Home » Featured, politics & pop culture

@collapse: exploring the future of blogging against empire

Submitted by Brandon Rhodes on May 5, 2009 – 2:35 pmView Comments
Print This Post

twitter-birdIn the aftermath of September 11, 2001, many fantastic tales of survival and heroism emerged.  Most bizarre was the tale of a man who, high up in the smoldering towers, surfed down the shattered skyscrapers in the middle of the collapse on a thin piece of walling.  Variations on the myth include him curling into a ball or surfing the wind currents on rubble.  However it happened, … well, it didn’t.  It was an amazing bit of myth that infused hope into the open veins of a lamenting America.

Myth though it is, this story compels me. This picture of a horrified man careening through the cascading infernos of steel and flesh, unsure of where his freefall is taking him, is how much of humanity feels these days. Global institutions we once considered as unmovable as skyscrapers are suddenly groaning under ghastly portents of collapse.  The end — of the American Empire, of globalization, of The World as We Know It, of soul-sucking consumerism and earth-scorching militarism to support it, of big banks and mega-churches –  is here.  These towers of our captivity are falling.  And many are just hoping that this sheet of drywall they’re coasting on will bring them to a safety beyond the maw of rubble presently forming all ’round us.

The Empire is ending — and we feel tremendously unsure of what’s next.  The Empire is ending — and we don’t know what to do about it.  The Empire is ending — and we don’t even know how to talk  about it.

consummation-of-empire

Many of us, not least myself, had gotten quite accustomed to a writing-style and theological flavor that delighted in sniffing out every jot + tittle of anti-imperialism in the Bible.  Books, lay and academic, have been met with great sales by drawing these themes to the forefront of our theology.  Empire was a hidden topic in evangelical scholarship and pop culture until very recently.  Who could’ve predicted the Newscorp-owned conservative megalith of Zondervan would publish the anti-empire tomes of Shane Claiborne, Greg Boyd, and Rob Bell?

It’s as if we, the old street-corner eccentrics holding a SCREW CAPITALISM sign for years, were suddenly greeted by hundreds of people with similar signs and laments.  Our pet interests, peculiar interpretations, and public invocations have suddenly become quite en vogue.  Communities like this site owe their vibrancy to this awakening by the Holy Spirit to the vagaries of Empire.  And praise God for that awakening!

desolation

But that reality is dissolving.  The Empire that has captured our churches and imaginations is falling apart faster than all the bloggers in the world can capture. Old evils of sweatshops, repressed coffee farmers, imperial militarism, corporate deception, and state oppression have slipped out of focus as new beasts have crawled out of the sea of world history.  Food shortages, prolonged unemployment, and urban strife now occupy what my prayers, theological reflection, and cultural analysis focus on.  The challenges before us isn’t how to stop these Twin Towers from running the world into the ground; it is the task, granted that the towers are in mid-collapse, of how to surf this rubble well.

One year ago an anti-imperial sermon or blog would have held the attention many young Christians.  That’s just not on the radar as much, these days.  Babylon is fallen/ing, and new beasts are on the shore.

Those 20th-century struggles still demand tremendous attention: fighting for global justice and peace and the healing of the nations will always be gospel matters.  And to be sure: capitalism, consumerism, and militarism may wither, but won’t go away.  Indeed twenty years from now, America may be a second-world country that simply can’t afford the cavalier military entanglements we’re presently caught in, but the threat of war between nations will ever exist.

So too will the church’s need to provide nonviolent witness that another way is possible.  And that’s why I continue to believe that what we talk about here on Jesus Manifesto matters so utterly, even now, at the end of all things we love to loathe.  Geopolitical forces may be presently bringing the American Empire down rather quickly.  But it’ll take years more to bring down the American church’s love affair with that Empire.  Long after it’s gone, she’ll still long for it.  So God’s work, our work, isn’t over in reclaiming the ecclesial imagination from the empire and into the kingdom of the Beloved Son.

For now, though, I’m (mostly) done sending steady potshots at consumerism, militarism, and all the other bastard ilk of Empire.  From the perspective of mid-collapse, that’s fighting yesterday’s battles.  Tomorrow’s gospel tasks are how to talk about living not just under Empire, but after it.

desolation-of-empire

The Twin Towers are burning, and indeed falling.  Will we continue to frame our praxis and doxis and identity around the memories of intact towers, or in anticipation of rubble?  As we surf this rubble of the Empire into the Billowing Unknown ahead, may the grace of God keep our attention and rhetoric firmly fixed on what he might be doing for his kingdom amid this present darkness.

