What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?

Last week I spent a few days in Rome with, among others, Tony Jones. As someone who hasn’t ever been to Rome, it was particularly helpful for me to have a Christian historian along. It’s easy enough, having seen one amazing display of ruins after another, or cathedral after awesome cathedral, to lose some perspective. So along the way, Tony would stop and point out the historic significance of various landmarks. Then of course, we’d go grab a bourbon and talk.

Both of us, at one point or another in the week, thought of the Monty Python scene from Life of Brian, in which the disgruntled rebels exclaim, “What have the Romans ever done for us?” So of course, some wise guy in the group starts rattling things off, like the aqueducts, roads, education, and so on.

So this led to a minor debate between Tony and me about the benefits of empire. Now, keep in mind that Tony is never one to pass up an opportunity to serve as the antagonist, but his argument as outlined in his blog post cheekily titled “In Praise of Empires,” is that it’s en vogue to trash empire, both present and past.

To put a finer point on it, we chatted about whether Constantine, the Roman emperor responsible for establishing the Nicene Creed, was an ass-hat.

As per usual, amid the provocative and polarizing statements actually (maybe ironically) lies a call to more nuanced thought and deliberation when it comes to history and governance. Some might argue that the occupied territories under Rome’s rule were better off than they were independent of it. And as he points out, the concept of “pax romana” or “Roman peace,” was predicated on the notion that, as long as you paid your taxes and didn’t challenge the Roman authority, you were more or less left to live as you saw fit.

We see similarly complex situations in modern times. There’s little, if any, debate about whether Saddam Hussein was a brutal Iraqi dictator. But since we deposed him, all hell has effectively broken loose across the country, leaving room for radical insurgents to take hold of large portions of the country, killing people and ransacking entire communities along the way.

Or consider the United States. It would be hard not to acknowledge that, despite our borders remaining the same in recent decades, we have imperialist aspirations of other sorts. We have asserted our fiscal and military dominance over much of the rest of the world for generations. But of course we do it, at least theoretically, with the best interests of those who are more vulnerable at heart.

So is the world better off with or without empires? Is it necessary to have some sort of beneficent overlord to keep us in line, to afford us cultural advances we might not ever achieve, or even to keep us from killing each other?

Anyone who reads me with any regularity can rest assured that I would never pen an article titled “In Praise of Empires,” but I agree with Tony in that we should nuance our thought and discussion about both the past and future state of affairs within and beyond the reach of Christianity.

The thing is that history is, in general, written by those who have power. Therefore, it’s difficult to assess with an objective lens the true cost of empire. But we do know that empires are necessarily built on the backs and shoulders of those in control. So if the aqueducts saved lives by bringing fresh water to organized urban society, but led to the deaths of thousands of forced laborers along the way, can we say it was worth it?

Christianity benefitted from empire in the past, much as it still does today. We who live in the United States also benefit from our dominant presence in the world forum, as do others. But we can’t ignore that someone – or more specifically, a lot of someones – have to pay the price for that. And ultimately, they don’t get an equal say in whether empire is worth it.

I’ve claimed it in postChristian, and I continue to suggest that, any time we hold a vision, aspiration, or ideology above the humanity of another human being, there is room for self-justified violence to take root. And personally, I tend to lean on the likes of Walter Wink, who says that, unless we change the rules of engagement, relationship, and community entirely rather than just shuffling the deck of rulers, nothing of real consequence will ever change.

I still cling, too, to the notion that one of Jesus’ principal roles was that of liberator, and that he came clearly not to re-establish a new world order with himself and his followers at the top of the pile, but rather to bring to reality the prophetic vision of oppressor and oppressed finding a way to coexist.

For that to happen, both critical self-reflection and various external agitants and interrupts (like Jesus) are necessary. We have to want to realize such a vision of peace and reconciliation, even at the price of our own privilege. Granted, that may seem insane to willingly surrender power to those who may harm you, but I believe this is what Jesus calls us toward.

And yeah, for the record, I still think Constantine what pretty much an ass-hat.

Christian Piatt (christianpiatt.com) is the creator and editor of the Banned Questions book series and the author of PregMANcy, a memoir on faith, family, and parenting. His latest book is postChristian: What's Left? Can We Fix It? Do We Care? (Jericho Books).

Image: The Roman Colosseum, S-F / Shutterstock.com