discussion, reading, social justice, journal

Boston College Document Delivery

ILLiad TN: 939791 r 111111 11111 1111I 11111111/1 111111111/11/

I()oc n.C/)-n-; ~0 -OS_. m R-;:o -6I

:t> en ;:0 m o c m C/) -; m o

3 "0 :::!. ::::l- :3 o (]) x 0- --, (f) co-, o C D oo :3 :i> r 5: 1> OJ o

:3 c..... c 0 MOt: ;:::+" 3 ~~ m -I

ro o III :::!:o ::::l

q Z CD

o o o C D '<

m cO 6 =:l

-j :::Y (]) o o co '< o-.,~ :::Y (])

5: c ~ c- o. rn

C- o (]) --, co

:::Y (]) o o co '< o-., S' (])

o III =

Chapter Four

Theology of the Multitude

And [Jesus] came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.

-c-Mark 6:34 (American Standard Version)

LIFE-AND-DEATH MATTERS

The world as a whole is facing an unprecedented crisis. While living stan- dards have increased for some, inequality is more pronounced today than ever before and affects more people than ever. Large and growing paris of humanity are forced to struggle for survival every day, even in the wealthiest countries. Inequality in the United States, a country that often takes pride in being the leader for others to emulate, is especially troublesome. In Dallas, Texas, for instance, nearly one in four residents are already living in poverty, and the number is rising. I This amounts to a struggle of life and death.

Moreover, the world is facing an unprecedented crisis because our envi- ronment is pulled into this life-and-death struggle. Global warming may not erase life on earth altogether, but many life forms are faced with extinction as the polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and climate is changing due to actions by humans. While this may not mean the end of humanity as a species, the people hit hardest will be those who do not have the means to protect themselves from severe weather and pollution. In addition to these large-scale changes, harmful destruction of the environment as a result of uncontrolled exploitation of resources continues at unprecedented levels.

57

58 Chapter 4

Forests continue to be destroyed in ecologically sensitive areas like the rain- forests, and mineral resources are extracted through techniques like fracking and hilltop removal, which were unimaginable just a few years ago.

These problems are not merely social in nature. They are theological at their very core because they are tied up with the ruling classes putting them- selves in what is often considered to be God's place. These are the people who maintain dominant power and who benefit the most from the way things are. An old definition of sin illustrates this problem. When Augustine talked about the sin of pride in the fifth century, he had in mind human beings playing God. The Roman Empire of his time and the growth of an imperial church provided plenty of examples. Today, we know that pride is not neces-

~ sarily the problem of humanity as a whole, but the problem of the I percent who have the power and the means to create the world in their image and for their interests. Many working people, women, and minorities are never given

• the opportunity to play God, as we are reminded of our bondage every day. Members of the middle class perceive ourselves as closer to the I percent and share in a certain level of pride, but the truth is that the system is chipping away at our positions at an alarming rate, and we need to wake up before it is too late.'

The theological nature of these life-and-death struggles has often been forgotten even in the theological traditions that continue to take seriously the utterly destructive nature of sin. The theological lesson we must learn is that those who put themselves in the place of God are putting themselves in the place of an idol. The all-controlling God who acts from the top down, alone and without inviting the participation of the people and without the need to listen to anyone, is not the God of Jesus Christ or the people of Israel. We have to sound the warning of Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century, who, in conversation with his student Boso, famously said, "You have not yet considered the weight of sin."

In the midst of this deepening crisis that is becoming increasingly a mat- ter of life and death, theology is not a luxury, but finds itself at the heart of efforts to present alternative ways and solutions. If another world is possible, as the World Social Forums have stated, another theology may be possible as well. And another theology, in turn, will contribute to another world. While the powers that be keep telling us that there is no alternative-this has been the message of empires throughout history and is internalized to a greater degree today than ever before-we maintain that alternatives exist and that theology can help us to identify them.

Theology of the Multitude 59

The good news is that we do not have to start from scratch. Alternative theologies have been around since the days of old, and many fresh ap- proaches have been developed in recent decades. We explicitly acknowledge our gratitude to the various liberation theologies in all parts of the world- Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America-and to theol- ogies in the feminist, womanist (African American women), and mujerista (Hispanic/Latina) traditions. We are also indebted to queer, postcolonial, and subaltern theologies, and the theologies of minorities, including Latinos/Lati- nas, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and First Na- tions, and others in North America. This list could be continued. In addition, religious traditions throughout history have contributed not only to resistance against empire and oppressive powers but also to new, constructive ap- proaches. In the eighteenth century, for instance, early Methodism was shaped in close connection with the labor movement in England and aboli- tionist sentiment in the United States." Evangelical traditions, in a curious reversal of mainstream evangelicalism today, promoted alternative ways of life and egalitarian relationships, including the ordination of women.! In Roman Catholicism, monastic movements like the Franciscans, founded in the early Middle Ages, have upheld some of the ideals of the founders, like the value of poverty, and in more recent decades the Catholic Worker move- ment has made a notable difference.

While we are grateful for all these traditions, which have provided impor- tant challenges and insights, we have to push further today for the sake of survival of a large part of humanity and the planet. We have to bring together many of these alternative concerns in order to push together for a new world in ways that respect the substantial diversity of all these approaches. Today it is clearer than ever that a single group cannot accomplish the needed trans- formations, and we need each other more now than at any other time in history. Facing the pressures surrounding us, we see no other way forward than to unite, while maintaining respect for the differences among us. For these reasons, we are proposing a theology of the multitude.