  • What are the first steps in understanding a theology of imperial decline?
  • How do we both lament the pain of the empire’s fall with the joy that it is indeed receding?
  • In what ways have we allowed anti-empire rhetoric to unduly form our identity?  (i.e., being against something versus being for something else?)
  • What are the gospel tasks and ecclesial priorities of the Christian Radicalism movement that need to decline along with the empire?
  • Rephrased: What biblical themes should increase as the American empire decreases?
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About Brandon Rhodes

Brandon Rhodes is a lifelong Oregonian who worships and serves in Springwater, a new-monastic Mennonite church plant in Portland's eclectic Brentwood-Darlington neighborhood and presently in its first year together. In his adolescence he was a part-time Christian and full-time fundamentalist crank. But when Brandon lived in a kingdom-centered intentional community while studying Environmental Studies and Political Science at the University of Oregon, he found himself steadily transformed by the gospel. God redeemed him from sneering individualism and into playful community, from shrill nationalism into the Kingdom of the Triumphant Lamb. His is a journey of being regularly startled by God's love and beauty. Since college, Brandon has continued to live in Christian community, graduated seminary, and worked as a writer and activist for several creation-care and global justice nonprofits. He enjoys vegetable gardening, reading compulsively, brewing beer, Mexican food, Romans 8, and trees.

  • Jim Folsom
    Paul, I'm thinking about the 'shake the dust from your feet' discussion. I'm not sure we even have a difference except in semantics, but let me mull that one a while.

    I think there is an easily defined difference between friendship with the world and living in the world without being of it. Sheep among wolves are still sheep AMONG wolves. A wife married to an ungodly man is instructed in scripture to stay with him if he will stay with her. Over time, her gentle and godly nature may reveal Jesus to him. I believe this scenario is multiplied millions of times around the world in master/slave type relationships. The people who led me to faith in Jesus kept showing me His love when I was rejecting them. I physically threw a guy out of my room but some time later the same guy showed me something of what Jesus is like, leading to a new life for me. So, I think it is true that I hated these guys who were sharing Christ with me. But it is also true that I was miserable and longing for something in my life that I could not identify. When I began to recognize that they had what I wanted, I began to soften.

    I believe some of our suffering as believers is incurred as we pay the price of delivery for this Message of Jesus' love and redemption. The same people who hate us can be unexplainably (to them) drawn to us.

    What do think?
  • This is getting away from the intent of the article, but I'll make one last comment. I like your idea, Jim, of people hating us but also inexplicably drawn to us as well.

    It reminds me of John the Baptist and Herod. The king found John intriguing and "heard him gladly," though he kept him in prison. If our situation is like that (and we're talking like John did), then yes, I can understand and appreciate continuing to reach out to the ones persecuting us.

    But more often I have seen situations where Christians are held together with "worldly" folks because they work for the same companies or are parts of the same organizations, perhaps "not of the world" in their religious beliefs, but really cogs in the same machine. Or worse, the Christians are running a charity and the "worldly" people have to come to them for food or shelter or some other necessity. And it's the "worldly" person who is in the vulnerable position, having to keep coming and hearing the Christians' message because they have nowhere else to go. Persisting with people that "hate us" in these situations doesn't seem to me to be any virtue, not like Jesus at all.

    But if we're like John (or Jesus) bearing witness to our more powerful captors or persecutors, risking more persecution by those words, then I respect that as the voice of God against the powers of the world, calling people to freedom from those powers.
  • Jim Folsom
    Paul, these are great questions that I ask too. I have an agenda when I am with unbelievers and it is to persuade them to follow Jesus, but the idea that I personally am out to change them is not accurate. They have to enter in willingly and my agenda is not hidden. Some of my dilemma is that I believe many genuine followers of Jesus are also entrenched in some pretty worldly stuff. It seems that Jesus sometimes looks to people with a tenderness and wants to be their shepherd and sometimes He speaks bold, powerful statements like 'your dad is the devil!' My best understanding of why that happens is His ability to speak law to the proud and grace to the humble.

    I understand that there is pressure to compromise when we are around the people of the world. And, yes they will hate a follower of Jesus. But...I don't hate them nor do I see their hatred of me as any kind of warning from Jesus to NOT love them. Love is generally expressed from nearby instead of at a distance, so I think this passage of John 15 has more to do with going to the world with our eyes wide open than pulling back in any way. They may throw me out, but as a general principle, I don't want to throw them out.(I am aware of the shaking the dust from their feet command in the gospels, but I don't believe that that specific incident is the pattern for all dealings with all unbelievers.) I've been with people who hate me and watched them soften over time, over years rather than days, weeks, or months, and then watched them bow the knee to Jesus. It is worth dealing with the pressure and it can be very beneficial in keeping us from complacency.

