Top
Browse > Home / Culture, Feature / Is America an Empire?

Is America an Empire?

Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : January 22, 2008

greatseal.jpgRecently, in the comments of Mike Cline’s excellent article Christians: Haters of Humanity, a reader (jazzact13) responded negatively to the insinuation that the USA is an empire. He listed a bunch of criteria from dictionary.com. While I hardly think of dictionary.com as an authority for the definition of “empire,” it could be EASILY argued that America fits the bill under the first definition on the list:

a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

Am I being overly cynical here, or does indeed the USA exercise powerful sovereignty over a group of nations? This works on at least two levels:

  • Uh…we still rule over a number of territories and a plethora of indigenous peoples. And this doesn’t include those nations over which we have profound influence (though not legally).
  • The 50 STATES are each separate STATES ruled over by a central, government. This argument doesn’t work for me, but it might if I were southern.

But the USA is an empire in other ways:

  1. Though we are not currently in an era of vast territorial expansion, we have, historically, used military means to expand our boundaries, often citing “manifest destiny.” And we currently use our military might to police the world. Perhaps this isn’t a traditional definition of “empire,” but it makes the US at least a “neo-empire.”
  2. We are in an age where influence seems to advance through global consumer-capitalism. I think our understanding of “empire” should be revised to include emerging economics. To use a nerdly example: are the Ferengi an empire because of military power or trade? Now, it isn’t fair to point the label of “empire” at America alone in this. Many nations contribute towards the current global economic climate; but it is fair to say that the USA is still the primary power-broker in international trade.
  3. Besides having military and economic influence, the US has huge cultural influence. The USA has helped shape the imaginations of many in the world. We have exported our aesthetics, our definition of the “good life,” and our religion.

Not just leftist “America haters” use the word “empire.” Conservatives have begun to use the word as well. After all, the word “empire” isn’t necessarily a negative word.

I’m not using the word “empire” just to rip on America. And, in fact, I think we should cast the net wider when we use the word “empire” so that we include our consumer/cultural allies. I mean, Britain has had a role in all of the things that qualifies the US as an Ampire.

Why do we throw the word “empire” so much at Jesus Manifesto? It is helpful for us to realize that the anti-imperial flavors of the NT (especially Revelation) can still speak into our current context. Just as Paul and John and Luke, etc. pushed against the narratives and practices of Rome, we too can push against American narratives and practices. Books like Colossians Remixed, Unveiling Empire, and Mustard Seed Versus McWorld are all great books to read to delve into this further.

By naming America as an “Empire” we name the reality that the USA is not the Kingdom of God…and that it isn’t even an ally in the Kingdom of God. It is, in fact, an enemy to the Kingdom of God. Before you start quoting “render unto Caesar” and “submit to the governing authorities” let me remind you that (even if I thought that these passages argue for support of government) Paul called Rome an enemy in Romans 12. He names Rome as an enemy right before he argues that we ought to submit. I’ve already written about this, so I don’t want to belabor the point.

So, I’m convinced that America is an empire. And I’m convinced that it is the enemy, but it is an enemy I’m called to love. I don’t struggle against the flesh and blood residents of the American Empire. But I will name and resist the Powers of America.

Mark Van Steenwyk is the editor of JesusManifesto.com. He is a Mennonite pastor (Missio Dei in Minneapolis), writer, speaker, and grassroots educator. He lives in South Minneapolis with his wife (Amy), son (Jonas) and some of their friends.


Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

  • None Found
· Filed Under Culture, Feature 

Comments

Viewing 70 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Amen, Mark. Jesus told us to love our enemies because he loves them and wants them to follow him, too. Naming our enemies calls us to love them more, to love them to Jesus.
    • ^
    • v
    We certainly need to pray for our country and our leaders. Here are some facts:

    1. The United States has over 700 military bases around the world.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl...

    2. The United States spent more on military than the next 14 nations combined in 2005. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTra...

    3. And here's a photo of a Marine perched atop Nebuchadnezzar's rebuilt tomb in Babylon. http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-babylo...

    .
    • ^
    • v
    "a reader (jazzact13) responded negatively to the insinuation that the USA is an empire...."

    As a colombian I am, I don't know if I should laugh or if I should cry. When USA supported panamian independentists in 1903, it wasn't because Teddy Roosevelt was a man with a big heart; it was because this was the way how USA could take control of Panama canal (imperialism). When USA stole Texas to mexicans, it was pure imperialism. And I could say a lot of more examples of why USA is en empire..., but it could take so long.

