Disclaimer: The issues addressed in this article are immense. An entire
book is needed to do justice to them. At times, the article asserts
several propositions without detailed supportive argument due to
considerations of space.
The Jewish-Christian story culminates in the displacement of Caesar by
Jesus as Lord. Ever since then, Jesus followers have been marked by
anti-Empire ways. One cannot serve Christ and Empire any more than he
or she can serve God and Mammon. That is, in part, the New Testament
ethical take on Empire. It is true that Luke-Acts has aspects of a more
positive attitude toward Rome, and Jesus sets a tone of ambiguity in
his statement, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what
is God’s” (Luke 20:25).1 However, his statement clearly highlights the
tension between God and Caesar.
Given
humanity’s historic socialization in Empire ways, the mark of the
Christian is Empire subversion just as the mark of the Beast in
Revelation is Empire worship. Greed and concomitant violence top the
New Testament’s list of personal sins. The body politic fares no
better. Empire invariably protects greed through violence. This is not
God’s intention. This is, rather, the organized political corollary of
human sin. Unless Romans 13:1–7 is the exception, biblically, the
“nation” is invariably at odds with God’s Kingdom, because it
ineluctably represents Empire ways, as surely as “all have sinned”
(Rom. 3:23). This is evidenced in the first biblical murderer, Cain,
who went on to found a city, the first biblical emergence of
“civilization.” Civilization was established by scapegoating murder,
something that, ever since then, has been the central human cultural
reality, claims anthropologist René Girard.2 This continues with
Israel’s choice of a king like other nations/empires in 1 Samuel 8 and
climaxes at the crucifixion in the representative anti-Christian cry of
Empire loyalists: “We have no king but Caesar!” (John 19:15).
The most consistent political phenomenon of normative American
Evangelical Christianity has been its embrace of God and Flag (“Caesar”
and Nation) over Christ and Kingdom. “One Nation Under God” is in fact
“One Nation under Empire.” It is consistent, therefore, that the
dominant Evangelical response to the War on Terrorism draws on the
longstanding, extra-biblical “just war” theory.3 In Dr. Richard Land’s
summation: “God establishes the state to ‘bear the sword’, that is, to
use lethal force to keep the peace and maintain justice” (“Seeking
Justice in the Midst of Terror,”
www.beliefnet.com/story/88/story_8805.html). Since 1988, Dr. Land has
headed the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the 15
million-member Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The SBC is by far the
largest block of American Evangelicals, who are estimated to number
about 100 million or 35 percent of the United States population. About
84 percent of white Evangelicals voted for President Bush in the 2000
election. In support of the almost wholesale Evangelical endorsement of
the War on Terrorism, Dr. Land writes: “The key Scripture passage
supporting just war theory is Romans 13:4.”
Why have American Evangelicals so embraced Empire ways? There are at least two key considerations:
1. American Evangelicals do not view their own foreign policy as
building “Empire” and, hence, fail to see their similarity to the Roman
Empire that crucified Christ. On the contrary, since the 19th century,
they have largely affirmed a doctrine of “Manifest Destiny,” which
claims God superintended and willed American imperialistic
expansionism. By this doctrine, “the American Way” became nearly
synonymous with “the Way of Jesus,” something for which Billy Graham
has repented in his later years.
2. American Evangelicals have largely interpreted the Romans 13:1–7
text as unquestioned legitimation for their own government while
simultaneously de-legitimizing “on demand” a long line of other
authorities, beginning with the British Crown in the 1776 War of
Independence. The Evangelical embrace of “just war” theory has
necessarily rejected all similar claims by opponents. With this
doctrine, Christians support the State to do to its enemies what
individidual Christians may never do to theirs. At its most
duplicitous, the theory appears as an end-run around Jesus’ explicit
teaching, example, and consistent New Testament witness: “Love your
enemies, do good to those who hurt you.”
How does one respond to this amazing Eusebian interpretation of
Christian political ethics that unquestioningly blesses American Empire
and has characterized dominant American Evangelical understanding for
250 years?
First, freighting Romans 13:1–7, particularly verses 3 and 44, with a
pro-Empire exegesis is untenable. Romans 13 was not the locus classicus
for an early Christian understanding of the State. Rather Ephesians
6:12–18 was. The use of the Romans 13 text to give the State
carte-blanche right to use lethal violence against enemies is a
post-Reformation, pre-Nazi Germany exegetical move, not unlike texts
used to justify slavery and the slave trade.
The Roman State, at the time of Paul’s writing to Roman Christians he
had never met, had just brutally and falsely executed Jesus the Christ.
