Tuesday, April 10, 2007
God and Empire
John Dominic Crossan has created a wonderful new book "God and Empire: Jesus against Rome, then and now". I was fortunate enough to hear Crossan speak in person for the first time in January and he gave a lecture that turned out to be a synopsis of this book. Crossan points out that a major shift in the study of New Testament theology is well underway thanks to the our more developed understanding of the Roman Imperial theology common in the first century. Crossan goes into detail about the archeological findings supporting the Roman mythological claims that Caesar Augustus was the son of god, lord, savior of the world, god of gods and bringer of peace. To claim that Jesus was any of these things was high treason and explains the brutal persecution of early Christians throughout the Empire.
In addition to setting Christianity as an opposing force to the Roman Empire, Crossan makes the case that the bible from start to finish is a radical political statement against the normalcy of civilization. In his eyes, civilization is not art, music, literature, and cuisine. Instead, the normalcy of civilization is imperialism, which can be translated as the use of force to extort and oppress others. It is hard to argue against Crossan. Everything we know about history supports this view of civilization and everything we've learned about Jesus tells us that he didn't buy into this violent approach.
The basic premise of the book is not that Rome was against peace. Instead, Rome was in favor of peace but their roadmap to peace was through war and sustained through oppressive taxation and violence. Augustus was seen as the one that saved the empire from the throws of civil war (hence the term savior of the world) and brought an unprecedented peace to the nations. The premise of this book is that the Romans (and all Empires before and after) sought peace through the method of violence but the vision of God is to create lasting peace through justice. This contrasts human retributive justice (punishment) v. God's distributive justice (sharing). That is where we come in. We have a choice about how we will fight for peace. Will we use violence or justice as our tool? The difference is dramatic because history is filled with examples of how peace obtained through violence is a temporary illusion. Not until we accept Jesus’ principles for peace through justice can we ever hope to achieve the sustainable peace intended by God.
Crossan doesn’t leave the present day application of this lesson up in the air. He boldly makes the claim that America is the new Rome. I agree.
19 comments:
Mike,
Thanks for the synopsis of the Crossan book. Yes, the Pax Roma and the Pax Americana are imperialistic and enforced by military power. That more than 80% of Iraqi's want us to leave is a sign that we have become imperial occupiers, no matter what we might say.
In our recent discussions, you've asked about what informs my theology. I've made the case that my primary source is the Bible (especially in original languages) and the secondary sources of commentaries and other writings (I try for ones that are closer to the date of Scripture). Scripture is to inform our worldview, not the other way around!
So I have a question- what informs your theology? In your recent posts, you seem to approach theology through the lens of Crossan more than Scripture. After a while, the posts begin to sound more like teen-angst "rage against the machine" lyrics.
Just a reminder: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6:12).
One thing I certainly do agree with in your posts is that our theology indeed must influence our actions and lifestyle. Right belief must result in right behavior...right?
Thanks for the history info...insightful stuff.
Jeremy (ReverandRockStar),
I would cite the same priority of sources. If you are looking for scripture references then let’s start with Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah. If you don't believe me then read a few of the books I've reviewed here.
Crossan provides some of the best Exegesis available to us today. His commitment to the archeological community is a big help in unearthing the context of these scriptures. His commitment to scripture is remarkable. I'm in awe of his passion and motives. His goal (and mine) is to get at the original meaning by striping away the layers of prejudice added thorough centuries of misunderstanding. His goal is to look without biased lenses. That is never 100% possible, but that is the goal and he certainly achieves that better than anyone else I've read by letting the texts speak in their original context not ours. So I completely disagree with your analysis. I can't read in the original languages but he can so I do need his help. Crossan is willing to drop his worldview and dig into the world view of the Roman Empire to unearth the meaning of scripture. It is the modern worldview that produced fundamentalism by subjecting scripture to its anti-enlightenment, anti-darwin, pro-imperialism, formula based mentality.
I'm a bit too old for the "rage against the machine" reference, but I like the name. If their message is to lash out against imperialism, violence, and injustice with a counter of peace through non-violent protest then they are true prophets of God to be held in high regards just like the prophets Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, John, and Jesus, etc. If they were a bunch of stoners pissed off that they got bad grades or couldn’t get their music put on MTV then that is something different.
