Hamilton, Mark W.

English

Pepperdine Digital Commons

LeavenVolume 13Issue 4 Nationalism and the American Church Article 51-1-2005Faith Under Empire: Old Testament Perspectivesfor TodayMark W. Hamiltonmhamilton@acu.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leavenThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven byan authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Kevin.Miller3@pepperdine.edu.Recommended CitationHamilton, Mark W. (2005) "Faith Under Empire: Old Testament Perspectives for Today," Leaven: Vol. 13: Iss. 4, Article 5.Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol13/iss4/5Faith Under Empire:Old Testament Perspectives for TodayMARK W. HAMILTONOn Christmas Eve, 1917, Kaiser Wilhelm Il of Germany wrote his troops: "The year 1917, with itsgreat battles, has proved that the German people has in the Lord of Creation above an unconditionaland avowed Ally, on whom it can absolutely rely .... From this we can gain firm confidence, that, inthe future also, the Lord will be with US."IA year later his armies' final offensive had failed, and he had exchanged his throne for exile in theNetherlands. The God of Heaven had failed to act on behalf of the Kaiser's quest for European domination.The startling thing about this episode is not a ruler's effort to enlist God in his own fight, nor even thefact that German Christians could take seriously his equating their nation's culture with Christian values, butthat all the combatants on each side of such a brutal and needless struggle as WWI could do so in their ownway. Indeed, with tiresome predictability, empires bent on extending their own power, wealth, and prestigehave cloaked even the most extreme violations of human dignity in the mantle of faith. From SS belt buck-les sporting the logo "Gott mit uns" (God with us) to pieties about the "white man's burden," religion andempire have often linked arms. As Reinhold Niebuhr put it, "We ... as all 'God-fearing' men of all ages, arenever safe against the temptation of claiming God too simply as the sanctifier of whatever we most ferventlydesire.'? Because the symbols of religion can be hijacked by the powerful and thus can serve to sanctifyand render uncontestable their actions, disentangling faith and empire presents an important challenge to uswho are both Christians and citizens of the world's last remaining superpower.The challenge of living under an empire has pressed Christians and Jews for many centuries. The Biblecontains important resources for those who wish to remain faithful in such a setting. But its presentationis complex, demanding deep theological reflection on our part. Thus in the New Testament the book ofRevelation equates the Roman empire with the whore Babylon, soon to fall under the weight of its sins,while Paul in Romans 13 (though hardly endorsing Nero's government), still sees it as somehow God'sinstrument. And even more positively, the book of Acts portrays Roman governors as protectors of theinfant Christian movement. So the New Testament includes a range of attitudes toward the Roman Empire.The Old Testament, on which I wish to focus just now, presents an even more nuanced set of attitudesand reflections on the problem. Israel never operated as a self-contained theocracy indifferent to interna-tional geopolitics. From Israel's first encounter with the expanding Assyrian Empire in the 850's B.C.E. tothe reactions to the Hellenistic states in the book of Daniel, prophets, priests, and sages spoke the messageof God to changing international political arrangements. Over time, Israel's relationship to the great empireschanged. That relationship began as one of competition, but subsequently a resistant of conquest; still laterIsrael became a reluctant subject, and still later, an acquiescent subject.In the ninth century, Ahab led the coalition of states that pushed back Assyria for a century. In theeighth century, Assyria dismembered and then swallowed up northern Israel and reduced Judah to vassal-1. Kaiser Wilhelm ll, in LynMcDonald, To the Last Man: Spring 1918 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1999) 7.2. Reinhold Niebuhr, The 1rony of American History (New York: Scribner's, 1952) 173.1Hamilton: Faith Under Empire: Old Testament Perspectives for TodayPublished by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2005182 LEAVEN Fourth Quarter 2005age. In the late seventh and early sixth centuries, Judah bid repeatedly for independence, only to fall toBabylon, which had succeeded Assyria on the world stage. Later, a restored Jewish people were subjects,usually loyal, of Persia and then of Alexander the Great and his successors. Then the extreme provocationsof Antiochus Epiphanes led to a century