Jim Deitsch

Church and Empire

Professor Steven Battin
May 7, 2018
American Jesus
the Effects of American Colonization of Imagination through Democratic Evangelization

“It is not only a matter of the subordination of the other cultures to the European, in an external relation;

we have also to do with a colonization of the other cultures, albeit in differing intensities and depths. This

relationship consists, in the first place, of a colonization of the imagination of the dominated; that is, it

acts in the interior of that imagination, in a sense, it is a part of it.” – Anibal Quijano

In a societal hierarchy, there is always an entity that attempts to dominate and an entity (or group of

entities) that is subjected to these attempts. When a societal entity encounters an aggressor, it generally

resists, since most societies have values worthy of defending. This leads to a clash between two (or

more) societies and the traditions and values that lie therein. As long as this resistance lasts, the society

at the bottom of the hierarchy is not totally dominated, and the possibility remains that their fortunes

could be improved in the future. Therefore, if the aggressor wishes to establish a permanent hierarchy

of domination, it must destroy the resistance. Quijano’s quote that precedes this paper illustrates the

European method of achieving total domination; not satisfied with a physical hierarchy, which is subject

to a sudden end if fortunes change, the Eurocentric society attempts to dominate by “colonizing the

imagination” and removing the foundational cultural structures of the societies that they wish to

dominate.1 With no cultural foundation upon which to build, the resistance would then be absorbed into

the Eurocentric vision of the world. The resistance would then become a pseudo-resistance, a resistance

against the physical Eurocentric reality, but a resistance that had accepted the underlying structural

concepts of Eurocentrism, which would mean that the world order had been successfully shifted

regardless of future changes in specific political authority. Although resistance is still alive in the world

1
Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” p169

1
today, there is no denying that Eurocentrism is the dominant force, a force that is actively trying to

completely colonize the imagination of the rest of the world. In this paper, we will examine the main

actors and methods of colonization of imagination, why they are morally problematic and contradictory

to the Church as Jesus and Paul established it, and what the Church can do to encourage and aid

resistance efforts.

The main proponent of colonial domination of imagination in the modern world system is the

United States of America.2 Although other countries have similar value systems, none have the military

or economic influence that the US does, and none have such an aggressive foreign policy agenda. Armed

with the supposed objective goodness of democracy coupled with the implicit notion that the favor of

God is behind her, America has sought to not only profit economically from the world, but to shift the

entire world order to fit her systemic ideals. There are many strategies for achieving this order, most of

which center around convincing the subconscious minds of the dominated (in addition to the

subconscious minds of Americans themselves) of supposed truths concerning Capitalism and Western

thought.3

The first propagated “truth” is that democracy is a moral necessity for a functioning society.

Buzzwords like “popular demand”, “individual liberty”, and “fundamental human rights” permeate

conversation. The correlation to this way of framing conversations is that any society that is not a

democracy is opposed to the voice of the people, freedom, and human rights. Additionally, the creation

of a subconscious word association between “democracy” and “America” allows the American

government to infringe upon those principles, either locally or abroad, with no real backlash. In this

“reality”, a democracy is not defined by the traditional limitations of the word, but rather by the ebbs

and flows of US policy decisions. Often, countries are “helped” to democratize by being left out of their

2
Sobrino, Jon. “The Empire and God,” pIX
3
Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” p171

2
own political reality entirely, with disastrous results: “Plans made from outside, whether national or

ecclesiastical, destroy the integrity of our communities… We feel the urgency of laws to defend our

rights and genuine self-determination as peoples with our own socio-political, economic and religious

systems. An we do not ask this to be granted us out of kindness but as a matter of justice.”4

The second American “truth” is that democracy is necessary for a government’s country to be

included in the worldwide economy.5 The result is that democracy becomes associated with economic

prosperity. Therefore, democracy means ease of living, and lack of democracy means economic

hardship. Even though the worldwide economy is dominated by the US, which means the only

qualification for this condition is the whims of one country, poorer countries’ desire to thrive

economically gives it legitimacy. To be sure, this US policy is not unilateral; countries with oil are

welcomed with open arms. However, they are still viewed as means to an end, and one need only look

briefly at radical Islamists’ platforms to know who they think is getting the better end of the deal. The

US also interacts with China economically, but that is only because China is currently too large to

subjugate.

