To Follow Jesus and/or Daniel wrt Empire?
Can we retell our histories in light of the Biblical narrative? Some thoughts in light of Daniel 2 and my studies of political economy.What does the biblical narrative suggest for relating to Empire as Christ/Daniel followers? The latter (Daniel) should entail the former (Christ), I believe, and yet the latter was a gov't bureaucrat par excellence, who as far as we know edited/collated the majority of the OT. This seems like an anomaly that deserves more attention in boards like this that are generally anti-empire.
In Daniel 2, we have Daniel's vision of long-standing sequence of empires, whose rule are not for us to try to end, at least not in and of our own strength. This seems to be a critical prophesy for Daniel. It perhaps could even be the fount of his career, as a public servant within empire, making the system work better for more people-groups. For if empire is more or less here to stay, we need to pick our battles against its empire-ialism.
Now, I think the unhewed rock that Daniel prophesies about, as ending empire is the Messiah or Yeshua/Jesus. I believe this because it is consistent with how messianic promises are interwoven throughout the Bible from Deuteronomy-onward. But what does that mean for the true politics of Jesus? Well, if we work within the Daniel 2 prophesy, it means that the politics of Jesus will subvert the existing brand of Empire, which is distinct in kind from previous brands or sorts of Empire.
But what sort of Empire are we dealing with? I reckon we can empirically sum that up as 1.) empires that are divided into competing/collaborating powers, 2.) empires that are unstable mixtures of aristocracy/kleptocracy(iron) and popular democracy(clay), not unlike what was prophesied way back in the time of Daniel in the beginning of the 6th ctry BCE.
So what then does the politics of Jesus consist of? Avoiding empire at all cost? Good luck with that, if any of you work for corporations, or non-profits (maybe even.... denominations!!!!). We're all hooked up to the Matrix of power/control, more so in any bigger top-down structured organization. So what is Jesus doing still? Well, I'd say Jesus emphatically rejects the way of the zealot (Che Guevara/ VI Lenin), or the way of the Sadducee (preachers/ reapers of the Gospel of Wealth, like Joel Osteen. Although, I'm not aiming to name other contemporaries for the sake of being peaceable.) or the way of the Pharisee (public intellectual / Tillich) or the way of the Essenes (uber radically counter-cultural types, like some later desert monastics) .
So there are some clear precedents, but they are largely negative examples of what not to do. In my mind, this is not unlike the four trinitarian heresies (Arianism/Modalism/Somethingism/ Somethingelsism) ruled out by the Nicene Creed. To have certain lines/fences one must avoid crossing, effectively makes the politics of Jesus more of an open than a closed system. The reason is that the politics of politics is an ever expanding system of new sorts of conflicts/problems to be resolved and past biblical precedents always apply in part, as through a mirror darkly.
So it seems to me that there is scope for experimentation, with limited participation by followers in importing into the state more professionalism and discipline in wielding and administrating its monopoly on the legit uses of violence. The rule of thumb is that such should be done so that the overall amount of violence is reduced. Iow, it's a matter of institutional comparison and means-end calculation that is not strictly speaking distinct to self-professed Christians or Christ-followers. This entails taking seriously the inclusion in the Gospels of John the Baptist's exhortation to Roman Soldiers to be fair and satisfied with their salaries?
Less importantly, the above is linked for me with a recurring historical contextual theological question. Could it be true that some of the distinctive radically counter-cultural Anabaptist beliefs bear, in part, the markings of the 30 years war and its horrific aftermath? A sharp distinction or dualism between the political and the apolitical are what I've called, "theological scar tissue of the 30 years war". It contrasts with my understanding of the Wholistic Word of God, which behooves us to meditate on how Christ is moving in our time and context, so we can carry our crosses in ways that testify to our one and only true Lord.
dlw
In Daniel 2, we have Daniel's vision of long-standing sequence of empires, whose rule are not for us to try to end, at least not in and of our own strength. This seems to be a critical prophesy for Daniel. It perhaps could even be the fount of his career, as a public servant within empire, making the system work better for more people-groups. For if empire is more or less here to stay, we need to pick our battles against its empire-ialism.
Now, I think the unhewed rock that Daniel prophesies about, as ending empire is the Messiah or Yeshua/Jesus. I believe this because it is consistent with how messianic promises are interwoven throughout the Bible from Deuteronomy-onward. But what does that mean for the true politics of Jesus? Well, if we work within the Daniel 2 prophesy, it means that the politics of Jesus will subvert the existing brand of Empire, which is distinct in kind from previous brands or sorts of Empire.