    Your point about a few people going rather than just one is well taken. It's a lot easier to keep on track with another believer around than lone rangering.

    And...I'm with you on the 'world' vs. the 'empire.'
  • I agree, Jim, with your "They may throw me out, but as a general principle, I don't want to throw them out." And of course if we are in the weaker, more vulnerable position, there is no question of throwing others out. I'm curious, though, how you can "be with" people who hate you, for a long period of time. If they hate you, why do they keep interacting with you, why do they keep up the relationship? I wonder, because people who hated Jesus got rid of him pretty quick.

    "Shaking the dust from your feet" is different from throwing others out, as I understand it. And I do see it as a general pattern for responding to those who reject us, rather than just applying to one specific incident. Jesus told his disciples:
    "Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves... Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; heal the sick in it and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you.'

    "But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, `Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you; nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.'" (Lk 10.3-11)
    And, really, what else can you do (besides attempting to call down fire from heaven) if you are in the weak, vulnerable position, lambs among wolves?

    I think this is important because it assumes that the situation is one where the Christians are the few and the disenfranchised, and "the world" has all the power, control of the towns, etc. So the Christian offers the appeal or invitation, but then has to accept when they are rejected, and are driven away by those who hate them (and who have all the power).

    It's an assumption (getting back to the article) that the world/empire remains in power and, like Jesus, his followers are exiles of a sort. I don't see any indication in Jesus' promises and warnings that this situation would change before he himself returns and changes it for good.
  • Jim Folsom
    Hi Paul. I guess when I say loving and truthful I'm thinking that most reform is heavy on truth but willing to fight people. We may not bomb them and kill them physically but it seems like there is a pattern of doing the same verbally. I'm willing to live with rejection from people who are attached to systems that are not godly, but I don't want them to feel rejection from me. It takes effort to stay in relationships, eat together, spend time together etc. when two seemingly opposing 'movements' have been identified. Instead of clinging to the new empire, I want to cling to Jesus and resist the temptation to gather with only like-minded people. On a practical day by day basis, this has meant sending cards and emails, taking people to lunch, attending meetings or hospital rooms etc. with people who are staunch supporters of what we might call empire. Without giving up truth, I believe we can still 'go alone' into their comfort zones and keep up relationships. The people I know who are bound by the idolatry of ungodly systems would not consider fellowship with a group of radical Christians. They will consider relationship with one, not very threatening, individual who wants to live at peace with them inasmuch as it is up to him, and I believe they can discern the difference between one who genuinely loves them and one who has an agenda to change them. That's where my head is at on this. I hope that is a little less vague.

    Paul, I've read your comments and some of your posts and blog. I've really come to appreciate your insight and the gentle, yet direct way you communicate. Thanks.
  • Thanks, Jim. And I agree with your assessment that a non-threatening individual is easier for people to let into their lives, and not immediately reject. I think it's always better to approach (and challenge) those in power, or in the majority, from a position of vulnerability like Jesus did. And an individual (or a few people) are more vulnerable, especially if they are on the other persons' "turf."

    I wonder, though, about how you seem to say loving others is opposed to "trying to change them" (or trying to "bomb" them verbally). Didn't Jesus have an agenda to change people? And what do you make of bombs like John 8:42-47?

    I appreciate your efforts to reach out to those who think differently, especially those who could easily be seen as enemies. But I wonder about the possibility of continuing friendly relationships (for long) and still being truthful. Jesus' warning comes to mind:
    "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

    "Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me." (Jn 15.18-21)

    It seems to me that it would be easy to avoid telling the truth in order to maintain friendly relationships. That is one way we compromise and become part of the empires that we claim to be against.

    I also like how Jesus uses the term "the world," rather than "empire." Empires fall and rise, but the world remains, always continuing in its ways (and Jesus seems to indicate it will continue, until he ends it). I think that's relevant to the questions that many have raised here about whether "the towers" are actually falling, in any significant way.
  • Jim Folsom
    Brandon, I agree with you in the thought that the success of so many anti-empire publications is evidence that the 'empire' is weakening/decreasing. I wonder if the cycle of empire building and reform movements in church history has something to do with a failure to love on the part of the reformers.

    Your last question about what biblical themes should increase as the American empire decreases caught my attention. Is it possible that we who are desiring reform, peace, justice, changes, freedom etc. need to be the most concerned about loving, genuinely loving, the folks who are believers in the empire? I wonder what some of the reform movements in church history would look like if the reformers refused to be removed from loving relationship with believers who were still attached to 'empire?' I know there are examples of just this, but I'm not thinking that they were the norm. It appears that the difficult task of relating lovingly to those who support oppression is a tough row to hoe; or a narrow way :) I have some examples of this from my own life but I am hesitant to share them as they would tend to expose the sin of others without their permission, but I think if we are persistent, prayerful followers of Jesus, He can and will show us the ways to be both loving and truthful in our relationships with the purveyors of empire.

