What do you think?
Rate this book
Evangelicals and Empire: Christian Alternatives to the Political Status Quo
This groundbreaking collection considers empire from a global perspective, exploring the role of evangelicals in political, social, and economic engagement at a time when empire is alternately denounced and embraced. It brings noted thinkers from a range of evangelical perspectives together to engage the most explosive and discussed theorists of empire in the first decade of the twentyfirst centuryMichael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Using their work as a springboard, the contributors grapple with the concept of empire and how evangelicalism should operate in the world of empire.
336 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2008
3 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
About the author
Bruce Ellis Benson
20 books15 followersDr. Benson has been a visiting scholar at the New School and a guest lecturer in philosophy of religion at Union Theological Seminary. He is currently the chair of the philosophy department at Wheaton College (IL).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 8, 2008
A fascinating book.
I've been lucky enough to take classes from Michael Hardt before, and have read both "Empire" and "Multitude" and consider myself a Christian (and, in a VERY loose term, an evangelical), so it was a treat to be able to read such a text.
Overall, I would have to say I agreed with Hardt and Negri in their assessment of the collection of essays in the afterword:
- I think the project is an important one. Considering the sheer numbers of evangelicals in the world (not to mention that the numbers are growing), I respect and honor the attempt to engage such an important topic as Empire within Christian discourse.
- Most of the essays I found decent/good. Two, in specific, stuck out:
* John Millbank's essay- To be frank, I think Millbank is a jerk. He presented his paper at the AAR on this book (as part of a panel discussion) and his demeanor alone was enough for me to dislike him. Adding to this is my disappointment with his scholarship--He's brilliant, I don't doubt that. BUT, I think he is dead wrong, and do not think he understood Hardt and Negri's theories of empire and multitude fully. Basically, Millbank critiqued Hardt & Negri's idea of the immanence of the multitude--that people can rule themselves and create positive situations and environments. So, Millbank's suggestion is that an elite aristocracy should rule. Which, frankly, I think is bullshit, and leads to violence.
* Pickstock, Mercedes, & D'Costa's essay- This essay offered an entirely different response to the multitude--one that suggested that the multitude CAN do what is best, because of love. They offer a way that Christian faith and multitude intersect beautifully--that the multitude can succeed because of love, and love is what the Christian faith--what God--IS.
I've been lucky enough to take classes from Michael Hardt before, and have read both "Empire" and "Multitude" and consider myself a Christian (and, in a VERY loose term, an evangelical), so it was a treat to be able to read such a text.
Overall, I would have to say I agreed with Hardt and Negri in their assessment of the collection of essays in the afterword:
- I think the project is an important one. Considering the sheer numbers of evangelicals in the world (not to mention that the numbers are growing), I respect and honor the attempt to engage such an important topic as Empire within Christian discourse.
- Most of the essays I found decent/good. Two, in specific, stuck out:
* John Millbank's essay- To be frank, I think Millbank is a jerk. He presented his paper at the AAR on this book (as part of a panel discussion) and his demeanor alone was enough for me to dislike him. Adding to this is my disappointment with his scholarship--He's brilliant, I don't doubt that. BUT, I think he is dead wrong, and do not think he understood Hardt and Negri's theories of empire and multitude fully. Basically, Millbank critiqued Hardt & Negri's idea of the immanence of the multitude--that people can rule themselves and create positive situations and environments. So, Millbank's suggestion is that an elite aristocracy should rule. Which, frankly, I think is bullshit, and leads to violence.
* Pickstock, Mercedes, & D'Costa's essay- This essay offered an entirely different response to the multitude--one that suggested that the multitude CAN do what is best, because of love. They offer a way that Christian faith and multitude intersect beautifully--that the multitude can succeed because of love, and love is what the Christian faith--what God--IS.
Displaying 1 of 1 review