Comments on: Senatus Populusque Americae?

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

. . . (continued from above)

And certainly, as Carroll pointed out, there was a theological inversion with the triumph of Christianity. No longer was it a religion of the meek inheriting the earth, but a religion of power and great governance. It was the religion whose authorities slipped easily into the administrative hierarchy that had been Rome's. I think that's why a lot of modern Christians come off looking like hypocrites. They're struggling with a faith system that, in the time of Jesus, was about being that poor, oppressed group and not letting it crush your soul, and trying to fit it into being rich and powerful. That's probably why Christianity is booming in the southern hemisphere and all its "developing nations" and languishing in the northern hemisphere (except the USA, for historical reasons that are interesting in their own right).

It's also probably why American Christianity has become less a religion of the inner person (as many other religions are) and more a religion of cultural critique. This is exactly where Christianity was with Rome back in the first, second, and third centuries, except then it didn't have a historical legacy of being in charge once before.

Anyway, just my three cents.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"I think most educated people understand that Rome was wrong for conquering people and 'civilizing' them 'for their own good.'"

Personally, I wish Rome had conquered all the way to India, and maybe the Middle East today would be a lot more like Europe today, and a lot less like a bunch of idiots killing people to obstruct anything that's not an Islamic theocracy.

And Carroll's essay isn't bad history, except for goofy little bits like Jesus being a political criminal. Early Christianity was very much anti-Roman. The Roman occupation of Judea was huge in the minds of the Jews and early Christians of the first century. But, like you say, Jesus apparently taught his followers not to fight back (like, say, the Zealots wanted to), but to look to the Kingdom of Heaven instead of complaining about their earthly political complaints. That Jesus didn't want his people to directly and materially oppose the Roman Empire does not mean that he and they were not internally opposed. If anything, the teachings of Jesus would not have made much sense without the anti-Roman political context. Why preach that the meek shall ultimately inherit the earth if the meek aren't worried because someone else is currently inheriting it? Jesus certainly didn't say "Capitulate to Rome, you'll be better off," even though that probably would have worked out. But the teachings of Jesus refocused the religion of the Jews internally. See Luke 17:20-21, in which Jesus tells the Pharisees that "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

But between the time of Jesus' departure (be it by death or ascension, depending on your beliefs) and the writing of Revelation, it's clear that Christian loathing of Rome was on an upswing. The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem certainly didn't help. Anyway, the anti-Roman rhetoric of Revelation is pretty striking, if obscured for modern readers by ancient metaphors.

Then, as Christianity spread within Rome, the Christian critique of Roman culture and religion was hardly favorable. Rome had plenty of cultural problems, as I'm sure you know. But if Rome had not had cultural problems, if there had been nothing there worth criticizing, I hardly think Christianity would have found the foothold it needed to explode out of Judea and become the worldwide faith it is today.

. . .

By: ELC

ELC — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Do you not know that Carroll is an ex-priest? One may surmise his true beliefs, however, from noting that viewing absolutely everything in political categories is a tendency of Marxists.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

John, consider that goof fixed.

Theo and Steve, do the ends justify the means? Rome brought peace, order, roads, plumbing, etc. through war, destruction of cultures, and oppression. This is one point I agreed with Carroll on. Were the things Rome brought to people good? Yes. Were they worth being conquered for? I'm not so sure.

Steve, the New World Order Jesus taught and the one Carroll blathered on about are very different things.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Sure Jesus' "New World Order" is different from ours (the one Carroll points out on the dollar bill). Jesus' order was one of the bottom people, the conquered people. Ours is one of top, powerful people. He's talking about the same difference that led Nietzsche into his whole slave versus master mentality, and the kinds of disparate virtues they breed.

You can ask "do the ends justify the means" about lots of stuff in history. Here are some popular ones: Is a bloody, four-year civil war justified by the fact that it brought an end to African slavery in the United States? Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan justified by the fact that it brought an end to the war in the Pacific theater? Was the extermination of the indigenous people of North America by European colonists justified by the fact that North America is now one of the biggest, most peaceful swaths of land in the world, instead of a land gripped by tribal warfare?

People have argued intensely about all of those, and I'm not going to provide any pat answers. But my point is that making moral judgments about historical events can be difficult. If we didn't know the end of the story in each of these cases, most people would probably be able to answer easily: the Civil War was a monstrous, immoral conflict; dropping nuclear bombs on civilians is disgusting; exterminating the Native Americans was senseless and heartless.

Knowing the historical aftermath, however, musses up those easy judgments. Suddenly you're having to say things like, "Yes, but…"

It's difficult to go back and criticize the Roman conquest of Europe when our entire culture and historical heritage, which bequeathed to us both our sense of history and our sense of morality, is utterly dependent on having a unified Roman Empire when and where it happened. It's sort of like being the child of a rape victim and having to say, "Yes, well, on the one hand, it was horrible that my mother was raped, but on the other hand, I'm glad I'm here." Very difficult.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

That's from the Boston Globe, not the Herald. THe Globe is a legitimate newspaper, whereas the Herald is a rag owned by Murdoch.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

This was my first encounter with Caroll, so I was unaware of his past or current affiliations.

By: Steve N

Steve N — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Well, I'd be the last one to think the ends justify, a priori, the means. There is much to hate about Rome. I'm not advocating a hindsight-blinded revisionist history of the empire. And I would certainly oppose in no uncertain terms the idea that America should try to be a new one.

But, as Theo (perhaps?) suggests, Christianity is very much the child of that rape vicim. What was intended for evil, what was not God's will, turns out to be God's greatest blessing. "God hides himself sometimes, inside a paradox" (T.S. Taylor)

Cheers!

By: Steve N

Steve N — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Wow, Funky. You've been a busy beaver!

I'd have to say I'm more with Theo on this one. Let's not be too down on Rome. Considering the alternatives, there were a lot worse choices than Rome for worldwide hegemony. Would that they had conquered all the way to India!

There is, after all, a reason that the Catholic Church is called the Roman Catholic Church. Rome proved to be a most capable host for this parasite Christianity to grow up in and, eventually flourish. Sure the host tried to stamp it out from time to time, but (perhaps a fatal flaw with all empires) never with quite enough resolve to do the trick.

Absolutely, Christ was about a whole lot more than a new politics, unless one was to mean by new politics "a new family of people, united by self-giving love, whose true power comes strangely, paradoxically through weakness." If all truly is politics, then Jesus' "politics" are surely the best.

But, how in all honesty, can you see Carroll's last paragraph as a non sequitur? That the price for the New World Order is that of blood is surely an apt observation. Sure, applied to Iraq, it does seem to sully the notion a bit. (Although should Iraq, against all odds, ever truly become a stable force for freedom & tolerance in the Middle East, we might feel different.) But surely the essayists underlying meaning is that the New World Order came at the price of the blood of this certain nobody born on Christmas Day!

Cheers!