of Jewish independence under the Hasmoneans,The Old Testament contains texts from all these times, and thus diverse approaches to the problem offaithfulness under empire. These approaches include passive resistance and engaged criticism, guardedacceptance, active resistance within the rules of the empire, and radical repudiation. While many OldTestament texts address political issues, fewer address problems of faithfulness under empire. While I canmerely sketch some of the biblical treatments of the problem, each of them deserves serious considerationby Christian theologians, political scientists, and politicians.OPTION 1: PASSIVE RESISTANCEThe most famous example of this approach appears in the confrontation between Isaiah and Ahaz,recorded in Isaiah 7 and commented upon in chapters 8-9. Ahaz sought to navigate between his immediateneighbors, Israel and AramlDamascus, and their mortal enemy Assyria. Like other small states in the region,he opted to pay tribute to Assyria - better the devil far away than the one next door! Isaiah, offering Ahazan unwanted sign of divine protection and blessing, called upon the reluctant king simply to remain still, toavoid entangling alliances. Ahaz understandably declined.I say "understandably," because Isaiah's advice looks suspiciously like the strategy that the newBolshevik rulers of Russia briefly tried in 1917-18: doing nothing in order to produce a condition of neitherpeace nor war. Just as that strategy failed miserably owing to German inability to appreciate the genius ofsuch novel politics, Ahaz must have expected that neither side would understand the niceties of Isaiah's the-ology. Hence Ahaz's vassalage to the larger empire.Impractical as Isaiah's approach seems, it was less devastating than the option Ahaz actually chose. Theprophet recognized, apparently, that a commitment to so-called realistic politics demanded a willingness tolurch from one crisis to another. If his conviction that God would protect Judah in some unspecified wayseems utopian, it at least has the support ofIsraelite liturgy (e.g., Pss. 2, 83) and story (Exod; Pss. 78,105,106). Isaiah's call to trust Yahweh rather than attempt to engage in power politics on the same terms aseveryone else offers an important touchstone for our own reflection.Corollary 1: Ongoing Critique of the EmpirePassive resistance works only when the faithful community can critique the radical claims of an empirein the light of divine revelation. Thus Isaiah of Jerusalem could appeal to Yahweh's transcendence over thenations as the basis of a rejection of the fundamental claims of an empire. As Isaiah 10 makes clear, theprophet knew in some detail the propaganda of Assyria and he responded to it by arguing that Yahweh, notAssur and the pantheon of gods, ruled history.' Thus the political and military successes of the empire tookplace at Yahweh's sufferance. Success did not guarantee virtue. Might did not make right. The prophet,deeply committed to the Sovereign God, regarded with skepticism the empire's claims to be acting withpolitical virtue. Such critique provides a model in which the faithful people of God do not ignore politics ortake refuge in a fantasy world of spiritual narcissism but engaged the powers with intellectual vigor.The most sustained critiques of the pretensions of empires occur in the oracles against the nations inthe various prophetic books (e.g., Isa 14-23; Jer 46-51; Ezek 24-32; Amos 1:3-2:3). Far from being merelyxenophobic attacks on Israel's enemies, the oracles against the nations denounce violence and oppressionin all its forms. The fact that the prophets can shift from these oracles to shockingly similar ones opposing3. See the detailed study of Peter Machinist, "Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah," Journal of the American Orien-tal Society 103 (1983) 719-37.2Leaven, Vol. 13 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 5http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol13/iss4/5NATIONALISM AND THE AMERICAN CHURCH LEAVEN 183Israelite behavior shows that what is at stake is a profoundly ethical sense of the world. The cry for justicetakes precedence over group loyalty in all its forms.OPTION 2: GUARDED ACCEPTANCESuch an engagement allowed the possibility that under certain limited circumstances, Israel couldembrace even a Gentile empire. Thus the Chronicler can end his work with a favorable reference to thefounding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22-23). The empire fulfilled prophecy because theemperor proclaimed liberty to enslaved Israelites in the name of God. The so-called Second Isaiah sharesthis fairly rosy view of the Persians, even calling Cyrus Yahweh's anointed (Isa 44:28-45:5). Though