Third, democracy is Christian. Since everyone is ostensibly equal in a democratic society, surely

Jesus would approve. Since the American Founding Fathers were Christian, and they wrote America’s

founding documents, surely those documents espouse Christian principles. Once Jesus has been co-

opted into the framework of American democracy through this logic, not only does any non-democracy

become heretical, but the American values of capitalism become associated with Jesus, to the point that

every version of non-capitalism is considered to be anti-Jesus. Essentially, co-opting Jesus allows the

American government to replace him.6

4
Wagua, Aiban. “Present Consequences of the European Invasion of America” (Concilium), p50-51
5
Sobrino, Jon. “The Empire and God,” pXI
6
Grosfoguel, Ramon. “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn,” p214

3
 Fourth and finally, democracy is inherently white. This means that even if any non-white

majority country does completely adopt American governmental structure, American economic policies,

and the Christian religion, they are still relegated to a secondary tier. This is how a hierarchy works: the

top is conditionally promised to those on the bottom, but never fully realized. Wagua writes that “the

indigenous leaders themselves become merely spokesmen for political parties they serve, even against

the decisions and rights of our indigenous communities.”7 Since this belief is already found

subconsciously in many white Americans, they do not view it as problematic.

These four truths necessarily exclude all non-American or European regions from being at the

top of the hierarchy alongside the US. The Middle-East is not Christian and is therefore disqualified.

Much of Asia is not Democratic is therefore disqualified. Much of Africa is not economically successful

and is therefore disqualified. Even South America, some of which is similar to the US in the initial three

categories, is not as white as the US, which means they still inhabit a lower tier. The consequence of this

relegation is the US being placed on a pedestal, which continues colonization of the imagination of any

other susceptible countries. This is, admittedly, a harsh and cynical way of looking at America’s place in

the world. In order to further explore the concept, it is worthwhile to examine the historical qualities of

empire in relation to the US, and examine the historical qualities of Jesus and his immediate successors

as they relate to Christianity in the US and the rest of the world, since the approval of such figures is a

key component of America’s justification for its actions.

Rieger writes that the Roman imperial logic of foreign relations “assumes that the normal order

of the world lay in the sequence of ‘piety, war, victory, and peace.’ Paul, on the other hand, follows a

different logic according to which the sequence is ‘covenant, nonviolence, justice, and peace.’ Whenever

the more detailed differences between the two forms of logic, if those differences go undetected, one

7
Wagua, Aiban. “Present Consequences of the European Invasion of America” (Concilium), p50

4
of the major features of Paul’s theology is lost.”8 If these differences are applied to a modern context,

some interesting similarities arise. The United States often claims that its wars, interventions, and

engagements are all justified since they are responses to “abnormal” world order. However, if individual

cases are examined, each war occurred because the countries were not adhering to the democratic

standard set by the US, for one reason or another. The abnormal world order is often abnormal only

because the US defined normal. In order to see the epistemic location as it truly is, one must separate

oneself from the current world order. Americans must seek to understand why the people of Guatemala

say that Americans “confound Christianity with the principles of so-called western civilization.”9

It is not hard to frame US military action and cultural aggression as problematic “democratic

evangelization”, rather than justified response to objective evil, which means they fall more into the

Roman Empire logic than Pauline logic. Along these same lines, the usurpation of culture could certainly

be considered violence, since it involves the destruction of ancient cultures and traditions. The US only

aligns with peace in the present time if peace is defined as no tanks or machine guns, and even then

there are notable exceptions. If we do not take the US Empire at its own words (and we should not),

then their foreign policy is an example of nothing more than colonization of imagination. It is not

standard Napoleonic aggression, but it is nonetheless an imposition of will which results in the

replacement of local culture and structure with democracy and “Christianity.” We have already briefly

discussed how America’s democracy lacks legitimacy according to the definition itself; we will now turn

to the other facet of American domination, Christianity, through the examination of the values of the

physical manifestation of Christianity, the Church.