But what sort of Empire are we dealing with? I reckon we can empirically sum that up as 1.) empires that are divided into competing/collaborating powers, 2.) empires that are unstable mixtures of aristocracy/kleptocracy(iron) and popular democracy(clay), not unlike what was prophesied way back in the time of Daniel in the beginning of the 6th ctry BCE.
So what then does the politics of Jesus consist of? Avoiding empire at all cost? Good luck with that, if any of you work for corporations, or non-profits (maybe even.... denominations!!!!). We're all hooked up to the Matrix of power/control, more so in any bigger top-down structured organization. So what is Jesus doing still? Well, I'd say Jesus emphatically rejects the way of the zealot (Che Guevara/ VI Lenin), or the way of the Sadducee (preachers/ reapers of the Gospel of Wealth, like Joel Osteen. Although, I'm not aiming to name other contemporaries for the sake of being peaceable.) or the way of the Pharisee (public intellectual / Tillich) or the way of the Essenes (uber radically counter-cultural types, like some later desert monastics) .
So there are some clear precedents, but they are largely negative examples of what not to do. In my mind, this is not unlike the four trinitarian heresies (Arianism/Modalism/Somethingism/ Somethingelsism) ruled out by the Nicene Creed. To have certain lines/fences one must avoid crossing, effectively makes the politics of Jesus more of an open than a closed system. The reason is that the politics of politics is an ever expanding system of new sorts of conflicts/problems to be resolved and past biblical precedents always apply in part, as through a mirror darkly.
So it seems to me that there is scope for experimentation, with limited participation by followers in importing into the state more professionalism and discipline in wielding and administrating its monopoly on the legit uses of violence. The rule of thumb is that such should be done so that the overall amount of violence is reduced. Iow, it's a matter of institutional comparison and means-end calculation that is not strictly speaking distinct to self-professed Christians or Christ-followers. This entails taking seriously the inclusion in the Gospels of John the Baptist's exhortation to Roman Soldiers to be fair and satisfied with their salaries?
Less importantly, the above is linked for me with a recurring historical contextual theological question. Could it be true that some of the distinctive radically counter-cultural Anabaptist beliefs bear, in part, the markings of the 30 years war and its horrific aftermath? A sharp distinction or dualism between the political and the apolitical are what I've called, "theological scar tissue of the 30 years war". It contrasts with my understanding of the Wholistic Word of God, which behooves us to meditate on how Christ is moving in our time and context, so we can carry our crosses in ways that testify to our one and only true Lord.
dlw
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by dlw on
-
let me know if the above is more readable than the earlier version or what-not.
dlw
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Van Steenwyk on -
I find your contemporizing of ancient Jewish sects intriguing. You're right--they all show various approaches to empire and/or hellenization (which loosely correspond to US Empire/Western Consumer Capitalist culture, respectively).
You are likely to find various opinions on imperial engagement on this site. I suspect that many, like me, tend towards the Essene response--at least in regards to the governmental machine. I do recognize the need for political engagement, but the question becomes "what sort of engagement?"
The particulars are going to be contested, but as a general thrust, I think the politics of Jesus, as practiced in Empire should account for the following:
* it needs to resist power-over, operating from below. As Jesus was tempted with economic, political, and religious power, we too are tempted and must resist wielding economic, political, and religious power coercively. Rather, ours should be a prophetic stance that names powers, calls people to account, and personally and communal practices jubilee.
* it needs to begin with the Body that Jesus ordained as his political agent--the Church. I reject the notion that the State is the political agent of God and the Church is the religious. Rather, the Church is God's elect socio-political agent in the world. This does not invalidate the State entirely; however it does create challenges for how the church is to operate in the midst of empire and the state. I think that the exilic prophets are helpful for us in our attempt to imagine how to imagine as people of Zion in Babylon, but we also must temper such imaginations with the early counter-political witness of the underground church, whose stance towards powers was largely martyriological (if that is a functional word).
*my biggest concern here is the use of violence. I just can't see how participation in violence is every acceptable for a christian. Sure, there are systemic issues that are nigh impossible to avoid. But that shouldn't therefore mean we resign ourselves to participation in violence. We, the church, should determine strategies of discernment that help us navigate through these murky waters (for example, do we refuse to buy products that are directly tied to violence (blood diamonds, etc)? How many degrees of separation should we follow this logic (do we refuse to buy computers that have parts that were cut using tools that contain blood diamonds as a cutting element)? With regards to political involvement, do we simply draw the line at military service? Or serving in government? At what level? What about voting?
