Political Theology

Political Theology

By Alistair Kee

The term has become extensively used since the 1960s. Those who hear it for the first time may be puzzled as to its meaning, not because it describes a phenomenon with which they are unfamiliar, but because it seems to attempt to bring together two things which they regard as incompatible. Adapting Dr Johnson's comment, they will be less interested in whether the two have been accommodated well, than in whether they have been accommodated at all. In an increasingly pluralistic culture there would still be widespread agreement that politics and religion should be kept apart. To do something called political theology by mistake would be one thing, but to claim to do it or even aspire to do it would seem to many not just mischievous but anti-social and dangerous.

Such suspicion concerning political theo­logy is understandable. It would be difficult to argue against the view that the com­bination of religion and politics has been the single greatest cause of suffering in human history. In an increasingly secular Western culture there is incomprehension as well as anger at the intrusion of religion in political life. This is witnessed in the out­sider's view of the strife in Northern Ireland. In such circumstances something called 'political theology' would appear to be mis­taking the poison for the cure.

But suspicion of political theology also comes from within the Christian church. Many conservative Protestants seem to assume that somewhere, either at Mount Sinai or in the Sermon on the Mount, it is specifically enjoined on Christians that they must avoid any mixing of politics and re­ligion. The reasons for this view are two­fold. On the one hand it comes from a rejec­tion of the kind of institutional involvement they associate with the rc Church. They see too close a parallel between the Vatican State and other states. The interests of the church are too easily identified in terms of property, wealth, privilege and prestige. Protestants lay great stress on freedom of conscience and they see church/state rela­tions in Catholic countries leading to the enforcement of religious beliefs through civil legislation. On the other hand the stress on personal decision as the basis of Protestant Christianity has strengthened a view that religion is essentially private and is con­cerned with the inner spiritual life of man. If the world is evil, then Christians, on this view, have a duty not to become involved in politics. This privatized religion can be maintained and developed better when it is divorced from the political sphere.

There would seem to be a widespread sus­picion of political theology as bringing to­gether two things which always mean trouble. As we have seen, there are those who even believe that it is a matter of prin­ciple that the two should be kept apart. And finally there are those who are less con­cerned about religion entering politics than politics entering religion. There is the ex­ample of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s, acting against Judaism and against Christianity, to eliminate one and make the other merely an arm of its own long-term strategies.

What all of these examples have in common is this, that they do not represent a bringing together of politics and religion. What they have in common is that the two are joined in battle, each seeking to over­come, dominate and use the other. Political theology is not an example of the age-old conflict between politics and religion. It is not the advocacy of such struggle nor its pursuit as if it were a moral goal. On the contrary, political theology is the attempt to overcome the conflict which has brought distortion to religion and untold suffering to humanity. Political theology is not the old, not the best of the old, but the death of the old - to bring to life something new.

The starting-point of political theology is the examination of the ways in which politics and religion have been falsely brought to­gether in the past. There are, first of all, examples of how political objectives have been deliberately presented in religious terms. This is seen in the Imperial Cult of ancient Rome. Different oaths were required of the various strata of society, but all had to make a formal sacrifice to the Genius of Caesar. This was not a real religion, but a device by which to test political loyalty. This requirement brought the early church into conflict with the state. It was for religious reasons that, through loyalty to the Lord Jesus, they would not sacrifice to the Lord Caesar. But the Romans assumed that the refusal must be based on political grounds, since they themselves saw the cult as political and not religious. Again, in the fourth cen­tury Christianity was made the state re­ligion, under Constantine. This was not done for evangelical reasons, but rather because the emperor required something to unite his deeply divided empire. This politi­cal policy of unification was presented as if it were the will of God. Finally, in the twen­tieth century we have seen even more blatant examples of political movements entering the religious sphere. The Nazi leaders sys­tematically presented Hitler not simply as a political figure, but as a messianic religious figure. Prayers in school were not for Hitler, but addressed to Hitler. Thus the devotion which is appropriate within religion was required in support of political policies.

These are examples of a false relationship between politics and religion. It is one in which politics dominates religion, indeed takes over the role and trappings of religion. Religion is used and pushed aside, religious values and goals eliminated. They do not provide any basis for political theology, but they do warn of the dangers which stem from politics blatantly entering the religious sphere. However, there are other dangers to which political theology must be alert, when religion enters the political arena, or, at least, religious leaders and spokesmen enter. Returning again to the Roman Empire, we might reflect on the passages by which Paul legitimizes the powers that be, as if they were appointed by God. Paul urges Christians to see its laws as in accordance with God's truth, yet the empire was founded on war and the enslavement of millions of innocent people. Its duly appointed representative in Judaea ordered Jesus to be crucified. Re­ligion is the most powerful instrument of legitimation, because it presents the things of this world as if they were the things of God. Similarly, in the fourth century, Eusebius is at pains to describe the Emperor Constantine as if he were in all things the representative of God on earth. Thus the imperial policies, laws, institutions and values are legitimized and placed beyond discussion. In the twentieth century the Vatican signed a concordat with National Socialism in Germany, thereby giving it legitimation at least for millions of Cath­olics. A more recent example is found in that broad movement in the usa which is referred to as the New Religious/Political Right. While this looks like an ultra-Protestant religious movement, it is better understood as an ultra-conservative political coalition which is enlisting religion to legiti­mate its values and goals. The 'Congres­sional Report Card' drawn up by Christian Voice presents the voting record of members of the Senate and House on a selected number of topics of right-wing interest.

Political theology is therefore primarily theology conscious of the false ways in which politics and religion have been related in the past, and indeed still are in the present. Attention is paid to political movements which use religion for their own ends, and religious movements which simply legitimize political interests. The examples given have been of influences from the political right. But in the modern world there is a new danger, namely that religion might be used to legitimize the goals and values of groups on the political left.

In face of the complexities already indi­cated, it would be tempting to conclude that it would be safer if religion did indeed stay out of politics. There are two reasons why this is no solution.

1. In practice to withdraw from the politi­cal sphere simply provides a legitimation by default. If there is no religious protest against certain policies or injustices, then there seems to be a tacit approval of them. One motive for declaring that religion should stay out of politics is to silence such criticism.

2. Political theology is opposed to the privatization of religion, to the narrowing down of religion merely to the inner life, the private sphere. Religion must always be personal, but not private; it must always be the religion of a particular person, but far from being restricted to the private sphere, this means that religion is immediately involved in a variety of social relationships and responsibilities.

Political theology therefore attempts to regain the biblical perspective of social re­sponsibility. But it is not simply a social theology, because social responsibility leads quickly into the political sphere. 'Political theology' is a generic name, which includes many examples of theology which has become politically conscious. Black theo­logy is a specific form of political theology, as is feminist theology. In both cases theo­logy brings biblical perspectives to bear on social ills. But discrimination on the basis of race or sex is not simply a social matter, and when it is institutionalized, it can only be countered by political action. In both of these cases we see political theology first of all bringing to light ways in which religion has been used to legitimize discrimination in the past. It then goes on to indicate how biblical perspectives lead to a new under­standing of race and sex. As already noted, political theology must now guard against being used by new groups to legitimize equally extreme views.

Bibliography. 

A. A. Boesak, A Farewell to Innocence, 1978; J. H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, 1969; A. Fierro, The Militant Gospel, et 1977; S. S. Hill and D. E. Owen, The New Religious/Political Right in America, 1982; A. Kee, A Reader in Political Theology, 1974; The Scope of Political Theology, 1978; J. Metz, Theology of the World, ET 1969; J. Moltmann, The Crucified God, et 1974.

Source: Richardson/Bowden, A New Dictionary of Christian Theology.