Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun
The theological field known as political theology is one of the most popular in the theological world today, if not the most popular. Our perceptions of the East and the West must be reconsidered within the framework of a future Orthodox political theology. However, the most important task is to shatter the idols of the state, Byzantium, or any political entity or phantom that substitutes Christ. It is believed that the German thinker Carl Schmitt baptized this field—and at the same time, almost buried it. He constructed a political theology designed to justify fascist ideology. There were also others who attempted to follow in Schmitt’s footsteps, even within the Orthodox world, such as the Romanian theologian Nichifor Crainic.
This traumatic birth led to an existential crisis in political theology after World War II. As a result, it faced two choices: to commit suicide or to be reborn. Fortunately, the latter happened. A new phenomenon emerged, structured differently and with new perspectives, yet still bearing the same name—political theology.
The rebirth of political theology does not mean that attempts to destroy it have ceased. Even today, such attempts persist. One example is an intellectual debate that took place roughly 10–15 years ago among American thinkers Mark Lilla, Paul Kahn, William Cavanaugh, and others. The discussion revolved around whether the legacy of Carl Schmitt and other political theologians of his generation could somehow be salvaged or whether it should be entirely abandoned, along with political theology itself.
Such attempts are exceptions in the West but have almost become the rule in our Orthodox East. Until recently, the prevailing belief was that Orthodox political theology could not exist. First, because it is of Western origin and, therefore, by definition, a pseudo-formation. Second, because it does not align with the ascetic and contemplative ethos of Orthodox tradition.
However, when one denies the existence of something that cannot be avoided, it eventually emerges with great force and catches one off guard. This is precisely what happened with Orthodox political theology. Russia’s war, aimed at the extermination and genocide of the Orthodox people of Ukraine, is fueled by a political theology that had long existed unrecognized. It remains unrecognized by many in numerous local Orthodox Churches, whereas Western heterodox churches have begun to acknowledge it. Perhaps because they first recognized the very existence of political theology itself.
I believe it is unnecessary to prove what is already self-evident: the war in Ukraine is driven by a particular political theology. It is widely accepted that the ideology of the so-called “Russian World” is its primary motivation. For outsiders, this is a secular ideology. For us, it is a theology—or rather, a deeply secularized theology. That is, a theology from which God has been expelled.
Nevertheless, it remains a political theology, perhaps in its original sense, as conceived by Carl Schmitt.
We Orthodox now face the same dilemma that the West encountered after World War II: should we allow political theology to self-destruct, or should we save it and give it a new direction? Most here would likely agree with the second option. In the time remaining, I will attempt to outline what an Orthodox political theology might look like in the period following the great inter-Orthodox war we are currently experiencing.
Just as post-war Western political theology could not be anything other than a “theology after Auschwitz,” modern Orthodox political theology cannot be anything other than a “theology after Bucha.” Or, to put it differently: if the central question of post-war Western political theology was, “How can God exist after Auschwitz?” then our question must be: “What kind of Orthodoxy is possible after Bucha?”
Most Orthodox believers have not yet reached the point of asking such questions. Many still struggle to acknowledge that Bucha even happened. They are influenced more by conspiracy theories than by verified reality. Conspiracy theories serve as a refuge for ideas not only among ordinary believers but even among many hierarchs and theologians. I believe that one of the tasks of future Orthodox political theology is to expose and deconstruct the various conspiracy theories circulating within the pan-Orthodox community. It must also recognize that false theories and political-theological pseudo-formations are not only the product of Western influences but are often embedded within our own historical identities, shaped over centuries.
Our identification with past empires, nations, ethnicities, and even with the East itself creates conditions for these distortions. Orientalism and anti-Westernism have led some of us to reject Orthodoxy itself—and even Christ. This is evident in the case of contemporary Russian political theology, which seeks to justify war under the pretense of self-defense against imaginary Western invasions. Our perceptions of the East and the West must be reconsidered within the framework of a future Orthodox political theology.
However, deconstruction must be accompanied by reconstruction. What kind of positive political theology can we build to dismantle false political theologies? In my opinion, it must meet certain criteria. The most fundamental criterion is that such a theology must prevent any attempt at war, violence, and dictatorship. It must uphold respect for human life, dignity, and freedom.
This criterion may seem self-evident, but in reality, it often does not translate into a healthier political theology—although it should. More often, our Eastern identity translates into a political theology of anti-Westernism. This, in turn, inspires many of us to relativize the concept of human rights. Instead of doing this, we should consider how to interpret human rights within our traditional theological framework.
I believe these must be the core criteria for a future post-war Orthodox political theology. I do not wish, nor am I able, to design it entirely. Nor should anyone attempt to do so. This theology must develop freely and organically, yet without violating the boundaries I have outlined above.
______
[1] Lilla, Mark. The Stillborn God : Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. Knopf. Knopf, 2007.
[2] Kahn, Paul W. Political Theology : Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Columbia University Press. 2011.
[3] Cavanaugh, William T. “Am I Impossible?: A Poitical Theologian’s Response to Kahn’s Political Theology.” Political Theology 13, no. 6 (December 1, 2012): 735–40.