Neither Jesus nor the early church leaders practiced nor approved of capitalism, especially in the

context of empire. Jesus preached a radical message that sought an equal and compassionate society

8
Rieger, Joerg. “Resisting and Reframing Lord: Christology in the Roman Empire,” p33-34
9
The Church of Guatemala in Exile. “Communiqué to the people of the United States,” p54

5
that a capitalistic empire can never truly provide.10 Second, Jesus and the early church leaders served in

a counter-imperial role, never an imperial role. If an empire implicitly claims to have the support of a

counter-imperial figure, his counter-imperial successor, and their counter-imperial religion, then it is

likely there has been a misinterpretation. Third, with a few exceptions, early Christian leaders embraced

the backgrounds of their converts, and did not ask them to change those parts of their lives that did not

conflict with Christianity.11 America does no such thing. In every country America has invaded, they have

set in place a government structure that represents their own as closely as possible. Additionally,

America promotes itself as “the best country in the world” whenever possible, intentionally creating a

scenario where “being American” is synonymous with being acceptable, which correlates with the

attitude of viewing people who are “not American” as inferior. Not only is this arrogant, it directly flies in

the face of the concept of “the body of Christ” being a conglomeration of all different kinds of people,

not just an Americanized ideal. Therefore, the Church should not (and generally does not) support the

colonization of imagination.

Where the US Empire has colonized the imagination of a culture’s practitioners, the church

should actively support so-called “decolonization.”12 This can take pace in a number of ways. First, the

Church should make it clear that democracy and salvation are not synonymous. There is salvation

outside democracy and outside America. Second, the Church should make clear which US foreign

policies are incompatible with Christian morals. Aggressive military action should not be commended,

and a culture of replacing culture should not be commended either. Third, the Church should re-focus

itself on a mission that is less synonymous with wealth and more synonymous with covenant,

nonviolence, justice, and peace.13 For better or worse, the Catholic Church is associated with wealth,

10
Horsley, Richard. “Jesus and Empire,” p95
11
Elliott, Neil. “The Apostle Paul and Empire,” p104
12
Grosfoguel, Ramon. “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn,” p221
13
Dawson, Christopher. “Is the Church too Western?” p100

6
which makes her rejection of unadulterated American Capitalism all the more important. Fourth, the

Church should recognize where she herself has become Americanized, and actively resist and return to a

less-Americanized state. Finally, the church should maintain a focus on the decolonization of white

superiority. Jesus most likely was not white, which renders all counter-arguments to this point

irrelevant. The fact that the current Pope is from South America helps a little bit, but there is still a

prevailing view of Catholicism as Eurocentric herself, which makes the Church more likely to be

associated with American whiteness, which is problematic for apparent reasons.

In conclusion, America actively pursues the colonization of imagination. This pursuit should be

actively condemned and resisted, both by the societies being antagonized and other actors. A primary

actor that needs to assist the resistance is the Church, which too often is viewed as an ally of the

colonization of imagination, rather than an opponent. The Church has an obligation to honor the

counter-imperial nature of her initial leaders and promote the individuality of each human person,

which can only be properly realized if each person exists outside a colonial imagination. With these

realities in mind, all moral beings should seek the liberation of all souls from this colonization of

imagination, a liberation exemplified in this closing quote:

“The liberation of intercultural relations from the prison of coloniality also implies the freedom of all

peoples to choose, individually or collectively, such relations: a freedom to choose between various

cultural orientations, and, above all, the freedom to produce, criticize, change, and exchange culture and

society. This liberation is, part of the process of social liberation from all power organized as inequality,

discrimination, exploitation, and as domination.” – Anibal Quijano 14

14
Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” p178

7
8