    Blessings from Colombia
    • ^
    • v
    I've warranted my own hit piece. I'm flattered. Someone's toes must be smarting.

    --While I hardly think of dictionary.com as an authority for the definition of “empire,” --

    When in doubt, shoot the messenger.

    --Not just leftist “America haters” use the word “empire.” Conservatives have begun to use the word as well.--

    Well, considering that I am conservative and I've used the word here, point taken, though I've used the word for other reasons.

    But let's see--I've don't recall hearing or reading the word being used to describe America by any conservative on radio or in print. You could easily prove me wrong on that, as I don't get to listen to radio all that much. I think I have heard on a few occasions responses to this "american empire" rhetoric, but that's about it.

    However, what I do see and hear is that there are such, as yourselves, who use such rhetoric, particular in regards to Iraq.

    --let me remind you that (even if I thought that these passages argue for support of government) Paul called Rome an enemy in Romans 12. --

    http://bible.christianity.com/mybst/default.asp...

    Well, there's the chapter at least. Perhaps you can show us the verse where Paul tells us "Rome is the enemy", preferably in so many words. I'd hate to think you're just read your own conclusions into the passage.

    --So, I’m convinced that America is an empire. And I’m convinced that it is the enemy, --

    I give you this much, at least your an honest liberal. Now, if only Hillary were so honest. Heck, I'd be satisfied is McLaren and Wallis were this honest.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, I think Paul's writings, of all NT writings, has greatly influenced our desire, as a Christian community, to be complicit in governmental affairs. However, I am not sure we should read from Paul and go backwards.

    In fact, I think we should look to the life of Jesus, which I assume is the position here at "Jesus" Manifesto, and then move forward through the thoughts of Paul. And when I do this, I cannot help but notice Jesus' desire to confront the political system of Rome, deconstruct the mindset of the times and then offer a radically different alternative. In fact, one could even consult the writings of Paul, especially Philippians, where Paul utilizes Greek words which found their basis in political circles, and then he applies them to Christ. For instance, in chapter 2, Paul is directly confronting the idea of the emperor when he denotes the nature of Christ -- "who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

    The gospel message, even in historical context, is political, and Jesus was confronting an "empire." In today's world, it's hard to see how USAmerica is any different than an "empire," regardless of what political pundits say.
    • ^
    • v
    Yeepers JazzAct13, no need to be smarmy. You seem to have lots of loaded assumptions. Let me try to address them:

    1) You are not being "hit"...you have raised a great question and I think it is well worth exploring. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
    2) The dictionary isn't good for defining things at a technical level. Would you use it to define "God" or "Jesus?"
    3) Conservatives who have used the word "empire" to describe America: Old school conservatives like Pat Buchanan, libertarians like Ron Paul, conservative journalists Charles Krauthammer and Mark Steyn. My point here is that all sorts of folks can use the word "empire" and mean it for good or bad. It isn't simply a badge worn by liberals.
    4) I've linked to my articles where I explain Romans 12 and 13. That's why I didn't delve into it here. I admit I am biased. As an anabaptist (and not a liberal) the State is always in the "enemy" category. But that doesn't mean I should pursue their destruction. Scripture is clear that I should seek to live in peace with the government. But it isn't my government. My government was started when Jesus was baptized.

    For the record. I dislike the politics of Wallis and McLaren too. I'm not a voter, and think a politically empowered Evangelical Left is almost as bad of an idea as an Evangelical Right. There are more than two political positions, Jazzact13. Just because I'm not a conservative does not make me a liberal. I am holding a political position that is 500 years old. You might as well call the Amish "liberals."
    • ^
    • v
    I hardly see the relevance of pegging people as liberals or conservatives....Mark would hardly be welcomed into the Democratic Party, as he is against abortion, and therefore conservative to many. These labels are unnecessary in this discussion. Just because someone thinks America is an "empire" does not mean that he is liberal, it just means that he thinks America is an "empire". No need to "read your own conclusions" into the statement.

    However, the conclusion that America is an "empire" is a bit shaky to me. The discussion is much more complicated and messy than it is made out to be here. I think there is a huge difference between exercising influence (economic, military, or political) over other nations and exercising powerful sovereignty. Economic influence is a discussion that would be extremely complicated as the world economy is so integrated.

    And, to conclude that America is the "enemy" is a simple conclusion without a well explained basis. The American government does a lot of good (picks up my garbage, paves roads, provides an avenue to deal with disputes [court], etc.) To conclude that "America" (city, state, and federal government) is the enemy....is like Pat Robertson calling liberals the enemy.
    • ^
    • v
    John,

    I know that saying that America is an empire is a shaky endeavor. I know it is a subject that has garnered much debate.