The early church knew well the Roman Empire as a fallen “principality
and power” (the language of Ephesians 6); invidious to converted Jews
expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius and just returning at the time
of Paul’s writing; brutal toward converted runaway slaves leading
clandestine lives in Rome; and uncaring of marginalized hoi polloi, who
collectively were the parishioners in early church Rome.5
Paul begins an ethical discussion in Romans 12 of how these believers
should respond to neighbour and enemy. His pastoral concern about early
Christian revolutionary sentiment toward Rome is arguably behind this
brief pericope on the “governing authorities” (exousias), the identical
expression in Ephesians 6 where exousias and kosmokratoras
(“world-rulers,”an epithet for Satan and his minions) are nearly
synonymous. In the historical context, Paul is compassionately
cautioning these house churches against the perils of overt
anti-government sentiment while affirming simultaneously rulers’
superintendence by God (“ordering”), as in the case of Cyrus in Isaiah,
God’s “shepherd” (44:28) and “Messiah” (45:1), though a brutal emperor.
In this context, “he does not bear the sword for nothing” (Rom. 13:4)
is a warning about vicious repressive state power that likewise
crucified the Lord of Glory. Therefore “Everyone must submit himself to
the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). That “governing authorities” do
not invariably do everyone good (pace 13:4) is demonstrated throughout
human history, perhaps climaxing in the Nazi Holocaust. For American
Christians to read this text therefore as a blanket endorsement of
“government” is a travesty of interpretation, selectively and
nepotistically applied, and, of course, contradictory of American
expansionist history that repeatedly rebelled against other
governmental authorities.6
There is, politically, over against the violence of Empire, “the most
excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:31 and 13). It is anachronism to read Paul in
Romans 13 as giving early Roman Christians a treatise on the
benevolence of the State and its divine right to lethal force when all
those Christians knew of the Roman state was brutality and repression.
Second, when St. Augustine in 410 AD witnessed the sack of Rome, and
the encroaching threat of “barbarians,” the Roman Church by then had
embraced the legitimacy of Empire, which one church historian describes
as “the triumph of ideology” (Alistair Kee, Constantine versus
Christ:The Triumph of Ideology, London: SCM Press Ltd., 1982). By then,
Empire ideology accepted widely by majority church leaders contradicted
the non-violent, nonacquisitive Way of Christ. It was consequently no
stretch ethically to move to Crusades against external enemies and
Inquisition against internal enemies.
Such an easy accommodation to State violence persists amongst American
Evangelicals in overwhelming support of its contemporary Crusade (the
War on Terrorism) and its current Inquisition (arbitrary exercise of
the death penalty; operation of a repressive criminal justice system).
In 1997, I debated Dr. Land on State use of the death penalty. Not
surprisingly, Romans 13:4 was, for him, a key text. Land’s other key
text, Genesis 9:1–7, particularly verse 6, collapsed under unrelenting
exegetical scrutiny as a legitimization of capital punishment. One of
the many considerations is that verse 6 is a chiastic poem, and unless
it is the exception, no law in Scripture is ever expressed poetically.
Used as an endorsement of State violence, Romans 13:4 similarly
implodes.7
When the Suffering Servant of Isaiah brings “justice to the nations”
(chapter 42), no one is harmed (“A bruised reed he will not break,”
verse 3). The worldwide phenomenon of “Restorative Justice”8 is
attestation to “the most excellent way”9 of the politics of love over
against Inquisition and Retribution, whereby accountability and healing
are equal criminal justice thrusts, and no one is harmed consequent to
the criminal act.
There is likewise “the most excellent way” in international relations
that contradicts the violent ways of State and subverts Empire.10 Dr.
Land, on the contrary, together with other Evangelical notables like
Bill Bright and Chuck Colson, wrote an open letter to President Bush
after the September 11 terrorist attacks declaring the War on Terrorism
“right and just”.11
Conversely to them, with reference to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah,
“[The people of God] exist, so says this poetry, to make the case in
the empire for a different truth, a different presentation of reality,
a different basis for humanness in the world (Walter Brueggemann, Deep
Memory, Exuberant Hope: Contested Truth in a Post-Christian World,
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000, p. 23.)” The reality is, Dr. Land’s
letter is “post-Christian,” in the spirit of “anti-Christ,” and,
ultimately, idolatrous.
Perhaps most pernicious in the application of just war theory is the
repeated claim to be protecting “innocent civilians.” The reality is,
however, innocent civilian casualties, now claimed to be as high as
80-90 percent of all aerial bombing campaigns, are knowingly sacrificed
by all Evangelical just war theory advocates and others as regrettable
“collateral damage.”
How Evangelicals square this with biblical teaching is inscrutable. Not
least for consideration is Proverbs 6:16-17: “There are six things the
LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him… Hands that shed
innocent blood…” The shedding of innocent blood is a given in the War
on Terrorism. The counter is usually a numbers game foreign to
Scripture: “But look how many innocents the dictator has killed/might
kill!” By this argumentation, one must ask questions that are
impossible to answer: How many innocents may one kill before it is
wrong? What percentage of innocent civilians may one kill of a larger
counter number of innocents otherwise killed/to be killed? How many are
dispensable when human rights for those dead civilians are trampled?
Over against this is Paul’s ethical summation of Scripture: “Love does
no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law
(Romans 13:10).” This echoes Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 7:12; 22:39-40).
One wishes Dr. Land and fellow American Evangelicals would follow Jesus
who said: “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37).
