Empire and bible

Is there any current of thought about religion and politics that has emerged in the past few years that you find of particular interest to us in Malta, where this theme is still controversial, as appears, for instance, from the polemics going on at present about divorce and IVF?

I have myself read at least half a dozen books that have in their title the word 'empire' which is then linked by an 'and' to some other word or term like the 'gospels' or 'the Christian tradition' or 'the politics of God'; the bibliographies given in these books have items running into hundreds, all published in the 21st century.

The best of them, in my opinion, is actually called The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God: A Political, Economic and Religious Statement (Louisville, KY, 2006). It is co-authored by Richard Falk, a friend of many in Malta, because he taught at our University at the time when I was rector.

There is, of course, a spice of paradox in the name American Empire. The US War of Independence is the most glorified of anti-colonial revolts. But the word 'empire' is used by the self-defined anti-imperialist campaigners in a wide sense. It stands for any massive concentration of power that permeates all aspects of life and which cannot be controlled by any one actor alone.

Even in the strict sense of the word, it was US Vice-President Dick Cheney himself who, on America becoming the sole global superpower, sent a Christmas card so far and wide over the world that it reached even me. In it, he quoted Benjamin Franklin, asking: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

Most empire books take their starting point from an analysis of the Roman Empire. Recent research has brought about a radically renewed picture of the relations between the capital and its colonial outreaches. Clifford Ando, in his book, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Los Angeles, 2000), has shown, for instance, that the Roman economy was fundamentally parasitic on the colonies. Indeed, it invites a refurbishment of the standard image of Roman and Pauline Malta.

On the contrary, the book by Falk and his colleagues is immediately prompted by the hegemony of the United States in the world today, particularly by the religious justifications of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do the bible scholars provide a valid model for the likes of Prof. Falk?

Authors like Neil Elliott, in works such as The Arrogance of Nations (Minneapolis, 2008), argue that only detailed knowledge of the context of the Roman Empire can allow proper understanding of, say, such phrases as Paul's confessional formula: Jesus is Lord and God. Actually, the formula was used in the ritual declarations of fidelity to the emperor: Caesar is lord and god.

The refusal to say it sometimes spelt martyrdom for Christians and for many others. Jesus is here being presented in the language of the cult of the emperor as a god, although in blatant opposition to it. Admittedly, Jesus had refused to become a Zealot, as Judas wanted him, but violence was not the only or the most effective mode of resistance against the empire. Subversion of language was a much more subtle tool for the same purpose.

Likewise, the brunt of Paul's hostility is not at all calibrated against his fellow subaltern Jews. Paul himself personally remained a practising and observant Jew until the very end of his life. His main aggressive thrust is like that of Jesus against the Roman Empire, and against the open or secret complicities between the empire and the Jewish establishment (as precisely in the execution of Jesus and in myriad other cases).

It is argued that, although anti-empire in intent, the New Testament writings are paradoxically themselves infected by the prevalent imperial language. For instance, St John's Apocalypse, 4-5, describes heaven as not so much a temple but as a Roman Emperor's throne hall. The angels surround Him like celestial courtiers, just as the Roman emperor was surrounded by his friends and sycophants when dispensing justice. By projecting God as a super-emperor, the Apocalypse actually promotes as natural the very empire explicitly deemed satanic.

The entire category of these anti-empire writings derives its style from several contemporary literary and philosophical sources. The first of these is Michel Foucault's detective-like investigations of how the power-struggle permeates the structures of all fields of human activity and writing.

The second is so-called Post-Colonialist theory. Its three founding fathers are the late Edward Said, Henri Bhabbha and Gavatri Spivak. At the University of Malta, Marco Galea and others have notably applied this approach to different aspects of local culture.

The third is Empire (2000) by Michael Hardt and Toni Negri, the former leader of the Brigate Rosse, in which they formulate guidelines for the radical left in the post Cold War world and the era of American cultural expansion. Hardt and Negri write:

"In contrast to imperialism, empire establishes no territorial centre of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a de-centred and de-territorialising apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open expanding frontiers."

Is there any surprising result that Empire Theology produced?

Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, professor at Harvard University Divinity School, has lamented that, in her own words: "Imperialism and patriarchy are treated as two independent social systems." She has written a book, The Power of the Word; Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire (Minneapolis, 2007) to show that male dominance over women is part of the politics of empire.

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Alessandra Fiott.