    My reason for talking this way is theological. I'm of the opinion that Revelation, for example, is meant always to be read in such a way that it applies to our current context, much like other NT works. The spirit of "Empire" is always with us. The question is: what shape does it take?

    You've read long enough to know that I would put any State in the "enemy" column. I'm not saying it is entirely evil.

    Almost every time Jesus or Paul talks about "enemy" they were referring to the Romans. But I don't believe that Rome was any more evil than America. They did, after all, many good things (paved roads, provided an avenue to deal with disputes, provided for peace, etc.)

    So, I am not using "enemy" the same way that Pat Robertson uses it to vilify the "other." When it comes to the Kingdom of God, America is an enemy, rather than an ally. So is every human government. So is my older brother, for that matter. I'm using "enemy" in the Biblical sense. Perhaps it is too unnuanced of a word to use effectively.
    • ^
    • v
    --Am I being overly cynical here, or does indeed the USA exercise powerful sovereignty over a group of nations?--

    I'm going with over cynical. Now, if you want something that is at least trying (usually flailingly, but still trying) to "exercise powerful sovereignty over a group of nations", the UN comes readily to mind.

    --Uh…we still rule over a number of territories and a plethora of indigenous peoples. And this doesn’t include those nations over which we have profound influence (though not legally).--

    Iffy. By this definition, almost any government could be labelled an 'empire'.

    --The 50 STATES are each separate STATES ruled over by a central, government. This argument doesn’t work for me, but it might if I were southern.--

    I think I would be considered southern, and that argument seems rather lame to me, too.

    --Though we are not currently in an era of vast territorial expansion, we have, historically, used military means to expand our boundaries, often citing “manifest destiny.” And we currently use our military might to police the world. Perhaps this isn’t a traditional definition of “empire,” but it makes the US at least a “neo-empire.” --

    Gotta love that--stick a prefix on a word, and suddenly its redefined/reimagines/deconstructed so that it fits whatever the user wants it to fit.

    --We are in an age where influence seems to advance through global consumer-capitalism. I think our understanding of “empire” should be revised to include emerging economics. To use a nerdly example: are the Ferengi an empire because of military power or trade? Now, it isn’t fair to point the label of “empire” at America alone in this. Many nations contribute towards the current global economic climate; but it is fair to say that the USA is still the primary power-broker in international trade. --
    For one thing, I find it hilarious that Star Trek is referenced.

    I find it hilarious as well that nonsense labels like "McWorld" are mentioned in your article, especially as someone who has spend a good amount of time in other countries and has been in places like McDonalds in various countries and even has a "Starbucks Beijing" t-shirt somewhere.

    Now, let's be honest, places like McDonalds and Starbucks are businesses. Knowing that, why do those kinds of businesses do so well in other countries? The answer--the people of those countries buy there stuff!! And they buy it because that's what they want to buy! Sheesh, they're no more being forced to buy Big Macs and Caramelmochalattes then you are being forced to eat at a local Mexican restaurant or to buy a BMW.

    --Besides having military and economic influence, the US has huge cultural influence. The USA has helped shape the imaginations of many in the world. We have exported our aesthetics, our definition of the “good life,” and our religion.--

    Ah, yes, and as a former missionary from the US, let me just say, I couldn't have cared less what the people I was among thought about Christ just so long as they saluted the red, white, and blue.

    Wow. I mean, heaven forbid that people in other countries actually read books written by US authors or watch US television or movies, right? Wouldn't want those poor people being influenced by us, right? They might actually start thinking about things like "You know, why do women need to wear burkhas?", "Maybe I don't have to live in a hovel all my life watching my children starve.", and "Maybe I do not believe in Christianity, but is it the government's business to not let me make an informed decision about it?".

    Shall we deal plainly now? Yes, I've no doubt that we could point out all kinds of things the US has done wrong. I admit that, and I'm not proud of that. We've made mistakes, and we've made plenty of them. Of course as well, we probably won't always agree on whether any X action was a mistake, but we can at least agree that many have been made.

    Admitting that, I would say that justice would dictate that you also acknowledge that the US has been a force for good in the world, too. This wholesale rhetoric of "America is the enemy" is laughably extreme. We were a large part of the efforts again Nazism, and even more so against the USSR. We are generous in regards to charity and aid, some might even say generous to a fault. The very fact the liberals can get so far with the rhetoric of PCness and victimhood is based solely on the fact that US people are caring and try to not offend.