THE MULTITUDE IN THEOLOGICAL TERMS

"Multitude" is a term that symbolizes this coming together in ways that respect different traditions, cultures, and ways of life. "The multitude" stands for what has often been described as unity in difference. "Multitude" is a

60 Chapter 4

term that describes a deep concern of the biblical traditions. At the heart of the Jesus movement was not what has often been referred to as the demos of the Greeks, the assembly of privileged citizens from which the word "democ- racy" comes. At the heart of this movement were the laos and the ochlos, both of which describe the common people in contrast with the privileged citizens of the empire or of the religious elites. Laos is a term used for a broader group of people than the privileged demos. In the New Testament, the term laos refers to the common people. It speaks of "the new laos of God [that] incarnates not a nation but a multitude, a 'popular' people, a new experience of humanity without exclusions." Ochlos in the New Testament means a "crowd, multitude, the common people." Korean minjung theology focuses especially on ochlos in the Gospels and in the Pauline writings. According to Korean New Testament scholar Ahn Byung Mu (1922-1996), the ochlos in Mark's Gospel gathered and followed Jesus and formed the background of Jesus's activities (Mark 2:4, 2:13, 3:9, 3:20, 3:32, 4:1, 5:21, 5:24,5:31, 8:1, 10:1). The ochlos were against the rulers, and they were clearly on Jesus's side, in contrast to the ruling class from Jerusalem, which attacked and criticized Jesus (Mark 2:4-7, 3:2-22, I I: I8, II :27, II :32). The Galilean ochlos, as amorphous and diverse groups of people from the lower class, represents those whom Jesus's message addresses. The call to follow him is not only for the twelve disciples but also for the ochlos as a whole (Mark 8:34).7 Members of the laos and ochlos assembled for the most part outside the established institutions, in fields, on mountains, and by the water.

By adopting the term "multitude," we want to acknowledge the contribu- tions of Korean minjung theology, which has often been overlooked in the West. The term minjung can be translated as "multitude," and it combines several of our concerns. Of particular importance in the United States, min- jung reminds us of the notion of class, a concept often avoided in our context, but that is now promoted by the Occupy movement. Minjung theologians have pointed out the parallel between minjung and the ochlos in the New Testament. Jesus identified his work with the ochlos, and they were the ones who went to hear him speak and to witness his healing. Jesus accepted and supported them, and he was criticized for associating with them since they were the marginalized and alienated class. 8

Unlike traditional preachers who present good ideas from elevated posi- tions like pulpits and lecterns, Jesus not only preached to the multitude but organized it as well. As Richard A. Horsley has pointed out, this was one of the key reasons why the representatives of the Roman Empire, both political

Theology of/he Multitude 61

and religious ones, wanted to get rid of Jesus, the son of Joseph. His contem- porary, the peasant prophet Jesus, the son of Hananiah, who went around delivering oracles of judgment and deliverance, was merely beaten by the Romans and set free because they believed that he was deranged. 9

In addition to the significance of the term "multitude" in our theological traditions, the idea of the multitude has also been prominent in current de- bates about resistance to empire and domination. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, in particular, have provided some insightful definitions and distinc- tions that help us deepen our theological reflections. In contrast to the term "the people," which often tends to describe a unified group, "the multitude" allows for and welcomes differences among various members. In contrast to the term "the masses," which tends to level the difference of those who are part of it, "the multitude" invites differences of expression, multiple iden- tities, and shades of colors and hues of its parts.

The multitude picks up the concerns of working people, the so-called working class, because it values the notion of production. While the multi- tude is forced to endure the pressures of the system, it does not remain passive. Working people make substantial contributions to society, which are often overlooked and underappreciated. Hardt and Negri extend the multi- tude to the unemployed, unpaid domestic laborers, and the poor, who also make substantial contributions to society. We agree with their idea that "the multitude gives the concept of the proletariat its fullest definition as all those who labor and produce under the rule of capital." 10 This understanding of the multitude matches many biblical and liberation theology traditions, accord- ing to which the laos and the ochlos are not primarily the recipients of welfare but rather agents who make a difference. Marginalized women, for instance, make a difference in ways that the status quo would never expect. In one of Jesus's parables, a widow's stubborn insistence and refusal to accept any other outcome persuades an unjust judge to grant her justice (Luke 18;1-8). In the story of another widow offering all that she has to the poor, though she herself has little to give, Jesus compares her dedication to the shallowness of the wealthy (Mark 12:41-44). And a Gentile Syrophoeni- cian woman does what systematic theologians of the status quo have always thought to be impossible: she changes Jesus's mind (Mark 7;24-30).

While the multitude is productive in surprising and unexpected ways, those who live parasitic lives have excluded themselves from the multitude. Against common opinion, parasitic lives are lived not by the poor and the unemployed but by the rulers, who siphon off the wealth of the multitude for

62 Chapter 4

their own individual enjoyment. 11 Jesus cautioned his followers, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be the first among you must be slave of all" (Mark 10:42-44).

For good reasons, Hardt and Negri focus on economic class, in part be- cause this concept has not received enough attention in recent debates, but also because the multitude needs to be understood in terms of economic production. It is both the "common subject of labor, that is, the real flesh of postmodern production," and "the object from which collective capital tries to make the body of its global development." 12 As the multitude is consti- tuted by labor, it is unified by outside pressures: "Capital wants to make the multitude into an organic unity, just like the state wants to make it into a people." This forced unification, however, can be used by the multitude to its advantage, for "through the struggles of labor, the real productive biopolitical figure of the multitude begins to emerge." Since capital is not limited to what happens at work-"it extends throughout society well beyond the factory walls and geographically throughout the globe"l3-we need to keep in mind the broader ramifications of economic matters, which ultimately include re- ligion.

We argue that religious and theological reflections have a role to play not because the religious world is untainted by and independent of the world of capital, but because alternatives present themselves in the midst of the pres- sures of life. Confronted with the life-and-death struggles of our age, we are experiencing what has been called "grace under pressure." 14 A theological

, surplus emerges where we least expect it, not in spiritual retreats to the mountaintops or in individual enlightenment in isolation, but in the midst of struggle.

In order for theology to contribute to alternatives, it must confront the ways that religious sentiments and concepts have been used to reinforce the top-down domination of the I percent. Capitalism's faith in the so-called invisible hand of the market, which benefits the large corporations and the wealthy far more than the 99 percent, is only the tip of the iceberg. 15 The notion of sin, even if not always used explicitly, is usually turned against the multitude. People who are unemployed are portrayed as idle and lazy, and the contributions of working people are devalued and downplayed so that their wages and benefits can be slashed and their jobs sent overseas. Partici-

Theology ofthe Multitude 63

pants in the Occupy movement have been treated similarly, as they are also accused of being lazy and parasitic, and they are frequently crirninalized by the media and the authorities.