thisoptimism may not have lasted long (since a text from the Persian period, Esther, agrees with contemporaryGreek sources in their suspicion of the Persian monarchs), it is remarkable that it existed at all. Just as someearly Christians saw Rome as a possible protector, so some Jews understood Persia in the same way. TheGod of history could move in strange ways.A similar view appears in the first six chapters of Daniel. These stories of Jews at court operate underthe assumption that persons who adhere to key elements of the faith (in Daniel, prayer, monotheism, andthe laws of kashrut) can not only survive, but flourish. The court tales place their major theological claimsin the mouths of Gentile kings whose experience compel them, often reluctantly, to admit the superiority ofJudaism (Dan 2:47; 3:28-29; 4:34-37; 6:25-27). The author of Daniel 1-6 does not naively equate Jewishsurvival with the goals of the empires, but he does believe that ultimately it is possible to flourish as a faith-ful person even in a state led by pagans.OPTION 3: ACTIVE RESISTANCE WITHIN THE RULES OF THE EMPIRE (ESTHER AND PuRIM)A third option is that of the book of Esther. Probably written during the waning decades of Persiandominance, this comedy of manners lampoons the Persian court, with its drunken parties and irrational rules.For the author of Esther, Persia's leaders can rule the world but not themselves. Like Alice's Queen ofHearts, they intimidate subjects through caprice. Their entire legal system is a travesty: what sort of law cannever be changed?Within such a mad system, Esther and Mordecai use the greed, pride, and selfishness of Haman andAhasuerus against themselves in order to bring about a good result, the saving of Jews in distress. The bookof Esther accepts empire as a fact of life but argues that faithfulness to the chosen people must continue inspite of all difficulties.The Greek revision of the book, which appeared in most Christian Bibles until the Reformation, accen-tuates this theme by adding prayers and other pious accoutrements.OPTION 4: RADICAL REpUDIATIONSometimes, the critique of an empire becomes so far-reaching that only complete rejection remains pos-sible. Such is the case in Daniel 7-12, the apocalyptic visions concerning the Hellenistic empires of thesecond century B.C.E. So hostile has the empire become that faithful people must expect divine interven-tion to reverse the course of history. These chapters do not counsel active resistance, despite the fact that theMaccabees in the second century took precisely such a route and books like 1-4 Maccabees celebrated theirrevolt. Daniel does not, on the other hand, rule out such a possibility.II!It .REFLECTIONS FOR EMPIRE-DWELLERS TODAYFor Christians living in the American empire and to a large degree influencing its economic and sociallife (which are, increasingly, the same thing), the biblical reflections on life under empire pose soberingquestions. Obviously, when political leaders use Christian language to justify naked military aggressionor the neglect of the poor and vulnerable, Christians must call for truth-telling. And when such truth-tell-3Hamilton: Faith Under Empire: Old Testament Perspectives for TodayPublished by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2005184 LEAVEN Fourth Quarter 2005ing meets defensive claims - "well, would you rather have [insert dictator's name here] in power" or "thesecountries can't rule themselves" - we do well to call attention to the long, sorry catalogue of imperial propa-ganda justifying brutality in the name of some transcendental value.Christians also must work hard to build alternative communities in which telling the truth, even when itis unpleasant, combines with a passionate love for others. Critique of the empire should not become a stri-dently self-righteous activity but one rooted in a community's life of hope and faith.But beyond these generalities, what are we to do? Basically two options have existed in Christian his-tory, neither of which is entirely satisfactory alone. The first is the separatist option - we recognize the amo-rality of empire and refuse to participate in it in any way. Such a longing for purity has obvious attractions- it allows, as Stanley Hauerwas puts it, the church to "be the church" in telling the story of sin and forgive-ness" - but equally obvious problems. Separatism can lead to moral fecklessness, to the sort of sloppy ethi-cal thinking that reduces all evil to the same level and fails to recognize that regimes do in fact differ in thedegree of their brutality and the seriousness of their erosion of human dignity. Separatism can also lead to asuffocating self-righteousness that, in the name of love, ends up denigrating