Political Anti-Theology

In The Stillborn God, Mark Lilla argues that political theology invariably leads to apocalyptic politics, and that we can avoid this fate only by maintaining a “Great Separation” between politics and religion, such as the one that Hobbes initiated, but which was overturned by Rousseau and German liberal theology—leading to Nazism. We argue that Hobbes never established such a divide; political theology is far more diverse than Lilla suggests; and liberal German political theology was not a significant source of Nazism. Moreover, liberalism is itself a political theology, suggesting that religion and politics should not, and perhaps cannot, be divided—although they may be reconciled. Notes 1. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, this was the account given to him by Constantine himself (The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine 1.28). It is clear, though that Constantine had been asking himself for some time which form of religion would be most likely to assure him of victory. Thus, while his mother was a Christian, his ultimate conversion probably cannot be understood without a consideration of his assessment of the strategic value of Christianity. 2. Andrew Flynn (Citation2007) criticizes the lack of footnotes and engagement with secondary readings of Lilla's book as well as his use of “potted summaries” of great thinkers. But this is unfair since this book is directed at a more popular audience than most scholarly books. 3. While such critics as George Weigel (Citation2007) believe that Lilla's book needs to be understood as of a piece with Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation, and Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great, it is important to note that Lilla is not attacking religion or the idea of God per se, but rather is pointing out the dangers of combining politics and religion. 4. Throughout the paper we will adopt Lilla's capitalization in this phrase, although it seems to us an overemphasis. 5. The danger here is what Hume called “enthusiasm,” the sense that one is filled with the spirit of God and thus takes on Godlike powers. 6. It should be noted that Hobbes's larger philosophical system was concerned with a theory of the cosmos. 7. This includes not only of the second half of Leviathan but also Hobbes's debate with Bramhall in Of Liberty and Necessity and The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance, his critique of White in Thomas White's De Mundo Examined, his late On the Nicean Creed, and sections of many of his works on mathematics and physics, particularly in response to Waller, who saw Hobbes's work not just as a scientific absurdity but as a theological threat. 8. Lilla, like a number of other readers, sees this as an esoteric critique of all religion. 9. “Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear./He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.” Job 41. 10. Lilla (86) believes this claim to have been the most shocking of all Hobbes's remarks for his contemporaries, but in fact, Hobbes here was merely repeating a claim that James I (Citation1994, 181) had made in an early speech to Parliament. 11. Ironically, it was none other than Rousseau (who Lilla sees as overturning the Great Separation) who recognized this about Hobbes. In the “Civil Religion” chapter of his Social Contract, Rousseau writes that “Hobbes is the only one who clearly saw the evil and the remedy, who dared to propose the reunification of the two heads of the eagle and the complete restoration of political unity, without which no state or government will ever be constituted.” What Hobbes did not see, according to Rousseau (Citation1987, 222), was “that the dominating spirit of Christianity was incompatible with his system and that the interest of the priest would always be stronger than that of the state.” 12. For a more detailed discussion of Hobbes's Christian commitments, see Gillespie Citation2008, 207–254. 13. While Lilla does not work extensively with this concept, it strikes us as a highly fruitful one that begs for a deeper elaboration. One could perhaps read Taylor Citation2007 as such an exploration, although, despite its length, an incomplete one. 14. John McGreevy (Citation2007, 200) argues in his review of the book that Barth was not only an influence on “apocalyptic” thinkers, but also on Catholic thinkers such as Balthasar and Küng, and that Lilla is wrong to group Rosenzweig and Barth into the “decisionistic” thinkers of their time, based solely on their “rhetoric.” Crisis and decay were certainly themes in their work, but this is true for almost every writer of their generation. 15. This claim is asserted axiomatically and needs greater justification. It would have been more convincing and defensible had an “often” been inserted between “language” and “breeds.” 16. We use the term “Gnosticism” only in the highly heuristic fashion in which both Lilla and Voegelin employ it. For a far more subtle understanding of Gnosticism and a deep criticism of attempts to reify it, see King Citation2005. 17. It should be noted that we are referring almost exclusively to the German case. How well Voegelin's thesis travels is an important question into which, unfortunately, we cannot delve here. 18. This quotation comes from Lilla's review of Voegelin's Collected Works (Lilla Citation2007a). 19. This claim can be found in Lilla's response to José Casanova's December 2007 review of The Stillborn God, “The Great Separation,” on the Social Science Research Center's “Immanent Frame” weblog (http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/07/the-great-separation). 20. The “ostentatious lacuna” that results from Lilla's decision not to discuss Catholicism (as well as Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, or Grotius) has been pointed out and discussed in Neuhaus Citation2008. 21. While one could cite numerous sources here, Tocqueville's account, in Democracy in America, of American religiosity and its persistent support of disestablishment remains the standard one. 22. Luther and Calvin are mentioned in The Stillborn God, but almost strictly in passing, and never as theological precursors to liberalism. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMichael Allen Gillespie Michael Allen Gillespie, is the author of, inter alia, The Theological Origins of Modernity (Chicago, 2008) Lucas Perkins Lucas Perkins is a graduate student in political science at Duke University

Christianity · Emperor · German · Liberalism · Nazism · Political science · Political theology · Politics · Sociology · Theology · Victory · History · Law · Philosophy · Political Theology and Sovereignty · Religion and Society Interactions · Religious studies · Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought

• A Secular Age

  Open Access•Charles Taylor•Secular Age•2007

  Add to list

• The Theological Origins of Modernity

  Michael Allen Gillespie•The Theological Origins of…•2008

  Add to list

• Luther and Hobbes on the Question

  Joshua Mitchell•The Journal of Politics•1991

  Add to list