How do we "subvert" Empire?

[Dawn]

Now that there's a bit of a loose definition to "Empire", I was wondering how would you (do you) go about "subverting" it?

[Magdalena Perks]

Thee subverts by going against the status quo! That is, while living a life of peace amongst thy neighbours, thee lives also in the Kingdom of God. Our Anabaptist brethren exemplify this well. Thee does not follow the fads and fashions, the expectations and demands of the consumerist culture. Sometimes thee must take an obvious stand.

We are outwardly Plain, and live a Plain life, with as little as possible of the world's goods. We will not work in certain industries. We will not hold for ourselves more than we need. These are the general principles of our stance against the World. These translate into clothing modest in both design and cost, into a mostly vegetarian diet, and in avoiding excessive use of resources (our actual cost of electricity is about CAN$6 a month, although the administrative costs add about $20 to that!) We have a pickup truck parked outside, but do not drive it. These are all subversive activities because they do not fuel someone else's greed, and we are not placing a stumbling block before a brother who might be moved to envy.

Thee need not march under a protest sign, or refuse to pay thy taxes, or sit on the courthouse steps with other protesters until thee suffers from lack of circulation in vital areas of thy body, to subvert the "Empire", or Satan, or the dominant paradigm. Thee needs only to live a life following Jesus, and seeking the Light in thy own heart.

[Daniel Kam]

Five ways to Subvert the Empire:
1) Serve Jesus by selling something you don't need and giving it to the poor.
2) Find ways to cut costs (like riding the bus) and giving the extra to the poor.
3) Find like-minded kingdom radicals to prayerfully consider how God would have you move (or not move and be still before him)
4) Read scripture not as a personal book written to you, but to a community of Christ-followers committed to kingdom values of having only one cloak instead of two (any interpretations as to what this means in the west?)
5) Enter into a lifestyle of spiritual formation where our minds our trained as a kind of anti-army to be peaceful co-existers in the world.

[Cabe Matthews]

"Anti-army" is a nice image. Did you come up with this list? It's pretty good. What's your interpretation in #4?

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

This is a list from Jesus Manifesto that might be helpful:

• proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ
• tithe relationally
• discerningly engage in civil disobedience
• confess your sins to one another, and proclaim forgiveness
• live communally
• establish regular rhythms of prayer with others (here's a nifty and free resource)
• thoughtfully participate in the Lord's Supper
• be family with people that are in a different socio-economic and/or ethnic situation than you
• get in the way of violence
• plant a garden (for extra credit, practice guerrilla gardening)
• spend less money
• spend justly
• or just don't spend money at all
• ride a bicycle or take the bus
• draw attention to the sins of society
• lovingly challenge the sins of the Church
• invite strangers to dinner
• have a guest room open to those in need
• practice mutual submission
• read Scripture in community and struggle together to put it into practice
• practice communal discernment
• embrace a sense of place in ministry
• learn the stories of marginalized people...especially your brothers and sisters in the developing world
• pray for political authorities
• share good things with the poor
• give the wealthy (including yourself) an opportunity to divest of their wealth
• remember, in all things love

[Barry Mast]

I post this not so much as a specific way to "subvert" empire except that by knowing what it is, knowing what Jesus intends for community and then comparing the two, we get a real sense of what is subversive in our context.

In the September/October 2003 issue of Sojourner's magazine Duane Shank wrote the article "The Project for a New American Empire". It suggests that in the current American political environment, we are culturally saturated with a theology of empire. Subverting sounds like dangerous stuff.

Shank ends with the statement, "But there is an alternative to empire and endless war. The plan of the Project for the New American Century must be countered with a vision that insists militarization and pre-emptive war is not the path to real security. We must advance the vision of a world where international institutions are strengthened rather than destroyed, where global poverty is seriously addressed, where all countries, including the United States, are disarming their weapons of mass destruction, and where human rights are taken seriously. People of faith and goodwill in this country and around the world stood up by the millions to oppose the war against Iraq. We must now continue that opposition—through doing justice, loving compassion, and walking with God in the struggle."

While Shank is specifically addressing war, this could be applied to any aspect of empire and domination through power (economics, environment, politics, religion, etc.)