THE MULTITUDE-IN-RELATION

The multitude is all about relationship. This may sound like an odd claim in a world that has been shaped by the individualism of neoliberal capitalism. Over three decades, neoliberal capitalism has successfully promoted strong private-property rights and weakened lahar rights. As economic profit has been privatized and distributed among the few, debt has been communalized and pushed off to the many. Free markets and free trade are not equally

F accessible to all individuals, as neoliberal economic theory suggests, but instead favor the strong over the weak. These examples indicate that the premises of individualism-that people exist in isolation, and that economic success or misfortune is created in isolation-are not true. Individualism is the creed of the elite because it allows them to cover up the relationships that favor some and not others. The I percent want everyone to believe that

• success is self-made because this belief hides their debt to the community and allows them to blame all those who are less successful-the 99 percent. The creed of individualism is often padded with images of God residing at

~ the top as a lonely individual, as well as images of isolated believers whose main concern is their individual salvation. This creed shapes not only the lives of the elites but also the lives of many who belong to the 99 percent, including the poorest of the poor, because many of them dream of becoming wealthy and powerful someday in the future.

Nevertheless, the creed of individualism does not benefit the multitude. Very few ever get the opportunity to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." The so-called American dream, promoting the idea that all indi- viduals have the opportunity to move up the social ladder, rarely proves workable for the masses. When workers in the United States were better off, for instance, it was not because of individualism but because they had strong unions, which fought for eight-hour workdays, rest on weekends, pension plans, and various protections from exploitation. Likewise, when civil rights were granted in the history of the United States, whether voting rights for women and minorities or racial integration of public spaces, it was due to communal action rather than the creed of individualism or strong individual

64 Chapter 4

leaders. Not even some of the greatest individuals, such as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or Mohandas Gandhi, would have accomplished much on their own.

The multitude knows that individualism is a lie and that relationship is a fact of life, for better or worse. We owe everything to others, including the things that we take for granted, such as our ability to learn to speak a certain language and express ourselves so that others can understand. This is one of the basic insights of the Christian faith and of many other religions as well. Our lives are constituted by relationships, which include our relation with the divine as well as our relations with our parents and relatives, our teachers, and our friends. Moreover, our lives are also constituted by relationships with service providers, a global workforce, and our environments, and it is not always clear where one of these relationships ends and another begins, including our relationship with the divine.

The Jesus movement understood itself in terms of all these relationships, but Jesus was also aware of the tensions. It is these tensions that the creed of individualism overlooks as well. When the family as an institution turned into another kind of individualism because elite families who benefited from political and religious advantages turned against the many other families who did not enjoy such benefits, Jesus pronounced a challenge to the family. In the presence of his own mother and siblings, he refused to acknowledge the bonds of kinship and designed his movement to provide relationships that would ultimately prove to be more helpful: "Looking at those who sat around him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of my God is my brother and sister and mother" (Mark 3:34-35). The notion of justice in the Bible is embedded in the affirmation and restoration of such relationships; it is not an abstract principle of fairness, personified by a blindfolded woman holding a pair of scales. Instead, justice is bringing those who have been treated unjustly back into the community while challenging those who have promoted injustice and curbing their transgressions. 16

Many of the liberation traditions and theologies share such an understand- ing of relationship and justice, and today it is revived and revitalized in the Occupy movement. One way in which the Occupy movement gives expres- sion to these relationships is through its understanding of class, which is at the core of the movement. Class, in this context, is presented not as the existence of independent strata in society-the most common definition in the United States today, if class is discussed at all-but as a matter of rela- tionship between the classes. That the I percent and the 99 percent are deeply

Theology of the Multitude 65

related is not a new insight for those who have experienced exploitation in more dramatic forms, but it is a fresh insight in the public discussions in the United States and other countries, which have been shaped by neoliberal capitalism.

Yet this fresh understanding of relationship is not without detractors. Even when it is pointed out, the relationship between the I percent and the 99 percent is frequently denied not only by conservatives but also by liberals. The conservatives blame the 99 percent, and especially those on the lower end of the 99 percent, for their misfortunes. The liberals may be more open to the discussion of class but tend to hold on to understandings of class as harmless stratifications. On the one hand, conservatives lay the burden on

~ those who are less successful, exhorting them to work harder and to live more virtuous lives. Liberals, on the other hand, see the task as lifting less privileged people up into the next stratum. through programs designed to create more level playing fields, such as education and other projects that will enable those whom they consider "less fortunate" to get ahead in life. In both cases the symbiotic relationship between the I percent and the 99 per-

Il cent is not clearly grasped. The truth is that many members of the lower classes work harder than anyone else, often at several jobs at once, without

, getting ahead. People are "less fortunate" not by accident but because others benefit from their misfortune, and they have little choice but to work for lower wages and fewer benefits.

Many biblical traditions, and particularly Jesus's own proclamations in the Gospels, speak of relationships and forms of justice that reverse the social

" order. The parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:21-35), for instance, is not a moral tale that people should forgive others because they have been forgiven by God. It is a reminder that forgiveness of debt is a way of life that makes more sense for working people than the individualism of the wealthy and the masters. The servant whose debt has been forgiven by a very untypi- cal master, who acts against the logic of all masters, is now free to forgive the much smaller debt of one of his fellow servants. This ability to forgive debt is

~ where true wealth lies, as it creates stronger relationships and solidarity among the servants that are worth much more than petty sums of money. If the master changes his mind in the future and starts clamping down on the servants again, it is the relationship among the servants that will protect them and enable resistance.

66 Chapter 4

Mainline theology either pays little attention to relationship or moralizes about it. When pastors talk about relationship from the pulpits, for instance, they often morally exhort people to be less individualistic, thereby perpetuat- ing the myth that individualism is real. But many liberation theologies have recognized the reality of relationship for years. Womanist theologies, for instance, are aware that the lives and circumstances of black women are tied to those of black men, and to those of white men and women, and many others, for good or for ill. While unjust relationships along the lines of

• gender, race, and class are mostly invisible for those who benefit from them, those who feel the pressures in their own bodies are sorely aware of what is going on. Rather than being "special-interest theologies" for individual mi- norities, liberation theologies insist that we are always related and propheti- cally denounce the oppressive natures of many of our relationships. The fact that we live in the complex intersections of race, class, gender,

and sexuality should not be a cause of frustration, but a call to develop less oppressive and more productive relations. Inorder to develop these relations, theologians of various Iiberative traditions have at times had recourse to the ancient Christian doctrine of the Trinity.!? The doctrine of the Trinity presents an image of the divine as multiplicity and the heart of the universe as relational and nonhierarchical. It speaks of the first and the second persons of the Trinity as sharing the same quality of being and intimately related to the Holy Spirit. The Cappadocian theologians of the fourth century used the term perichoresis, referring to the divine relationship of embrace and inter- penetration, to describe this dynamic relation. In the beginning there is not one single God who then produces a Trinity; in the beginning there is a relationship that models the sort of unity in difference that is also characteris-