    In short, my position is not that "the US is perfect and always right". I know it's not. But then, calling the US "the enemy" is an extreme statement, designed to emphasize any negative and bad things we have done and to minimize and downplay any good. Calling the US "an empire" is a label filled with political connotations, and is to my mind used more to stirs emotions then to inspire thought.
    • ^
    • v
    The US is not an "enemy" because of "how bad it is" v. how good the church is. It is an "enemy" because it is based on an ideology that is contrary to that of the church. And it's ideology, as contrary, has an adverse effect on the church correlative to the church's involvement therewith. You can argue up and down that the US does good things, but that is beside the point. All governments do some good things, all people do some good things. Some may even do many more good things than bad. But so what? What Mark means when he says enemy is not what the US means when it says that terrorists are the enemy. jazzact13 states "But then, calling the US “the enemy” is an extreme statement, designed to emphasize any negative and bad things we have done and to minimize and downplay any good" But he couldn't be more wrong. In the biblical sense of "enemy" the good or bad done doesn't matter. "Many will say 'Lord, Lord'." But they will still perish! Because the church defines enemy differently than the world. Enemy must be defined through and in the life of Jesus, through and in the work of the cross. The nation-state will not save us. It is founded on ideological principles which are contrary to scripture. We must get over the myth of State as alternative soteriology (William Cavanaugh). Jesus is the one who saves, and he is concerned with his Kingdom and not any kingdom of the world.
    • ^
    • v
    I think the current state of financial affairs in the world clearly undermines your stance, jazzact. If America didn't hold a high degree of influence over the world, why would a suffering US economy cause severe market crises in so many countries across the globe? And why would the US Federal Reserve adjusting its interest rate have such a positive impact on those panicking markets? Whether by deployed troops or dollar bills, the unprecedented role of the US as a global hyperpower is undeniable.

    Yes, America is a very generous nation, both governmentally and personally. However, many countries depend on US governmental aid to survive - that automatically puts the US in a position of influence over those nations. Similarly, the US market is a huge source of funds for the world, which is why sanctions against targeted nations are so effective. Few countries can afford to be denied access to the US consumer - why do you think Cuba is still stuck in the 60's? Of course, we don't even need to mention military and economic aid to dictators and countries with extremely poor civil rights records, do we? Some of those governments would be in very tenuous positions were it not for US involvement.

    I think part of the problem is that the classical definition of empire requires a specific sovereign - either a single person or a council of some kind. Power and control are exercised by that entity. That is clearly not the case in modern America. Take my above example; the President can influence the Fed chairman but he cannot order him to do anything. The President can influence US corporations but cannot directly control them without involving Congress. In that way, no, the US is not an empire. However, if we don't succumb to emotion and actually consider the blunt reality, the US fits many aspects of an empire. Even though control is not centralized in every respect, those in economic and political control tend to work towards similar goals: more money, more control, more security at whatever cost. And the lines of interdependence between US corporations and the government are not easily dismissed. For instance, the economic windfall that the latest Medicare prescription drug presented to drug companies is obvious. And the government will benefit, somewhat, by the tax revenues of those corporations. What is less obvious is their role in getting that legislation passed, which is how those actually in office benefit from the arrangement. There are many examples of this. What results is a de facto centralization of authority and control based on mutual interests.
    • ^
    • v
    I find the term "empire" illustrative with regards to the United States in much the same way I find "colonialism" illustrated with regards to the economic relations between former political-territorial colonizing nation-states and the former colonial nation-states. The term "neocolonialism" seems to have garnered a much wider following than saying something like "neoimperialism" though.

    I find this not unlike the discussion I had in my Formation for Ministry class last night - we have to be careful of the comparisons we make because the situation we are in now is not the same as the situation we compare ourselves to. In that class we're reading Bonhoeffer's Life Together and discussing it with regards to our formation as ministers, particularly discussing the question "What does it mean to be a member/leader of a community?". We're not only reading the book, but also discussing the situations Bonhoeffer experienced as an underground seminary leader during Hitler's regime when the book was written. I raised the issue of the German church and how we must reconsider our relationship with the American state and with modern economic orthodoxies pointing to the German church as an example of the dangers of becoming too embedded within the system. I found myself having to clarify at nearly every turn that I was saying I see points of continuity between Hitler's rhetoric, authoritarian measures taken by the Nazis, and the nationalistic response of churches in Germany to our contemporary situation today - but not that I was making an easy identification between present-day USAmerica and Nazi Germany.