If theology causes a nation of Christians to sit back and ignore injustice and imperialism then that theology is no better than the "passion play" theology put in place in Germany under Hitler.
George Bush is no more responsible for this war than the Pastors across this country that don't understand the political nature of the Bible and its passionate claims that imperialism is not only wrong, but it is also doomed. Bush is only a symptom of the root problem. The ministers that preach their fundamentalist theology supporting imperialism and ignoring its effect on justice are the real source of blame. I honestly feel that if Bush understood the Bible he wouldn't have started this war, ignored the poor, and run us into debt at the hands of lobbyists. That isn't entirely his fault. Somewhere a minister (or several) failed his (I would add "or her" but I know better) responsibility to take the bible's message seriously and the results cost thousands of lives.
I know that sounds harsh, and I'm sure the ministers that frequent my blog are NOT part of that group. There are a few out there fighting for peace and justice and they have my deep admiration. It is one thing to blog about this stuff, but it is another thing to put your livelihood on the line. My hat goes off to any minister willing to preach the radical political message called the Kingdom of God.
Thanks for this. Is this book just out? I hadn't heard of it and I will pick it up.
I have learned a great deal from Dominic Crossan. I remember he changed my thinking with one sentence.
The scandal of the early Jesus movement was emphasis.
Not Jesus was SON OF GOD, but,
JESUS was son of God.
Opposed of course to CAESAR as son of God.
Thanks John,
The book is fresh off the press. I had pre-ordered it from Amazon.com and it came last week. I finished it last night. It covers a broad range of information including a full chapter summarizing his work done in "In Search of Paul".
Enjoy. I'm interested to hear your comments about it also. I'll be making a couple more posts about it this week.
I have grave reservations about Crossan's work on the historical Jesus, but this book sounds promising. It is one of several recent books by many authors emphasizing that the Jesus movement was anti-imperial. I have others in this line, especially Horsely's, higher on my list than anything by Crossan, but I will add his to the list.
I should say that Crossan is not as unbiased as you indicate and he is a LOUSY archeologist. But I still think this book will probably be a good one because he is far more knowledgeable about the wider Mediterranean world than he is about 1st C. Palestine.
I can't say that I've every heard him claim to be an archaeologist. However he runs in the company of some including Johnathan Reed. Crossan seems to stick to exegesis based on archaeological findings unless there is some work of his that I'm not aware of.
I'm always skeptical, but I've yet to see him make any big stretches in conclusions. However, I think anything that will deny the literal interpretation of the miracle stories or divinity of Jesus is going to be seen as difficult for you, Michael. I do understand your reasoning but I disagree.
I hope that even literalists will catch this aspect of Jesus' and Paul's messages. I'm not sure it is possible but I have hope.
The reason I give him credit as being realatively clear of bias is because he is one of the few theologians that attacks these issues and is willing to question everything. Most people (and I argue you are in this category) are willing to only question or investigate up to the point that it may invalidate their own storngly held beliefs. That doesn't mean he is 100% unbiased, but it does show me he is trying more than others.
When people start their analysis with the idea that orthodoxy or a particular interpretation of scripture can't be questioned, then they are not likely to be seen as credible. The Crossan critics always start with the approach that he is not credible because he is willing to question Jesus divinity or the accuracy of scripture. Well, any analysis worth is salt has to question those things if only to prove them. If you place limits on the scope of your analysis then you are limiting the credibility of your results. Crossan has turned the tables by leaving the whole thing open for debate. I like that approach.
Michael Westmoreland-White gives good advice regarding Crossan: I'm sure that reading Crossan we can gain other perspective, but just be wise in knowing that it may be biased toward an agenda!
Mike, you said, "If theology causes a nation of Christians to sit back and ignore injustice and imperialism then that theology is no better than the "passion play" theology put in place in Germany under Hitler."
I totally agree with you that anyone who abuses Scripture by developing a theology that does not result in action is a fool! In fact, I would doubt if that person were even a true follower of Jesus (even if they were a pastor!) Solid Biblical theology results in action. This is faith (read James).
