Naum” is now blocked.

[Chuck]

I fear that too many Americans have lost sight of how we as a nation are surely on the slide toward tyranny. This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue. It's an American issue, and we had better wake up to the fact that we are at a crossroad as a nation. Will we continue down the road toward the "nanny state" and tyranny, or will we rescue our Republic with her limited government, maximum freedom, and personal responsibility? The answer to that question is itself seriously in question.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Chuck it seems to me that we go through a period of national rediscovery about every eighty years ... roughly four generations. 1770s-1780s was the founding of the nation. 1860s was dealing with issues of federalism. 1930s was a period of sorting our response to being an industrialized economy. It seems know we are struggling to define our role in a globalized post-industrial world. Unfortunately, the consensus in each era came only at the end of highly rancorous division. I think its going to get worse before it gets better ... but I think it will get better.

[Travis Greene]

I haven't found this to be true, but then I do hang out with a lot of Anabaptisty types. I'm sure there are many who have stopped using the language of empire as much.