Jim Deitsch

February 15, 2018

Church and Empire

Reflection #1 – Question 1

“’Jesus is Lord’ is one of the earliest Christological confessions. In the context of the Roman
Empire this title is ambivalent. The Roman emperors claimed the title lord and thus made it part
of the empire. At the same time, Christians took up the term and used it for Christ in a way that
would at times produced uneasiness in the empire… the early Christian confession that Jesus is
Lord could be taken as a denial of the emperor’s claim to be lord. (Rieger 23)”

Paul was a critical player in this early contest between Roman imperialism and Christian
worship, often rallying local Christians to resist the empire, even in as subtle ways as calling
Jesus “Lord.” This is why depoliticizing Jesus (and Paul through Jesus) is so egregious; it denies
the true context in which Jesus and Paul existed (which opens the door to misinterpretations of
other things they did and said), and also removes a key component of Jesus’ mission on earth,
which was to establish a new way of life outside the bondage of imperial rule. Paul taught that
Jesus’ mission was to be RADICAL, not just spiritual. It is important to remember that Paul
taught a tangible resistance, not a barely discernible one in which Christians vaguely denied
certain aspects of government, but generally continued on with their daily lives as usual. Calling
Jesus “Lord” signaled a complete rejection of the Roman Emperor’s divine authority, which was
a decision that often led to torture and death.

This is not an easy to reality to accept for modern day Christians, who have grown
accustomed to empire governing our day-to-day lives. Whether it be paying taxes, voting in
elections, or saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, almost all of us now believe that
church and empire can coexist peacefully but mostly separately, which means that an anti-
imperial Jesus (or Paul) creates an uncomfortable dilemma. We like this separation because it is
safe and allows us to reap the comforts and benefits of being closely aligned with the empire, and
admitting that a natural tension should exist between true church and empire draws us out of our
comfort zones and makes us question whether a comfortable belief in Jesus was what we are
really meant to pursue.

3
 Furthermore, depoliticizing Jesus and Paul allows Christians to ignore the egalitarian
qualities of Jesus’ teachings, which call for Christians to reject imperialistic materialism and
transform society into one of fairness and equality. Most Christians today scoff at such an idea
and maintain that “Jesus was NOT a communist”, by which, of course, they mean that they
should be free to have whatever political opinion they want without fear of moral repercussions.
We cannot depoliticize Jesus and claim to be his follower, because Jesus was political. We
cannot depoliticize Paul and claim to understand his letters, because Paul was political. We
cannot embrace modern-day empire and claim to truly believe either’s message, since both
taught that some qualities of empire are fundamentally incompatible with morality. With this in
mind, it is time for a reorientation among Christians towards accepting the political
consequences of being a Christian as Jesus intended them to be.

Question #2

“Lest they be further colonized by imperial values, Paul called on them to throw off conformity
to the world and ‘be transformed by the renewing of your minds’(12:2)… to practice basic forms
of hospitality and alleviation of need (12:9-13)… this required that the ‘the powerful’ would
practice accommodation for ‘the weak’ among them. (Elliot 109)”

According to Elliot, Paul’s strategy for surviving imperial rule was to encourage the
faithful to maintain an underground resistance in anticipation of the imminent return of Jesus.
This return, of course, has not yet happened, but Paul’s strategy nevertheless had some notable
strengths. First of all, subtle means of resistance do not draw down the entire Roman military
upon the fledgling religion’s members. Second, Paul’s resistance involves the building of
significant moral character among Christians, who are required to sacrifice their own well-being
for the sake of others. In this sense, the community under Paul’s guidance would have been quite
strong. Third, Paul’s resistance was driven by a strong sense of hope, and everyone knows that
all good rebellions are built on hope.

