I think I agree with what they say about empire here.
I think the state evidently has its place (Romans 13) in God’s working on earth, but it is destined to be replaced by the kingdom of God in Jesus. And that kingdom is what we’re to be all about now.

You bring up an interesting point. We all have our lenses or paradigms. Generally, we are a product of our respective backgrounds. Obviously these perspectives can change although I think we are always influenced by our upbringing. I have never really thought about the possibility of being able to look through multiple lenses; however, with a lot of discipline, I can see how it could be possible.

But everytime Israel is without a central galvanizing leader they fall part. They didn’t do so well with Moses or Joshua, or Saul or Samuel, but without a central authority they could see and follow they went off the rails. Is empire alwasy bad? To say yes is the easy way but our history says we do not always succeed with a theocracy.

Ted,
I’m with you re: the reigning of God.
Scot,
Thanks for the lens questions. I’ve tried to have a “Jesus-first” lens as my primary way to view the scriptures for the last few years, which has definitely changed a lot of what I see (and think, and feel, and do) since I grew up with what I’d call an “eternal destiny” lens. Everything was about where one would come down at the judgement, based on one’s faith in the atonement.
My relatively recent attempt at a “Jesus” lens has led me to prioritize what I see (however poorly) as Jesus’ priorities. For me that has been, so far, to name a few: (i) God actively reigning/healing in the world, through (ii) people becoming and making disciples of Jesus (giving up our lives so he can live), who do everything he commanded, with the character of (iii) agape of God and people, (iv) as led and powered by the Holy Spirit, (v) toward God’s telos for this world–the completion of what was ‘born’ and raised here through Christ, and the destruction of what has not been.
I guess I don’t use “empire” (satan’s?) as the primary lens. ‘Empire’ strikes me (couldn’t resist ) as the mere foil to God–the main character–in the story.

Kent,
Out of genuine curiousity, do you see Jesus as intended by God to be, even in our day, that “central galvanizing leader”, at least within God’s ekklesia? I’m thinking of the history of God’s “kingship” over Israel, the Messianic promises, and Jesus’ commands to his disciples about not letting others call them ‘father’, ‘teacher’, etc. Or even the “organization” of the early church–if Peter or Paul saw themselves as “central galvanizing leader(s)”, they don’t seem to act or talk like it to me, as good as they were. What does Jesus’ current “Lordship” mean if we still need a(nother) central galvanizing leader? (I sincerely hope my questions come off as such, rather than accusations of any kind–I do wonder with written words.)

Put this way, I can definitely see the anti-empire thread throughout scripture – where the kingdoms of this world are opposed to the kingdom of our God. There is no doubt such a thread running through the tale of Scripture, and it only makes sense to say: how can we pick up this thread and run with it in our day? But if we ought to learn to see through many lenses or layers (as in, say, our understanding of the atonement), then I’d want to resist anyone saying that Empire is even the central way to read Scripture. It can have its own totalizing agenda. Where I’m wrestling with W-K so far (not having read the book, so I plead mercy here)is not so much whether to read along Colossians this way in our day but rather whether this was Paul’s backdrop/motivation in Colossians itself.
grace and peace – Andy

They may answer this in the book. I am currently reading F.F. Bruce and a study guide for Colossians – hard to get them all in. But I wonder what would be different if they had used the word “kingdom” instead of “empire?”

Walter Brueggemann once wrote that human beings are ever in the process creating an “eternal present” through our social structures. We attempt to convince ourselves that the norms and values in our present are what has been and always will be. It is illusion.
Os Guinness notes that, following the biblical narrative, we are cast out of the garden and God’s presence. Yet without God there is no integration point for our existence and we are mortal. In other words, we are without meaning. The problem is we can’t restore the relationship with God and we can’t live without meaning. Enter the illusion of the eternal present. It gives most of just enough illusion of meaning to keep us loyal to the illusion project and divert our attention from the true meaninglessness of our existence. Like Cain, we attempt to settle in “the land of wandering” (Nod).
Guinness proposes that apologetics is not so much about propounding truth as it is raising and asking questions, pressing people back on the illusions they rely on, so they come to see illusions for what they are. (Of course, questions back at us frequently open us to our own illusions.) The mission of the church is to dis-illusion and then help reestablish relationship with God. The single greatest dis-illusionary tactic is a community of people in other-centered love. The focus is less about stopping the Empire and more about being citizens of the anti-Empire that redeems what is good in the Empire and translates it into the true eternal present of the new creation.
While it is wrong to thoroughly embrace the Empire neither can we make our mission opposition of the Empire. Both place the Empire at center of our focus instead of being the Kingdom of God. Because we are aliens and citizens of the anti-Empire of the new creation we are both free from the Empire and free to the Empire. We can live in it and seek its good without being owned by it. I think that is what it means to be incarnational.

Scott wrote: “Is it not the case that the lens we choose through which to view the Bible shapes what we see? Is any one lens adequate? Do we need a the spectacles with many lenses? How valuable is an empire lens?”
What I find interesting is the idea of “perspectival truth”, the way something appears to be true to the individual’s “lens”. Even more interesting is the idea that we could choose a perspective through which to view that which we think is true.
One of the largest problems seen with modern philosophy, regarding truth and meaning, is that there can be any “objective lens” (aka “God’s eye view”) of viewing the world, and thereby coming to know what is true regardless of individual perspectives in the world.
Of course, postmodern thinking about truth is also riddled with problems; namely the idea that it is impossible to view the world objectively and there by arrive at universal truth. This view is recognized at once with the bumperesque saying, “No matter where you are, there you are.” So, truth and meaning become inextricably perspectival; we can’t have a view from nowhere, so it is thought.
I introduce the above points, waving at real issues one might want to think about when approaching the idea of viewing the bible through “lenses”. I did fail to mention yet another position; it deals with meaning and truth through “revelation” (For Christians such is the Holy Spirit showing us truth.). Of course, I am sure there are many more positions. The upshot is that how we view the nature of truth and meaning will determine what sort of lens we think we are looking through.

I’d agree with Michael #8, to concentrate on “opposition to the empire” is to misunderstand our primary purpose, and that is to be in God’s kingdom.