However, it is foolish to focus merely on a possible political message in the Bible while neglecting the rest of Scripture that, if applied correctly, will transform lives, behavior, and logically spill over into politics.
Speaking of politics- I'm not even going to get into the Bush debate right now. Suffice it to say that I would not trust any politician as much as I trust Jesus, so until He's the president I will pray that God may guide whoever the leader is. After all, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prov. 21:1). God has been known to draw straight lines with crooked sticks.
Regarding Crossan- if he were the leader of our country (or any country), I doubt things would be much better! It would probably result in a system more like extreme Islamic run governments or maybe even Hitleresque.
If I were you, I would invest the time needed to understand Scripture itself better. This is what has helped shape my worldview:
1. Pray for wisdom
2. Invest the time in learning the languages (this way you won't have to listen to me or Crossan, but see for yourself!)
3. Pray for humility.
4. Study the text (spend more time doing this than subscribing to ANY agenda).
5. Let the text speak.
6. Pray for more wisdom.
7. Apply it.
Two more things:
1. I'm not a staunch literalist- I'm a Biblicist. When the text is literal, I literally apply it. When it is a metaphor or symbol, I seek to understand the original historical context. In both cases, I pray for wisdom for a modern-day application.
2. I actually saw "Rage Against the Machine" in concert twice...I heard the guitarist has a law degree from Harvard.
Jeremy we are all "Biblicists". We all love the text and pour over it. That is why we have these discussions. I certainly don't mean to label you in a way you don't agree with. I assumed "literalist" was a label you would desire. I'll use whatever term you want to define the "camp" that you are in. I'm not sure what term to use. I don't think you can claim "Biblicist" since that would NOT differenciate any one that admires the book.
For now I'll try to use the phrase "those folks that take the miraculous bible stories as literal history rather than parable" if that sounds better but damn it sure is wordy. Let me know if you have a better term.
You said:"When the text is literal, I literally apply it. When it is a metaphor or symbol, I seek to understand the original historical context."
Of course we all do that. The question is determining when it is meant to be literal. I see the gospels as clearly metaphorical (as I do for most of the text). I see real history behind the stories, but I see the poetic language, symbolic events, and highly manipulated dialogue as artistic flair. For me that makes it MORE valuable than if it was simply a historical biography.
For a man who doesn't like labels, you sure have a way of assigning labels!
I taught a few High School Bible classes at a Christian school (and will continue next school term). It's a great experience- I love to teach. It's my desire in those classes to not so much make the students ascribe to a certain theology or philosophy (i.e. Calvinism, Baptist, Emergent...) but to teach them to read and understand the Bible and think in context.
"How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart is a good intro to Biblical exegesis and reading/thinking contextually.
Sorry for the label thing. I also realize that I shouldn't be sarcastic in this medium because it can come across as just being an asshole rather than being funny. But I can never resist (sorry!). I sometimes forget how the proper sentiment is not conveyed in writing like this. Forgive me if a give the wrong impression. I value our discussions here. Thanks for hanging in there with me. Somewhere beneath these discussions is going to be some common ground to "work for political change in our world". Or if cliche metaphorical phrases work better then I'll translate that "usher in the Kingdom of God".
As for Fee/Stuart, I've read it. I had once wanted to go to seminary, but since I have no desire to be a pastor I just bought the books and read them all myself. It is exegesis 101 at most conservative seminaries but it could be used at real schools also (just kidding. damn sarcasm again!).
Gordon Fee has an assemblies of God background so the pentecostals like him. I was at a Vineyard church for a while (longer than I'd like to admit) so that is where I first encountered his book. Actually I found it to be good. You are right. It does a great job of explaining the basics of biblical study. I wouldn't agree with his theology, but the priniples of this book are definately correct. He highlights how one might define the original meaning of a passage (exegesis)and then develop the applicable meaning (heurmaneutics). He also gives a very good overview of the different types of books in the bible.
The really funny thing is that the church I was once in thought he, a very conservative theologian, was too "liberal" becuase he taught actual study of the texts. I'm not kidding! The people I knew at that church thought God actually wrote the bible and any talk about an author's own insight into the text was heresy.