real human experience.The second option is a critical engagement with the powers that be. This approach does not simplysurrender to the powers or mask their will to power behind religious rhetoric. Rather, it recognizes thatChristians are in fact entangled in the life of the powers and cannot easily escape them. Innocence is nolonger possible for us. American Christians do have their fingers on the nuclear button, can destroy theenvironment, and do sit atop the economic food chain, benefiting from the toil of impoverished millions.Willing all this away with pious platitudes changes nothing.Such realism raises this difficulty: how can we sustain such critique over the long haul? As the prophetJeremiah discovered, hammering away at all the world over a lifetime takes a great psychic toll. For us, thelures of materialism and political power are ever-present. More seriously still, critical engagement, becauseit involves seeking the best available option for justice in the moment, can find itself compromising with theempire as it lurches from crisis to crisis. History can trump the vision of God's Kingdom.As we already noted, both of these approaches have long histories in Christianity, and in some waysthey both draw on parts of the canonical witness of Scripture. That is, Scripture offers several possibleresponses to the claims of empire, and Christian theology has played out these responses in several ways.We must engage biblical theology in a critical way in order to decide which responses will be most fitting ina particular situation. If past experience is an indication - and it usually is - then different Christians willmake different choices. Separationists and critical engagement types must learn to work together for thegood of the Kingdom.Certain basic assumptions lie behind all the approaches to empire that we see in the Bible, and thusbehind all faithful actions today:1. Yahweh is God of history, and no human experience can long express his will. The ends and goalsof empires never coincide with God's dreams for humanity. The will of the institution never coincideswith God's aim for humanity.2. Human institutions partake of sin, and all do justice imperfectly.3. The goal of the state is to maximize justice, dignity, and peace. These goals exist in some tensionwith each other.4. Christians within the empire must be continuously vigilant and indeed critical. Acquiescence is notreally an option, for it risks idolatry. Equating the Christian story with the story of any particularcountry is heresy, which Christian teachers have an obligation to resist.5. The believing community must remember its own story and live it out in concrete practices of love,i·I4. Stanley Hauerwas, A Beller Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism. Democracy and Postmodernity(Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2000) 32.4Leaven, Vol. 13 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 5http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol13/iss4/5NATIONALISM AND THE AMERICAN CHURCH LEAVEN 185peace, justice, and hope. This may mean supporting each other in counter-cultural modes of livingthat reject the basic capitalist, political assumptions of the American empire.Living faithfully to God under empire will challenge all of us profoundly. Too often the empires of theworld have sought in God an "unconditional and avowed Ally," and too often the good gifts of the churchhave served up such a god. But if we do not wish to be on the wrong side of history, much less the wrongside of God, we do well to remember not only the fate of the Kaiser Wilhelms of every age, but more stillthe hope-bringing message of Israel, for whose God all the nations are like dust on the scales, but for whom,someday, every valley will be exalted and every mountain and hill will be leveled. Even the Americanempire needs this radical faith of ours, and not our blind obedience to its norms. May we have the courageto resist the siren song of patriotism so that we may join the heavenly choruses praising the God of all cre-ation.MARK W. HAMILTON is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at ACU and Co-Executive Director of theAssociation for Case Teaching. His book, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel andthe Levant, will be published by E. J. Brill in 2005.5Hamilton: Faith Under Empire: Old Testament Perspectives for TodayPublished by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2005

Faith Under Empire: Old Testament Perspectives for Today

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&amp;context=leaven

Faith Under Empire: Old Testament Perspectives for Today

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Pepperdine Digital Commons