    If we are not both loving and truthful, the collapse of one empire would certainly set the stage for us to become the new empire in a few years.
  • You emphasize being "loving and truthful," Jim, as the way to avoid becoming a part of the cycles of empire. Of course no one will object to those words, but they are a bit vague.

    Could you say more specifically what you mean? How does that help us avoid becoming the new empire when one falls? I ask for specifics because of course every reform movement in the church claims to be loving and truthful, and yet...
  • Jim. Good comment. May God help us.
  • I'd suggest we be careful when declaring that there's been any recent phase transition. None of the underlying assumptions have changed in the current political debate: the administration continues to refer to America as the "best hope of mankind," military budgets are increasing, and the exit strategy for one war is to escalate another (or to *say* we're ending one war while we *do* escalate another). The economic crisis has rattled the walls, but the Domination System persists. Whether the U.S. remains the current avatar of that system is irrelevant. The old assumptions persist, and even if the U.S. is "falling", it's not falling due to a shattering of the mythic structure of Empire in the human mind, virtually guaranteeing the rise of another avatar to replace it.

    Theologically, yes, the Kingdom is coming, the monster has been chained and is consumed with a fire from within. It's dying, ever dying, but we haven't yet reached that point where the slowing heartbeat stops.
  • I'm sorry, but I don't see a true collapse.

    I wonder if the problem might be in how "Empire" is defined.

    I see no true repentance. And maybe only true repentance can come when people can see a different way of living -a sustainable way of living. If we want to be radical, unplugged from the empire, then we need to live in a sustainable way. We need to reduce our carbon foot print. There cannot be true justice as long as other people have to suffer the consequences of my pollution.

    We can tighten our belts for a time and not spend as much, but if we had extra wealth again today would we make the same economic choices as yesterday? I have not come across people with real heart changes about how they have been living, only regrets that they could not continue affording their lifestyle.

    If we are for a sustainable lifestyle then when the empire falls the only adjustment we will have to make is accommodating more people who want to learn to live like we do.
  • "Who could’ve predicted the Newscorp-owned conservative megalith of Zondervan would publish the anti-empire tomes of Shane Claiborne, Greg Boyd, and Rob Bell?"

    I think this is a good example that questions the conclusion of your article. Is empire really falling, or is it effectively (more effectively and more quickly than ever before) assimilating our anti-empire movements?

    We cannot be successful or show the church to be effective in the world unless we adopt the world's criterion of efficacy, which means adopting its means as well.

    ...[But] these successes, this efficacy as it would be called from man's standpoint, and especially in our own society, will never amount to anything more than the approval given by the world, by society, to certain acts and means. It is the stamp of a group of men, a social body. But if we do not believe that society is good and right, this approval proves nothing except that the action is in conformity with the world. It does not mean that the world has changed; quite the contrary.

    Each time the people of God becomes effective according to the world's criteria, this only implies that society has absorbed our action and is using it for its own ends and for its own profit. ...The efficacy we think we have is simply a power in the world's service, for the perfecting of its own being, for its better organization....

    There can be no question of securing the approval of the world or its conformity to us.

    That's Jacques Ellul, from The Politics of God and the Politics of Man.
  • Ted Troxell
    When the Viet Nam war ended with more whimper than bang and without the dissolution of the "industrial-military complex," student radical movements like Weatherman (which became Weather Underground) lost a lot of traction and eventually fell apart. They had propped themselves up against a a particular aspect of Empire, and could not regain their footing when it collapsed.

    Closer to home, there were 19th century Christian radicals in the abolition movement, including Adin Ballou but also the more recognizable William Lloyd Garrison (Tolstoy appreciated Garrison's work very much). Their opposition to force and coercion - rooted in evangelical theology -- put them very nearly in anarcho-pacifist territory, but when slavery was abolished through violent means they fell apart. Concern for social justice would be maintained by the labor movement on one hand and the Social Gospel on the other, but the "black thread" (using "black" as a reference to anarchism and not as a pejorative by any means) of Christian radicalism wouldn't really surface again until the Catholic Worker. It would take even longer for it to re-emerge in evangelical circles.