    In the same way, I think there are a lot of people who rather uncritically throw around the word "empire" with relation to the United States, and it's given people like jazzact13 a problem. I do see great usefulness in exploring the connections between the United States and empire, for example see my series where I talk more about the processes of empire than actual, historical instantiations of empires. I think Mark's article gives good introductory material into the usefulness of describing America as an empire, but as people in this thread have rightly noted it is a complex issue.
    • ^
    • v
    --Yeepers JazzAct13, no need to be smarmy.--

    Very well. btw the 'a' is small. And the 'j'.

    --You are not being “hit”…you have raised a great question and I think it is well worth exploring. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.--

    I find this a bit odd. If this "empire" rhetoric is so common here, as the op says, then one would assume that it was a question already explored and agreed upon or not.

    --The dictionary isn’t good for defining things at a technical level. Would you use it to define “God” or “Jesus?”--

    Perhaps not in an in-depth manner, but I would be surprised if there wasn't at least some level of agreement, even basic, in those definitions and the reality.

    --Conservatives who have used the word “empire” to describe America: Old school conservatives like Pat Buchanan, libertarians like Ron Paul, conservative journalists Charles Krauthammer and Mark Steyn. My point here is that all sorts of folks can use the word “empire” and mean it for good or bad. It isn’t simply a badge worn by liberals--

    Buchanan doesn't surprise me too much, though my understanding is that Paul is pretty isolationist, so if he is calling the US an empire would he be doing so in a complimentary way? Or, maybe to put it another way, would his concept of 'empire' be better understood when opposed to his 'isolationist' ideas?

    --I’ve linked to my articles where I explain Romans 12 and 13. That’s why I didn’t delve into it here. --

    Very well, I shall check those out.

    --For the record. I dislike the politics of Wallis and McLaren too. I’m not a voter, and think a politically empowered Evangelical Left is almost as bad of an idea as an Evangelical Right.--

    Understood.

    --Just because I’m not a conservative does not make me a liberal. --

    Understood as well, and you have my apologies.
    • ^
    • v
    "Enemy must be defined through and in the life of Jesus, through and in the work of the cross." I would like this to be flushed out.

    No one has given a definition of "enemy", which would help me in this conversation. America is the enemy, Mark's brother is the enemy, some days I am the enemy.....who and what is not the enemy? Please help.

    And this..."The nation-state will not save us. It is founded on ideological principles which are contrary to scripture." That could not be more loaded and in need of explanation.
    • ^
    • v
    --I think the current state of financial affairs in the world clearly undermines your stance, jazzact. If America didn’t hold a high degree of influence over the world, why would a suffering US economy cause severe market crises in so many countries across the globe?--

    I'm not certain where in what I've said it could be interpreted that I said that the US does not have a high degree of influence. I know that, I would guess almost on earth knows that.

    --However, many countries depend on US governmental aid to survive --

    I would say that more often then not such dependence is a bad thing, but then, is that dependence our fault, their fault, or some mix of the two? As a conservative, it is my position that as much as possible people should be able to stand on their own. That doesn't mean the help and charity are bad things, I'm not a Randian Objectivist, and it must be acknowledged that there are people--some who are sick and old, orphans, the handicapped and maimed, perhaps others I can't think of right now--who do require more and even continual help because of their weakness.

    But in regards to nations, it seems that more often then not the US tries to help them so that they can stand on their own. I think that Japan and Germany after WW2 are good examples, and even Russia after the USSR could be considered a limited success. When I was first there in 99, it was a dismal mess, but my last time there in 2004 it had become much better.

    --Few countries can afford to be denied access to the US consumer - why do you think Cuba is still stuck in the 60’s?--

    Castro.

    --Of course, we don’t even need to mention military and economic aid to dictators and countries with extremely poor civil rights records, do we? Some of those governments would be in very tenuous positions were it not for US involvement.--

    I think with this you raise some good concerns. As I said before, the US hasn't been perfect.
    • ^
    • v
    --“No one has given a definition of “enemy”, which would help me in this conversation. America is the enemy, Mark’s brother is the enemy, some days I am the enemy…..who and what is not the enemy? Please help.--

    I agree with you, John. Maybe I'm starting to understand more what's going on, but it's still a bit confusing. A few fairly strong words are being used, like "enemy" and "empire", but then we are told they aren't being used to mean what they usually mean. That's fair, I suppose, but it's confusing, too.
    • ^
    • v