Calculated Futures: Theology, Ethics, and Economics

3. What Makes Theology "Political"?: Come Let Us Reason Together

77 Nancy Fox and I presented the differences between the ends and first principles of theology and economics. We divided in order to unite but did not do much uniting. this chapter is an essay in practical reasoning that will begin to provide a context within which that uniting might take place. I will not resolve the differences between us but will develop a framework of ad hominem practical reasoning that will point us in a fruitful direction. in so doing, i want to offer a theological account of politics that would assume truth and goodness are more basic than power. if economists and theologians would agree on this, then we might know how to go on. Nevertheless , if this is not acknowledged, i fear the two disciplines could only be mired in an incommensurable conflict. earlier i argued that economics could not be construed as a neutral discipline independent of politics and theology. it assumes both. However, how do we make this explicit and how do we assess its reasonableness? This raises the questions, what makes a political and economic action rational? How does theology contribute to — 3 — WHAT MAKES THEOLOGY “POLITICAL”? Come let us reason together  / D. Stephen Long such rational action? As we saw in the previous chapter, for Weber rational meant congruent with one’s own interest. Marginal utility views rational action in terms of value. does theology escape this when it argues that a rational action is one that orders the agent to his or her true end: friendship with God? Does virtue really differ from value? Knowledge of God is not a means to any other end; it has no utilitarian value when it is faithfully pursued. it cannot and should not be politicized or used to develop a defense of some economic system. it is intrinsically good, and not good because of its usefulness for something else. thus it is worthwhile for persons to seek knowledge of God simply because it will help them pray, praise, worship, and adore God well. Theologians seldom find this kind of theology political, it is “fundamental” or “systematic” theology. So be it. if theology must be politically useful, then how could it avoid turning God into an “instrumental value”? Yet, much of contemporary theology insists that it be political. in fact, theologians have produced new forms of theology that were intended to make the political nature of theology more explicit. two such modern theological movements have arisen. one is called political theology (and I would place liberation theology within this category) and the other is public theology. So what is present in the theologies that makes them political or public and overcomes a deficiency in other forms of theology? In answering this question, we must remember oliver o’donovan’s rejoinder that desire to make theology political receives overwhelming positive affirmation in contemporary theology such that it inadvertently depoliticizes theology altogether. When even how we name God is a matter of virulent political contestation, rational human action has been construed on Weberian grounds—how does this name fit with my own assertion of power? If that is all we mean by a political theology, then we will not escape the Weberian first principles that define so much of both economics and contemporary Christian theology. What Makes Theology “Political”? /  Before theologians claim the term political for their work, perhaps some consideration as to the assumptions behind a political and an apolitical theology are in order. Few theologians these days wouldclaimtheirworkisapolitical,yettheologiansregularlyaccuse others of producing such a theology, which has become a decisive objection to a theology’s adequacy. in fact, types of theology have emerged based on the assumption that their difference from other theologies is their political cast. liberation and public theologies, different in many respects, would not make sense without the common tacit background assumption that other theologies fail to be political, or at least adequately political, and their work corrects this defect. These “political” theologies often position other theologies via this tacit background assumption. they accomplish this by categorizing the apolitical or inadequately political theologies as “church” theology, or as sectarian, fideist, or ideological. Thus, we are caught in an interminable conflict between those who claim their theology is “political” while suggesting others are “ideological ” or “ecclesia” theology.14 We seem to be at a stalemate in this debate. Is it possible to advance the argument? to do so requires addressing the question...