    I say all this as a way of affirming the need for the kind of message you've offered here, Brandon, and to further illuminate Facebook User's metaphor of the empty-nesters. But I also have to join our friend with the catchy moniker in saying: Collapsed? Really? Ending? Really? Could you maybe give us some examples of what you're talking about? Places where the neoliberal sky is falling? Evidence that we're collectively uneasy about the future of Empire as something to kick against? Your piece almost reads like a letter from a distant time, a dispatch from a post-apocalyptic future.

    If "Empire" as a talking-point is, like, so 2007, I can appreciate that, but Babel seems alive and well and overtaking planet Earth. Certainly the nation-state, that old anarchist bugaboo, has been out of the limelight for some time, as the market becomes more and more transnational and specific national identities become less important. But the root (radix) issues of which any given "empire" is but a manifestation seem to continue unabated, as you point out.

    I agree that the landscape is changing, but rather than collapse, what I see is a kind of shape-shifting, an evolutionary mechanism by which resistance is being assimilated and commodified. Sara's point about marketing teenage rebellion speaks to this phenomenon. You can buy an anarchist T-shirt at Hot Topic.

    I think we need to take your critique very seriously, but you're teasing us. Myself, anyway, I want more. More examples. More about where your personal journey fits into this. I like the trailer, but I don't yet know if the movie can deliver. Your delightful piece merely whets my appetite.
  • Facebook User
    If the thinking and action has ever been (primarily) about empire, it's been an exercise in missing the point. It's like the adage about parents who find their relationship in their work or children - the relationship threatens to cave in once retirement or college hits.

    But if one's thinking and action centers around relationship (God and others) and creation (the manifestation of the kingdom of God), empire's collapse need not bring an identity crisis.

    This is not to discount the strong voices of protest and creative destruction, but without foundation they too will crumble.

    Finally, I think the reports of empire's demise are greatly exaggerated - and the popularity of the 'radical message' means that radical action and groundedness are all the more necessary.
  • I speak of collapse with such confidence because it seems like this inbreaking Greater Depression is coinciding with our species finally bumping into global limits -- there's only so much oil, only so much soil, only so much water. And we're hitting those limits to growth.

    Worse, those limits seem to be constricting. Oil production is peaking. Ancient aquifers (so-called "fossil water") are drying up. Soil is eroding faster than we can dump chemicals on it -- which, by the way, is only making its demise all the sharper.

    These are the kinds of crises which decimate civilizations -- be it the Maya, Easter Island, or Rome. We're no different, as the global-capitalist American Empire. And we're no different as a global society, as a species. Limits exist.

    The present economic freefall was provoked by these limits (http://tinyurl.com/ctpxa9 and http://tinyurl.com/ct5a29) and we'll not see a recovery precisely because of these ever-constricting lifebloods (oil, soil, water) of industrial civilization so steadily going away. Less oil is less oil, which translates into, well, LESS OIL. There's nothing any empire can do to combat the basics of that equation. All empires and societies today will shrink or shrivel in this new world of scarcity.

    So, yes: I stand by the claim of collapse in the present tense. We'll keep acting like one, keep using the language of it, for a while. Denial will set in pretty quick, and we'll want to believe that The Light of Freedom in the World that is (allegedly) America will triumph once more. But that we'll define our narrative of the collapse that way doesn't negate the reality of that collapse happening to real people and real communities.
  • Isn't it true, though, that empires (such as the ones you mentioned) existed before oil? Pre-industrial? Perhaps the present powers will be forced to take new forms, and new fuels, but that doesn't leave us with a world "after empire" (unless you simply mean after one particular empire, and under the next one), does it?

    I also wonder why you think scarcity would lead to the shriveling of the power of empire. Aren't people more vulnerable and willing to accept drastic governmental controls during times of great scarcity? And don't the wealthy few wield even more power during these times, since they can weather the storm, while the average joes quickly deplete their resources and become desperate, willing to sell themselves (at rock bottom prices) to anyone who can pay?
  • I agree: the ruthless and revilable of the world will often take oppressive advantage of the collapse. The iron grips of tyrants big and small, corporate and state, will often only tighten.

    But the point I was arguing for in the article was NOT that the "way of the world" (which I sloppily collapsed into the word 'empire') is going away. Like I just said: it's far from going away.

    The point I was driving home is that, first, the zeitgeists of Empire will increasingly become more like phantom limbs -- morbid echoes of a gilded and grossly-garnered age of abundance. And second: new challenges command our prayers, discussion, and attention. Not just the "loss" of imperial glory, but of all the accompanying horsemen of such an apocalypse -- food scarcity, massive population dislocations, violent civil unrest, dying to the meta-narratives of progress and infinite growth. These are very distinct, if occassionally overlapping, questions and challenges from that we faced even just a year ago.
blog comments powered by Disqus