This is not to say that Paul’s strategy was perfect. The most obvious failing of a passive
resistance is that change is unlikely to occur. To be fair, Paul was not expecting change to be a
necessity; he thought Jesus was coming back any day. Still, though, under Paul’s guidance,
Christianity would never have spread throughout the Roman empire or challenged the status quo

3
to any legitimate extent. Also, Paul’s version of resistance does not attempt to actively convert or
baptize new members of the Church, which goes against Jesus’ instructions. Simply ministering
in secret is not good enough.

“John’s counter-imperial script called Jesus loyalists to an extremely rigorous level of resistance.
Their refusal to participate in the imperial cult would isolate them from neighbors, previous
associates, perhaps even their previous jobs. (Carey 172).”
Carey goes on to say that Jesus’ loyalists often were martyred as part of their
resistance. John’s idea of resistance was an ACTIVE resistance, compared to Paul’s much more
passive goals. John wanted to take “the beast” head on. Saints conquer dragons, the world
crumbles, and the Roman Empire falls into ash under John’s visions. This resistance is attractive
because it calls out Roman abuses directly, motivates Christians into substantial, consequential
action, and brings attention to Christianity so that others may choose to align themselves with the
light if they wish.

On the other hand, if all Christians are martyred, there won’t be any Christians left. This
is an obvious weakness to John’s strategy, since common sense tells us a rebel group of Jesus
loyalists would not be able to win a fight against the glorious Roman empire. Another weakness
is that the community aspect of John’s resistance will be somewhat lesser, for the simple reason
that a high martyr turnover is not good for communal purposes. Finally, it is human nature to
give up hope in the face of insurmountable odds (this is not to say it was always the case, but
likely at least some of the time), which is not good for the morale of anyone involved.

Question #3

“Members of the imperial ruling class enjoyed a comfortable and privileged standard of living
without engaging in any productive labor on behalf of society and with no obligation to those
they ruled other than to assure that they were able to produce sufficient wealth to sustain the
rulers in their privilege (Gottwald 10).”

This was exactly what ancient Israel fought so far to separate themselves from, and, not
coincidentally, a theme that kept recurring whenever the Roman empire was involved. Jesus and

3
Paul placed an emphasis on egalitarian living where no one person was privileged above
everyone else. Members of Christian society looked after one another and sustained one another
rather than bowing before a ruling class.

Additionally, Gottwald emphasizes Israel’s explicit rejection of Egypt’s power, which is

echoed later by the Revelation of fighting great beasts (empire) in John’s Revelation. In other
words, it is not just the standard of living that Christians adopted from the Israelites, it was their
active rejection of an authority other than the one true God.

The main difference between Israel and early Christians was physical separation;
Christians lived with and interacted with Romans every day, Israelites lived in the hills away
from Egyptian society. Christians did not have a self-sustaining society, they still relied on
Rome. Also, the Israelites were generally ignored by the surrounding empires (also due to
proximity) which means that Christians faced more active, in-your-face prosecution.

Although early Christians were similar to Israelites in many ways, by the time Justin
Martyr wrote his Second Apology, some differences had begun to emerge. The community of
Justin Martyr was no longer exclusively a Judean enterprise. Additionally, they had grown large
enough to the point where the empire actively persecuted them on a daily basis, often leading to
jailings and even deaths. Roman philosophers and judges warned of the dangers of allowing
Christians to integrate into society, and the general sentiment was that Justin and his friends were
detrimental to the continuing success of the empire. This new profile among the empire led the
Christian community to make several changes.

First, their newfound publicity meant that if Rome kept aggressively pursuing them, they
would not survive. Therefore, underground egalitarianism was no longer possible. Christians
pleaded for integration into the empire and, to a certain extent, reconciliation with the empire
because they knew it was their only hope for survival. Second, the addition of non-Judean
members into the flock meant that other cultures had influenced Christianity, which further
delineated it from the time Jesus was physically present. Finally, by appealing directly to the
Senate Justin explicitly recognizes the Senate’s authority, which is something that Jesus and John
(and probably some of the early Israelites) would not have liked at all.