I really appreciate the comments made so far. They're the meat on the bones of "doing justice, loving compassion, and walking with God in the struggle" (my apologies to any vegetarians in the house). I'm not sure I can emphasize enough how much "finding like-minded kingdom radicals" (Daniel's reply) and "living communally" (Mark's reply) are important to me and enable me to even begin the subversion.

[Magdalena Perks]

Excellent reply - as are they all, I think. "Having one cloak" does remind me of St. Martin of Tours, who divided his fine white cloak, the badge of an elite officer, with a beggar (who was revealed in a vision to be Christ). If thee has two cloaks, thee may give one away, and someone goes on alone. If thee has one cloak, thee then shelters another within thy arms. Or if thee has two cloaks, thee may be tempted to keep the nice one for thyself when called to give or loan one!

[Magdalena Perks]

No apology needed - the "meat" on the bones is muscle and sinew, else the "dry bones" are dead, lifeless.

[Daniel Kam]

I always am careful in saying that "I" came up with anything. My view of learning is highly reflective of Vgoytsky's socio-cultural view, which states that we learn through community and cultural values, but yes the wording is mine. The anti-army, looking back on it, is probably an adaptation of Bell and Golden's "anti-empire" and "anti-kingdom" in "Jesus Wants to Save Christians" (which I am currently half way through).

In the west, this means we stop using "I" so much when talking about gospel. The gospel is about "us." It is about God dying for "the world." This seems trivial, but it is important in such an individualistic and materialistic culture to remember that the gospel is not just, "I'm so grateful Jesus died for me," but, "We are so grateful to be absorbed into the kingdom of God by Jesus Christ's absorbing love on the cross, which did not strike back with violence, but absorbed the very belly of the Roman beast and subverted it through his death on the cross.

I have liked your thoughts on here Cabe.

[Daniel Kam]

Hi Barry,
I am of the opinion that war can be ended if we would follow the path of Jesus Christ. "Jesus wants to Save Chrsitians" makes an interesting interpretation of Jesus' death on the cross. Bell and Golden suggest that on the cross Jesus "absorbed" the violence of the Roman Empire--he ate it up and subverted it. I think it is possible to do this as well in our own contexts. We cannot necessarily stop countries from fighting, but I have pointed out here, as well as other places, that America simply needs to re-think its place in the world.

[Cabe Matthews]

It also may be interesting to note that Shank seems to assume that war that is not pre-emptive might be okay. I'm unconvinced of the just-ness of any just war doctrine. He also assumes that we should be on the "path to real security." I'm wondering who gets to be secure? I'm sure I'm one of the lucky ones that gets to enjoy this security, but I'm also sure that this security will be purchased with blood, not just of American forces, but also the blood of foreigners (innocent or otherwise).

As Christians, I'm not sure security should be our prime concern (we should, like the prophets, pray for the peace of our nation, but can we do that while at the same time supporting actions our nation takes everyday that damage, diminish or destroy the peace of other nations, even when those nations are our enemies?). This seems like an argument designed to appeal to standard American (imperial) politics. Sojo comes out with some good stuff sometimes, but other times they concern me with some of their politics of compromise. Making America a little less evil is nice, but not quite good enough.

But then I haven't read that Shank piece in it's entirety, I'm just working off the quote you gave. So a little humility on my part is likely in order. :)

[Barry Mast]

I see the Shank article as more of a political commentary than a theological statement. And I would encourage you to read the whole article. I would agree that security need not be our prime concern...in fact, if we're headed toward the cross, it's probably last on our list. That statement gets a little more muddled, however, when I begin thinking of the security and safety of family and friends. This may be where Mark's "get in the way of violence" would come into play.

As for subversive, I imagine that the most subversive thing Jesus calls us to is the love of enemy. Most empires can't seem to handle that. That completely undoes an empire's call (including the U.S.) to hunt down and destroy the enemy. How unpatriotic would we be to claim a love for and pronounce compassion toward heads of "terrorist cells" or leaders in the "axis of evil" much less the general population behind these leaders?

Embracing the enemy instead of fleeing or fighting could be so subversive that boths sides (our enemies AND our empirical allies) end up trying to do us in. eeek...where's the security in that?

[Cabe Matthews]

Is he about embracing the enemy? A just war doctrine (that he seems to subtly hint at) seems very much at odds with this.

Or am I being way to critical for someone who hasn't actually read the article?

Okay, I'm conceding. If you post a link to the article I'll read it.