Regarding Anabaptism and the 30 years war...yes, I do think that the shape of Anabaptism has been influenced by the 30 years war, just as many of their commitments were tempered by years of diasporic persecution. Many traditional Anabaptists wouldn't claim me because my beliefs--as well as the beliefs of other neo-Anabaptists--have been shaped by other traditions and ethical approaches. For example, I am much more of an activist and Anarchist than traditional Anabaptists, who are more separatistic. This difference came up quite a bit when I recently spoke at a missions conference at a Conservative Mennonite college.
I have other thoughts, but this is enough fodder for now.
-
-
Mark Van Steenwyk said:I find your contemporizing of ancient Jewish sects intriguing. You're right--they all show various approaches to empire and/or hellenization (which loosely correspond to US Empire/Western Consumer Capitalist culture, respectively).
fancy that.
You are likely to find various opinions on imperial engagement on this site. I suspect that many, like me, tend towards the Essene response--at least in regards to the governmental machine. I do recognize the need for political engagement, but the question becomes "what sort of engagement?"
Yup, or sorts, if one allows for mixed strategies....
The particulars are going to be contested, but as a general thrust, I think the politics of Jesus, as practiced in Empire should account for the following:
* it needs to resist power-over, operating from below. As Jesus was tempted with economic, political, and religious power, we too are tempted and must resist wielding economic, political, and religious power coercively. Rather, ours should be a prophetic stance that names powers, calls people to account, and personally and communal practices jubilee.
the key tho, lies in what is coercion.... We live in a system of mutual coercion, as a matter of course, and we all wield power whenever we use a credit card or what-not. I believe we can witness to the fact of empire and deliberate on what we render to our political-economic-social leaders in how we wield our tasers, or mustard-seeds, of power through how we root ourselves in our local faith-communities.
* it needs to begin with the Body that Jesus ordained as his political agent--the Church. I reject the notion that the State is the political agent of God and the Church is the religious. Rather, the Church is God's elect socio-political agent in the world. This does not invalidate the State entirely; however it does create challenges for how the church is to operate in the midst of empire and the state. I think that the exilic prophets are helpful for us in our attempt to imagine how to imagine as people of Zion in Babylon, but we also must temper such imaginations with the early counter-political witness of the underground church, whose stance towards powers was largely martyriological (if that is a functional word).
Why not simply not treat the State as an agent at all (nor presume a unity of agency via the Church)....but rather an organic and deeply inconsistent/unstable entity, which plays a subsidiary role to Networks of Christ-Centered Local Communities? It can matter and yet we can bear in mind its continuity with Babylon...
I don't know how early the early church is.... but I don't per se privilege its common views during the 2nd and 3rd centuries of its existence.
*my biggest concern here is the use of violence. I just can't see how participation in violence is every acceptable for a christian. Sure, there are systemic issues that are nigh impossible to avoid. But that shouldn't therefore mean we resign ourselves to participation in violence.
Look it's the violent inherent in the system!!! We use rhetoric, don't we? Is that not a form of violence? Don't we choose to buy certain products and not others, more violence? And, if my son (if I had one..) were in physical danger, I'd call the cops and let their threat of violence hopefully deter harm from him. It's not a matter of resignation, it's a matter of recognizing the subsidiary role of the legit use of violence in providing cover-fire for us. I mean how much of Paul's writings found in the Bible would exist if his life had not been saved by his strategic use of his Roman citizenship (definitely violence) and the professionalism of the Roman centurion?
We, the church, should determine strategies of discernment that help us navigate through these murky waters (for example, do we refuse to buy products that are directly tied to violence (blood diamonds, etc)? How many degrees of separation should we follow this logic (do we refuse to buy computers that have parts that were cut using tools that contain blood diamonds as a cutting element)? With regards to political involvement, do we simply draw the line at military service? Or serving in government? At what level? What about voting?
Well, in my opinion, what we don't do is be perfectionists or dogmatic in the working out of our own local rules of faith with our local communities, in dialogues with other similar communities.
Regarding Anabaptism and the 30 years war...yes, I do think that the shape of Anabaptism has been influenced by the 30 years war, just as many of their commitments were tempered by years of diasporic persecution. Many traditional Anabaptists wouldn't claim me because my beliefs--as well as the beliefs of other neo-Anabaptists--have been shaped by other traditions and ethical approaches. For example, I am much more of an activist and Anarchist than traditional Anabaptists, who are more separatistic. This difference came up quite a bit when I recently spoke at a missions conference at a Conservative Mennonite college.
See, you're impure, not rooted enuf in the free church heritage.
I have other thoughts, but this is enough fodder for now.
In the words of Rummy, bring them on!!!
dlw ;-)
© 2009 Created by Mark Van Steenwyk
