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