The Great Beast of Revelation 13 is Empire. Its worship is idolatry.
“One Nation Under God” proves amongst American Evangelicals throughout
American history to be de facto “One Nation Under the Gun.” That is how
the West was won, not, as widely claimed, by Divine Providence
intervention. And that is how America currently pursues worldwide
economic and military hegemony.12 It is the same spirit of
imperialistic expansionism that has dominated American Evangelical life
for 250 years. Its antidote is repentance and conversion.
(Footnotes)
1. The same verb, “give” (apodidomi) in Jesus’ statement is reprised in
Paul (Rom 13:6-8): “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities
are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give
(apodidomi) everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if
revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one
another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” Paul
sets response to government in the context of love of neighbour. One
should add: even if the neighbour is “enemy” (see Romans 12:19 – 21).
2. See James Williams, The Girard Reader, (New York: Crossroad Herder,
1996) for an extensive introduction to, and bibliography on, Girard.
See Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads (New
York: Crossroad, 1995) for a contemporary cultural application of
scapegoating theory. See James Williams, The Bible, Violence and the
Sacred: Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned Violence (San Francisco:
HarperCollins and Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1991
and 1995), and James Alison, Knowing Jesus (Springfield, Ill:
Templegate, 1993); Raising Abel: The Recovery of the Eschatological
Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1996); The Joy of Being Wrong:
Original Sin Through Easter Eyes (New York: Crossroad, 1997), for
sustained theological presentations of scapegoating theory. Finally,
see Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist
Press, 2001) for a complementary anthropological presentation of
scapegoating theory with reference to the New Testament, a document he
considers the touchstone text.
3. “During the fourth and fifth centuries, the Church adopted from
classical thought the teaching of the just war” (“War”, The New
International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J.D. Douglas, General
Editor, 1974, p. 1029). Saint Augustine of Hippo first developed this
understanding when confronted with the horrors of a disintegrating
Roman Empire. His original three criteria were: “just cause,”
“legitimate authority,” and “right intention.” To these were eventually
added another three: “proportionality,” “probability of success,” and
“last resort.” A seventh is sometimes included: “noncombatant
immunity.”
4. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who
do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?
Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant
to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear
the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring
punishment on the wrongdoer.
5. Ephesians is more explicitly negative in its language about the
State than Romans. Accepting that Paul was the author of both (though
Ephesians is in dispute), and that Ephesians is usually dated later
than Romans, this could demonstrate some development in Paul towards a
definitive anti-State attitude. According to tradition, Paul was
executed by Emperor Nero.
6. St. Peter followed Paul closely in his writings, including on
“authority” (1 Peter 2:13ff). It is intriguing that one meaning of the
unique word allotriepiskopos (usually translated “busybody”) in 1 Peter
4:15 is “revolutionary,” which immediately fits the context and this
argument like the anemic rendering “busybody” does not. (See Bauer,
Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1974, p. 39.)
7. Possibly still the best challenge to that interpretation is John
Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994.
8. A massive body of literature has grown up in the past few years. The
best study to date specifically on the topic is Restoring Justice,
Karen Heetderks Strong and Dan Van Ness (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson,
1997). The best overview of the wider context is The Expanding Prison:
The Crisis in Crime and Punishment and the Search for Alternatives,
David Cayley, (Toronto: Anansi, 1998). The first major study was
Changing Lenses, Howard Zehr, (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1990) –
considered a classic. An excellent annotated bibliography has also been
produced, Restorative Justice: An Annotated Bibliography, Paul McCold,
(Monsey: Criminal Justice Press, 1997). An anthology recently appeared:
A Restorative Justice Reader: Texts, Sources, Context, edited by Gerry
Johnstone (Devon: Willan War (Cleveland, Ohio: The Pilgrim Press,
1998); and Vern Neufeld Redekop, From Violence to Blessing: How an
Understanding of Deep-Rooted Conflict Can Open Paths to Reconciliation
(Ottawa: Novalis, 2002).
8. http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/evangelicalsonbush.htm
8. See on this for starters the new book by American scholar Chalmers
Johnson, former CIA adviser: The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism,
Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books,
2004). Read also his earlier work: Blowback: The Costs and Consequences
of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt, 2000).Publishing, 2003.)
9. See also Rom. 13:10: “Love does no harm to its neighbor…”
10. See Duane Friesen, Christian Peacemaking and International
Conflict: A Realist Pacifist Perspective, (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald
Press, 1986); Glen Stassen (editor), Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices
for Abolishing War (Cleveland, Ohio: The Pilgrim Press, 1998); and Vern
Neufeld Redekop, From Violence to Blessing: How an Understanding of
Deep-Rooted Conflict Can Open Paths to Reconciliation (Ottawa: Novalis,
2002).
11. http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/evangelicalsonbush.htm
12. See on this for starters the new book by American scholar Chalmers
Johnson, former CIA adviser: The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism,
Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books,
2004). Read also his earlier work: Blowback: The Costs and Consequences
of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt, 2000).