• tic of the multitude. There isno going back to some primordial unity without diversity. While humans never know relationships that are completely devoid of

pressures and distortions, relationships have a productive quality that can never be completely erased. Relationships are produced and can grow strong- er even under the greatest of pressures, such as the solidarity of African Americans confronted with the harsh realities of slavery, the solidarity of women confronted with the pressures of unrelenting patriarchy, and the soli- darity of workers confronted with ruthless exploitation in their workplaces. Hardt and Negri argue that today the metropolis is the place where great pressures are condensed in such a way that new solidarity emerges. For this

Theology of the Multitude 67

reason, they consider the metropolis "one vast reservoir of common wealth."!" The Occupy movement appears, to some extent, to prove them right.

Yet the multitude that is formed in these contexts is not without its prob- lems, and it does not form spontaneously. The organic image of the body, which the apostle Paul adopts to describe the church as the body of Christ, helps us understand what is at stake. This image was originally promoted by the philosophers of the Roman Empire in order to remind the subjects of the empire that they are organically related, but in such a way that there can be no shifting of positions, resulting in an organic hierarchy. The feet can never dream of becoming the head and vice versa, but head and feet need each other. Neoliberal capitalism has forgotten even the wisdom of the Roman Empire, as it treats workers as expendable and of little consequence. Paul, however, turns this hierarchical image of the body upside down:

The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, .. [ have no need of you." On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect (I Cor. 12:21-24).

This reversal is not primarily a pragmatic one, seeking to promote harmony within the body, but rather finds its justification in God's own rationale: "God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member" (1 Cor. 12:24b).

As a result, the body of Christ models the multitude, where "if one mem- ber suffers, all suffer together with it," and "if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (I Cor. 12:26). This kind of multitude requires work. It does not arise out of thin air, and it can always be coopted by the status quo. We agree with Hardt and Negri that the debate needs to be shifted from being the multitude to making the multitude: "The multitude is formed through articulations on the plane of immanence without hegemony."!" This formation includes the formation of nature, rather than leaving behind nature, as capitalism does.'o

The good news is that, as Hardt and Negri point out,

the production of the common always involves a surplus that cannot be expro- priated by capital or captured in the regimentation of the global political body. This surplus, at the most abstract philosophical level, is the basis on which

68 Chapter 4

antagonism is transformed into revolt. Deprivation, in other words, may breed anger, indignation, and antagonism, but revolt arises only on the basis of wealth, that is, a surplus of intelligence, experience, know ledges, and desire. 21

Here we can draw some parallels to our notion of a theological surplus, which emerges in the dialectical tension between immanence and transcen-

" dence, as will be discussed below. In other words, the status quo that is presented to us as the only reality does not have the last word: another world is possible.

One of the biggest challenges for the emerging relationships among the multitude is how to develop a broader and deeper form of solidarity. Well- meaning proponents of relationship and solidarity have often had to fight the blatant rejections of relationship and solidarity of the I percent. It is unfortu- nate that many middle-class and poor people echo the powerful when they reject other people out of hand, such as immigrants or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people. One way in which the proponents of relationship and solidarity have fought this battle is by proclaiming that we do not need to be afraid of other people, that others are humans too, and that "others are just like us." Parents often tell their children that others are just like us in order to reduce their fear of others. The problem with this approach, however, is that although it is preferable to the blatant rejection of others, it tends to turn other people into mirror images of one's own self, without recognizing them for who they are. The result is that others can still be misused for one's own purposes.

One of the criticisms leveled at the Occupy movement is that it is pre- dominantly white and middle class and that there are relatively few minor- ities involved. But as we have shown, there have been efforts made to value and respect minority voices, for instance by giving them priority of speech in the general assemblies. In Dallas, for instance, different groups collaborated across differences, from established groups like Move-On and the unions to small art collectives and racial minority groups. This does not always happen in Texas, and it should be noted that the homeless were part of the movement too, and that a community of Hare Krishnas brought food every day. We should also add that involving the middle class in the Occupy movement is a more important accomplishment than it might seem at first sight, especially

.. when the middle class begins to realize that it is not out there merely to help others but that it is itself deeply affected by the economic crisis and thus shares in some structures of oppression with the rest of the 99 percent. This is the first step toward what we are calling "deep solidarity."

Theology a/the Multitude 69

The Occupy movement has, therefore, the opportunity to develop unity in diversity in powerful ways. One practical example is Occupy Homes, a branch of the Occupy movement, which started in Minneapolis and Atlanta. Cat Salonek, an organizer with Occupy Homes in Minneapolis, notes that this spin-off of the Occupy movement is aware of what she calls the "un- checked privilege on the plaza." Not everyone can afford to stay in tents for extended periods of time. Privilege is addressed in Occupy Homes as people meet face-to-face with families who are threatened by eviction and with people in struggling neighborhoods. People gather with a specific purpose- preventing foreclosure and eviction from a house-and these projects bring people together and keep growing as more foreclosures are addressed. As a result, whole neighborhoods are being organized. Occupy Homes also brings together different sectors of the Occupy movement, including a faith compo- nent, as some of the work is done and presented in roundtable discussions in churches.

As the 99 percent are beginning to understand their deep solidarity and thus their fundamental unity, how to deal with difference remains a funda- mental issue. One reason is that difference has often been used by the I percent to divide and conquer the 99 percent. Differences of race, ethnicity, and gender have been used for the benefit of the system. When white land- owners in seventeenth-century Virginia used the category of race to pit poor white people against black people, the poor white people gained some small privileges over their black peers. At the same time, they lost something much more essential-namely, their deep solidarity with black people, which would have put them in a much stronger position.j? The same is true when men and women are pitted against each other in the workplace: men gain some privileges, often in terms of status and better pay, but they lose what really counts-the ability to organize together with women, so that all work- ers are better off in the end. In these examples, racism and sexism benefit the masters and the employers more than they benefit the workers.