It is not true that I "have trouble" with any interpretations that deny a "literal interpretation" of miracles or the divinity of Jesus. First of all, I don't know what a "literal interpretation" of Jesus' divinity would be. There are models of divinity--some of which are more convincing to me than others. None are the result of straight exegesis.
As for miracles, I am quite open to some of them being later legends, some of them being what Borg calls "history metamorphized," etc. There is simply nothing in my worldview that rules out literal miracles ahead of time. Therefore, I demand that this be argued on a case-by-case basis.
Crossan is narrower. He thinks miracles do not happen. So, HE prejudges the evidence while I try to keep a very open mind. Which of us is the liberal?
Also, there is no such thing as "exegesis based on archeology." Exegesis is the reading of texts, pure and simple. Archeology might throw light on the background of texts, but that is all it can do. You can't eat soup with a fork; it's the wrong tool. Likewise, you cannot exegete with archeology--archeology can, at best, throw light on the historical background of texts in a very general way.
Mike-
I enjoy sarcasm- believe me, I am having a good time in reading and writing on your blog- no worries, it doesn't come across as ill or harming to me, just funny!
It sounds like you have some great stories of your experiences- we must meet up and talk about them over a beer (hopefully next week, right?)
The new Crossan book: I've not had a chance to pick it up. I definitely want to check it out so I can have more first hand experience with this particular discussion.
As Michael Westmoreland-White states, "Also, there is no such thing as "exegesis based on archeology." Exegesis is the reading of texts, pure and simple. Archeology might throw light on the background of texts, but that is all it can do. You can't eat soup with a fork; it's the wrong tool."
Those are good words. One of my favorite classes in seminary was called "Encountering the Biblical World." It was a Bible backgrounds class taught by an archaeologist (who was a PhD, but had no formal seminary training). He gave INCREDIBLE perspective regarding Biblical times and places. He lived and worked in Israel for nearly a decade. Since my main study emphasis was on languages, you better believe this class really rocked my world! It helped make the text come to life!
Thanks for the comments guys. I recognize that none of you are extreme literalists or fundamentalists. As for miracles, I hope our generation can deal with this debate better than the last few generations. I hope we find the language and techiniques to apply the "more than literal meanings" together in our world despite our different worldviews.
I'm not sure how you see Archeology as having no impact on exegesis. Archeology has had a profound impact on our study of ancient documents. For example in Crossan's new book he goes into great detail about how inscriptions found recently have helped us better understand Roman Imperial theology in new ways. I would argue that any understanding of the title "son of God" applied to Jesus is inadequate UNLESS we first understand that this title was already a common title for Ceasar Augustus. Archeology strengthens that understanding and sheds new light on our sacred texts by revealing exactly how common the phrase had become. Many supporting texts help clarify context and many texts are found literally ON ancient buildings.
Another example that crossan gives here and in his book about Paul is that they have recently found census data recorded on inscriptions which gives new light to what the term "God Worsippers" actually means in the New Testament. They have found that a large section of the population in 1st century Israel was made up of people that participated in Jewish religion to some lesser degree but were not actually Jews. Here these people are called "God worshippers". I'm not sure how we would interpret that the same without this finding. This may have been the central audience for Paul not the "gentiles" as we have been taught. It seems other supporting evidence which Crossan explains gives new light on the very nature of Paul's ministry and his relationship to this group. That changes the interdynamics between Paul and the Jews. I'll not go into detail, but it is in the book. It helped revive my interest in Paul. Crossan believes that Paul has been domesticated as the church became more romanized. The later letters attributed to him but not actually written by him as well as common interpretations of his writing has had a part in this process.
The bottom line is that exegesis draws on outside sources to provide context and if our subject is an ancient document then Archeology is of extreme importance to provide that context. The texts themselves are often products of that science.
I never said that archeology had no impact. I specifically said that it informed background. It just does not settle how to read texts themselves.
That makes more sense, Michael. Thanks for the clarification. I think we meant the same thing. Damn English language! Maybe one day we will be able to just have "mind-melds" and won't have to clarify our meaning so much.
I am currently reading "God & Empire", and think it is Crossan's best book to date.
Post a Comment