Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri co-authored a book in 2000, just prior to America’s “War on Terror,” titled Empire, and they argue, among other things, that the contemporary form of empire manifests itself in a rather unconventional form.[1] Rather than seeking territorial gain by the modern nation-state, the postmodern empire seeks hegemony through cultural, economic, rhetorical and militaristic means.
In Evangelicals and Empire: Christian Alternative to the Political Status Quo, several authors contributed articles critiquing and responding to the proposals of Hardt and Negri. One particular article that I found extraordinarily compelling, not only as a critique of postmodern empire but as new way of contemplating election and sanctification, was James K. A. Smith’s “The Gospel of Freedom or Another Gospel: Theology, Empire and American Foreign Policy.”
Central to Smith’s critique of American foreign policy and its hegemonic endeavors is a particular concept of freedom.[2] Freedom, the gospel of America’s civil, religious evangelism, is best defined by free regimes and free markets, operating in both the domestic and international realms. Free markets are the economic arenas wherein consumers and producers (consumers of “natural” resources) operate without external restraint.[3] America encourages and reinforces other nation-states to operate free markets to support its own economic interests and prosperity. And free regimes, expressed domestically by the libertarian vision of government in the Tea Party and internationally by the ultimate mission of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the political arena wherein “the people” decide their political fates without external restraint.
This particular expression of freedom is “equated with freedom of choice.”[4] Smith argues this brand of freedom requires options from which to choose (the more choices the greater the freedom) and unrestrained ability to choose. This brand of freedom thus cannot abide with a value system that could potentially judge or value certain choices higher than others, or interfere with the autonomous individuals “radical indifference” to the choices before them. It also eschews a teleology that could potentially direct the autonomous individual toward a particular end that would preclude some choices. A value system and any teleology function as external limits on “freedom.” According to Smith’s calculation, this particular form of freedom coheres with the interests of a hegemonic empire.
However, this form of freedom is antithetical to a classical, Augustinian Christian vision of freedom. This freedom, hereinafter F2, assumes a Creator God that directs creation to a teleological end. F2 is a participatory freedom, shaping and drawing upon the desires of the individual toward a particular vision of flourishing. In this way God may enter into our choosing as a final cause of our choice without becoming the efficient cause. Essentially, there is no freedom without limits, and only when there are limits can F2 (freedom) exist.
Smith elaborates upon these ideas with much finer points and prose than I can muster, but that is the heart of his critique of the American Empire, redefining freedom. While I do not adopt all his political conclusions I very much appreciate his critique, and I find his thinking on F2 helpful. It adds insight into three areas where human freedom is at the center of debate. Election, sanctification and politics.
Coming from the reformed perspective, I do not struggle with the doctrine of predestination, but I do appreciate those that do struggle with predestination and the role of human freedom. Some of the struggle my fellow American evangelicals have with the doctrine of predestination may lie with an unbiblical conception of human freedom. Rather than adopting a libertarian, preserve all choice and the ability to choose, version of freedom, adopting F2, or a participatory model of freedom, may ease that tension. We do choose Him, only as an efficient cause pulled and drawn by our recreated desires for what God has predestined us. Recognizing that we are contingent beings allows us to see that our salvation is contingent as well, so God may act in our choosing prior to our choosing without eliminate our choice.
Likewise with sanctification, some followers of Jesus the Messiah struggle with scripture’s assertion that we are new creations and the need to choose among evil and righteous options moment by moment. Will God simply make me new and righteous or must I choose to do what is right? Yes. We are new creations with a new telos and new desires. God’s Spirit pulls and draws us by our “natural” desires to do what is righteous. Viewed in this light F2 allows us to envision a participatory model of sanctification, responsible to chose but dependent for the choice.
As redeemed and sanctified people we are called to disciple making and culture creating (or redeeming). Politics is increasingly an arena that evangelicals are entering since the 1980’s to create or redeem culture. The latest manifestation of evangelical engagement with politics is seen in the Tea Party movement. While the Tea Party is a politically diverse movement, its core and communal ethos is libertarian at heart. A significant element of that libertarian movement is a contingent of socially conservative evangelicals.
Given that F2 is the historically Christian vision of freedom, evangelical enthusiasm and participation with the Tea Party movement is problematic. The repeated message of the Tea Party in a multitude of variations is simply put in these terms, “they want fiscal responsibility, a good climate for economic growth and jobs, and to be left alone.”[5] The Tea Party is an evangelical revivalist movement with all the passion and zeal of the camp meetings held during the Second Great Awakening. Cries for libertarian freedom are couched in terms familiar to America’s civil religion.[6] Such rhetoric confuses the mission of the gospel with the interests of the flag, and it merges the true freedom offered in Jesus the Messiah and a libertarian vision of autonomous liberty. In short, evangelicals are embracing another gospel, a gospel of empire.
[2] James K.A. Smith, “Evangelicals and Empire: Christian Alternative to the Political Status Quo,” Evangilicals and Empire: Christian Alternatives to the Political Status Quo, ed. Bruce Elllis Benson and Peter Goodwin Heltzel (Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2008), 79.
[3] Ibid., 80.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto (New York NY: Harper Collins, 2010), 139.
[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg. Watch this video and all the statements. One gentleman claims that America is the last bastion of hope for this world because “God shed His grace upon Thee.”