Jewish Argentinean religion scholar Santiago Siabodsky is right when he reminds us that the racially privileged participants in the Occupy movement fail "to understand that historically they have been beneficiaries and not victims" of institutions like slavery.P As we remember the history of slav- ery, however, we also need to keep in mind that not all white Southerners benefited equally from slavery: the white owners of the Southern plantations benefited exponentially. According to Theodore W. Allen, "the poor and propertyless European-Americans were the principal element in the day-to-

70 Chapter 4

day enforcement of racial oppression," as even the poorest white man "could now find pride in his race."" The white landowners were thus more power- ful and better off than ever, as the poor whites could be employed in the control ofthe African American slaves.

The awareness of class differences between the I percent and the 99 percent, which the Occupy movement promotes, helps us put the differences ofrace, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in a broader context. In the words of Hardt and Negri, "The multitude is composed of radical differences, singu- larities, that can never be synthesized in an identity. The radicality of gender difference, for example, can be included in the biopolitical organization of social life, the life renovated by the multitude, only when every discipline of labor, affect, and power that makes gender difference into an index of hierar- chy is destroyed."> Rather than pitting one form of difference against an- other-like race against class or class against gender-the lens of class helps us put these differences to constructive use.

The privileges in terms of class, gender, and race that some participants in the Occupy movement enjoy can now be put to work. Certain resources of the middle class (and even of the I percent), such as academic expertise, personal and professional connections, and financial resources, are useful for all members of the 99 percent. Instead of using their privileges to create power differentials, members of the middle class can use their knowledge, expertise, and connections to strengthen the movement. Similarly, white peo- ple can use their privileges in society as white allies in support of people of color and immigrants. A white Anglo-Saxon politician or pastor joining the cause of immigrants, for instance, could be extremely beneficial to the move- ment. In terms of gender and heterosexual privileges, the movement for justice can benefit from solidarity between men and women, and between heterosexual people and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

It is important to realize that privilege exists, but also that this sort of privilege is often not much more than the system "throwing a bone" to the privileged so that they will continue to toe the line: the middle class is hanging on to the false hope that they are more like the ruling class than the working class; members of the dominant race and ethnicities act out their whiteness, with the illusion that they are better off than and superior to the minorities; and males still have some advantages of pay over women, but they don't run the show just because they are male, as the janitors' union would remind us.

Theology of the Multitude 71

As lines are being redrawn and new connections made, we will also begin to see religious differences in a new light. Many Christians in the United Slates assume that there is a firm line between Christians and non-Christians. But the issue at hand is not whether people profess belief in God or not; the question is what kind of God and what kind of power they affirm. The theology of the multitude that we are developing here often finds itself in closer proximity with liberation theologians from other religions than with some Christian theologians who uphold dominant images of God. South African Islamic scholar Farid Esack, for instance, notes a preferential option for the oppressed in the Qur'an, which is rooted in the identification of God with the oppressed. 26 Esack observes that in some places "the Qur'an makes a clear choice for the mustad'ofun [the marginalized and oppressed] against the mustakbirun [the arrogant and powerful] even though the former may not be Muslim."?"

It is more important to ask how God's power manifests itself and in what direction power flows than to debate abstractly the existence of "God" in general. This awareness opens a new chapter in interreligious dialogue, as the conversations not only become richer and deeper but also allow for a better appreciation of both similarities and differences. Those who affirm power as a top-down process and those who see God or ultimate reality upholding it appear to be closer to each other-no matter whether they are Christian or not-than to those who affirm alternative forms of power that move from the bottom up. In this regard, Christians need to rethink completely what we say about God and community, as will be discussed in the following chapters.

IMMANENCE AND TRANSCENDENCE

According to conventional understandings, "immanence" refers to things that belong to this world and "transcendence" refers to things that go beyond it. The notion of transcendence is problematic for progressive thinkers because they seek to focus on the concerns of this world rather than on what is otherworldly. They are often suspicious of religion because they see it as concerned mostly with otherworldly transcendence. Postcolonial and cultural theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, for instance, says theology is foreign to her thinking, and she is wary of religious talk, which is often undergirded by the dichotomy of nature and supernaturc." Hardt and Negri have written explicitly against transcendence: "The multitude, today, however, resides on

72 Chapter 4

the imperial surfaces where there is no God the Father and no transcen- dence .... The multitude has no reason to look outside its own history and its own present productive power for the means necessary to lead toward its constitution as a political subject.v-?

These thinkers' suspicion of anything that smacks of transcendence is understandable, considering how transcendence has been domesticated and coopted by religions and theologies of the status quo, whether liberal or conservative. Conservative theologies' teachings on creationism and intelli- gent design.w for instance, tend to identify transcendence with the way things are. This sort of transcendence frequently provides a sacred canopy protecting the hierarchies of power that sustain the status quo. But this hap- pens even in liberal theologies, which seek to challenge the ways the conser- vative status quo has come to define religion. Liberal theologies' emphasis on human experience, all the way back to Friedrich Schleiermacher, often identifies transcendence with the status quo as well, especially where it endorses the value systems of the modem world. This approach becomes especially problematic when the adoption of theories of evolution turns into a widespread social Darwinism, which identifies the "survival of the fittest" with the elites. Yet the insistence on immanence can also be coopted to celebrate the status quo, as seen in German Protestantism of the nineteenth century and contemporary civil religion in the United States. In these exam- ples, God is perceived as embodied in the dominant expressions of culture, religion, politics, and economics. That is why megachurches are so fashion- able: they are seen as the embodiment of God on earth. We need a different approach.

Instead of pitting immanence and transcendence against each other, let us take another look at the potential of each term for an emerging theology of the multitude. At the heart ofa theology of the multitude is a deep sense that things do not have to be the way they are now. This sense links multitude theology to the various liberation theologies and distinguishes it from any other type of theological or religious reflection that works on the grounds of the way things are. Here we can find new experiences of transcendence and immanence that are in diametrical opposition to theologies of the status quo.

In the history of theology, the notion of transcendence has often played an ~ important role in theologies of resistance. Twentieth-century Swiss theolo-

gian Karl Barth is widely known for his emphasis on the otherness of God.--=--This meant, for Barth, that God cannot be coopted by the status quo and by a church that merely supports the dominant political and economic powers.

