Chapter Three - Domination and Political Theology - Section Four

'Politics' and Action in Political Theology

It is also important to understand how political theologians understand politics. The modern understanding of 'political' and 'politics' relates to a much broader terrain of experience and action than obtained prior to the Enlightenment, politics being now concerned with how societies grapple with problems, decide between alternative courses of action to address those problems, and, as strongly implied by Weber, politics is 3... the process which ceaselessly aims at forming, developing, obstructing, shifting or overturning the relationships of domination2 (Freund, 1972: 221). Given the general diagnosis of, particularly, crisis­ridden Western civilisation offered by the critical theorists, both theologians and critical theorists are confronted by the problem of how the 'false' consciousness of society can be broken through and transformed into 'true' consciousness. While critical theory still grapples with the problem of how to rationally assert this Îtrue1 consciousness over against society's Îfalse1 consciousness, The theological tradition has always included at least the representation of the possibility and even the reality of false social consciousness and its deceptions. Theology ascribes to the Kerygma [the central message of Christ] the function of dissolving false social consciousness and thus liberating it to find, communally, the 3true life2 (Peukert, 1986: 8). Setting to one side the traditions, history, and institutionalisation associated with the sociological understanding of Îthe Church1, while acknowledging that this could be interpreted as a problematic stance to take because it could be falling prey to precisely the same anamnesis which both critical theorists and political theologians reject, asserting that the Church, understood here simply as a community of believers in Christ, ought to have a political role in society, or that believers ought to act politically in the world is one thing. From the point of view of political and Liberation theologians, that matter is no longer open to debate. Metz notes that the history of Christianity is burdened with instances of exhortations to support various immediate political persuasions or dogmas, and he would not add to them. Rather, he writes, 3Living in accord with the promise of peace and justice implies an ever­renewed, ever­changing work in the 'now' of our historical existence. This brings us, forces us, to an ever­renewed, critical, liberating position in the face of the extant conditions of the society in which we live2 (Metz, 1969: 114). The role of the Christian, according to these theologians is to constantly proclaim to the powers of this world: 3No, not far enough, not good enough by half!2 The political implication of most political and liberation theologies lead towards some sort of Christian socialism, perhaps even anarchism or communism. Nevertheless, even though they point towards economic redistribution and equity, human rights, absolute justice, and peace, Christianity's indefatigable opposition to the powers of this world which always fall short of God's absolute standards of justice and freedom makes Christian political theology permanently critical of human ideologies. One solution to the problem of authentic Christian political action is withdrawal from the world, often coupled with some sort of Manichaeist or dualist interpretation of scripture which separates Îthe saved1 or Îthe righteous1 from the fallen, evil world, and helps create Christian enclaves or ghettos. That this is unacceptable is demonstrated by the fact that despite the very high likelihood that Jesus knew the Essenes and at least something of their teachings, he did not join their pietistic community to await the final battle between Light and Darkness. Another solution is to engage in politics and run the risks of co­optation, compromise, and political containment and thence fall prey to the corruption and pragmatism which typifies so much modern politics. Participation in secular political parties usually requires disciplined allegiance to the Party platform and practice, something which Christians can find difficult to give because their ultimate allegiance is to Christ who fundamentally challenges all secular relations of domination as falling short of the Kingdom1s standards. From the point of view of a secular party cadre, Christians cannot be trusted. Christians also cannot be trusted because, if the political theologians are right, they ought not readily to subject themselves to rationalised or scientised politics, which is what politics has largely become in contemporary society. Horkheimer was accurate when he wrote that a politics lacking a theological moment was mere business. A third solution is outright resistance, ranging from passive, quiet, unobtrusive acts of disaffiliation from mainstream politics, even through prayer, through to engaging in guerilla warfare. All the foregoing, and many combinations of them, have been attempted by Christians seeking to act politically in and on the world. Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann certainly offer some practical suggestions on areas where Christians can attempt to act politically in and on the world, as Küng describes them at the end of On Being a Christian (Küng, 1974: 590 ­ 602), and Moltmann, while by no means neglecting the connections between economics, politics, and, society, argues that Christians ... can make human rights the guide­line for the political action and the political resistance of Christians, thanks both to their Christian foundation and their orientation towards humanity as a whole... Human rights and the rights of humanity are to be viewed as answering to and anticipating the kingdom of the Son of man in the power struggles of history (Moltmann, 1977: 181; 182). Küng and Moltmann both stress the bounded historical and social circumstances which will determine what specific issues and concerns are taken up by politically active Christians, and emphasise that nobody should criticise what one group of Christians do from a distance and without acute sensitivity to that specific context. What they agree upon is not so much the specificity of Christian political action, but the distinctiveness which ought to inform Christian political action. Arguing for human rights, which directly challenges more extreme aspects of domination in which powerful groups explicitly maintain that opponents to their domination can be physically and mentally violated, or disposed of like inconvenient animals, is a central position worthy of Christian action. Specifically, in the context of justifying human rights as a proper concern for Christian political action, Moltmann writes that: God has a right to every person, the right of liberating grace. In this grace everyone has his liberty and his rights before God. But what he has before God he also has before men; so it must be as far as possible be put into force in the political community. 'Man's domination over man' cannot be viewed as a matter of course. For according to the Christian understanding it would be the domination of God's image by God's image, of the pardoned by the pardoned, of the liberated by the liberated. The Christian hope has therefore limited the historically unavoidable domination of man over man by its expectation of the fulfilment of the brotherhood of Christ, anticipating from this, not only the abolition of death but also the abolition of every rule, authority and power [1 Cor. 15.24­6](Moltmann, 1977: 178). More widely, Küng argues that it is not so much the specific issues or the concerns which a Christian takes up, but much more important are the distinctive ethical perspectives that a Christian brings to whatever issue or concern they take up, irrespective of its delineation as a political, cultural, or economic concern. From a biblical perspective, the Bible does not offer much specific guidance on many contemporary questions, so it becomes the distinctiveness of the Christian ethical perspective which offers guidance on what concerns to take up and how to act with respect to them: The Christian message of justification does not provide justification for doing nothing. Good deeds are important. But the foundation of Christian existence and the criterion for facing God cannot be an appeal to any achievement, cannot be any self­assertion or any self­justification on man's part. It can only be absolute adherence to God through Jesus in a trust inspired by faith. What is proclaimed here is an extraordinarily encouraging message which provides human life with a solid basis, despite all inevitable failures, errors and despair, and which at the same time can liberate it from secular pressure for achievement, bestowing a freedom which can sustain it even through the worst situations (Küng, 1974: 588). One important point needs to be added to Christian political action, even more important because Christians worship someone who was executed by an imperialist occupying power as a result of a conspiracy hatched between collaborationist and pious factions of his own religious elite. Setting aside the important point of whether or not the example of Jesus legitimates Christian nonviolent or violent resistance, which raises precisely the same moral dilemmas as are faced by critical theorists seeking to validate their theory in action, the role of suffering in Christian political action needs brief attention.