Theology a/the Multitude 73

However, what is often overlooked, even by many of those who claim to be

\ Barthians at present, is that Barth's emphasis on God's otherness is deeply rooted in an understanding that things do not have to beas they are now. This puts Barth's work in the camp of liberation traditions, as it has

inspired liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez, James Cone, and Frederick Herzog. Moreover, Barth's sense of God's otherness was closely related to his encounter with blue-collar workers in the small Swiss town of Safenwil. There, Barth realized how closely God's transcendence had been identified with the elites in political and economic life in mainline churches and theologies, a problem that has plagued Christianity throughout its history and even today. Learning about the lives of the workers, their struggles and their pressures, Barth began to understand that the Christian understanding of God's transcendence had to be radically revised. Emphasizing that in the

IJewish and Christian traditions God always sides with the oppressed andagainst the oppressors;" Barth not only revolutionized theology but also joined in the support of the unions and the Swiss Socialist party, of which he remained a member until the end of his life.32 Theology and organizing were closely linked in the early days of Barth's theology.

In the midst of the struggles of everyday life, new understandings of transcendence have developed that are crucial to a theology of the multitude. Mark Lewis Taylor helpfully distinguishes among the transcendence of emancipatory politics, the transcendence of command in authoritarian sys- tems, and the transcendence of ordering function in Western capitalism." The latter two forms of transcendence support the status quo, one by endors- ing the unchecked authority of elites from the outset, and the other by endors- ing those who end up on top in the capitalist marketplace. All this throws new light on one of the core problems in the United States, where people's minds are so colonized by the status quo that it is hard for the multitude to identify radically different notions of transcendence. The only widely avail- able notions of transcendence that display some criticism of the status quo are those of the doomsday prophets, and so it is no wonder that many Chris- tians find it easier to believe that the world will go up in flames someday soon than that capitalism will ever end. The notions of transcendence of theology of the multitude bear some

resemblance to the kind oftranscendence embodied in the incarnation, where God becomes human in Jesus Christ. 34 Since, as classical Christianity em- phasizes, these two natures cannot be confused or separated (as expressed in the Council of Chalcedon in 45I CE), transcendence and immanence cannot

74 Chapter 4

be defined according to divinity and humanity. Both divinity and humanity are part of the transcendent, and both divinity and humanity are part of the immanent. This changes everything because transcendence is no longer that which hovers over the immanent, superior and at a safe distance. As Barth and many liberation theologians understood, the story of Jesus Christ being born in lowly conditions redefines our understanding of God's transcen-

,j dence. Transcendence is not that which is opposed to immanence in general, I but it is an alternative form of immanence that challenges the immanence of

the status quo. Any notion of transcendence that fails to understand this reversal is bound

to end up endorsing another hierarchy and thus other forms of oppression. The work of John Milbank, one of the founders of so-called radical ortho- doxy, provides an example of this problem. He encourages "a new postliberal participatory democracy that is enabled by the aristocracy of an education that seeks after the common good and absolute transcendent truth. Finally, we need to see that it is equally enabled by a monarchic principle that permits a unified power at the limit to intervene in the name of ... equity."" This is the sort of transcendence that Hardt and Negri oppose for good reasons. Not only does it perpetuate unchecked hierarchies, but it also neglects any sense of the agency of the multitude, which is key to a theology of the multitude.> Hardt and Negri's suspicion that "transcendent sovereignty" today is tied to the "transcendental power of the republic of property">? should give us pause, both because it unmasks relations that often remain invisible and because it describes the forces that are responsible for holding the multitude in check, even if they operate with the best of intentions.

Alternative images of transcendence throw new light on the agency of the multitude. Jesus Christ demonstrates this alternative agency in his own life by rejecting the top-down agency of the Roman Empire that appears in the form of the devil's offer to grant Jesus power over all the kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4:8-10) and in Jesus's promotion and embodiment of another way of life: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20), and "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation" (Luke 6:24). The agency that counts in the kingdom of God, which is "among you" (Luke 17:21), is not the agency of the rich; it is the agency of the poor. This kingdom is therefore better grasped as an anti- kingdom, as the reign of God is unlike the reigns of the powerful of this world.

Theology of the Multitude 75

Without referencing Jesus, Hardt and Negri grasp something of this alter- native agency when they talk about the prophetic capacity of "the poor": "Only the poor lives radically the actual and present being, in destitution and suffering, and thus only the poor has the ability to renew being."38Neverthe- less, it does not seem necessary to us to declare "the poor" to be "god on earth,"39as Hardt and Negri do. While there is good reason to point out the family resemblance between the agency of the multitude and the divine- Jesus himself does so repeatedly-the place of transcendence itself is better

• left open. This signals the limits and shortcomings of all that we do, and the fact that the anti-kingdom, or the reign of God, is not yet established in its entirety.

It is not necessary for a theology of the multitude to identify the transcen- dent qualities of the multitude-a multitude that embodies a surplus of in- sight and energy that those who are identified with the status quo generally lack-with the transcendent as such or with God. 40 This is the wisdom of the Second Commandment, which prohibits making and worshiping images of God (Exod. 20:4). Keeping the place of the transcendent open reminds us that we are still on the road and do not have a permanent dwelling place wherethe status quo rules supreme: "For here we have no lasting city, but we are looking for the city that is to come," states a famous passage in Hebrews 13:14. This sort of open transcendence does not have to be understood in otherworldly terms. Jesus's own message about the difference the reign of God makes in this world displays a similar restlessness: "Faxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20). These insights, we believe, are shared by the Occupy movement and symbolized by dwelling in tents on public property.

In this regard, the heart of the theology of the multitude is not religion in general but an experience of otherness and transcendence, which can be mediated through religion as well as through other experiences. The problem withmainline religion, as we see it today, is that it often fights experiences of

• otherness and transcendence as openness, and it does so in the name of a transcendence that backs up the status quo. This happens, for instance, when mainline religion promotes images of God as a monarch in the sky whose main concern is eternal salvation in heaven, images that are then pitted against images of God at work in the common people or in grassroots move- ments that seek to make a difference here and now. A similar rejection of

o experiences of otherness and transcendence can be found in the current form of party politics in the United States, which tends to be unsatisfactory for a

76 Chapter 4

theology of the multitude not because it is politics but because it lacks this moment of otherness and transcendence as openness. Politics and religion are not fundamentaIly opposed in many of our traditions-the idea that they can be separated is a modern misconception. The better question is what our politics will be. For those who, like us, remain committed to matters of religion, this means that we can no longer accept definitions of religion that keep it safely in check so that it cannot chaIlenge the political, economic, and cultural status quo.

In conclusion, a theology of the multitude offers a new perspective not only on transcendence but also on immanence. Immanence is changed in the encounter with transcendence in the sense that it becomes a space that pro-

, vides both'resistance and new opportunities for the multitude to become genuinely productive. Immanence is the new world-the anti-kingdom, or the reign of God-growing in the midst of the old. Understood in this way, both immanence and transcendence have a specific horizon: overcoming a

, status quo that does not aIlow alternatives and that exploits the agency and productivity of the multitude. An interesting paraIlel ofa critique ofa partic- ular status quo that harnesses the agency and productivity of the multitude for its own gain can be found in the prophet Samuel's warnings that the establishment of a kingship in Israel means that "the king who wiIl reign over you" wiIl "take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots," and "he will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers" (I Samuel 8: I I, 8: 13).

DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCTION

Theologies concerned with justice issues have long been interested in matters offairness in how wealth is distributed. Here, the focus is on the remission of debt, the sharing of resources, and the giving and receiving of gifts so that all have enough to live. Yet there is another aspect that is frequently overlooked: the aspect of production. While distribution is indeed a major problem as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the deeper problem has to do with

i\" production. The crucial question is how the productive capacities of people are valued, as there are biIlions of people who work around the clock, often at several jobs, but still live in poverty. A further question is whether people are in positions where they can employ their productive and creative capac-

'" ities so that their community as a whole benefits. 41

Theology of the Multitude 77

What does a focus on production have to do with theology? Even though theology has often contributed to the passivity of the people because many people rely on the clergy and theologians to tell them what to believe and because their participation in religious activities does not encourage agency, a theology of the multitude promotes a different image. A theology of the multitude understands that many of our traditions encourage agency and productivity. Worship, for instance, has nothing to do with passive reception or narrow religious ritual. Worship, as the prophet Isaiah points out, has to do with the production of justice (Isa. 58: 5-7). We will come back to this idea in chapter 6. The various feedings of the four thousand and of the five thousand (Mark 8:1-10; Matt. 14:13-21) in the Gospels are notjust a witness to the miraculous powers of Jesus; they can also be understood as testimonies of the agency and resourcefulness of the multitude in taking care of each other. Jesus's healings tend to encourage agency and productivity as well. He responds to a man who has been waiting for help for thirty-eight years with these words: "Stand up, take your mat and walk" (John 5:8).

The productivity of the multitude does not require a rejection of diversity, but rather a concern for the flourishing of the community. Hardt and Negri make an important distinction between the crowd, the masses, the rabble, or the mob-all social bodies that must be led by strong individuals-and the multitude. The multitude "designates an active social subject, which acts on the basis of what the singularities share in common. The multitude is an

(

internally different multiple social subject whose constitution and action is based not on identity or unity (or, much less, indifference) but on what it has in common."" In other words, the multitude is tied together not by its unifor-

¥-\ mity or inherent similarities, but rather by collaboration in common projects that benefit all.

This is why the apostle Paul could celebrate the emerging freedom of the community without having to worry about uniformity: "But now that faith has come we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of,. you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:25-28). As the structures that exploit diversity for the purpose of domination are dismantled, productivity for the sake of the common good is set free. The different identities are not erased

78 Chapter 4

but transformed: as men swear off patriarchy, slave masters swear off gain from slaveholding, and dominant races and ethnicities loosen their grip, new collaborations become possible.

It is crucial to keep in mind that the dominated voices are not folded into the dominant majority. Their distinctiveness is not erased as they become part of the multitude. On the contrary, the formerly dominated voices make substantial and productive contributions to the community. When members of the Occupy movement claim their status as the multitude by stating, "We are the 99 percent," they claim not only a fairer distribution of resources for all but also their own agency, and they point to the productive contributions that they are making to the community. This is often overlooked in a society that celebrates and rewards the ones in positions of power and privilege-the "first" rather than the "last." The Gospel message turns this around in a statement that appears to be deeply sympathetic to the concerns of the 99 percent: "Many who are first will be last, and the last will be first" (Matt. 19:30, 20: 16).

Subverting the idea of a monarchy, where there is only one strong ruler who makes the decisions (the "decider," a term coined by former president George W. Bush), Jesus makes the following announcement to his disci- ples-those "who have left everything and followed [him]": "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:27-28). Not only is monarchy subverted here, as there is more than one throne, but the criteria of judgment are also reversed, as the last will be first and the first will be last. This is no top-down monarchy, where production is organized from the top, nor is it a democracy where the elite citizens hold the reins of production. This is what might be called a laocracy or ochlocracy that is built on the productivity of the multitude, which is now dutifully acknowledged and valued by people who are their peers.

The multitude is, therefore, anything but another service project. This is news for a church and a society that has structured its relations with the "least of these" in the form of service projects, whether they take the shape of charity or of advocacy. The traditional terms of "following Jesus" or "disci- pleship" do not refer to involvement in service projects; rather, these terms refer to joining in solidarity with the least of these and acknowledging and reinforcing their agency. In short, discipleship means becoming a productive agent in relationship with other productive agents. This is what we are calling

Theology a/the Multitude 79

"deep solidarity." Where in the past solidarity, even for progressive Chris- tians, often meant a decision of the will to be in support of the "least of these," solidarity now begins with an understanding that we are all in the same boat: we are the 99 percent, and we challenge the I percent to stop building their power and wealth at our expense and invite them to join us. Solidarity continues with celebrating a common productivity that has always been at work-s-otherwise, little would get done in the world-but that the system has concealed from us. This common productivity has been covered up by putting people in competitive relationships. Yet real competition is not primarily located where we usually look for it: in the relations between the races, men and women, and the working class and middle class. Real compe- tition is located in the relations between the I percent and the 99 percent, whereby the 1 percent becomes wealthier and more powerful all the time and everybody else is increasingly subjected to austerity measures.

To be sure, the agency and productivity developed here can take many different forms. All forms of agency and productivity that contribute to the well-being of the community rather than to private interests alone are wel- come. This means that we need to draw a Iine between the agency of the multitude and the arrogant, top-down agency of control that is embodied by the I percent; we also need to expose the claims of the I percent, shored up by neoliberal economic theory, that if the rich are doing better, everyone is doing better. The agency that has been demonstrated by women, minorities, and organized workers is instructive because it is an agency that develops under conditions of adversity, without efforts to achieve top-down domi- nance.

Would it be possible that the multitude, after gaining power, would be- have like the I percent? That the multitude is after a simple reversal-so that they would be the masters and the I percent the slaves-is an often-repeated suspicion, but how would this be possible? How could the multitude ever take unilateral, top-down action if it is leaderless-or "leaderfull" (see chap- ter 3)--to such a degree that there are millions of leaders? Even a call for a "dictatorship" of the proletariat could only amount to a reversal of the term "dictatorship," as the lordship of Christ is a reversal of the lordship of the Roman emperor. Jesus's rejection of top-down power, embracing the power of weakness to which Paul testifies, models another way of being productive. In 2 Corinthians, Paul hears Jesus say to him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness" (12:9). By the same token, a truly laocratic or ochlocratic situation can only present power being made perfect

80 Chapter 4

in weakness and rules out dictatorial rule of any form. The form of power at work among the multitude is in stark contrast with the power of the status quo.

Hardt and Negri describe the agency and productivity of the multitude in terms of love-a term that matches Christian imagery. But we need to be clear how this concept of love differs from what we usually mean by this term. The love of the multitude differs, for instance, from the love that is expressed by the modern concept of bourgeois love, which is often privatized and self-serving. Here, love is reserved for family and an exclusive circle of friends, as well as the production of heterosexual couples, which has been the theme of thousands of Hollywood movies over the years. According to Hardt and Negri, the love of the multitude is not self-serving but open to the community, as "love means precisely that our expansive encounters and continuous collaborations bring us joy."'] Love is realized through agency and production, which constructs and reconstructs self and other and their relationship with the community; it has nothing to do with being starry-eyed or mesmerized by another person. 44

Yet there are limits to the notion of love, even where it seeks the common good. In contemporary theologies of various affiliations, there has been a distinction between the powers of coercion and attraction, initially developed in the theology of Friedrich Schlelermacher." Many liberals tend to envision love in terms of attraction and perhaps the related soft powers of persuasion. What is commonly overlooked, however, is that even this sort oflove can be used in the service of the powers that be. In globalizing capitalism, for instance, the soft power of attraction is far more effective and seductive than the hard power of the military. In other words, this sort of love is good for business, as it facilitates the flow of power from the top down. The advertis- ing industry, for instance, accomplishes more when it works through attrac- tion and love, and cultural dominance often works along those lines as well. The American movie industry, for instance, has been much more effective in spreading goodwill for neoliberal capitalism than any military action could ever hope to be.

For these reasons, the notion of love needs to be tempered with the notion of justice. This insight is deeply embedded in Jewish and Christian theology. If justice, as we said above, is about restoring relationship, it includes reject- ing and deconstructing that which inhibits this process. Love tempered by justice can take the form of tough love, which is not coercion or violence but rather a form of love that enables us to draw clear Iines when it comes to

Theology of the Multitude 81

X oppressive relationships. When the 99 percent stand up to the I percent, this is not only a matter of claiming justice but also a deep expression of love. As Jurgen Moltmann has observed, the ancient biblical hope for the judgment of oppressors, which effectively puts an end to oppressive relationships, is part of what truly gives hope to the oppressed. 46 This means that God's own love can be expressed in terms of justice. Justice, like love, is not a narrow principle but the basis of the common life of the multitude and part of the joy that it experiences.

While productivity rather than mere distribution and redistribution is at the heart ofa theology of the multitude, it is important to bear in mind that no clear-cut action plan can be put forth. Such a clear-cut action plan would require once again the forms of top-down power that belong to the old eon rather than the new. The Occupy movement in its early days embodied this insight: it chose to be a leaderless movement, as those who operated in leadership roles resisted the temptation to claim authority for their own per- sonal benefit. Strands of the earliest Christian theologies, which the apostle Paul quotes in Philippians, say something similar about Christ: "Though he was in the form of God, [he] did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself" (2:6-7). It seems to us that these new ways of life are teaching us something about the "form of God" as well: emptying oneself of top-down power and reclaiming other sorts of power may be more God-like than we had ever suspected.

The disadvantage of such leaderless movements is that they allow for no quick resolutions and fixes, and they reduce the expectation of efficiency, which is so deeply engrained in the mentality of capitalism. Nevertheless, a slower process of addressing and resolving the problems of the world and an efficiency that rests on the shoulders of many may be more effective in the long run. Another advantage of a leaderless movement is that it cannot be destroyed easily, as the destruction of those whom the system identifies as leaders will not bring the movement to a halt.

What happens when people discover that both their own powers and God's power are different than what mainline Christianity, whether conser- vative or liberal, has told them? Without this awareness of how the power that is at the heart of the universe is different, people will continue to bend to the pressures exerted by the wealthy and the powerful. Being told in many ways that God is on the side of those who are on top, or simply living with the tacit assumption that this is the way things are, people are kept in dark- ness about their own power to make a difference. After all, most of our

82 Chapter 4

images of God portray the divine as located on the top. At present, these values are embodied most clearly by right-wing politics and religion, but even liberals tend to follow suit, as they rarely provide alternatives, and simply placing God somewhere in the middle does not help much. The Occupy movement may help the multitude to change their minds on these matters.

Finally, we need to note that asserting the agency and productivity of the multitude will not go without conflict, a conflict more intense than what we have already seen in discussions about distribution. The efforts to nullify the power of the multitude are many, and it is striking that, as Hardt and Negri observe, so many of these efforts are tied up with Christian theology and doctrine.s? Here, the false transcendence that we discussed above may be the biggest challenge. Those who see the power of God at the top, intimately linked with all the other powers found at the top, feel obligated to fight the multitude. While there is little agreement among churches and theologians today, there is a common mood of rejection directed against liberative theol- ogies, to which theologies of the multitude belong, that assert new images of God and new ways of life. So the multitude continues to be opposed not only by those at the top whose wealth and power keeps growing at the expense of the multitude, but also by all those who feel that this is the way it should be. For this reason, the forces that seek to defeat the new paradigm often come fr0111within, just as Judas betrayed Jesus. Nevertheless, the good news is that history does not belong to the Judases, nor does it belong to the Roman Empire or any other empire that has risen and fallen throughout history.